I will fight forever until correct grammer and spelling is used on this thread and site! You have not seen the last of me!
Give me a break ! I just got done doing a bicep workout and was cooking when i typed that. Geeezz! I just try to get the point across , all the stuff in between just takes up space! lol
I don´t care witch religion, if any, a girl belongs to, if she respects my views on life then she must be okey…
I think people are getting way off track trying to defend what they believe. The original question was “how do Athiests view this site?”. How the hell are we supposed to view it - as immoral? Isn’t that what the religeous people would want us to say to elevate their beliefs? Prematerial sex bad, steroids bad, blah blah blah. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. As an Athiest, I think this site rocks. I think roids should be legal and that prematerital sex should be a choice made by an individual, not an organization.
What do all all religions come down to in the end? In my opinion it comes down to be a good person (by your own defination) and do your best not to hurt or harm others in anyway.
Personally, I do not see the relevance of this question. Not all atheists are amoral. For instance, Kant (not that he was an atheist) provides a moral code independent of God and religion (the categorical imperative). Anthony Flew can be described as an humanistic atheist. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer suggest the best ways to live your life but do not argue for a universal morality (“amoral”). I agree predominantly with Nietzsche (as indicated by my post-name) in that life at its core is unforgiving, horrible, and in essence suffering; but one must still embrace life in the spirit of the Greek Tragedians (King Oedipus). Also, Huck’s proof relies upon the premise that people value freedom most. Sartre argues from this perspective but Nietzsche argues that the “will to power” is the core of all predilections in life. Your proof, while maybe logically valid, is incorrect when applied to a Nietzschean mode of thought. I like your use of logical proofs though-it is refreshing to see logic utilized on this forum. That last statement leads me to the initial question: How do I, as an atheist, feel about T-Mag. Well, being an atheist has no effect on my appreciation of the vast information provided and the open exchange of ideas. I enjoy both. Yes, there is a underlying sense of some “Christian” values and statements on the site and forum; but such encounters are experienced every day by atheists. If not, they should be. Walter Kauffman stated that a faction of modern atheists are not enjoyable in that they wish to not be concerned with religion at all. The atheism I prescribe to originates out of my lust for truth. And in pursuit of truth, a lively discussion of theology is very welcome. One more thing: the greatest book ever wrote by a Christian concerning religion is Blaine Pascal’s Pennes. I suggest every Christian read it. Pascal, a hardcore ascetic, is what Jesus the Jew envisioned “Christianity” as. Also, whoever stated Pascal’s wager for the reason to believe in God should throw Pascal some credit.
Hey this is a great site! Outstanding!!
My perspective based on experience there are no atheist in the foxhole when folks are shooting at you or when you come under fire.There are many self proclaimed atheist in the military but under fire, it seems they all call for one supreme being and not even realize it until afterwards when we all talk about it over a few drinks and laugh about who pissed ,farted or shit on themselves and remember the ones who didn’t make it. Damn great site and forum calls for a big HOOAAHH !
Quest: I will take a look at your posts there.
Mike: I disagree. I find Rand’s move from “ought” to “is” compelling. I am sure that I am already familiar with the arguments on the site you reference. I find the latter part of your post more interesting. I think you are still in a box I left many years ago. SNIP>The fact is that morality cannot be coherently defined apart from the existence of an agent capable of rewarding and punishing. In fact, external obligations in general cannot be defined coherently apart from such an agent. <SNIP Because I do not believe in such an external agent, arguments referencing one make no sense to me. What do I have left to determine a moral code, except my own reason? I have zero problems determining whether an act is moral in my own life. BTW, I do not use societies laws as my reference either. I do things that are against the law. (ie speeding, when I think it is safe)I see no connection here. If I want to break a law, in full cognizance of the possible repercussions, that is up to me. But it has nothing to do with whether or not my actions are moral. Nephorm: You make some good points, but let me clarify: the purpose of my post was to demonstrate that it is possible to develop a moral code for oneself without reference to external authority, or even the existence of external auithority. In your mass murder example, the murderer would be wrong, in my view. You are right that he might consider himself moral, or his society may judge him so. I guess the most recent example of a disagreement of this nature on a large scale would be Vietnam. Still, what I am trying to get across is that, as individuals, we CAN have a code of behavior based on logic, which allows us to live a good life in a free society, without reference to external anything. I do it. It works. The fact that others cannot or will not follow my course, or simply disagree with my logic does not change the fact that it works. Best to all – this has been a fun thread.
Previous post was not complete:
Quest: I will take a look at your posts there. Mike: I disagree. I find Rand’s move from “ought” to “is” compelling. I am sure that I am already familiar with the arguments on the site you reference. I find the latter part of your post more interesting. I think you are still in a box I left many years ago. “The fact is that morality cannot be coherently defined apart from the existence of an agent capable of rewarding and punishing. In fact, external obligations in general cannot be defined coherently apart from such an agent.” My point is simply that it can be, I have done it, and it works. I do not use any religion, the law, or anything else other than logic to determine whether something is moral. You know, we can sit around and perform intellectual masturbation all day long, but the real test of an idea is whether it works. There is a cold, brutal nature to reality – when all is said, an idea is either in alignment with the real world and it will work, or it is not and it doesn’t. My way is not the only way to live (obviously), but it does work and it is the easiest way I have found.
"I will fight forever until correct grammer and spelling is used on this thread and site! You have not seen the last of me! "
It’s “ARE used,” not “is used.” You have two nouns. Unless, of course, you are saying “correct grammer” (Btw, that would be grammAr) is an event, and you’re waiting for it to occur.
“…God is my name for Nature…”
I believe in a higher power that is faceless and nameless.
ME, TOO … !!! 
Patricia & joey Z. Where to start? How about this: If some thing exists it has to have an identity, right? A chair is a chair, a duck is a duck. “Something faceless and nameless” is not a description of a god or anything else. You may as well say you beleive in “Something armless and without granite”. It would mean just as much. These kind of statements are generally made by those that are afraid of defending someone. Who could be offended by a meaningless statement? I think maybe what you are reaching for is something along the lines of Einstein’s thought that god is the sum total of the laws that govern the behaviour of the universe. It feels kind of Eastern, but it is close to what a lot of scientists seem to beleive.
How do I view this website? Like many other athiests out there, I view this website with Internet Explorer 5.5
Sorry, I couldn’t help it:)
I’m only explaining my point of view because YOU
asked! Not looking for any disciples in robes to follow
me around and ask for advice, not unless they are willing to pay me. (People who don’t pay you are scum-bags!)
No, Huck, it is the chair and the duck that do not
exist! Put the chair under a high powered microscope, and all you will see are tiny atoms leaping about frantically surrounded by huge voids of empty space. (Our minds only perceive the chair to be a solid.) Magnify the chair even further and you are now left with … a sea of energy. God, is the energy, or as the metaphysicians would say, “spirit,” which underlies all that is. God expresses or projects Itself through the manifest universe, which is its body.
A good example of this in action is electricity.
Electricity is invisible/faceless and yet is able
to project itself through a medium and be expressed
as light, etc. Yet the electricity is still electricity and
still invisible/faceless. There are only a scant few
basic elements in the universe. God is the organizing
intelligence which determines whether those
elements become a duck, a chair, a star, or Huck!
God is the action which gave rise to “star dust,” to
posting messages over the internet debating Its
own existence! GOD IS ALL THERE is… there is nothing
but God. (Hope this helps you to see where Joey Z.
coming from; if not, don’t worry, maybe you’ll get it in
your next life… just kidding!) P.S. Perhaps you should
start your own religion; I think God had originally
intended it that way!
“There must be a God… who changes the water?”
That last post by ? was actually “Sparkles the goldfish.”
Joey, I understand your position completely. As I said in my last post, this is a popular idea (that God Is the sum total of or the energy constituting the universe). It is also a popular idea among in technical fields, where their formal education can make creationism, et al seem archaic and unbeleivable. Personally, I like it, as there is no way too use it against other people, as you can most religions. Still, I find it unpersuasive. Where is the evidence? As always, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.
quechin- why cant a God associated w/ a certain religion/faith be the thread the weaves the universe? there is no unified theory of physics yet, there is a large shift in the very laws of physics when you switch from macro to micro (newtonian to nuclear). Why? nobody knows. nobody can come up w/ why it is, nor figure out a theory that connects the two somehow. that very connection may be what we humans call “God.” All knowing, all powerful, ever present… connecting all things that are unconnectable… the very gravity of the universe, the inherent quality of mass that has no reason for being (last time i checked there was still no explanation as to exactly why mass posessed such a quality-correct me if im wrong). but here we get back into the grand unification… a nuetron has mass, as does a proton and electron. but it isnt gravity that governs the bonds that connect these particles, it is nuclear forces… hmmmmmm… why? lets go farther than just protons and nuetrons… what makes them? quarks (3 i believe. its been a while…) what makes them? I think nuetrinos, but its been to long since i was in physics to remember, so if anybody can give me a hand here, i would appreciate it. anyhoo, my point still stands. and what makes those things up? there is a point where the “thing” isnt even really a “thing” anymore. not a particle, but “energy.” but what comprises this “energy?” its not electricity, because that is simply the flow of free electrons along a conductor. and we are examining the very things that comprise an electron. it is not potential or kinetic, because these newtonian properties do not apply in nuclear physics. is it even really “energy?” dunno. lets look at light. wave or partical? both versions of its existence are utilized in explaining its behavior. so which is it? a particle, or a wave? does it posess mass or not? dunno. lets look at an electron. same story- particle or wave? Bohrs model gives an explanation of much of an electrons properties and behavior, but falls short in some areas. That is where the wave mechanical model comes in- it can explain things the Bohr model cant. But it cant explain some things the Bohr model can. So what the hell is it- particle or wave? is it a wave-particle? neither a wave nor a particle, but something somewhere between mass and energy? what the hell keeps all this wacky shit straight? the very fabric of the universe… the one that is the writer of these laws we try so desperately to understand, grasp, utilize and exploit. God. And as we do discover some kind of “method” to His ways, we are distanced from Him by our own arrogance. We think since we have figured such a minute part of the workings of the universe, that we are its master. pure arrogance. our own egos drive us from Him. The very thing we are attempting to understand through science, we try to disprove and destroy with the very same thing. If interested check out www.creationresearch.org. it is a group of scientists, doctors, scholars and others that, in their dealings w/ their respected fields, have come to the conclusion that there is too much lack of evidence to support mainstream science, and an overwhelming amount of evidence to disprove it. There is a great article in the archives about Darwins famous finch species. but that is neither here nor there. just thought I would wax philosophical as long as we were on the topic. PEACE!