Guestbook entries for Glacian

• bookworm987 on August 25

  "do you believe that Santa Claus exists? If not, proceed to this next question: Do you supsend judgment about his existence, shrug your shoulders, and say "I just don't know if he exists or not" or are you reasonably certain that Santa Claus does not exist? Think about it. I don't claim to know that no god of any kind at all exists. What I do know is this: Many organized religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism contain logical absurdities, and all-too-often gods with contradictory or impossible features. I know square circles do not exist. Likewise, I know that gods with contradictory properties also do not exist."
  
  -not for nothing, but to me, you kind of just contradicted the meaning of the term atheist. If you "don't claim to know that no God of any kind at all exists", then you are not an atheist, you are agnostic. To me, it sounds like you just don't accept the teaching of God in any man-made religion. you do not accept what Christianity or Islam or anyone else defines God as, or what they say he stands for, or how he regards us. So, to me, you are sending mixed signals....you are not an atheist, you are just someone searching for your own personal God.
  
  Guess what? No two definitions of God are the same. He is personal, different things to different people. He is whatever you need Him to be at any given moment. Just as two people can watch a basketball game and relay different parts of the game due to what stuck out in their minds, God holds truth for one man in one way, and truth for another man in a totally different way.
• dp robertson on March 17, 2008

  This has to be one of the most interesting front pages on this site
• Xelgaroth on August 14, 2007

  I didn't say to give up doing things simply because they will be of no consequence in the end. I said they were insubstantial, not meaningless.
  
  My substantiation for my statement that the atheist "community" are as a whole arrogant and dogmatic is my personal testimony. No, personal testimony is not the best evidence, this is true, but if you like I could round up a great large many Christians who could attest to the same situation of being insulted for their religion. I'm certainly not denying that religious people do the same to atheists, but simply pointing out that there are many atheists who do this as well. Perhaps they are not so-called "militant" atheists, but there are many atheists who on most other occasions would keep silent but when someone mentions their Christianity they laugh or scoff or otherwise insult them for it.
  
  All the same, it really doesn't matter; it's just frivolous finger-pointing.
  
  
  "To an extent, but in the same way we oppose nazis, we oppose nazism, correct? We oppose not only the members, but the ideology, and ultimately it is the ideology – an ideology crafted by people – that we regard as the evil."
  
  We opposed Nazism as an idea not for its own sake but rather because the nazis followed nazism and eliminating nazism would get rid of the evil faster than just eradicating the nazis altogether would. Even so, the ultimate purpose is once again to get rid of the people. The idea by itself is just an idea. I'm certainly not saying Nazism is a good idea; it was horrid and heinous. But nazis murdered the Jews. We set to eliminate nazism as an idea not for the sake of eliminating the idea itself, but the subsequent elimination of its followers. You oppose Christianity for the sake of getting rid of Christianity.
  
  Incidentally, you say that it [religion] hijacks reason and logic and whatnot. But aren't logic and reason just means to an end? Is the end not happiness? Do we not advance and progress ourselves technologically and such not for the sake of doing so, but because we believe that it will bring us happniness? So is religion just another means to the same end? One man seeks progress because he feels it will make him happy. Another man seeks God because he feels it will make him happy. What difference does it make? Religion is a means to an end, the end being happiness. Its constituents make up silly rules and traditions that have nothing to do with the actual purpose of the religion, but that is the fault of the followers, not the religion.
  
  
  
• Glacian on July 24, 2007

  
  I don’t think God is science to religious believers. Science isn’t the conclusions we draw, but the method for acquiring those conclusions. God may be the metaphysical framework for reality to religious people, but without an understanding of the methodology of science, the religious person has no science.
  
  Pastors and priests do not offer hypotheses in the same way scientists do. Scientists move from the known – they start with what knowledge we do have of nature – and move into the unknown, by making plausible inductions based on prior experience. Religious explanations, on the other hand, stem from wishful thinking, imagination, tradition, misunderstanding, and otherwise is not arrived at through any systematic, objective methodology.
  
  You are right that there is a similarity, but I think that similarity can be confined simply to what phenomenon religious explanations and scientific explanations are trying to explain. The difference is that science offers a plausible, rational, and causally coherent explanation whereas religious explanations make appeals to ignorance, tradition, and magic just-so stories.
  
  “For instance, while launching spaceships into orbit is a fantastic and amazing acheivement, in the end, will it really matter? God or no, at the end of the human race no one will care that someone flew into space.”
  
  Do you care? If not, why do you feed yourself? Why do you clothe yourself? It’s very easy to say that, in principle, nothing will matter, but for all practical consideration it matters to each and every one of us each and every day. I don’t think that’s going to change. That our ultimate fate is probably to be forgotten to oblivion does not justify, in my mind, completely giving up on doing anything. For one thing, I will no longer exist long before that time ever comes, so you could very well ask an atheist why they bother to do anything if at some point they’re not going to exist. I’d have to ask just why immortality and everlasting existence gives something more meaning. If anything, the fleetingness ought to give it all the more value.
  
  “In reference to the arrogance and dogmatism, I wasn't directly referring to YOU, more rather the atheistic community as a whole.”
  
  I find this statement to be unsubstantiated and probably false I don’t find the atheistic community as a whole to be a bit arrogant, and certainly not dogmatic. I’m not even sure there is an “atheist community” so much as there are places where some atheists get together. Atheists, especially the more outspoken kind, are usually some of the most independent thinkers of anyone; they are not inclined towards cliquishness or dogmatism.
  
  “They decry and belittle any and every religious establishment unmercifully and many with no respect at all for the religion.”
  
  That may be so, but that doesn’t make then arrogant or dogmatic. Also, most atheists probably don’t engage in this behavior because most atheists are not activists for the cause of atheism. Many people simply don’t believe, and don’t make an issue of it; that many is probably the vast majority. You’ve got somewhere around 4-10% of the U.S. are nonbelievers, but American Atheists, for instance, has a membership of just a few thousand.
  
  You should know that personal testimony is not the best evidence for an assertion. In any case, I don’t doubt that you’ve ran into rude atheists who have insulted you. What do you make of this? I don’t see how it has any bearing on whether or not God exists, nor on the validity of atheism. The only thing it bears on is the fact that the wider appeal of atheism these days is reaching some people who aren’t the most reflective, reserved, and nicest of sorts. Also keep in mind that many atheists “back then” were likely nice, thoughtful, and polite because voicing their atheism was not an option. Consider the reaction to someone calling people stupid idiots for believing in God hundreds of years ago. They’d quickly find themselves ostracized or executed.
  
  “I also think that many, not all, but many times you have confused the religion with its followers.”
  
  I don’t think so. I specifically am against religion itself; as I find it hijacks the thought processes of the followers and is therefore ultimately responsible for their behavior.
  
  “True christianity doesn't outright preach that we should force our children to believe what we say or to accept what the elders say without question.”
  
  “True Christianity” (Trademark of Jesus, Inc.) has never been identified. Your claim to know True Christianity is no more valid than anyone else’s.
  
  “Christianity never says they should impose themselves into politics, Christianity as a religion doesn't say these things.”
  
  Even if that were so, “Christianity” has never been a singular entity. It is obvious that for some people, it is not particularly harmful, and for others it is, and for yet others it is harmful not only to themselves but to everyone else as well. I’m not after “True Christianity”; because I don’t think it exists. I’m after the underlying ignorance, superstition, and theism that makes the backbone for the entire enterprise of mental self-abuse and willful ignorance that is religion.
  
  “There is no verse in the bible that says we should invade their countries and force them to convert to Christ or die.”
  
  The Old Testament is quite explicit that for Jews, that is precisely what they ought to be doing. Jesus said he came to fulfill the laws of the Jews, and is the very same god, supposedly, who ordered these things…
  
  “It was the misguided beliefs of the PEOPLE that began them.”
  
  Of course it was people. It certainly wasn’t God, because the Christian God doesn’t exist. It had to have been people – people crafted the religion, which in turn shaped and crafted the minds of more people. It is a vicious cycle, but that cycle persists through the coevolution of the mindless entity of the religion itself and the people who drive that evolution; the people are flagbearers for the ideas. Do they bear responsibility? To an extent, but in the same way we oppose nazis, we oppose nazism, correct? We oppose not only the members, but the ideology, and ultimately it is the ideology – an ideology crafted by people – that we regard as the evil. Yes, they rely on one another, but it is the ideas that are more dangerous than their individual bearers.
  
  “It was not Christianity that slaughtered the muslims, but rather the Christians themselves.”
  
  What are Christians without Christianity? It was both, and Christianity is responsible. Those people never would have committed those acts if Jesus hadn’t approved – in their minds, at least. But then again, the only approval I believe anyone ever gets from Jesus is a delusion, positive or negative.
  
  “Jesus never said to go outside with signs declaring that the sinners must repent because the end is near.”
  
  No, but neither did he say to wear your seatbelts. The Bible doesn’t lay out exactly what you should and shouldn’t do – as much as Christians like to pretend it’s a guide that can be applied to every aspect of life, it can only do so when stretched beyond its means. Christians have to run with their ideas sometimes, and likely suppose that Jesus would approve.
  
  If religion doesn’t cause suffering, but its followers do, then what good is religion? If it cannot change the overall morality of its adherents by a single iota, then Christians certainly have no moral claim on atheists. Indeed, they don’t. No studies have shown that Christians are more moral than atheists.
  
  I don’t like your analogy to LoTR, as I think it is a false analogy. Unlike Tolkien, religion is user-driven. It doesn’t stand on its own, but must be interpreted. The Bible in itself is not the religion, but the rituals, behaviors, practices, and beliefs that manifest themselves in a community, when drawn from the Bible, are a particular sect of religion; is “The Bible” itself responsible for these peoples actions? No; but the whole notion of religion IS. The whole notion that there is a God, etc. etc.; it is these ideas themselves that lead to the problems we face…through the individuals; people are thus the vessels for what I consider “the bad idea of religion”.
  
  As an example, consider racism. Obviously we can’t hold racism accountable for racism, we hold individuals accountable for it. But the root of the problem is not individuals themselves but racism itself; if we wanted to remove this form of hate, we wouldn’t remove racists, we’d remove racism, we’d undercut the notion that there is any inherent difference in value as a human being between different races. We would both probably agree that racists are ignorant of the fact that members of other races cannot be unilaterally inferior or somehow worse than members of one’s own race. Consider that these people are likely this way due to their upbringing. In much the same way, what religion we have is a product of our upbringing, and like racism, it is a part of our local culture and community; the values and behaviors we are likely to exhibit are largely a product of our environment, so people can, in a way, be seen as “victims of circumstance”. You wouldn’t heap all the blame on a starving child in Africa for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps neither should we say that the religious person is entirely responsible for their behavior and beliefs any more than we hold racists or poor people accountable for their behaviors, beliefs, and circumstances. This is, perhaps, a case of you blaming the victims.
  
  After all, If religion is a disease, its followers are the victims.
  
• Xelgaroth on July 18, 2007

  Remember, Glacian, that to the religious person, God, IS science. Not literally, but to a religious person, God is their science. I'm sure you've seen or heard of scientists discussing differing ideas about science, offering thoughts and hypoteses. In the same way do pastors or priests discuss faith matters, offering insights and thoughts into God. When you hear of the big bang, you say that the natural chain of events leading to the universe happened by following the laws of science. To the religious person, the idea is that the universe followed the laws of God, who wrote the laws of science. As I say, they are quite different in views but really on a basic primitive level they are really just two seperate ways to perceive the world and they have many, albeit subtle, similarities.
  
  When I said "meaningless" in reference to the scientific laws, I mean that they have no real, substantial meaning against anything. For instance, while launching spaceships into orbit is a fantastic and amazing acheivement, in the end, will it really matter? God or no, at the end of the human race no one will care that someone flew into space. Its meaning is temporal and insubstantial in the long run. "meaningless" is perhaps too strong a word to use, and I apologize. I would more rather say "will have no value in the long run."
  
  In reference to the arrogance and dogmatism, I wasn't directly referring to YOU, more rather the atheistic community as a whole. They decry and belittle any and every religious establishment unmercifully and many with no respect at all for the religion. Yes yes I KNOW that religion does the same to atheists, but this certainly doesn't justify the atheists behaving in the same way. You (not you literally, you as in the general atheist community) have called us hicks, apathetic to progress, rednecks, old fashioned, "in the way," "stupid christians/religious people," and I could go on. These are all names that I personally have been called, and so my evidence is personal testimony. One could argue that they were simply misguided atheists who do not represent atheists on the whole, however, it's been my experience that the majority of atheists in modern society are not as polite as you are. The atheists of the past were far more thoughtful and philosophical (as you are), and much less prone to childish name calling than they are now. Hence, I say that MOST atheists, you being an exception, are just as arrogant and dogmatic as many follwers of established religion.
  
  Also remember, Glacian, that for a religion to stop doing the things you listed would be for them to cease to be altogether, which is, obviously, your ultimate goal anyway, and so I don't fault you for saying it. However, all the same, to ask a religion to stop being who they are is for obvious reasons going to be unacceptable to most if not all religions, so I'm sure you realize your work is more than cut out for you.
  
  I also think that many, not all, but many times you have confused the religion with its followers. True christianity doesn't outright preach that we should force our children to believe what we say or to accept what the elders say without question. Christianity never says they should impose themselves into politics, Christianity as a religion doesn't say these things. One could nit-pick with small, obscure verses in the bible that could be, arguably, saying those things, but really, it doesn't say them, more rather they have been insinuated by the misguided and power-hungry, or perhaps by well-meaning but incorrect people hoping to please God or simply spread their religion. Case in point, the crusades.
  
  The crusades are by far one of (I say one of for obvious reasons) the most gross misinterpretations and misguidings ever taken and run with by Christians. There is no verse in the bible that says we should invade their countries and force them to convert to Christ or die. It was the misguided beliefs of the PEOPLE that began them. It may also have also been because of corrupt members of the church. Most likely a combination of both, a comedy of ignorance and corruption, never a good mix. It was not Christianity that slaughtered the muslims, but rather the Christians themselves. This can be extended to the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and many other atrocities atheists often attribute to the religion when it is really the constituents who are responsible.
  
  The followers of religion have most certainly committed some of the worst crimes against humanity in human history. This is without question. But to blame the religion for the misguided actions of its followers is incorrect, I believe. Jesus never said to go outside with signs declaring that the sinners must repent because the end is near. He simply said to make disciples. He never said anything about using force, au contrairre, he was a peaceful person. The bilbe DOES state that Christians are to behave in the same way Jesus would in any given situation. Nearly ALL christians fail to do this, both as established religion and as individual people. So many things they do that they justify by saying God made them do it, which is simply ignorance, I must agree with you there. The bottom line, in my opinion, is not that religion causes suffering, but that its followers do. I think that if Christians really acted the way Jesus in the bible would, that the general attitude about Christians would significantly improve.
  
  As I say, I believe it is misleading to say religion itself is responsible for the actions of its followers. On its own, religion is an idea, a concept, a way of perceiving the world. Its subscribers then take it and warp and twist it beyond recognition, force-feeding people their beliefs in most grotesque and unthinkable ways, to the point that people become so hateful of the followers that they begin to attack the belief itself as well.
  
  For a better example, I'll take a book, any book. The Lord of the Rings. I could read about the scene in which Denethor burns himself alive and then decide to try it myself, and supposing for the sake of argument that I fail, when asked about it, I could say J.R.R. Tolkien told me to, but this is absolutely false. The book is not responsible for the actions of its readers, just as religion is not responsible for the actions of its followers.
  
  
  
  
• Glacian on July 16, 2007

  No, Xelgaroth, atheism cannot be seen as a belief system because it is not a system, and in many cases is not even a belief (it is simply the declaration of one's lack of a particular type of belief). Atheism is not synonymous with naturalism or a scientific mindset. While the two often go hand-in-hand in the culture you and I live in, this isn't by definition or necessity the case.
  
  "and who's to prove either wrong?"
  
  Well, there are lots of people and lots of arguments...
  
  "[...]but something I've noticed among atheists is that they can be just as arrogant and just as dogmatic as organized religion."
  
  I see little support for this assertion. Regarding my own views on religion, where have I, for instance, demonstrated dogmatism and arrogance? I repeatedly go out of my way to make appeals to religious folks to provide evidence for their religions - evidence I am open to, if it were only presented. I am capable of being persuaded of ANY position, no matter how I feel about it, if the evidence for it is sufficient. I can not say the same for many, if not most, of those with religious beliefs; at least in regards to those beliefs, which go unquestioned and which religious individuals demand absolute respect for.
  
  "Perhaps, when you think about it, neither of us have it right. Perhaps we should just stop these silly attacks on each other."
  
  We'll stop the silly arguments when theists stop insisting everyone follow their beliefs, when they stop brainwashing their children, when they stop accepting the beliefs of their elders without thinking, when they stop pretending religion is necessary for morality, and when they stop trying to insinuate themselves into politics in order to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else.
  
  In all probability, atheists have it right. There is no adequate evidence for the existence of God, and hence no rational reason to believe in one. It's as simple as that.
  
  I don't see atheists inventing explanations for the world, I see them seeking them, and our battles with religious folks are a desperate struggle to keep back the constant riptide forever threatening to drag all of mankind back into a state of primeval ignorance. No, I disagree; I don't think religious individuals, for the most part, desire to know the truth. They desire to know A truth, a truth preferable and comfortable.
  
  "or we invent meaningless scientific laws and theory to organize the world into neat little pockets or packages and call those who don't believe it "unenlightened.""
  
  Those "meaningless" laws have provided us with the understanding to produce virtually all of the modern technology we have available, including the very apparatus you are using to express those thoughts, the computer. Those "meaningless" laws have sent rockets to space, and have expanded our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the universe. Religion hasn't even scratched the balls of the positive impact science has had on the world.
  
  Of course I'm angry with religion. The only difference is, I am angry because religion impedes rational thought and is responsible for countless evils in the world, and "religion hates me", because I stand in defiance of its dogmas and ordinances, which its products - believers - try so desperately to force on everyone, like psychotic puppets. Saying we are all the same is like saying the rebels are the same as their oppressors, and it is totally backwards and totally wrong.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Xelgaroth on July 15, 2007

  Okay, for starters, I apologize for the following. This is totally off topic from what you said. It's just another something that came to me.
  
  You know, when you think about it, couldn't atheism be considered, almost, just another belief system? Just another way of seeing and perceiving the world? One man sees the sky and says "god" another sees the sky and says "science," and who's to prove either wrong?
  
  Yes, I know, I'm asking rather evasive questions and am making no attempts to prove my own religion, but something I've noticed among atheists is that they can be just as arrogant and just as dogmatic as organized religion. They say that they are liberating people from the evils and constraints that religion puts on society, but are they who do this just another religion? I'm not asking about all the frivolous bickering and bantering and squabbling that are constantly going on between religion and religion, religion and atheism, but really, in the long run, aren't we, the religious, and you, the atheists, the same? Perhaps, when you think about it, neither of us have it right. Perhaps we should just stop these silly attacks on each other. We believe different things, but we are still human beings who believe differently. Perhaps it would be better altogether for both sides if this silly Religion versus Science culture war was just stopped. Perhaps it isn't religion that divides us, perhaps it isn't belief in a higher power that is the root of our hatred for each other. And maybe religion has it wrong too. Perhaps it isn't lack of "morality" that causees human strife. Maybe both of us, all of us, are all wrong, and we are really one and the same, all of us searching and believing different things and yet not finding the satisfaction that we wanted in it, so we fight each other. Maybe it's just that everyone has a certain desperate need to understand the world, and when we can't find the answers, we invent them, religious and athists alike.
  
  We invent Gods and theocracies that dictate to the people what they can and can't do from on high, or we invent meaningless scientific laws and theory to organize the world into neat little pockets or packages and call those who don't believe it "unenlightened."
  
  We the religious oppress the nonbelievers with dogmas and silly laws that limit what people can and can't think, say or do, we slander progress and attack the sciences.
  
  You, the atheistic invent worthless and ineffectual scientific law and theory, and even without realizing it develop your own little set of rules and standards and beliefs, the same as religion, becoming the very thing you so vehemently oppose.
  
  I know this is a useless ramble, but think about it. You, Glacian, are just as angry, just as attacking, just as deeply rooted against religion as religion is against you. You are them, they are you, and we are all us. Religion, Science, both are but drops of water in the grand comprehensive scheme of things we'll never come close to understanding. We're all here for a moment, not even a blip on the timeline, and then we vanish like phantoms and in the end, neither our religious law nor our scientific law will have made any difference. The only thing this silly quarelling between the religions and the sciences does prove is that we know nothing, and we never will.
  
  I'm sorry for the obsene length of that comment, but it just stolled into my ponderings earlier today and so I ask it to you now.
• Glacian on July 14, 2007

  "It is in fact greatly in question and under severe scrutinty by the majority of the scientific community at this time."
  
  Source for this information please. This is a patently ludicrous claim. If you disagree, please head on over to
  
  http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=c092bf24acb9910dddf05eac3e17e52a
  
  ...and let them know. This claim is so false it's not even laughable...it's just kind of pitiful. The reality of evolution is not in dispute among ANY reputable scientists. And what Darwin doubted is completely irrelevant to the reality of evolution; don't try to make inverted appeals to authority, because that is fallacious and meaningless.
  
  "Nearly all geneticists and biologists today do not subscribe to the notion that all life on earth was borne from one single common organism that branched into others."
  
  Again, this is total bullshit. Yes, they do. Currently, there are many hypotheses in abiogenetic research, but virtually all scientists agree that life originated once. even if it had multiple origins, they were all natural origins. God and Jesus had nothing to do with it, and if you disagree, please provide some evidence; and, while you're at it, provide some evidence of the Goddidit hypothesis, otherwise taking shots at evolution is hardly too powerful if you have no evidence for your alternative theory. Proving evolution wrong does not prove your beliefs right. Evolution is not an "atheist staple", it is a confirmed aspect of modern science that is accepted by all reputable scientists because the evidence for it is overwhelming.
  
  And yes, I despise religion, because it is a disease born of ignorance and servility. religion is the source of the constituents you mention, so I believe religion is the problem, in the same way the virus is the problem when you're ill, the symptoms only by virtue of their being caused by the virus. Christianity and the other religions you mention...what have they done to me? It's not to me, it's to the entire world, it's to everyone who's ever suffered under religion. What have they done? Thwarted science, held back progress, justified atrocity, shrouded truth in ignorance, bred intolerance, fueled wars and disputes, broken apart families, ruined relationships, clouded minds, instilled guilt in their adherents...the poison of religion has saturated every aspect of human life, from sex to politics to recreation, for as long as they have existed.
• Xelgaroth on July 9, 2007

  Oh, and incidentally, is it really the religion you despise, or the constituents thereof? What has Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., as an idea, as a way of thinking or believing, ever done to you? Is it the religion you're against, or its followers?
• Xelgaroth on July 9, 2007

  Glacian I'm for once not here to foolishly attempt to try and prove God. But I would like to point out that Darwinism is actually not, contrary to what Daniel Dennet would like to belive, beyond dispute amongst most scientists. It is in fact greatly in question and under severe scrutinty by the majority of the scientific community at this time. Particularly with the recent evidence being only now brought to light of the Cambrian Explosion. Read up on it. It's probably meaningless to you but it very well may interest you to know that even Darwin doubted his own theory in some ways, particularly that of his idea of the "tree of life." Nearly all geneticists and biologists today do not subscribe to the notion that all life on earth was borne from one single common organism that branched into others. It is widely doubted and even rejected by a great and increasing number of scientists. As I said in my first sentence, I'm not proving God, merely throwing a popular atheist staple into questioning.
• Hecate616 on April 28, 2007

  Gods, i wouldnt want to put up with their crap... too many people bitching at you about your beliefs
  
  If someone wants to think and believe something let them think it no one can change their mind about it.
  
  thats what they need to learn. I think its awesome that you are an athiest I would claim myself as a... Pagan satanist. I will soon be able to take my rightful place as high priestess as soon as my cult leader gets back to America.
  
  Darkest Blessings,
  Hecate
• bookworm987 on April 28, 2007

  Oh, and if you believe in the existance of hell then that makes absolutely no sense because in order to believe in hell you need to believe in God. First of all because Satan was one of God's angels who got greedy and broke away to create hell, and second of all because you would need to have something contrasting hell, which is heaven, and there is no heaven without God.
• bookworm987 on April 27, 2007

  Where did God come from? I have absolutely no idea, but part of my faith is accepting the fact that we don't know that.
  
  "The god of the Bible is anything but a loving entity. The existence of hell, suffering in life, and overwhelming evil is incompatible with a loving entity"
  
  God didn't create suffering. Yes, in the old testiment, God would smite people and all of that, but even a lot of Christians don't believe in that kind of stuff. Suffering today, I believe, is a test from God in a way. Things won't always go the right way, but it's sort of like when something needs to go wrong before you know who your true friends are. God needs to know who his true followers are.
  
  "Consider, by the way, how Christians treated people of other nations when colonists set out. Arrogantly assuming their culture superior.."
  
  First of all, I'm sure they didn't think they were better sinply because they were Christian, and second of all, don't millions of people do that every day? People are always thinking they are better than someone else, including atheists, so you should be blaming the people, not the religion. And besides that was so many years ago. I'm talking about the current church.
  
  As far as signs in history about God's existance, I can't prove any of them, so I'm not sure if I should even bother writing them. I'll just give you a recent one. I'm sure you know that Pope John Paul II died a few years ago. Well there was a woman with a brain tumor who prayed to him, and it dissapeared the nect day. Science and medecine couldn't explain it, it was completely gone, when treatment had stopped working.
  
  And as far as the bible, the goal that unifies the bible is to spread of word of God. It's really not that hard to understand.
  
  
  
• Glacian on April 16, 2007

  “Well then, I ask you, if God doesn't exist then how the hell did the earth get here? Because according to science, spontaneous generation (something coming from nothing) is impossible.”
  
  You need to read up on your quantum physics, because that’s not what quantum physics seems to indicate; so firstly, this is not technically correct.
  
  Second, there are several answers to your question, which I assume is how did ANYTHING get here, not specifically the earth. I don’t think you’re interested in theories about the actual development of our solar system, but presumably about the universe itself. I can answer that, firstly, when it comes to the “cause” of the Big Bang, I flat out simply don’t know. Not knowing is no excuse for positing a magic divine being as the source, since it could be any one of an infinite number of possibilities; hopefully science will narrow them down quite a bit. Many theories are already proposed, such as the brane theory that suggests the universe is a sort of membrane, or multiverse theories that suggest that we are a “bubble” in some part of a multiverse; some posit the universe is in a constant state of fluctuation, with big bangs expanding us out to a certain point, then contracting back to that point, then repeating.
  
  A magic divine being seems extremely unlikely, and offering it begs the question. Consider: If the universe requires an explanation for its existence, then why doesn’t God? But if the universe doesn’t, then obviously we don’t need to posit God in the first place. So the underlying assumption – that lacking an explanation, God becomes more plausible – is fallacious because you fail to recognize that if everything’s source requires an explanation, then so does God’s. Where did God come from?
  
  “But there aren't dozens of religions based around magic unicorns. No one claimed that a magic unicorn saved man kind by being crucified.”
  
  No, but don’t miss the point – that a magic unicorn isn’t any inherently less plausible than people rising from the dead and doing the things Jesus supposedly did in the Bible. That’s the whole point – that Jesus isn’t any more plausible than magic unicorns, which, of course, nobody on the planet actually worships. So my point is that the Jesus myth is comparable to ancient Greek myths about Hercules and hydras and Hades. Now, granted, “Jesus” may have been an historical figure, but certainly not historical in the sense that the Bible portrays him; but merely as a figure around which fanciful stories were mantled upon what was, at best, little more than an itinerant rabble-rousing rabbi who may or may not have even said or believed a tiny percentage of what’s written in the Bible.
  
  “Magic unicorns and God are on two totally different levels”
  
  I disagree. I don’t see any reasons to suppose that God is more plausible than magical unicorns. Consider that accepting the entire Bible presupposes the implicit acceptance of the existence of abominations of all sorts before the flood – chimeras of every kind, and that may have included unicorns. Unicorn also appears in the bible once, though it is of dubious translation (it likely referred to an auroch or something like that). Also, there are angels, devils, giants, etc.; all mythical beings.
  
  “if you can't prove he doesn't exist then that means there if room for doubt on your part.”
  
  You can’t prove that the Greek gods don’t exist, does that mean you doubt whether or not they don’t exist? Perhaps Zeus and Poseidon are real? For that matter, consider that, if you follow this same notion consistently, you have to doubt the existence/non-existence of ALL gods, and the very same notion would apply to every silly belief from alien abductions to leprechauns to UFO’s.
  
  I have about as much doubt that the Christian God doesn’t exist, as you doubt that unicorns aren’t real. That is to say, none at all. I have no doubts that God doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean that some form of God could not exist, just that I personally have no trace of doubt about atheism; doubt does not imply infallible knowledge.
  
  “Because racism is a form of hate. Religion isn't based on hate, it's based on love.”
  
  I disagree. The god of the Bible is anything but a loving entity. The existence of hell, suffering in life, and overwhelming evil is incompatible with a loving entity. The same can be said for other religions as well, particularly Islam. Also, I’m skeptical that religion is “based on love”; it seems more based on the unquestioning acceptance of a set of dogmas and doctrines, which may include love as one of their precepts, not that love is the foundation, that’s some hippy new-age crap dreamed up in the past century.
  
  “The church never condemed anyone because of their race or nationality, therefore pretty much defeating your whole argument about racism.”
  
  My analogy compared the two on the basis of both being irrational, it had nothing to do with implying churches were racist or opposed to people’s nationality. Consider, by the way, how Christians treated people of other nations when colonists set out. Arrogantly assuming their culture superior, they eradicated much of the people of earth not just because of religion, but because “they were better”.
  
  “That is irrational to me, because throughout histoyr there have been signs of God's existance, which of course you'll say isn't true.”
  
  I won’t say that’s not true, I’ll say I’m not aware of any. What signs are these?
  
  I think the Bible was written by different people at different times in different portions. The Old Testament was obviously written in a totally different social context than the New Testament. I don’t think anyone consciously sat down to write up “the bible” because the Bible isn’t one piece of writing, it is a collection of writings strung together into one book. Many other writings were considered for the Bible, but were not determined canonical, and so were rejected. The bible has multiple authors. The Old Testament is written by numerous authors, and as for the New Testament, part of it was written by Paul, but there are what are probably extrapolations and forgeries within it and much of the gospels they simply don’t know who the author(s) were. I don’t think there was necessarily any clear goal or agenda that unifies the entire structure that’s to be found within one, but an emergent one that arises out of the particular choice of which books to use, since other options were available but rejected possibly because they did not fit in with the ideas of those in charge of making those decisions. Summary: it’s a collection of myths, fables, warped history, nonsense, poetry, allegories, and stories amassed together in a sloppy, disorganized fashion, that spans several centuries and reveals much of the ignorance of humans living at the time. It’s revealing that not a thing written in the Bible isn’t something known or conceivable to people living at the time. It was the work of uninspired human beings and nothing more.
  
• ComplexedSephi on April 15, 2007

  If you ever win a debate with a christian I'll be amazed. I think it's become somewhat of a past time for you anyway. Christians are by nature close minded idiots who refuse to use their brains to think about their religion. I believe in god out of habit, but when I really think about it, it doesn't all add up. There is your answer to what I believe these days.
• bookworm987 on April 12, 2007

  Ok then...I don't want to be rude and make a generalized statement here, but you seem to have no problem generalizing the christian religion, so in that case I'll go right ahead. Most athiests seem to be big science people, they think science is the answer to everything, and if something can't be solved scientifically or logically, then it can't be true. Well then, I ask you, if God doesn't exist then how the hell did the earth get here? Because according to science, spontaneous generation (something coming from nothing) is impossible. So how did the world get created, hm? And, please, don't use the tired excuse of "the big bang" because I'm not 5, and I know that the big bang had to be created in some way also.
  
  As far as proving that magic unicorns don't exist, you're right, I can't prove that. But there aren't dozens of religions based around magic unicorns. No one claimed that a magic unicorn saved man kind by being crucified. Magic unicorns and God are on two totally different levels, and to me, if you can't prove he doesn't exist then that means there if room for doubt on your part.
  
  Why is it wrong to compare religion to racism? Because racism is a form of hate. Religion isn't based on hate, it's based on love. Well, at least Christianity is, I'm not going to speak for all types of religions. The church never condemed anyone because of their race or nationality, therefore pretty much defeating your whole argument about racism.
  
  And as far as what I think you believe is irrational- you believe that there is no God. That is irrational to me, because throughout histoyr there have been signs of God's existance, which of course you'll say isn't true.
  
  Let me ask you something though...what do you think about the Bible? Do you think that someone just got bored one day and said "I think I'll write a story that will spark handfulls of religions!" I'm very curious to hear your answer to that one.
• Glacian on March 23, 2007

  Yes, I am comparing religion to racism. Christianity and Islam, for instance, encourage bigotry on many levels, including misogyny and bigotry towards nonbelievers and members of other faiths. Christianity encompasses a broad spectrum of irrational, delusional beliefs, whereas racism is a more specified form of irrationalism. Both, however, have no basis in reason, and that is where I make the comparison. This comparison is justified, and your shock at the comparison has no bearing on the relevance of it. Why is it wrong to compare Christianity/religion to racism?
  
  “I don't know what idoit told you that respecting the christian religion meant believeing in it,”
  
  Nobody told me that, nor did I say anything of that sort. If that’s what you truly think, then you’ve misunderstood something I’ve said. If something I said did imply this, please quote it.
  
  . “I, personally, think that what YOU believe is irrational”
  
  What, exactly, do I believe that you consider irrational?
  
  Regarding the existence of God, I find there to be no evidence at all for one’s existence, and thus don’t believe in one. What is irrational about that?
  
  “The problem isn't that people with a religion have the ability to believe what we can't see”
  I disagree. Everyone believes in things we can’t see. Sight isn’t what it is all about; Christians believe in things for which there can be no direct sensory experience of; things which are, by their very nature, not verifiable by any appeal to real world experience. This is not necessarily the case for things that we simply cannot see. I can’t see the electro-magnetic force, nor can I see atoms, yet I am convinced they exist. Sight is not the only means of knowing that something exists. We have other senses, and other methods that are based on our application of those senses. NO appeal to our senses, however, results in obtaining empirical knowledge of God’s existence, nor does the empirical evidence available provide sufficient support for the claim that Christianity is true. Christianity proposes a fundamentally anti-science and anti-reason metaphysics, a metaphysics which presupposes the existence of “immaterial things”, and which purports to explain phenomena by way of what can only be described as magic. The “supernatural” is nothing more than a reverential word for ignorance of causation.
  
  “You believe that God doesn't exist? Well then I'll use your own logic against you.....prove it.”
  
  The burden of proof isn’t upon me to prove that God doesn’t exist. There is no more evidence that god exists that magic unicorns exist, and it makes no more sense to insist that I prove God doesn’t exist than for me to insist that you prove magic unicorns don’t exist. In fact, I’ll make you a deal. As soon as you prove magic unicorns do not exist, I will proceed to prove God doesn’t exist. If, after attempting to prove God doesn’t exist, you remain unconvinced, I will concede my error and you will emerge victorious from our disagreement. You’ll have yourself a convert.
• bookworm987 : Respect on March 10, 2007

  "I do not respect Christian beliefs for the same reason that I do not respect racist, sexist, or irrational beliefs, and for the same reason that I do not respect someone's belief in astrology or Nazism...the reason being that I find these beliefs unjustified and irrational."
  
  Did you honestly just compare a religion to racism? Okay, that in itself is wrong on so many levels. But anyway, to touch on what you were saying about respect, I don't know what idoit told you that respecting the christian religion meant believeing in it, but that's totally absurd. Respecting christans or catholics or anyone for that matter means leaving us alone and stop attacking us and telling us that out beliefs are stupid. I, personally, think that what YOU believe is irrational, but I'm not sitting here making a complete author's page about how I know everything and the rest of the world seems to be clueless.I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in heaven, hell, and all of those things that you've told yourself don't exist. I also believe in everything you do...freedom, equality, and myself. The problem isn't that people with a religion have the ability to believe what we can't see, the problem is that people like you need proof about everything in life. You believe that God doesn't exist? Well then I'll use your own logic against you.....prove it.
  
• Glacian on November 8, 2006

  biblicalindecency.home.comcast.net/bad_arguments.htm
• Glacian on November 7, 2006

  It doesn't have to do with age, but with plausibility and verifiability. I can't verify whether Biblical witnesses ever existed. I can presumably go and meet a reporter I saw on television, in principle, even if I don't actually go and do so. I don't have to prove that a video ISN'T a hoax, you'd have to show that it is. I consider the Bible unreliable. Also, the Bible is known to contain historical inaccuracies, contradictions, and simply false information. It's not realiable on that basis alone. News, on the other hand, while often unreliable, offers information that I can check into readily and that is often corroborated by current witnesses, other news sites, etc.; In 1000 years from now, if some random tape is uncovered and claims to be historical fact, I would hope those future peoples would treat it very carefully. On the other hand, they wouldn't need to be as careful about, say, a highly acclaimed TV special on an educational channel of their time.
• Xelgaroth on November 7, 2006

  My friend, The Origin of Species was written quite some time ago as well, and so that is fallible too. So that video footage is not as fallibe simply because it is more recent. So, in the year 3000, that footage is no longer credible? Suppose you saw a news report of the astronaut. That too is a CLAIM, but you would believe that too. But if you were to time travel (just suppose) to 3000, you would no longer believe it, simply because it is old? How does age cause an increase in fallibility? Can you prove the existance of the news reporter? Can you prove that the video footage wasn't simply a generic home video hoax?
• Glacian on November 7, 2006

  The Bible being false isn't a notion, and it doesn't contain confirmation of experiences of God. It contains CLAIMS, many of which are from people that we haven't even verified the existence of. Video footage is not as equally fallible as a book written many centuries ago.
• Xelgaroth on November 7, 2006

  You are going by the notion that the Bible is false. The Bible is full of so-called "confirmed" experiences of God. You see video footage of an astronaut floating in space and for some reason, you find that video footage to be more credible than a book. Why is this? Both a video of an astronaut and a book of God are both equally fallible. Why then do you believe in the astronaut and not in God?
• Glacian on November 7, 2006

  It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it does mean that I don't currently believe it does. There may be a person hiding in your closet, but until you have reason to believe there is, you probably don't.
  
  What makes God implausible? Well, an astronaut floating in space is known to happen, likewise for flies. I know of no circumstances under which Gods were experienced. There never having been any confirmed experiences of Gods, I see no reason to suppose there will be in the future.
• Xelgaroth on November 7, 2006

  Suppose for a moment, all external factors aside, that there is an astronaut floating around aimlessly and alone in space. Now, suppose for a moment that it really, truly IS there, but you haven't seen it. Does that mean that because you haven't seen it, then it does not exist? Astronauts floating aimlessly and alone in space are not common occurances. Plausible, yes. But what makes God implausible?
• Glacian on November 7, 2006

  It doesn't require it, or no theists would exist. I personally require it because I insist that beliefs be rationally justified. The same can't be said for religious folks, who apparently don't think they need to rationally justify certain, special beliefs. As for flies buzzing in Africa, I could readily demonstrate that there are, in fact, flies buzzing around in Africa. The same can't be said for God. If you're talking about a specific fly, you'll need to indicate just how you are even specifying a certain one in the first place, and if you do, it is, in principle, verifiable that it exists. With God, that isn't the case. Also, I don't necessarily believe that a specific fly you refer to exists until I see confirmation of it, though I may accept your claim as true simply because flies in Africa are common and it is a plausible occurence. The existence of God isn't.
• Xelgaroth on November 7, 2006

  And at the same time, Glacian, you fail to understand that it doesn't require proof of existance to believe in something. Have you ever seen a certain fly buzzing along in africa? Is there any proof that it is there? But supposing it WAS there, does the absence of proof that it is there mean that you shouldn't believe it is there?
• Glacian on November 7, 2006

  Being an atheist has nothing to do with proving there is no god. Do you believe in Ahura Mazda? Assuming you don't, what proof do you have that Ahura Mazda doesn't exist? You fail to understand that it doesn't require proof of nonexistance to not believe in something - all it requires is absence of positive proof.
  
  "You are basing your view on the notion that your opinion is automatically correct."
  
  No, I'm not. You simply don't understand my views - or my opinions. People frequently draw premature conclusions about the implications of my position when it's evident to me that the person doesn't understand some of the basics of my position.
  
  Also, without a working definition of "god", god has very little meaning.
  Edited on Nov 07, 10:41 p.m. because ''.
• Xelgaroth on November 7, 2006

  My friend, if as you say, you do not believe in anything unless it has supporting evidence, why then are you an atheist? Why then are you in fact anything? Is there any evidence unknown to me that proves that there is no God? Or at least that there is no higher power? You are basing your view on the notion that your opinion is automatically correct. I may have no evidence supporting my claim, but you sir have none either. Where is the proof that God does not exist? I understand that there is no tangible proof that he does exist, but there is also no evidence that he DOESN'T exist, and so you are not heeding your own advice.
• Glacian on November 7, 2006

  "Worth" is something created by people. Consider money. Does that piece of paper with a "10" written on it have any intrinsic value? No, not really. It is worth "10 dollars" because other human beings choose to assign it that value. Art work, for instance, has value insofar as it is appreciated by others, that value isn't *intrinsic*. I don't believe in a cosmic, or intrinsic value to things, but that value is something assigned by humans. I give value to my life. I find meaning. That is existentialism. I get up in the morning and live through the day because I enjoy life, and want to live a happy, healthy, and long future with the people I care about, doing the things I enjoy. I find it sad that people need things to be eternal for them to have value, that things need to be centered around them in order for it to have any meaning. How sad is that, how selfish is that? That you'd rather believe in some divine importance, for the sake of evading hopelessness? My life isn't hopeless, I just don't hold any irrational hopes - such as the hope that I'll survive somehow after I die, or that the human race will persist forever. These are irrational notions that are not supported by evidence. I don't believe things that aren't supported by evidence, no matter how much I'd like to. Do you? And if so, where do you draw the line? Why not believe you are the best individual in the world, or that any seemingly bad situation is, in fact, a good one? You're sure to be happy, that way. It's the whole "ignorance is bliss" issue - you seem to be implying that as long as ignorance provides us with bliss, so be it. I, for one, would rather take off the blindfold, no matter how much the light stings my eyes.
• Xelgaroth on November 5, 2006

  Glacian, I have a question for you.
  
  If by your logic, humans are nothing but mere worhtless life forms that sprang up by sheer chance in a dying cosmos (also with no point to exist) that is pointlessly and aimlessly spinning off into hopeless infinity, why do you live? Why do you bother? Why do you celebrate human life, human freedom? Why? What drives you to get up in the morning, when by your logic, our days are but immeasurably small specks of nothing along time's journey, and we are just worthless anomalies that popped up by happenstance, a simple blip in the extent of time? Why do you celebrate life? Why do you live, in fact, with such a hopeless outlook on who you are?
  Edited on Nov 05, 11:44 p.m. because 'typo'.
• Pirates Dragon on September 1, 2006

  Hey, I read some of your posts in the group The I Hate... Any ways, I liked the way you stayed calm while supporting your thoughts. No one likes to be yelled at or called names for stateing their side. You also made some good points. If you want to have a discussion and trade thoughts, oppions, facts, message me and I'll reply as soon as I get on. Dont assume anything by my age
• Nogod on August 31, 2006

  Atheist. god.
  
  One word looks right, the other is just a dyslexic animal.
  
  woof.
• Glacian on August 27, 2006

  Tactics Ogre is made by the same makers as Disgaea; I never played Disgaea but was told "If you like Tactics Ogre, go play Disgaea"; I hear it's better, so perhaps Tactics Ogre's not as good as Disgaea but it's still a fantastic game (in my opinion, anyway). If you do decide to play it, check out www.luct.tacticsogre.com ; it's a simple but very useful resource for the game.
  
  
• Stick Bug on August 27, 2006

  I'm looking for some more good western RPGs, and I hear Baldur's Gate and Fallout, as well as Planescape are fantastic examples, as you suggest.
  My computer sucks royally, though, so the closest I've ever been able to come are the Baldur's Gate games on the PS2 (unless the others were on consoles and I never heard). Elder Scrolls and SaGa are the only two I've really played.
  
  I've been trying to find a good strategy game until Disgaea 2 ships in, though. I'll definitely see about Tactics Ogre.
  
  Thanks. I appreciate any wisdom from an RPG fan.
• Glacian on August 11, 2006

  Hey! That's a nice message. Thanks!
• poetryality on August 11, 2006

  Dear Glacian,
  
  In all my years knowing the Lord and trusting Him, it is you who has made me study my faith and scour the Word to find answers. For that I am most grateful. We never truly know why we cross paths with the people we do. I respect you for your bold stand even if it is in disagreement with my own. You have been a blessing inn my life whether you know it or not and I would like to return that gesture. May you have good fortune in all that you choose to undertake in this life.
  
  www.mayyoubeblessedmovie.com/
  
  Always ♥
  
  Renee
• on August 8, 2006

  Hey, I love the way you think, seriously. I was reading some of your old posts and . . . ha, I was just totally blown away by your philosophy and your ideas. Keep it up, man, we need way more people like you around here.
• Glacian on August 4, 2006

  "who endows humans with rights?"
  
  Yeah I know, it's a good philosophical question. My answer would be that humans do. Perhaps I take it for granted that it's obvious that they do, but maybe that's just me.
  
  The problem people seem to have is that they can't help but view morals as "facts" or transcendent. People tend to view something like "Murder is wrong" as either a correct statement about reality, much like "cats are felines" or a false one (e.g. "cats are canines"), rather than something like a preference "It is not profitable for the human race to promote murder, and it is wise that murder be punished for the benefit of society" or some such. I don't view morals as facts that describe something intrinsic in reality; morals should be made by humans for humans, if they are to be made, and nobody should confuse them with cognitive facts. This doesn't mean we shouldn't apply facts, reason, and logic to moral questions, but that, ultimately, the answers we provide will be contingent on the goals we are trying to achieve. If one considers biodiversity of ultimate concern, their ethical system may not value humans as highly as another person who places humans at the highest rung on the ladder. It all depends on what you want to achieve with your system. If you want to achieve a strong, peaceful, and happy society, there may indeed be facts we can discover about how best to achieve this.
  
  "With the assumption that there is no God, why make other humans happy?"
  
  Why not? Greek philosophers often voiced the view that virtue is its own reward. That doing good makes one good, and that virtue is an end in itself. Secondary to this, one could argue that by making others happy, one makes oneself happy; it's sort of a selfish payback. Giving to charity might make me feel better about myself, so not only am I making someone else happy, I'm also making myself happy. If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, the principle of backscratching runs deep. Many social animals do it, such as chimpanzees, who groom one another. You help me out, I help you out. That's one of the many reasons a group has so many advantages over individuals going solo through life. Check out the notion of kin selection. Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" explains why apparently altruistic behavior and cohesion among a species may really be supported by the evolution of a tendency to sacrifice one's personal interests for the interests of those likely to be related to oneself; when people generally lived among close relatives, this made evolutionary sense, but now that the social circles we live in are much bigger and include non-relatives, are genes are still geared towards the proclivity for altruistic behavior (in some cases, we may even extend it to something like a dog, or a principle). I believe genetics plays some role in why we feel inclined to have concern for others. This doesn't answer the question, though, of whether or not we should.
  
  
  
  "Without some sort of deity to motivate them, there is nothing on which human happiness, world peace, or any other presumed to be good ideas hinge upon."
  
  Care to support this line of reasoning? Your inability to conceive of anything other than God providing adequate support for these ideas is not an argument in itself, it's just a lack of your ability to imagine alternatives. There are plenty of things one can hinge their ethics on, and they don't require God, nor do they require objective, transcendent fact. Consider some ethical theories:
  
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
  
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics
  
  "We, as a flawed race, cannot endow ourselves with things such as the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness."
  
  Why not? What is it about flaws that prevent us from creating ethical and moral principles? Do we have to be absolutely, 100% certain we got it right in order for them to have any validity at all? I think not. Consider how science operates. Are our scientific theories "perfect"? No. We cannot escape flaws and incompleteness in any theory, yet are scientific theories false? No; they don't have to be perfect to be valid, to be justifiably said to be true, and to have real-world application.
  
  "Why should we have rights?"
  
  You tell me!
  
  Supposing we're the sole conscious beings in the known universe, I don't think we need to make this assumption, we can just act on it provisionally until we learn otherwise - and we probably never will.
  
• Xelgaroth on August 4, 2006

  My seemingly random quote, "It is the right of humanity to live" I was going to make a point, changed my mind, and then forgot to erase that quote. My meaning is, who endows humans with rights? Do we appoint our own rights? Are we our own masters, yet we are a flawed race? How did we suddenly get the right to live, and yet we kill our own people anyway? I do not see the logic behind this. I noticed that one of your suggestions for a possible purpose for morals was "Ensuring human happiness". Now, here is my question. What is happiness? Why is happiness? With the assumption that there is no God, why make other humans happy? What is the ultimate point of it all? I see no reason, assuming there is no God, to assume that human happiness is the correct and ethical solution. Why make the world a happy place? Why peace? Without some sort of deity to motivate them, there is nothing on which human happiness, world peace, or any other presumed to be good ideas hinge upon. We, as a flawed race, cannot endow ourselves with things such as the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I am not saying I don't believe in these concepts, I am merely stating that we, as a highly fallible race, do not have the power or to assume that it is the human right to these things. This is another question. In regard to my statement that assuming there is no God, humans do not deserve to either live or have rights. Let me ask you that same question you asked me. Why should we have rights? How in the name of all that is reasonable on this earth would we deserve to live, or have rights such as the right to live, the right to happiness and freedom, those things. Why? Upon what does the audacious assumption that we were just automatically endowed with these rights as soon as we had the intelligence to think of such things? That is my question. This is all hypothetically speaking, with the assumption that there is no God.
• Glacian on August 3, 2006

  "There is one question that atheists will never be able to answer."
  
  Philosophers and ethicists answered your questions a long time ago. There are dozens of alternative philosophical ethical theories to divine-command type notions. Ethics does not require God. You could narrowly define "morality" to, but then so what? We could always discard the term. I have no need of it, and, depending on the definition, I may readily agree that there are no moral systems that are actually true.
  
  "what is the purpose of morals?"
  
  I don't think there is some transcendent purpose to morals. Morals could have many localized purposes - controlling a population's behavior, maintaing a stable society, appeasing a god who supposedly exists, etc. If we accept that there is no God, "morals" could have many uses, ensuring human happiness and proliferation *for its own sake* not the least among them.
  
  "Why have them, if there's nobody to say it's wrong?"
  
  There are other human beings; what do you mean "nobody"? I could say it's wrong, you could say it's wrong. Anyone could.
  
  Can you explain why the existence of a God is necessary in order for there to be morals? I don't take that assumption for granted. I see ethics as a science, a science by which we can determine the most useful and practical ways of conducting human behavior. Instead of "Is murder evil/wrong/sinful?" it would be more appropriate to ask "Would this instance of killing be unethical?" And then apply whatever rational standards we are going by to determine that; these standards, would, of course, be based on certain premises that one is not required - logically - to accept. Such premises might include notions such as that human beings have intrinsic value.
  
  Check out George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God; the last chapter deals with alternative ethical theories that don't require God and that take a ratioanl, scientific approach to ethics.
  
  "And if you answer with the typical atheist answer, or indeed if this is the answer you were thinking before I said this, then you are triply out of your mind, if this would be your answer: "It is the right of humanity to live" That is absolute crap"
  
  I'm not really sure what that means but I don't think it's fair of you to just assume that's what the "typical atheist answer" is; as it probably isn't. Sounds like a weak, straw man argument to me.
  
  "Humans, if there was no one to forgive them for everything they do wrong, do not deserve to live, and do not deserve rights."
  
  Why's that? Why should I accept this claim as true?
  
  "If humans define morals, and humans are a fallible race, and if, as you say, there is no God, then it is perfectly safe to contend that morals are flawed."
  
  ...Yep! I don't think there's any such thing as a perfect ethical system.
  
  "And of course, if morals are flawed, then there is no reason to follow them."
  
  There are flaws in pretty much everything. Medicine isn't perfect. Should we stop taking pills because the medical science isn't perfect? No vehicle you get in lacks flaws. Should we stop driving cars? Is there no reason to have vision if your eyes are slightly messed up? No reason to walk if your legs aren't perfect? I don't see the reasoning behind this.
  
  "So, it is impossible for an atheist to say, "There is no God" without them also saying "There are no morals.""
  
  If you insist that morals MUST be given by God, than it would be a simple corollary. If they're not, then it doesn't necessarily follow. You decide on that one.
  
  I'm not sure we can transition over from "morals" to "ethics" that smoothly; as I said, I don't think using "morals" is necessary. If you want a very simple answer: No, there no morals. Nietzsche didn't believe in moral facts himself:
  
  "According to Nietzsche, man must see beyond good and evil, and must reject the illusion of moral judgment. There are no moral facts, only moral interpretations of facts. Morality interprets phenomena, but actually misinterprets them.
  
  The means by which morality is enforced are actually immoral. Morality attempts to ‘improve’ human beings by weakening and subjugating them. Morality is only useful as a form of sign-language to describe the realities of culture and psychology."
  
  Taking this a step further is the notion of the Ubermensch, or overman/superman:
  
  "The concept of the superman (Übermensch) had been developed earlier by Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-5). The superman is beyond good and evil, because he affirms his ‘will to life.’ He creates his own affirmative values, which affirm the ‘will to power,’ because the value of a belief or idea is in whether it is life-affirming."
  
  I think that people are capable of devising their own "rights" and "wrongs" existentially and living by them - in fact, we do. This is the proper course for humans, though many are incapable or unwilling to take that step. Most will fall in with the herd and adopt herd morality and herd mentality.
  
  To elaborate, using Nietzsche's beliefs:
  
  "Nietzsche is not a nihilist; nihilism asserts that there are no moral values, and that there is no such thing as morality. Nietzsche instead says that there must be a ‘revaluation of values.’ He does not argue that moral value does not exist, but that it has been misinterpreted and misunderstood. He says that morality is false if it supposes that there are moral truths or values which are universal, or which are independent of the particular situations in which morality is applied."
  
  So, ultimately, morality as it is understood is false. There are no universal moral values. Does this mean that "morals" or "ethics" on an individual level, or in other ways, cannot exist? No, not at all, nor do I see any reason to insist otherwise.
  
  www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/nietzsche.html
  Edited on Aug 03, 11:15 p.m. because ''.
• Xelgaroth on August 3, 2006

  I apologize, Glacian. I was not under the impression that you are an athiest. I am sorry for that. I do not apologize, however, for calling you a fruitcake, that you have lost your mind, that you are completely insane or that you have eaten one too many cheesecakes. Moreover, I am doubly convinced of all of these things. There is one question that atheists will never be able to answer. If there is no God, then what is the purpose of morals? Why have them, if there's nobody to say it's wrong? And if you answer with the typical atheist answer, or indeed if this is the answer you were thinking before I said this, then you are triply out of your mind, if this would be your answer: "It is the right of humanity to live" That is absolute crap, if that would be your answer. Humans, if there was no one to forgive them for everything they do wrong, do not deserve to live, and do not deserve rights. Only if someone or something with a higher plain of ability than the humans was to grant them certain rights would humans have any rights, or deserve to have them. If humans define morals, and humans are a fallible race, and if, as you say, there is no God, then it is perfectly safe to contend that morals are flawed. And of course, if morals are flawed, then there is no reason to follow them. So, it is impossible for an atheist to say, "There is no God" without them also saying "There are no morals." What say you?
• Snackycakes64 on July 17, 2006

  RYN: I feel I'm a Conservative Republican not on the basis of my personal views, but of the main support of George Bush. It's basically impossible to be a Democrat and support him in these hectic political times. But I'm also Conservative in a bit in my lifestyle in the underground of all my beliefs.
  
  I try to keep my political and religious beliefs apart as much as I can, so they don't conflict with my morals and conflict with eachother. Not to play the 'you said, she said game', but you said, "...Most of the conservatives I encounter are religious, and very few - especially Republicans - are not." I guess I'm one of those very few.
  -Julie
• Glacian on July 2, 2006

  What do you mean I don't know what I'm talking about? Like I said, he changed his mind about nukes. That implies that I knew he was against them. Obviously he was for them if he was dropping them in Mexico. Why do you think Mexico City has a huge cloud over it? That's from the nukes we dropped.
  
  Also I sent another picture. It's proof positive that he and I are buds.
• Glacian on July 2, 2006

  I sent you a picture of Einstein and me hanging out. I have more. We hang out all the time.
• Red Red Rose on July 2, 2006

  BTW..his second wife was his first cousin!
• Red Red Rose on July 2, 2006

  In 1953, Albert was lecturing at Princeton, and NEVER believed in "Nuking ANYTHING! He was a pacifist. You really need a reality check, young man! Enough of this craziness. I have better things to do! When was the last time you saw a psychologist?
• Glacian on July 2, 2006

  Yeah, as his best friend, I know things you don't know. That wasn't his second "wife", it was a tranny. Einstein found out and nuked him. His name was Hank, but his female name was Elsa.
  
  We hung out at Laker games and sometimes in downtown Chicago. Often we'd go to Alaska and hunt wolverines with a bowstaff. Gosh, what did you think?!
• Red Red Rose on July 2, 2006

  I'm still awaiting those pictures you have, Glacian!
• Glacian on July 2, 2006

  I'm aware of that quote, Red Rose, but what's your point? I never said he didn't say those things, all I'm doing is quoting what he says about religion. Yes, it's "selective", but you say that like it's a bad thing. What am I going to do, NOT be selective? Should everyone who offers quotes by someone offer a whole spectrum of quotes by the same person to be "balanced"? Is that what you'd like? I can agree with some of what someone says without agreeing to the rest of it.
  
  And yes, Einstein and I hang out on a frequent basis. Back in 1953 we were dropping nukes outside Mexico and he was telling me how he changed his mind and thinks using nukes is a great idea, after all.

Related Links

• View guestbooks by Glacian

Sign up for FREE

A free account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free!

Already a member?

About Allpoetry

Please Support Allpoetry