92
   

Atheists... Your life is pointless

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Sat 6 Mar, 2010 11:40 pm
@Amigo,
No doubt, Amigo. Well, back to my worldly concerns.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 03:45 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
If someone can do the impossible and prove a negative then perhaps not for sure you would give up your fairy tale. Poor poor insane person.


Why is it the religious person who's insane?
If it's impossible to prove a negative - then it's the atheist who's living under false pretenses. The atheist is the one who is living under the auspices of the unproved negative which can never be proved, as in 'There is no god'.





0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 03:48 am
@Amigo,
Quote:
If heaven and hell disappeared on Saturday the church would be empty on sunday.

Not in my experience of the spiritual people I know.

Quote:
That all you need to know about these "spiritual" people
.
that's why you'll never know the truth. That attitude of arrogance will prohibit you from learning anything other than what you think you already know.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 06:29 am
@Intrepid,
Quote:
It is laughable that you state this thread (not even sure who started it now) was to cast derision at atheists
Uh, lets see. Its title was "Atheists, your life is pointless" DUHHH. You can laugh all you wish, just make sure you work on your reading comprehension a bit more.


Quote:
Why would anyone foist their shortcomings off to anybody or anything other than themselves?
Christians just have a convenient scapegoat for offloading personal "responsibility" in many areas. Even Protestant Evangelicals have a order of things . All you have to do is believe and then you will do good works. Theres no real reason in Evangelical creeds to actually DO good works. ATheists have noone to offload unto. WE either see )or not) that doing to others ala a "golden Rule" does make some sense.
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 07:03 am
@farmerman,
Why would saying that the life of an atheist is pointless be categorised as derisive? There is no derision involved. Facts are not derisive. How can a life have a point when nothing has a point?

Perhaps you ought to look to your comprehension skills before advising others on the matter.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 08:15 am
Spendi wrote:
Facts are not derisive.

Of course they are. There's no such thing as facts. There's only an interpretation of facts.

When someone sees facts, someone else sees differently..

and wrote:
How can a life have a point when nothing has a point?

That's only true to some atheists.

Your own narrow view of atheists leads to false conclusions.

That's to say that the meaning of a life and its ultimate purpose is beyond any adherence to a religion or lack thereof..
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 08:16 am
@aidan,
Rebecca--you are disputing with intellectual pygmies.

Their naive strawman is that religious literature is to be read literally rather than allegorically. They seek out people who read it literally and batten onto them as a terrier battens onto a rat. It is easy you must see.

In Dante's Divine Comedy there are three beasts besetting mankind: incontinence, violence and fraud. These are residues of animality in human nature and mankind is doomed if they are exercised without restraint.

The punishments Dante inflicts upon such reversions to animality are merely fanciful expressions of what he thinks they deserve for the sin of placing cultural mankind in a position of unviability. His many jests throughout his masterpiece make it clear that no literal sense was to be read into the work.

The foundation of the work is the freedom of the will, or the right of private judgement, with a condition of accountability. It is mere poetic licence which exaggerates the accounting in order to forcefully make the point. To attack it because it is a ridiculous portrayal is to betray a spavined intelligence which not only misses the point but which is likely to miss any point which can't be read off an instrument. The instrument becomes their god.

And Dante is dealing mainly with elite personages. The powerful. He deals with those who "lived without infamy or praise" in Canto III on first entering his Inferno. Their punishment is neither good nor bad. In Canto IV with those who lived outside Christianity.

After that the elite. And the sorry fates he provides for them are nothing but a metaphor for variations upon a guilty conscience in this life.

Our twee atheists have nothing to say about the inhibition of incontinence, violence and fraud in respect of the ruling class. Or from what source any such inhibition might arise for those who make the laws. In practice they erect walls around themselves, maintain a secret police and control information.

farmerman speaks of the Golden Rule but abstains from saying where it derives from. He even implies that doing good is only for a selfish motive. It "makes sense" he says. It is a strategy. A gambit. Which is to say that he has no sense of virtue and is only considering utility. And feeling virtuous is a nice reward in itself.

And his sense of what doing good means derives from a Christian source.

A well known prose translation of the Divine Comedy by Charles Eliot Norton has these words in the introduction--

Quote:
The aim of Dante in the Divine Comedy was to set forth these truths in such wise as to affect the imaginations and touch the hearts of men, so that they should turn to righteousness.
A propaganda exercise for sure but with the aim of preventing mankind from self destructing.

The evolutionist and atheist position sets forth its truths so as to turn the imaginations and hearts to unrighteousness and the uninhibited play of incontinence, violence and fraud. It can do no other. The Marquis de Sade wrung that subject dry over 200 years ago. Not that any of our sweet Christian atheists would ever dare to read such a brilliant exposition of the logic. It might even be that they are prevented from doing by the educational authorities.

Atheists even engage in fraud on this thread by pretending that the "good" they do is not because of fear of the law or the disapproval of custom and tradition but due to some inherent virtue they claim to possess which could never be derived from the position they take and could not even be justified from it.

Francis
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 08:20 am
Spendi wrote:
Not that any of our sweet Christian atheists would ever dare to read such a brilliant exposition of the logic.

I don't know who you are talking about, maybe some Americans...
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 08:32 am
@Francis,
The sweet ones I said. The tweeting brigade. The ones who think Tiger Woods is anything other than a fine and upright specimen of human masculinity.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 08:36 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Their naive strawman is that religious literature is to be read literally rather than allegorically.


Yeah, I was gonna ask if anyone ever heard of the concept of 'reading for the main idea' and make this a real reading lesson, since you and Farmerman were discussing 'comprehension'. But for some reason, even though that applies to every other sort of reading we may do - when it comes to the Bible - people who don't believe in it or find it a valuable tool or even interesting as literature, so often want Christians to dissect it for them line by line. I wonder why- (not really - I think I know).

Quote:
Atheists even engage in fraud on this thread by pretending that the "good" they do is not because of fear of the law or the disapproval of custom and tradition but due to some inherent virtue they claim to possess which could never be derived from the position they take and could not even be justified from it.

Funny - before you beat me to it, my question or answering statement was going to be to ask - how well do the atheists see that working out for the majority of the people on the earth? For example, those starving children? If people are left to decide for themselves whether it's right (or beneficial, as you state) to enforce or follow the golden rule in their lives - it would seem to me that the human response we see manifested to the reality of human need would seem to indicate that most people don't really follow the golden rule..
It certainly doesn't seem to come very naturally to people - and I'm including myself in that- beyond maybe deciding to let the guy who flicks his indicator a second before you do have the last parking space.
But if I were hungry, I'd hope that someone who was cognizant of treating me as they'd have themselves treated would think of me in my hunger and try to alleviate it before continuing to ply themselves with food.

Humans are very good at seeing their own needs and closing their eyes to the needs of others. Isn't that an evolutionary suvival mechanism?
I think that's where Christ's lessons are good ones for all of us- maybe the atheist could try reading the Bible for the main idea - even if they don't believe in a god.

And just for the record - I don't think anyone's life has to be pointless. I said that pages back.
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 08:42 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Their naive strawman is that religious literature is to be read literally rather than allegorically. They seek out people who read it literally and batten onto them as a terrier battens onto a rat. It is easy you must see.


You now had a large problem as it you do not believe the bible is the word of god where can you faith in this silliness come from?

Where is your faiht foundation, as if one part of the bible is nonsense/fiction how do you pick and choose?

0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 09:09 am
@aidan,
So the Atheist needs to look to the Bible for the "main idea?" Why the Bible? Why not any other religious mythology? For that matter, should a Christian additionally look for the "main idea" in their inspection of a different religion such as Bahai'i or Jadism? In essence what I'm reading, and feel free to clarify, is that the Atheist should consider adopting religion (read: Christianity) and doesn't have to let a literal/non-literal translation hinder their curiosity. If this is the case, then where is this curiousity by Christians to explore the values or various pagan religions and alternate images/concepts of god or gods?

It seems additionally odd that an Atheist can be asked to set aside a judgement of a literal translation of the bible, but a christian will try to use a scientific principle like evolution to bind an atheist to a literal application on an irrelevant social issue. E.g. - A Christian asks a Atheist how survival of the fittest applies to a political matter. This is like asking about the morals of calculus.

(Countdown until inane spendi sophistry...)

T
K
O
aidan
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 09:32 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest - I really can't get into this 'literalist take every post apart word by word and try to prove someone wrong or right' game - that's why it was so confusing to me that Advocate thought I was a religious literalist.
That sort of thing drives me nuts. I'm a big picture sort of person.

I said the Bible, because that's the only religious text I've had more than cursory exposure to. I like the ideas Christ espouses- that's why I don't find 'Christian' to be a derogatory term and I can admit that my foundation and background in terms of morals and ethics has a very Christian basis. I would be lying if I tried to call myself something else.

I've read that some other religions have very similar teachings, but I will be honest enough to tell you that I haven't delved deeply enough into them to compare or contrast or endorse them. I do feel comfortable endorsing the teachings of Christ (note that I said Christ - not the Bible) if asked whether or not I believe they are a good guiding tool for human behavior one to another.

If there are other guiding tools that teach the same thing - more the better.
Quote:
It seems additionally odd that an Atheist can be asked to set aside a judgement of a literal translation of the bible, but a christian will try to use a scientific principle like evolution to bind an atheist to a literal application on an irrelevant social issue. E.g. - A Christian asks a Atheist how survival of the fittest applies to a political matter. This is like asking about the morals of calculus.

Did I do that or are you talking about something someone else asked about? I can't really comment unless I know what the political matter is.

But I do think the Golden Rule as stated is not a behavior that is instinctual or innate within humans. And I do think that it's good that it's taught somewhere- and has seemed to be adopted as something to strive for - if not obviously achieved.

JLNobody
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 10:23 am
@Francis,
And for the most part "facts" are little theories.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 10:57 am
There is no such thing as "christian values".
The ten commandments are taken, more or less word for word, from the egyptian book of the dead.

The values that each religion adopts as it's own are in reality human values, and a sad fact is that to some extent these values are undermined by religion that claims they are exclusive to that particular faith.

The commandment "you shall not steal", for instance, relates more to the co-existence of humans beings in a material society than any spiritual or religious personal relationship to a god.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 12:08 pm
@farmerman,
I have never cast anything against atheists myself. I have, in this very thread, said that nobody's life is pointless including atheists.

Just because some dolt titled this thread in such a way does not mean that it was to be used for the purpose you state. I, for one, and there are others have certainly not used this thread for that purpose. DUHHH

You are only stating your opinion, with which I do not agree, that Christians have a convenient scapegoat for offloading personal responsibility. I really thought you had a great more intelligence that that.

You paint with a very broad brush and you don't seem to care what colour you use in doing so.
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 12:36 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
E.g. - A Christian asks a Atheist how survival of the fittest applies to a political matter. This is like asking about the morals of calculus.

(Countdown until inane spendi sophistry...)


That's amateur sophistry TK. Comparing abstract mathematics to the organisation of human social life. The survival of the fittest only applies to life forms. And it applies to human behaviour quite enough as things stand without the removal of its Christian ameliorations.

Why is what I have said "inane". You saying so is not even suggestive of it let alone proof. You atheists on A2K are all the same. You think you have said something significant when you have blurted out an insulting assertion.

That's what kiddiwinks do. How old are you? How much was spent on your education? Sheesh---and you still do that!!!

Do you want discussions to consist of charges and counter charges of inanity and the charge justifies the counter charge unless you claim privileges you are not entitled to.

I've just DEMONSTRATED your inanity. You demonstrate mine.

farmerman
 
  0  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 12:39 pm
@spendius,
"Malt does more than Milton can,
to justify God's ways with man"

Put that in yer book.
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 12:42 pm
@farmerman,
It's already in it fm.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Sun 7 Mar, 2010 01:06 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
You paint with a very broad brush and you don't seem to care what colour you use in doing so



Im partial to abstruse . SO you dont deny that the original purpose of this thread was taking shots at atheists? (and the author didnt disappear for a bit and then the defenders of his position attempted to bolster the title
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
American Atheists Barred from holding Office - Discussion by edgarblythe
Richard Dawkins doesn't exist! - Question by Jay2know
The New State Religion: Atheism - Question by Expert2
Is Atheism the New Age Religion? - Question by Expert2
Critical thinking on the existence of God - Discussion by Susmariosep
Are evolution and the big bang true? - Discussion by Johnjohnjohn
To the people .. - Question by Johnjohnjohn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 11:37:11