92
   

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Forums: Atheists, Spirituality And Religion, Krishnamurti, Izanami, Izanagi
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 04:05 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Couldn't it be argued by some that selfishness may well perpetuate the species because it trumps reason?

It does not trump anything...but if you believe in evolution, or survival of the fittest...an exposure to selfishness or any negatively conceived connotations is a necessary requirement to fully understand what it is, why it is, why it is a beneficial choice not to do it, and the reasons for reason...etc...Otherwise there is no significant reason to actually believe the theory of evolution, and survival of the fittest...and one is actually just believing in creationism...Which comes into problems then anyways, because evolutionists argue or ask why God would choose to expose people to evil, anyways?
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  -1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 04:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
¿poor=life not worth living?
Do the poor get a vote on life's value?
Particularly a decision regarding the value of their own lives?
This is utter non-sense.

The poor have voted (almost) all voted anti-suicide.
In fact the poorer you are, the more force your vote should carry,
when the choice to live is an active choice.

Christianity and Buddhism each offer solace for those afraid to die.
The fear nihilists have to overcome is the fear to live (for themselves and/or for others).

Our relative privilege in life is the only reason this conversation is even happening.

Theists claiming they see no point to life without God.
That makes me scared to even approach the subject, if that is something you truly believe...It would put you a hair's breath away from suicide or homicide should your faith be shaken.

Non-theists don't seem to be offing themselves en mass ...
Theists explain your assumption.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 04:19 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
How can good Christians take such a risk by having children that could end up in ever lasting flames?


They won't if they are pious, virtuous and saintly Bill. Your just acting as defence counsel for the profane, wicked, immoral and sinful which they are choosing to be. And there is purgatory for those who are not too bad and they only use candle flames for a few millenia there.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 04:22 pm
@MattDavis,
Who said being poor = not worth living?

Most of us born during the Great Depression and WWII days were very poor in the US of A.

I know poor; our family lived through it for many decades.

Children become acclimated to the environment in which they live; they don't understand how poor they are until much later in life.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 04:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
RL...I agree completely with the notion that Jefferson thought the religions of the world suck...that they were little more than purveyors of (often abominable) myths and were, on the whole, a net negative for humanity.

I feel that way myself...but that does not make me an atheist. And those feelings in Jefferson do not make him an atheist either.

In any case, this entire line of discussion started when the difficulty of an atheist becoming president in the United States arose. Bill insists that an atheist ALREADY has been elected president in the person of Thomas Jefferson.


Would it be fair to say that Jefferson did not believe in any dogma that was put forward as being the word of god by any religions of that time? If so what would they have labeled him as? A non believer? He may have been agnostic and I see nothing wrong with that but he surly seemed to think that he was without the Gods that the religions were promoting at that time. Could that make him an atheist to their Gods?
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 04:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Who said being poor = not worth living?


You're not understanding the point ci. Those who are here are running the risks. The discussion is about whether the risks should be run for another when the choice exists not to. Can you not understand a simple point like that. You simply can't get off your own case can you?

It struck me earlier that it's a bit like having a bet with somebody else's money.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 04:30 pm
@spendius,
It's all in the service of the ridiculous notion that kids owe their parents something rather than the other way round.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 04:57 pm
@spendius,
You wrote,
Quote:
You're not understanding the point ci. Those who are here are running the risks. The discussion is about whether the risks should be run for another when the choice exists not to. Can you not understand a simple point like that. You simply can't get off your own case can you?


What risks?

What in hell are you talking about? I'm talking in general terms about children and their environment.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 05:03 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Would it be fair to say that Jefferson did not believe in any dogma that was put forward as being the word of god by any religions of that time?


It would be fair to say that Jefferson was sickened by Christianity as practiced by Christians...particularly Catholics. He was very anti-Catholic. I doubt you could logically suggest that he thought that same way about dogma...if you consider the teachings of Jesus to be part of Christian and Catholic dogma. Jefferson thought the teachings of Jesus were brilliant and edifying.

Quote:
If so what would they have labeled him as? A non believer?


I think he was a believer who disliked what he saw of organized religion. I doubt from what he wrote that he truly was a non-believer. MY GUESS would be that he "believed" there was a god...but not the kind of god the religions were selling. JUST A GUESS.

Quote:
He may have been agnostic and I see nothing wrong with that but he surly seemed to think that he was without the Gods that the religions were promoting at that time.


Once again, my reading of him is that he despised the way they were selling the god of Abraham...but listening to his words leaves me supposing he thought there was a creating kind of GOD in existence. I could be wrong.


Quote:
Could that make him an atheist to their Gods?


I don't really understand that term. If it means does he reject the teachings of any churches in existence at that time about any GOD that might actually exist...well, without a doubt he felt that.

Does that make him an atheist? Not in my opinion. From what I have read...my guess would be that he thought a GOD existed...a creator GOD at that...and that the religions of that time sucked.

He also edited the Bible to eliminate the mystical, mythical elements...and to preserve some of the teachings...which he thought were worthwhile. That part does not go to whether he a "believer" or "non-believer." (I abhor those labels!)
MattDavis
 
  0  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 05:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The comment wasn't really addressed specifically to you.
It just seems to me odd for others assume living to be defacto valueless.
This seems to be the premise under which some of these arguments being presented are coming from.
I'm away from a computer right now.
So my ability to further comment is limited. Very Happy
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 05:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I doubt you could logically suggest that he thought that same way about dogma...if you consider the teachings of Jesus to be part of Christian and Catholic dogma. Jefferson thought the teachings of Jesus were brilliant and edifying.


OK can you agree that he seen value in the moral philosophy of Jesus but was unable to adhere to the teaching of a supernatural God or any supernatural events that supposedly took place?

Quote:
.if you consider the teachings of Jesus to be part of Christian and Catholic dogma. Jefferson thought the teachings of Jesus were brilliant and edifying.


If I were a psychopath and said some things concerning moral philosophy that were true would you not consider it moral because it came from a psychopath or someone who was close to being emphatically sterile?

Quote:
I think he was a believer who disliked what he saw of organized religion.

He may have been because if I am not mistaken there was a time where you were accepted if you believed and believing was mandatory but yet they did not care what you believed in as long as you believed in some sort of God. Do you think that he was without these sociological pressures?
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 05:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
What risks?

What in hell are you talking about? I'm talking in general terms about children and their environment.


Everybody knows the risks. We are reminded of them daily. Hourly.

I'm not talking in general terms. The terms I am talking about are as specific as specific gets when choice is still an option. You are on your own with it. Justifying your choice after the event is neither here nor there.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 05:58 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Justifying your choice after the event is neither here nor there.


I agree that it is somewhat neither here nor there, but rather it seems to be almost everywhere. Wink
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 06:02 pm
@spendius,
And neither is nullifying it by surgical expertise and thus escaping from it by sleight of hand.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 06:05 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
And neither is nullifying it by surgical expertise


Do you know of someone who is qualified to use such surgical expertise?
spendius
 
  0  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 06:09 pm
@reasoning logic,
No. And I don't wish to. And they don't wish me to know them as well.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 06:12 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
neither is nullifying it by surgical expertise


Quote:
Do you know of someone with such expertise


Quote:
No. And I don't wish to. And they don't wish me to know them as well.


Then how are you able to be competent in making such a claim?
spendius
 
  0  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 06:16 pm
@reasoning logic,
Assume I'm not rl. It will make you feel better.
reasoning logic
 
  3  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 06:19 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Assume I'm not rl. It will make you feel better.



I would rather take your word on it as you replied below. Wink

Quote:
No. And I don't wish to. And they don't wish me to know them as well.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 19 Mar, 2013 06:24 pm
@reasoning logic,
They hide rl. Serious research is required to identify them. If I was talking to one in the pub do you think he will inform me that he uses his surgical expertise to nullify a choice somebody made and then regretted it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
WHY DOES THE TOPIC OF ATHEISTS BRING OUT THE CREEPS? - Discussion by Setanta
American Atheists Barred from holding Office - Discussion by edgarblythe
Why is it so important to refute Christianity? - Discussion by onyxelle
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheists... Your life is pointless
  3. » Page 337
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 09:33:33
▲ ▼