Iconoclastic Atheist Turns To Belief In God

[Professor_X]

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:

And would you care to clarify your “conscience” remark, since I’m uncertain what you’re claiming to know about the inner workings of my psyche.[/quote]

No problem. In what do your base your concept of right and wrong? Do you even believe in “right and wrong”? If so, why do you believe in right and wrong? What motivates you to do right at all? Why not simply do wrong all of the time? Where are your boundaries and why do you have them? If no one was to find out, would killing someone else outside of self defense be “wrong” to you? Please explain in detail. Oh, and leave your retarded bunny out of this. I do believe that got old about 4 or 5 posts ago.

[Gestalt]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:
As for Nietzsche, it does not matter whether he was insane or had girl problems or even masturbated to child porn. It is the message that is important. Let’s avoid the ad hominems–they do nothing but create feelings of enmity.

rainjack wrote:
But your not an elitist. Nope. Not one little bit.

Geez - even your allies on here are telling you to rein in your fucking attitude.

Ever heard of the term egomaniacal?

I wish I could buy you for what you were worth and sell you for what you think you’re worth…I’d be a very rich man.
[/quote]

Okay, fine. I am an elitist. I also hate my wife and kids… and black people. I hate America, beat up small children, have a penis that is too small to be seen by the naked eye and my IQ is as low as mindeffer01’s 1RM bench press.

All of that is irrelevent to the discussion. Just because I may like to wear women’s underwear or think that Bin Laden is a swell guy does not in any way distract from my arguments.

You can continue the ad hominems if you would like, but they add nothing of value to the discussion and only cause ill will. Focus on what is being said, not who is saying it.

Since Boscobarbell has bowed out of the discussion, I will field this one:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
No problem. In what do your base your concept of right and wrong? Do you even believe in “right and wrong”? If so, why do you believe in right and wrong? What motivates you to do right at all? Why not simply do wrong all of the time? Where are your boundaries and why do you have them? If no one was to find out, would killing someone else outside of self defense be “wrong” to you? Please explain in detail. Oh, and leave your retarded bunny out of this. I do believe that got old about 4 or 5 posts ago.[/quote]

There is no right and wrong. No good or bad. All things that we find morally and ethically reprehensible are either inherent in us as human beings or taught to us. Some are universal, while others are geographically dependent.

And yes, you are right. The bunnyrabbit thing got old a long time ago.

I would like to add to something Boscobarbell had said: “But theists set god up beyond such testing: he is infallible, unknowable, works in mysterious ways, forever beyond the tangible, supernatural, outside time, etc., etc., etc. So we have deists claiming to ‘know’ that this amorphous, unseen entity of which we have no empirical knowledge exists, yet have no means by which to test this ‘knowledge.’”

How do you know God exists when the one book that says He exists is flawed? How can you know this god exists as opposed to the other gods which have existed? Would you believe in this god if you lived in China or Japan?

[bamit]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

“There is no right and wrong. No good or bad. All things that we find morally and ethically reprehensible are either inherent in us as human beings or taught to us. Some are universal, while others are geographically dependent.”

How do you explain all of the things that society considers wrong, but in your heart you know it is right and vice versa. For example, if someone you love is dying in the back seat of your car and you run a red light in order to get him/her to the hospital quickly. Was it right to run the light. Of course it was, however the law says it was wrong. Maybe a better example would be homosexuality. Being attracted to the same sex is defiantly not inherent. Homosexuality has also been practiced for a long time; however it has not yet been accepted as right by society. Why do you think that is? Either way I pray for you. I do not know if you will ever find God, but he will find you.

[Professor_X]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

How do you know God exists when the one book that says He exists is flawed?[/quote]

Explain in detail the flaw.

How can you know this god exists as opposed to the other gods which have existed? Would you believe in this god if you lived in China or Japan.

My belief is that, while God has many names seen from many perspectives, it is still the same God. The only time this would not apply is in concepts of multiple dieties, and even then the same individual concept has been given different identities. I believe in the words within the Bible but don’t ever hold the view that some other religion is wrong and going to hell simply because of a different view point. I also don’t claim to know what every other religion on the planet professes.

[rainjack]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:
Okay, fine. I am an elitist. I also hate my wife and kids… and black people. I hate America, beat up small children, have a penis that is too small to be seen by the naked eye and my IQ is as low as mindeffer01’s 1RM bench press.

All of that is irrelevent to the discussion. Just because I may like to wear women’s underwear or think that Bin Laden is a swell guy does not in any way distract from my arguments.

You can continue the ad hominems if you would like, but they add nothing of value to the discussion and only cause ill will. Focus on what is being said, not who is saying it.
[/quote]

Damn - you elitists are some thick headed bastards. My problem is not with your arguments. You have made none.

My problem with you and your colorful-bunny posse isn’t that you find belief in a creator beneath you.

The problem I have with you guys is your treatment of those who do believe in a creator. The attitude with which you address ProfX, Haney, me, or any of the others is what I find wrong. No one is demeaning you for your beliefs, yet you “pity” us.

If you want to make a point, I’m all ears. But for you to make a point with back handed insults - well that’s just not gonna fly - at least not with me.

[Professor_X]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

There is no right and wrong. No good or bad. All things that we find morally and ethically reprehensible are either inherent in us as human beings or taught to us. Some are universal, while others are geographically dependent.[/quote]

Does this mean you believe that all laws are a result of theists? If atheists ruled the world, there would be no laws, and thusly, no criminals? If someone were to murder someone you (I can’t say love because you clearly don’t. To love would mean you have a concept of caring for the GOOD in someone that affects you positively) you wouldn’t be upset? If you would be upset, please explain why if there is no concept of good or evil. Have you broken any laws today? If so, what were they? Why not break more laws or do more of what many consider wrong? Aren’t you married? Why are you married? Marriage is a “LAW” of the church in essence and someone with no concept of right or wrong would obviously avoid monogamy. You are a walking contradiction. Please explain this to me.

[haney]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I don’t think that there’s any evidence for or against God in science. It just isn’t there, unless you pretend.
[/quote]

I never thought science proved God. I think the eye witness testimony of Christ rising from the dead does that. The fact that the Christian faith survived against all odds is some of the evidence I use. I have a long list, that I will get into if you like,

How difficult is this? You won’t find the idea of God until you start trying to see it. WE are the creators of this idea. In other words, there is no God until somebody comes along and invents the idea of “HIM”.

Well that is to assume that God never revealed Himself to Adam or anyone else. Something that you cannot say for sure.

This has nothing to do with science, which is why the “Creationism melds with Evolution” thread turned into what it did. It makes no sense to mix superstition with scientific method.

I am not trying to use science to prove God. I am using science to prove we still don’t have any answers. I have said it before I get tired of hearing “we are certain this is how it hapopened” Then ten years later them saying “wait we were wrong.”

I know what you’re thinking now. “My beliefs aren’t superstition!” Oh yeah? Prove it. You look for proof everywhere else, you point to some book as proof, but it’s just some book. I could show you the occult section of the bookstore which is filled with books on Wicca and witchcraft and candle magic and shit, and those books are just as superstitious as yours. There is nothing magical about the bible. It’s words… just like any other. Until you get past that, you aren’t going to be able to see my point. And that’s fine.

Show me one other book in the world, that is as accurate in history, and is as accurate in foretelling future events. One that has survived such persecution, and tells the same story it told over 3,000 years ago?
Show me one and I will consider it being just a book. Its survival is a testiment that this is the most amazing book in our world. That may not make it the word of God, but please have respect for the survival of such a brilliant literary work.

[quote]
And don’t call my Green Bunny a logical ploy! I’ll smite you! :)[/quote]

Sorry I was hoping to atleat field some of the problems that everyone has with the Christian belief.

By the way this wouldn’t happen to be the same bunny in Monty Python is it?

[Gestalt]

[quote]bamit wrote:
How do you explain all of the things that society considers wrong, but in your heart you know it is right and vice versa. For example, if someone you love is dying in the back seat of your car and you run a red light in order to get him/her to the hospital quickly. Was it right to run the light. Of course it was, however the law says it was wrong. Maybe a better example would be homosexuality. Being attracted to the same sex is defiantly not inherent. Homosexuality has also been practiced for a long time; however it has not yet been accepted as right by society. Why do you think that is? Either way I pray for you. I do not know if you will ever find God, but he will find you.
[/quote]

Normally, I would be offended by someone who says they would pray for me, but your statement seems genuine, albeit misplaced, so thank you.

As for your questions:

I have already mentioned that certain things are considered “wrong” or “right” because it is instinct. In the case of someone dying in the back seat vs. running a red light, that is instinct vs. written law.

We, as humans, have instincts like all animals. If we were not born with these instincts, human-kind would never have survived as long as it has. In fact, we are only one of six human species that has survived to this day.

Homosexuality is accepted–mostly by homosexuals. And it is accepted more in some places than in others. I live near San Francisco so I can speak with authority when I say that seeing two men (or women) holding hands or kissing on the street evokes no negative reaction from those people who are around the amorous homosexuals. That may not be the case in Alabama or Ohio or somewhere else they are not used to seeing this type of thing.

As for not being accepted by society, masturbation still isn’t accepted by society. Neither is picking your nose in public. But the more we talk about it, the better we understand it, the more we accept it. (Except for maybe the nose-picking)

[Gestalt]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Does this mean you believe that all laws are a result of theists? If atheists ruled the world, there would be no laws, and thusly, no criminals? If someone were to murder someone you (I can’t say love because you clearly don’t. To love would mean you have a concept of caring for the GOOD in someone that affects you positively) you wouldn’t be upset? If you would be upset, please explain why if there is no concept of good or evil. Have you broken any laws today? If so, what were they? Why not break more laws or do more of what many consider wrong? Aren’t you married? Why are you married? Marriage is a “LAW” of the church in essence and someone with no concept of right or wrong would obviously avoid monogamy. You are a walking contradiction. Please explain this to me.[/quote]

Wow! You really jumped to conclusions this time. None of your questions are applicable to me because I never said I believe in any of the things you think I believe in. Apparently I was not very clear in my last post, so I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

Just because we have instincts not to steal from each other or to kill each other does not mean we do not need laws. Laws are there to punish you if you go against what is seen as morally and ethically wrong. And as I had mentioned, most of what we find moral and ethical is based on our instinct–instinct that came about through evolution–evolution which took hundreds of thousands of years, not one day.

[haney]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

First, thank you for calling me a great man. I have always thought so of myself, but it is nice to have it affirmed.
[/quote]

I meant “greater men” in a sarcastic way. As I said they are dead and the Christian faith isn’t.

Saying that 44% of Americans will still believe in a god (Yes… A god, not necessarily your god) in 80 years may be true, but that does not mean that God has a 44% chance of existing, or whatever point you are trying to make.

My origional point was you will be wrong. Faith will still exist long after you are gone, and God will not be considered a myth. Saying 44% think evolution is a crock was simply stating that Evolution is not getting any converts, most likely won’t for a long time.

All that tells me is that 46% of Americans must have their heads screwed on right.

Well that does not factor in those who don’t know, and those who believe in progressive creationism (Creation assisted evolution).

Plus, according to the last poll I read, the number was somewhere in the 80% bracket of Americans who believe Jesus Christ was the son of God. But just because a lot of people believe it, tha does not make it true.

Never said it proved God. Just said it proves you wrong. For some reason Christianity is not in any danger of thinking God is a myth.

[quote]
As for Nietzsche, it does not matter whether he was insane or had girl problems or even masturbated to child porn. It is the message that is important. Let’s avoid the ad hominems–they do nothing but create feelings of enmity. [/quote]

I think the mental state of Nietzsche is improtant. After all the man did go insane. After all any Christian preacher that says something crazy gets raked over the coals. Why not Nietzsche who did go clinically insane?

[Gestalt]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damn - you elitists are some thick headed bastards. My problem is not with your arguments. You have made none.

My problem with you and your colorful-bunny posse isn’t that you find belief in a creator beneath you.
[/quote]

Rainjack…rainjack…rainjack. Oh, poor little misunderstood, underappreciated rainjack. You are such a silly goose.

Rainjack, you need to get yourself a sense of humor. You need to lighten up, stop taking yourself so seriously and stop being so damn sensitive.

If I call you a monkey troll, feel free to call me a steaming pile of equine excrement.

Life is short (to us theists, at least), so try to enjoy it, won’t you?

[haney]

Also it has been stated that Christianity has caused many wars, and murdered thousands. Evolution has done the same. Wasn’t stalin a firm believer in Evolution? Russia’s whole justice system was in place because man was nothing more than matter, matter has no soul. So Death to matter is not a moral problem. Torture was ok in Russia, and especially welcome when it came to those who believed in God. Men in power take things and abuse them. Not the ideas them self.

The saying absolute power corrupts absolutely is a very accurate one.

[Gestalt]

[quote]haney wrote:
I meant “great men” in a sarcastic way. As I said they are dead and the Christian faith isn’t.
[/quote]

I know you were being sarcastic. I was using sarcasm too. However, it apparently did not come off that way since I got a few more “elitist bigot” comments from that one.

My origional point was you will be wrong. Faith will still exist long after you are gone, and God will not be a myth. Saying 44% think evolution is a crock was simply stating that Evolution is not getting any converts, most likely won’t for a long time.

I completely agree that your faith (and the hundreds of other ones out there) will still be around in some form or another. Some may start to worship science rather than a god. The Wiccans may go on missions like the Christians did and forcefully convert 90% of the world to Wicca. Who knows? I do not really care either way since I will be dead. However, my point is that your religion, as it stands now, will not be the same religion 80 years from now.

I think the mental state of Nietzsche is improtant. After all the man did go insane. After all any Christian preacher that says something crazy gets raked over the coals. Why not Nietzsche who did go clinically insane?

You are welcome to think badly about anybody you would like. And just because the religious are persecuted for doing wrong does not make it right to persecute the non-religious.

Plus, my point all along is that you must evaluate the message and only the message, not the bearer of that message. Insane or not, Nietzsche had some excellent thoughts and ideas, in my opinion.

And on a different note, insanity is not like a light-switch that is just suddenly turned on one day. It is like being in the shallow end of the pool (relatively normal) and then going to the deep end (insane). We are all in that pool; it is just a matter of depth.

[Professor_X]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

Wow! You really jumped to conclusions this time. None of your questions are applicable to me because I never said I believe in any of the things you think I believe in. Apparently I was not very clear in my last post, so I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

Just because we have instincts not to steal from each other or to kill each other does not mean we do not need laws. Laws are there to punish you if you go against what is seen as morally and ethically wrong. And as I had mentioned, most of what we find moral and ethical is based on our instinct–instinct that came about through evolution–evolution which took hundreds of thousands of years, not one day.[/quote]

Instincts are now your explanation for the concept of right and wrong? How is it an instinct to think killing is wrong? If there is no good or evil, this would simply be a way of life as it is in the animal kingdom…that is, if you really believed this was only about evolution and instinct. You still didn’t answer my question about marriage. Are you saying this is instinct as well? What about times of war? I asked a question about killing someone outside of self defense if no one was to find out about it. You still have not answered that one. Why avoid the questions? Would you find it wrong to kill this person? If so, why if there is no good or bad outside of instinct? If not, why do you hold back day to day in your personal life? I don’t understand why someone so advanced in intelligence like you claim to be would be bound by instinct.

[rainjack]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:
Rainjack…rainjack…rainjack. Oh, poor little misunderstood, underappreciated rainjack. You are such a silly goose.

Rainjack, you need to get yourself a sense of humor. You need to lighten up, stop taking yourself so seriously and stop being so damn sensitive.

If I call you a monkey troll, feel free to call me a steaming pile of equine excrement.

Life is short (to us theists, at least), so try to enjoy it, won’t you?[/quote]

Life is eternal for me - and I enjoy every second of it. Oh maybe not the way the elitists do, but I enjoy it in my own pitiful, dim-witted way.

[Gestalt]

[quote]haney wrote:
Also it has been stated that Christianity has caused many wars, and murdered thousands. Evolution has done the same. Wasn’t stalin a firm believer in Evolution? Russia’s whole justice system was in place because man was nothing more than matter, matter has no soul. So Death to matter is not a moral problem. Torture was ok in Russia, and especially welcome when it came to those who believed in God. Men in power take things and abuse them. Not the ideas them self.

The saying absolute power corrupts absolutely is a very accurate one.[/quote]

You know haney, I agree with you 100%. My comment about the Crusades further up the thread was just to put some theists on the defensive to try to explain it. But you have just explained it. Some people do nasty things, whether they believe in a god, no god or some pink/green bunnyrabbit.

[haney]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:
haney wrote:
I meant “great men” in a sarcastic way. As I said they are dead and the Christian faith isn’t.

I know you were being sarcastic. I was using sarcasm too. However, it apparently did not come off that way since I got a few more “elitist bigot” comments from that one.
[/quote]

Understood, It did sound a little elitest, but I don’t care either way.

I completely agree that your faith (and the hundreds of other ones out there) will still be around in some form or another. Some may start to worship science rather than a god. The Wiccans may go on missions like the Christians did and forcefully convert 90% of the world to Wicca. Who knows? I do not really care either way since I will be dead. However, my point is that your religion, as it stands now, will not be the same religion 80 years from now.

That is a bold statement to make considering Christianity has not really changed in belief and practice over the centuries. We for the most part still agree with Martin Luther, someone who lived in the late 1500’s. Unless you are claiming the gift of prophecy I would not be so bold.

You are welcome to think badly about anybody you would like. And just because the religious are persecuted for doing wrong does not make it right to persecute the non-religious.

I don’t think bad of anyone. I am just pointing out that the man went insane. I have a hard time following someone who went insane.

Plus, my point all along is that you must evaluate the message and only the message, not the bearer of that message. Insane or not, Nietzsche had some excellent thoughts and ideas, in my opinion.

I would imagine you would like the message. It would align with many of your believes. The ideas might of been great, but if they are nothing more than the ramblings of a crazy man, then we have to consider what mental state are we in to agree with them?

[quote]
And on a different note, insanity is not like a light-switch that is just suddenly turned on one day. It is like being in the shallow end of the pool (relatively normal) and then going to the deep end (insane). We are all in that pool; it is just a matter of depth.[/quote]

Agreed. I stated it like that because it would be a description that would genereally be accepted by everyone save the elitest bigot (my attempt at humor).

[haney]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
MentalMuscle wrote:

Wow! You really jumped to conclusions this time. None of your questions are applicable to me because I never said I believe in any of the things you think I believe in. Apparently I was not very clear in my last post, so I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

Just because we have instincts not to steal from each other or to kill each other does not mean we do not need laws. Laws are there to punish you if you go against what is seen as morally and ethically wrong. And as I had mentioned, most of what we find moral and ethical is based on our instinct–instinct that came about through evolution–evolution which took hundreds of thousands of years, not one day.

Instincts are now your explanation for the concept of right and wrong? How is it an instinct to think killing is wrong? If there is no good or evil, this would simply be a way of life as it is in the animal kingdom…that is, if you really believed this was only about evolution and instinct. You still didn’t answer my question about marriage. Are you saying this is instinct as well? What about times of war? I asked a question about killing someone outside of self defense if no one was to find out about it. You still have not answered that one. Why avoid the questions? Would you find it wrong to kill this person? If so, why if there is no good or bad outside of instinct? If not, why do you hold back day to day in your personal life? I don’t understand why someone so advanced in intelligence like you claim to be would be bound by instinct.[/quote]

Just a little side note. a lot of this philosphical where did right and wrong come from is in the melding evolution with creation thread. Rather than answer this all over again. If you want to take a look at it MM and then post any question or responses it would certainly save me from having to repeat myself.

I think most of the exchanges are between me and Vegita. I am sure there are a few others though.

[haney]

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:

You know haney, I agree with you 100%. My comment about the Crusades further up the thread was just to put some theists on the defensive to try to explain it. But you have just explained it. Some people do nasty things, whether they believe in a god, no god or some pink/green bunnyrabbit.[/quote]

Exactly! When one puts them self as the only thing that counts no matter what the believe. Then it usually makes the general public suffer. I would say that those Christians before the reformation were using the belief system of the many as a tool to oppress them. This is way off topic, but I thought you might enjoy.

[Gestalt]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Instincts are now your explanation for the concept of right and wrong? How is it an instinct to think killing is wrong? If there is no good or evil, this would simply be a way of life as it is in the animal kingdom…that is, if you really believed this was only about evolution and instinct. You still didn’t answer my question about marriage. Are you saying this is instinct as well? What about times of war? I asked a question about killing someone outside of self defense if no one was to find out about it. You still have not answered that one. Why avoid the questions? Would you find it wrong to kill this person? If so, why if there is no good or bad outside of instinct? If not, why do you hold back day to day in your personal life? I don’t understand why someone so advanced in intelligence like you claim to be would be bound by instinct.[/quote]

Human life is exactly the same as in the animal kingdom. Humans are animals.

Killing: Wolves live in packs. If they were to kill each other until only one remained, they would no longer be as efficient as hunters. Therefore, they instinctively work together rather than fight for their mutual survival.

Marriage: Why do eagles mate for life? Or wolves (which I mentioned above)? Or whales? Or condors? Or a shitload of other animals? Because it improves their chances of successfully producing viable offspring to carry on their genetic code.

War: There is always going to be war because humans tend to form groups, like many other animals and we shun those who are different. The difference does not matter as long as we find a group of people who share something in common with us. We have white skin and yours is black, so you cannot be in our club. We are Protestants and you are Catholic so we are going to plant some explosives inside your churches.

I figured your question about killing someone outside of self-defense was just a ruse to get a rise out of me; I didn’t think you were serious about that one. Again, it is instinct. There is no point in randomly killing someone. However, if the money is right and I won’t get caught…

Actually, I never once claimed to be advanced in intelligence. The only comment I made about my intelligence at all was a self-deprecating remark regarding my IQ. It is you who have bestowed this label of advanced intelligence on me.