Atheists... Your life is pointless

I'm sure that was a lot easier to say than actually answering my question of earlier...the one you ran away from.

You are absolutely correct, Izzy.

But if you check out that link, you will see that I had posted on Pyrrhus just minutes earlier than the remark about Pyrrho. Hell of a coincidence...but "great minds" etc.!

It was ment as a personal joke to frank that goes way back to an old thread where Frank and another member were going back and forth about how the other was coming unglued.

In my opinion frank has always came across as a gentleman for the most part. I can not recall when he has not

C'mon, RL...you know you "believe there are no gods." You can own up to it--no one will think the less of you for it.





Really?!

You have to get off this obsession you have with Easter bunnies and unicorns, RL. It is taking a toll on you.

I would have to go with the no god belief if I had to choose because the way I see it "If a God could just exist why couldn't we? I see no need in reality for the existence of a God

But do you choose that? You do "believe" there are no gods" don't you?



I see no need in reality for the existence of mosquitoes either, but the little bastards do exist. The fact that there is no need for the existence of "x" is not an argument that "x" does not exist.

Right?

A determinist has to say that the existence of "x" proves there was a need for it to exist. So also a believer.

I suppose if I were still an adolescent, that hook would work on me...

And I was just as guilty in my post. It should read, "or you end up with egg on your face."

Or if you were an adult, you would simply discuss an interesting subject with someone who is interested in discussing it with you.

Which are you?

By the way, I am gonna go play some golf. I'll be back here later, unless the rain comes and then I will be back here sooner.

I'm even enjoying the banter today!

f.

I am not an atheist by definition. However, doing whatever one wants and not caring about others are not characteristics of atheism. Atheists will tell you that it is not necessary for there to be a God to be a "good" or "moral" person. I think that is why so many religious people get so upset with atheists. It is really a lack of understanding of atheism.

"As far as love is concerned, it is against nature. If we are simply evolutionary animals then survival of the fittest is how we should live right? "
Love is not against nature. Love helps to create bonds between human beings, mother and child, family members, etc. This is something that helps to protect a species from extinction. You cannot live by "survival of the fittest". Evolution "selects out" the qualities and attributes that enhance and extend survival of a species. You don't have control over whether your characteristics will be selected out or carried on through your progeny (at least not yet). It is not necessary to become an atheist when rejecting a religion or belief system involving God or gods. However, those who outright reject the notion of the existence of God based on the failings of religion is a fallacy need to complete their investigation before making the conclusion that there is no God.

Come again? It's impossible to prove something that doesn't exist.

I do not think Solanina is asking anyone to "prove something that doesn't exist."

Solanina seems to be asking anyone who asserts there are no gods...to furnish evidence that there are none.

I've been asking that same thing of people who assert there are no gods.

So far, all I've ever gotten are variations on: "There is no need for gods to explain existence"...and "Nobody can prove a god exists."

Neither of those are evidence that there are no gods.

The belief exists and beliefs are selected in by evolutionary forces and one particular belief has been selected in big-time. Those who deny the existence of the belief need to face up to the possibility that promoting such a denial cannot be proved to not run the risk of selecting us out.

Secular governments cannot maintain the belief. It needs a religious organisation to do that and thus promoters of non-belief, not non-believers as such, who undermine that religion, are subversives. I imagine that any contented atheist would not seek to promote his or her belief. And the likeliest causes of the discontent are those rules relating to pants-down positions and the various simple inhibitions the religion enjoins, without the power to enforce, in connection with them.

It might be simply general disgruntlement which is known to stimulate the chuntering reflex and what could be simpler than chuntering about the sodding Pope and all his misbegotten works. It's one goal after another. The Old Boy is a sitting duck.

I think I might start referring to Him as Big Chief Sitting Duck who resists being shot down, even from close quarters, because he is hollow due to the vows he has taken and thus has no carnal axe to grind. Which is necessary to be able to look at things in a calm and entirely objective manner which are characteristics not often to be found in secular institutions where money and sex, which have between them a variable exchange rate depending on the locations, sometimes just the next street, rule the roost.

Frank, You need to study logic. You're trying to put the burden that god doesn't exist on the basis of feelings and faith - which cannot be proved.

Gods have been created by man long before any christian god(s).

No matter which god man believes in, they react to
their god with the same emotion and belief.

Emotion is not a good judge of right or wrong.

Also, the burden of proof of something existing is that person's responsibility; not the other way around.

I can't speak for all skeptics, but all I ask for is a little credible evidence that such a being exists. Give me that, and I'm (back) in like Flynn.

I say "back" in because I was on the path to seminary when I studied the history of the Bible as a Philosophy and Religion undergrad major. The professor sure wasn't trying to de-convert me; he was a Baptist minister as well as a scholar. But one night on my way back to my dorm room after that class, I was overwhelmed by common sense. It became manifestly clear that the stories of the Bible were made up by man.

But of course, I could be wrong. Common sense isn't always right. For that reason, I'm still open to legitimate, credible evidence.

You will just have to proceed using common sense FBM and try to persuade everybody else to follow your admirable example. If they do, in view of your obvious persuasiveness, I think it would be most amusing to watch developments.