Atheism

My defintion of marriage: A legally binding contract that you enter into in an emotional state without benefit of counsel that you need a lawyer and a judge to get out of.
Now can you think of any other contract you would do that with? Would you buy a house like that?
And why do I need the state, let alone an invisable entity, to sanction me having regular sex with the same person?
It is those who stay together without a binding contract complelling them, that reaffirm their love every day they dont split up.
And who brought this silly notion and ritual of marriage to us?

1 Reply

Marriage has never been about love. That's a fairly modern delusion. Marriage is about rights in property, and securing them for one's children, and it would be hoped, their children.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

True. But with the fall of the roman empire and the rise of the church in the 5th century, marriage was co-opted and made one of the 7 sacraments.
Love came into play during the Industrial Revolution, 17th-18th century.

1 Reply

As I've always said, Marriage is a wonderful insttuion...if you like being institutionalized

0 Replies

@giujohn,

I didn't say we were destroyed. I said that knowledge has given us the power to destroy all life on earth.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

superstition provides the justification For the destruction.

As you have only the evolutionary process to ground your arguments, superstition must be an aspect of that process. An evolutionist has only evolution to hold responsible for everything.

An evolutionist blaming anything else but evolution is ridiculous.

1 Reply

0 Replies

0 Replies

Laughter brings down more walls than cannons.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

As you have only the evolutionary process to ground your arguments, superstition must be an aspect of that process.

Sorry to butt in, but would you mind unpackaging that logic for me a little? I'm not quite following.

Quote:

An evolutionist has only evolution to hold responsible for everything.

I'm pretty sure evolution is limited to explaining the change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Not quite "everything." Or am I misunderstanding you?

Quote:

An evolutionist blaming anything else but evolution is ridiculous.

If a hypothesis with greater explanatory power and backed with empirical evidence were to come along, I'd bet scientists and laymen alike would be overjoyed. What's being "blamed" is the act of fallaciously, conclusively asserting a truth without such evidence. Were it religion or a conspiracy theory or Lamarckian inheritance, they would all be held to the same standard, I think.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Now you're talking out of your @ss. The Roman Empire did not fall until 1453, learn some history. Roman authority in the West began to erode in the 5th century. Flavius Aetius used a Roman army with allied foederati to defeat Attila's Huns in 451 CE. To borrow a line from Samuel Clemens, the reports of the "fall of the Roman Empire" have been greatly exaggerated. What the church said about sacraments was meaningless. As recently as the First World War, most child-bearing couples, even in the industrial world, were not married. Marriage was then and is today about rights in property. That some religious loonies rant about sacraments is not a good reason to abandon reason and the historical record.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

So do you think religion had anthing to do with us not blowing ourselves up?

No.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

And why do I need the state, let alone an invisable entity, to sanction me having regular sex with the same person?

You don't.

Quote:

And who brought this silly notion and ritual of marriage to us?

You have gone from "you" as an individual to an "us" as a collective. "Silly" might be valid for you but it isn't for "us".

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

when were we totaly destroyed?

Did you see the word "possible" in my sentence? Do you know what it means?

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Sorry to butt in, but would you mind unpackaging that logic for me a little? I'm not quite following.

If you don't follow that simple idea it would be bootless elaborating on it.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure evolution is limited to explaining the change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Not quite "everything." Or am I misunderstanding you?

It seems you are misunderstanding. There are only biological processes involved for an atheist.

Quote:

What's being "blamed" is the act of fallaciously, conclusively asserting a truth without such evidence.

There is in your face evidence. The success of the Christian way of life. Unmediated science is an absurdity. That science is actually mediated is not unlike the pram straps which keep babies safe without them knowing when they are being walked out.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Marriage was then and is today about rights in property. That some religious loonies rant about sacraments is not a good reason to abandon reason and the historical record.

But property rights are being sanctified. Reinforced.

What Setanta knows about reason and the historical record would leave plenty of room on the head of a pin for angels to dance.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Sorry to butt in, but would you mind unpackaging that logic for me a little? I'm not quite following.

If you don't follow that simple idea it would be bootless elaborating on it.

So, because an evolutionist only accepts evidence-based hypotheses, s/he must be religious/superstitious. I'm having a hard time with this claim. Hope you understand why.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure evolution is limited to explaining the change in inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Not quite "everything." Or am I misunderstanding you?

Quote:

It seems you are misunderstanding. There are only biological processes involved for an atheist.

Hmm. I can't think of any biological aspect of the formation of the moon, or the tau neutrino, or hydrodynamics, or the electromagnetic spectrum. It would be much appreciated if you could explain how I, as an atheist/agnostic/skeptic/whatever, am missing the biology involved in those things.

Quote:

What's being "blamed" is the act of fallaciously, conclusively asserting a truth without such evidence.

Quote:

There is in your face evidence. The success of the Christian way of life. Unmediated science is an absurdity. That science is actually mediated is not unlike the pram straps which keep babies safe without them knowing when they are being walked out.

Well, first of all, this is a perfect example of the utility/pragmatic fallacy. But let's ignore that for a moment and point out the resounding successes that empirical evidence-based science has had on infant mortality, longevity, cosmology, nutrition, medicine, information distribution, transportation, sanitation, space travel, etc etc etc. All of these and many, many, many more without the need for any sort of invisible, undetectable man-deity in the sky.

So, even if your logical fallacy wasn't a logical fallacy, science would still be kicking it's ass into the Bronze Age, when that religion originated.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Stop trying to use logic on spendi. His alcohol damaged frontal lobe has long since lost the ability to process structured ideas.

2 Replies

@Wilso,

I didn't expect too much.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You guys are starting to sound like teenage girls. It's what you get with water drinking and holding the little wifey's hand whilst shopping.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know