Chuchulainn vs. the Wishful Thinkers, err, Atheists

Post Reply New Topic

[

Although I agree with the assertion that "No accident could have created this marvelous beauty called earth..." I would ask you to reconsider the statement; "Science took away humanity's soul, its moral compass and its worth." on a computer!(?) ...err? So you are going to start a forum that expounds upon the worthlessness of those who aspire to logic and science in a technological forum that could only come to be with science. Please explain how this is not a direct hypocrisy.

One of the groundpillars of communism is that religion is like opium to the people. A lot of non-communistic (yet socialistic) racistic dictators, such as Milosevic and Hitler were also atheists. Allthough not officially an atheist, Hitler claimed during a talk in the early 40's that God was a fictional character made up by the jews. He also officially claimed that Jesus was an imposter because he was a jew and he also ordered Himmler to remove all religion after the war was over.[quote]

Himmler, who was in the process of building a new mythology based on a load of cobbled together pseudo-religious bollocks loosely based on old teutonic legend, wagner, and whatever folk-myths he thought would suit, and set himself up as the new leader of the Reich as soon as he thought Hitler couldnt do anything about it. Also Himmler, head of the SS, the new knights of germany, a bastion of aryan purity against the slavic hordes, who had a department designed expressely to investigate mythology and other such things. Oh, and lets not forget Hitlers obsession with the spear of destiny.. the lance fabled to have pierced the side of christ on the cross, which would give he who held it power over all others. For an atheist, Hitler was more than a little caught up with mystical shite. I think its safe to say that theology had something to do with it all.

Added thought: The germany army fought throughtout ww2 with the motto Gott Mitt Uns on their belts. God With Us. Even if the leaders dont buy into it, the common soldiery still pray.

There is no nation that is wholly non-religious, only nations which are notionally headed by the non-religious.

why? that's no basis of argument. i can't say that i like better music than you so therefore i'm a better person.






uh...yes it does. and has for a number of years now. look into the james randi foundation. they specialize in it. ignorance isn't an argument either.




1. prove there's a soul. 2. morality doesn't exist. only what is best for society and yourself and this includes being generous to others which ends up benefiting you and society both indirectly and directly. 3. evangelicals who bomb abortion clinics and kills gays, suicide bombers, the crusades, the inquisition, the extermination of the gnostics, the use of priests and other religious personnel to ensure that soldiers know it's okay to die, the mass killing of muslims for the sake of retaining land that's deemed holy to christians and jews, the killing of the salem witches, the spreading of lies about condoms across the world and especially in africa....yeah...i can see the religious value on life.

you're suggesting that evolution occurs @ the lvl of the individual. it does not.

did that snake wriggle is tongue and instantly aquire those advantageous traits or did they slowly arise through selective breeding (aka many deaths and non-breeding[effective death]from unsucsessful individuals)

you have a good grasp on one aspect of natural selection but you have to realize that a lot of death was involved

but i think you two are on same page

Oh, is that so? Didn't you know that it's possible to have convictions about things other than religion? For example, I have a pretty strong conviction that you're a dolt.

So your basis for morality is in God's good word, eh? Well is it the good word because God said it, or did God say it because it's good? Honestly, I don't think going by what someone says by virtue of the fact they said it can even rightfully be called morality. Why should your "God" be any exception?

True human morality should be based around the human race itself, which we know to exist, not a theoretical superbeing we may assume to exist. Try wrapping your mind around that one, eh?

Evolution is not an ideology. And atheism is merely disbelief in the existence of gods.

If you're referring to the abuses perpetrated by various totalitarian non-theist regimes, you would do well to study their methodology and do a direct comparison with totalitarian theist regimes. When you examine the two side by side, you will see exactly the same motives (desire for power and control over people and resources) and the same administrative structures (pyramidal, with authority usually vested in one man of supposedly superhuman knowledge and ability). No difference. Nada.

Reference, please?


So did many of the Christian religious leaders of the middle ages. So, apparently, did the Romans. And the Muslims. Heck, an annoyed heiðinn in my own family tree probably ran a sword through a Christian or two. But I do think you're out of line when you assume that we don't care.


Unsupported assertion. You do not have access to the thought processes and motives of "atheists" (who are, incidentally, not a monolithic group.) You are not in a position to state what anyone else wants.


Non sequitur. Even if someone does not want to believe in gods, they can very easily have strong convictions on other issues.


Non sequitur, and demonstrably false. Per capita, there are fewer atheists than theists in prison.


False. See above. Also an ad hominem.


Matthew 5:22 seems relevant here.


Ah, ye olde argumentum ad ignorantiam...

One: The processes behind chemistry, physics and biology are not "accidents". The structure of matter itself predisposes it to behave in predictable ways. Science has observed these patterns and can now do an excellent job of explaining the combining of small units of matter into larger ones; the interaction of matter and energy; and the behaviour of organic matter based on self-replicating chemical compounds.

Two: "Ever" is a dreadfully long time, and I personally suspect that all of the current crop of so-called "paranormal experiences" will be debunked, one by one. Near-death experiences have recently been duplicated in the laboratory. Lightning was explained hundreds of years ago, and essentially turned out to just be just molecules rubbing against one another. Oh, and the Biblical "firmament" and heaven weren't there when we peeked into space, either.

Three: There is no evidence that souls exist. But, even if they did exist, how could a process of data collection and analysis take them away? (And aren't these alleged souls supposed to be eternal, anyway? What makes them so vulnerable to the vile machinations of Evil, Evil Science?)

Four: Morality is subjective, not objective. Even if you claim that it comes from a god, it would have come from the opinion of that god and would still be subjective. Similarly, value is subjective. It is constantly being created and destroyed by our personal feelings on things we experience.

(tosses straw man into bonfire and pulls out a bag of marshmallows)

Well, we already know that the organisms are going to die, seeing that their cells can't keep multiplying themselves forever because the mechanism for duplicating DNA makes errors, and the mutations that don't get fixed will eventually accumulate, or the properties of the cells in the organism don't stay the same, and change as well, etc. It's only a matter of explaining how that happens, and how much offspring an organism might produce before it dies--but does the fact that natural selection says that certain organisms survive better and produce more fit offspring before they die, while others simply die because they can't survive means we should blame natural selection for death? I cannot see that correlation.

One of the most basic principles of the Christian faith is the omnipotence of their God.

SuperSteve sits down to have a chat with God.
SuperSteve Asks God if he is omnipotent.
God answers "yes".
Supersteve challenges God to create something which he cannot subsequently destroy.
If God cannot create said entity, is he then omnipotent?
If God can create said entity, but is unable to subsequently destroy it due to it's nature, is God then omnipotent?

the answer, in both cases, is no. this disproves one of the most fundamental principles of christianity I.E. the omnipotence of God.



As a sidenote: on the topic on lacking morals due to not believing in God: look up "Buddhism".

But if God was able to create such a thing but didn't exercise this ability, then the hypothetical object wouldn't exist for God to not be able to destroy, hence the argument is null and void. How about that, hm?

Isn't a paradox just the limit of a symbolic/logical system?

I don't concern myself with the intent of him creating said entity, merely his ability. I need it not demonstrated, for this reasoning logically denies omnipotence regardless of outcome.

In short: God does not have to create something he cannot destroy for this argument to prove the he cannot possibly be omnipotent.




without the actual creation of an indestructible object, no paradox takes place.

i never said that.... that was what the OP was suggesting...

you're talking more about fitness, which is an aspect of NS but only when you have a specific event to focus on... i mena evolution doesnt have a sepecific route to get to its desitination... so how can you determine fitness apriori? NS is culling based on random chance events or conditions... you could balme the specific events or conditions for the deaths (random virus for example)...

but i dont think you're going there... you're taking more about the cellular process of death (nothing to do with NS, really) and fitness... which more often results in genetic-death (no offspring)... so if you wanna lump that with "death" then go ahead

edit: all im saying is NS is a set of rules applied to a game. the cause of the deaths are not the rules (NS) but the designer of the game (the random constraints on survival that set up NS).... im still lost as to why you're talking about how cells actually die.... cause that has nothing significantly direct (most times) to direct NS.

it's more like the reverse... blame death for NS.

Has anyone else noticed that Chuchulainn hasn't posted since he started this?

Too scared to rebut the atheists and agnostics who have posted. But he hasn't posted since then anyway. Wonder why?

I almost feel sorry for the guy . . . then I read what he said and I am filled with hatred.
I would have joined in making a fool of him, but there is no challenge in it, his logic is so flawed and he is too scared to defend it.
I especially have a problem with what he said because of what the Christians did to the Vikings, I take personal offense to it, and for him to go on about how atheistic beliefs have caused more deaths than any other. Did somebody forget about the whole damn middle east, with people all killing each other because their gods are slightly different? There have been thousands of mythologies in history, but the christian mythology rose to the top on a river of blood, killing all those who wouldn't convert, including Vikings, and that is the only thing that makes it different than any other belief, not being the only right one like ignorant christians like to think. For their time Vikings were cleaner than most people, they bathed weekly which was like germaphobic for that time, and they weren't as violent or blood thirsty as christian writers made them out to look like for their lack of faith in god. I am a proud Heretic, out of respect for my Viking ancestors as well as my Native American ancestors.

Thanks, Yog-Sothoth! I'm an agnostic heiðinn of Scandinavian and Celtic descent, and am quite familiar with the tragic Christianization of my ancestors' lands.

To the best of my knowledge, the "Viking" age (approximately 800-1000 CE) was a reaction to the Christian invasion, not an unprovoked attack upon southern lands. Literally thousands of people were murdered by Charlemagne, Olaf, and other Christian warlords when the indigenous people of the invaded northlands failed to convert, or when they accepted coerced baptism but continued to practice their old rituals.

I, too, am proud of my ancestors... And intrigued and delighted when I indulge in the seasonal festivities that they managed to pass down to us despite the hardships visited upon them.