So, you are an atheist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2012, 07:09 PM
RE: So, you are an atheist.
(28-10-2012 06:48 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  ...and address the post

That's all we're doing, talking to a post. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
28-10-2012, 07:12 PM
RE: So, you are an atheist.
I'm not a scientist by any means, so forgive the clunkiness.

If I ingest a hallucinogenic chemical into my system, it reacts with my own body chemistry.

I may experience all manner of "visions". I may even "see God".

But ultimately, all that has occured was a chemical reaction.

Not to take this to some insane conclusion. Just an incidence of a chemical reaction resulting in something that one may describe as a "spiritual experience".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 07:45 PM
RE: So, you are an atheist.
Okay then lets do this.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Unfortunately that doesn't work on a forum because we can take apart your words line by line.

So lets address your points here.

(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  So, you’re an Atheist. You believe in Science instead of a God. Right. Obviously you are a very smart guy. It’s Science. No God. No soul. I get it. It’s all explained by Science. By Science, we – humans – are really complex chemical reactions. Chemistry is really atomic and molecular physics. Biology, DNA, and all that are really just chemistry. Right? Knuckle tap. Yea! No God. No soul. No heaven. No hell. Just chemistry. Got it.

Actually that is not true.

The Scientific method.

Formulate a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "Does sound travel faster in air than in water?" or "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage also involves looking up and evaluating previous evidence from other scientists, as well as considering one's own experience. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's prediction of the orbit of Mercury, or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life will be discovered in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The less likely that the prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, the stronger evidence it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.)

Test: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[11] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and one's own experience can be incorporated at any stage in the process. Many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.

In science you don't believe anything. Rather you test, verify, falsify, reformulate repeat. In this way we sculpt our thoughts with what reality can tell us.

[Image: VYIav.png]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
28-10-2012, 08:00 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2012 02:47 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: So, you are an atheist.
(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  So, you’re an Atheist.

Ok, I am an atheist. So far so good bro.
Quote:You believe in Science instead of a God.
.....aaaaaaaannnnndddddd this is where you fail. We do not BELIEVE in science, or not in the way you religious zealots do about your respective( but not respectable) faiths. We do not rely on science, but we rely on the scientific method do to it good record on actually finding things out about the reality we live in.
Quote:Right.
Nope, as I have previously stated.
Quote:Obviously you are a pretty smart guy
Why thank you.
Quote:It’s Science. No God. No soul. I get it.
Clearly you don't. We do not believe in science on the religious sense of the word, we do not believe in God( you actually got that point right, but I would have asked you to word it better).... But atheists can believe in a soul, they just don't believe in a Deity. Such as, and Atheist can believe in Angels, or other such mythical creatures associated to a god, but can rationalize it so it doesn't need God/god.
Quote:It’s all explained by Science. By Science, we – humans – are really complex chemical reactions. Chemistry is really atomic and molecular physics. Biology, DNA, and all that are really just chemistry. Right? Knuckle tap. Yea! No God. No soul. No heaven. No hell. Just chemistry. Got it.
Nope, you are wrong again. We atheists do not think science explains everything, since there are so many things we don't know. Now as to whether or not an atheist believes science can explain everything, it's not required to believe that to be an atheist. Hell, you can even say science has explained nothing and be an atheist as long as you don't believe in God/a god.

We humans are complex ORGANISMS. Chemical reactions occur in our system and can make us, but we are not chemical reactions, we are simply made up of them, or at least that's how I see it. Now wether Chemistry is really molecular and atomic physics is up for debate(it is certainly out of my field of interest), but it seems rather strange to think of it that way.

Biology is the study of life. It certainly is not chemistry as we are not studying reactions of certain solutions or things that chemistry students or professors are required to know. We study how life works, which can include chemistry but the two fields are not the same, even though some of chemistry and some of biology overlap.

As I will state again, atheists only don't believe in, or hold faith in, a god. Atheists CAN believe in a heaven-like place and can believe in a hell-like place, they just don't believe in a God. Atheists usually don't believe in a heaven or hell, but it is not required for you not to believe in such places.

Same for Soul.

So... We went down from Science to just Chemistry?
Either way, you are wrong for the reasons I have stated earlier.

......grrr...... I really don't want to keep going, but I bet I will feel so accomplished doing this that I will be staying up all night rewarding myself to a good porn videoTongue


Quote:Ultimately, according to you and Science, human life is an oxidation reaction: a slow burning fire. Oxygen in. Carbon dioxide out. Until it is extinguished, by a fast-moving beer truck or a heart attack or an angry ex-lover, or an angry ex lover driving a beer truck causing you to have a heart attack. Right? I thought so. Bro hug.

Humans do require oxygen into the system, but we are certainly more than a mere reaction. Especially a haste, slap-dashed, one-liner reaction like that. We are made up of minute life forms that require immense care and energy to simply function properly, we transport proteins to help the cell get important substances into the cell and out that need to be. It isn't just oxygen we need, but energy, elements, and on a cellular level ATP, Adenosine Triphosphate.

Quote:That’s the way it was explained to me by my first college physics teaching assistant Mr. Fitzroy. No God. No soul. Just Science.
The teaching is a gross oversimplification.

I am not going through this again.


Quote:Accurately put, a human is soulless chemical reaction. Right? I have heard this echoed many times in the chat rooms, dorm rooms, forums, and sites where fervent soulless chemical chain reactions gather to share their empty glass and ridicule religions. When pressed, they will agree that life on earth is simply soulless chemicals reacting with other soulless chemicals. Right? Thus, therefore, and in conclusion you are, from your big toe to the highest hair in your purple Mohawk, you are a soulless chemical reaction reading this on some electronic device right now. And most of you are proud of who you are? Right! Damn right? High five!

Accurately put, humans are made up of tiny organisms that are made up of hydrocarbons and simple compounds, which are made up of atoms. So, humans are made up of atoms.

I believe I am a soulless human, but it is not required to believe so.
I would like to say that the Truth may not be preferable to you, but that doesn't make it less true. Some of us are proud that "Soul-less chemical reactions" have done the things we have done. It shows that we can do the greatest of things, even if we aren't the greatest of beings.

Hive five :highfive:

Quote:But some of you may be saying, “Man, I am not buying into all that.” Then you want to ramble on about messed up stuff in the Bible, Hitchins, or whatever.
Not buying into what exactly? The truth? You are fully entitles not to but into it, but then you would be either willfully ignorant, or unknowingly ignorant.

I don't know if you know this... But religion is a huge thing to everybody that lives in societies like I live in. It literally influences my life everyday. We continuously talk about the Bible, Hitchens and other such stuff because we are constantly bombarded with theists, and religion. Some even have to pay taxes to a church they don't even support. Others can't express their criticism WITHOUT being sent to jail for it. I think enough is enough, and religion should get criticized.

Quote:“Come on! You are an ATHEIST! It’s simple: No God! No soul!” If you believe in one of those, you are not an atheist. Clear. I certainly hope so.

And given that you are a soulless chemical reaction, for the sake of personal integrity, you should admit to it. Some would point out that soulless chemical chain reactions have no reason to have integrity but Dawkins says that many soulless chemical chain reactions have integrity. Here is why: “Darwin and um, natural selection, random stuff. and then millions of years is like a long time, a hundred monkeys on a hundred typewriters, it evolved. OK!”

“Yeah, Riigght.”
Nope, atheists can believe in souls and still be atheists. I am sounding like a broken record saying this over and over again. Perhaps it's me, or did your paraphrasing of Dawkins sound a bit.... False?

Soulless chemical reactions like us have integrity because its a positive benefit to have in reciprocating deals. Bats make trades with other bats, and if you don't have the integrity to go through with it, you will be ostracized and cast out, not a good thing to do. This is evidence of a morality derived from evolution (through natural selection).
Quote:And you should also admit that you have no spirituality. Again many of you are saying, “No Problemo, dude!” in Jeff Spicoli’s voice.
It really isn't a problem doing so, dude.

Quote:But some are saying “Hold on, I am a spiritual person. I am! I am! I love puppies and kittens, and long walks on the beach.”
that's because atheists CAN be spiritual. Some atheists can believe that spirits and auras exist WITHOUT THE NEED OF A DEITY. I can believe in ghosts without believing in God/a god. I can, likewise, believe in spirits with the same requirements. Atheists can enjoy puppies, kittens, and long walks on the beach and other such valuable and beautiful things because love, beauty, and kindness aren't spirtual, they are natural.

Quote:“No you’re not! I’m calling bull crap on that! “Spiritual” is a non-science thing. You believe in S-C-I-E-N-C-E! You are a soulless f’ing chemical chain reaction. Accept it. Do we need a 12 step program here? Sheesh, even Bigbird gets this.”

You don't need to be a non-spiritualist to be an atheist, you don't even need to be science-lover or believer to be an atheist; the non-belief in a deity suffices.
Quote:And when you are having special pre-sexy time pillow talk with your current soulless chemical reaction hook-up, you can not look in its eyes and talk about a spiritual connection. Face it, you are a soulless chemical reaction about to possibly have a hot, steamy chemical reaction with another soulless chemical reaction that could maybe start a dependent soulless chemical reaction in the reaction chamber of the xx chromosomed soulless chemical reaction. Hopefully you are ready for said dependent soulless chemical reaction to start. If it is inconvenient, you can easily extinguish this chemical reaction with a “morning after” reaction inhibitor pill or a trip to Planned Parenthood. I bet guilt-free, pimp-style living is just… wonderful.

Or, you know, you could just wear a condom. I don't see your point other than to hint that atheist live a guilt-free sex lifestyle. If they do, clearly I didn't get that memo.Drinking Beverage

Quote:As for love, forgetaboutit. It’s just pheromones (aka chemicals). That’s why they call it “chemistry”. There is no magic here! Hasn’t the Once Amazing Randi debunked this?

First, why does love need to be supernatural or magical to make it important or even good for that matter? Why can't it just be a biological thing and it still be awesome.

I always saw it the other way around.. I found it insulting to say that love has to be supernatural because it is basically saying that humans could have never loved without God, or another force acting upon the human. We can love without the need of such things, and I find that to be one of the most beautiful things about love. Love is so powerful we think it comes from the supernatural, but it is us, the natural, that can form such a powerful thing.
Quote:And as an atheist you do not have to worry about the dilemma over “free will” vs. predestination. It’s mind boggling for the rest of us, but not for you. Even Barney knows chemical reactions cannot have free will. No. No way. Can’t happen! Just as sodium cannot react with chlorine and decide that it is going to be sugar instead of salt, you are stuck with your personal chemical reaction that has made you maybe a 5’6″,bitter, unemployed, mouth-breathing, neck-bearded gamer with poor hygiene or Lady GaGa. Who ever, what ever you are, it’s not your fault. Which is why you are almost certainly a liberal. You are not responsible for your lack of success. It is perfectly clear to you that the more successful chemical reactions are not responsible for their successes either. Since you are both equally culpable, as are all the people of the world; it logically follows that you should all enjoy the same standard of living. In your mind you should have all the stuff a douche like Donald Trump has or he should only have the stuff that you have. You count on your government to make that happen. Your vote counts as much as Trump’s even if you are living on inflated student loans to an online “university” and food stamps. Darwin would not approve.
We, as social creatures are influences by outside forces. There never was free will. Do you know why? If I choose to fly right now, I couldn't do it. I am restricted by the limits around me.

Just because there is no free will as you see it, doesn't mean that we are not responsible for our choices. We choose to not brush our teeth beause we are too lazy to do it, we are responsible.

I think your version of no free will is different from what most of us think no free will is honestly.

Quote:And there is another upside to being an atheist, you don’t have to fear the coming zombie invasion. According to legend, zombies are just fellow soulless chemical reactions that have been restarted. Satan has taken their souls. They are looking for new ones. ”No problemo!” You don’t have one. So just download MJ’s “Thriller” video. Practice the zombie dance. When it comes, just get down with your bro’s.You will fit right in. When you think about it: you have no choice.

Nonsense. Zombies love brains. Souls provide absolutely no vitamins to the zombies. Plus, atheists tend to have the best brains for zombies to eat... If anything, we have more to fear about a Zombie invasion than you do.
Quote:I have a new blog at http://www.atheistsrfun.com/

I have a feeling that if I click that link, my brain is going to commit suicide.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Atothetheist's post
28-10-2012, 08:09 PM
RE: So, you are an atheist.
(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  Ultimately, according to you and Science, human life is an oxidation reaction: a slow burning fire. Oxygen in. Carbon dioxide out. Until it is extinguished, by a fast-moving beer truck or a heart attack or an angry ex-lover, or an angry ex lover driving a beer truck causing you to have a heart attack. Right? I thought so. Bro hug. That’s the way it was explained to me by my first college physics teaching assistant Mr. Fitzroy. No God. No soul. Just Science.

Nice strawman, but it isn't true.




(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  Accurately put, a human is soulless chemical reaction. Right? I have heard this echoed many times in the chat rooms, dorm rooms, forums, and sites where fervent soulless chemical chain reactions gather to share their empty glass and ridicule religions. When pressed, they will agree that life on earth is simply soulless chemicals reacting with other soulless chemicals. Right? Thus, therefore, and in conclusion you are, from your big toe to the highest hair in your purple Mohawk, you are a soulless chemical reaction reading this on some electronic device right now. And most of you are proud of who you are? Right! Damn right? High five!

And given that you are a soulless chemical reaction, for the sake of personal integrity, you should admit to it. Some would point out that soulless chemical chain reactions have no reason to have integrity but Dawkins says that many soulless chemical chain reactions have integrity. Here is why: “Darwin and um, natural selection, random stuff. and then millions of years is like a long time, a hundred monkeys on a hundred typewriters, it evolved. OK!”





(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  And when you are having special pre-sexy time pillow talk with your current soulless chemical reaction hook-up, you can not look in its eyes and talk about a spiritual connection. Face it, you are a soulless chemical reaction about to possibly have a hot, steamy chemical reaction with another soulless chemical reaction that could maybe start a dependent soulless chemical reaction in the reaction chamber of the xx chromosomed soulless chemical reaction. Hopefully you are ready for said dependent soulless chemical reaction to start. If it is inconvenient, you can easily extinguish this chemical reaction with a “morning after” reaction inhibitor pill or a trip to Planned Parenthood. I bet guilt-free, pimp-style living is just… wonderful.

As for love, forgetaboutit. It’s just pheromones (aka chemicals). That’s why they call it “chemistry”. There is no magic here! Hasn’t the Once Amazing Randi debunked this?

All human thoughts, and emotions are chemical reactions. It doesn't mean however that we instantly throw morality out of the window. Rather I personally gauge my actions by the effects they produce on my self and the people around me.

(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  And as an atheist you do not have to worry about the dilemma over “free will” vs. predestination. It’s mind boggling for the rest of us, but not for you. Even Barney knows chemical reactions cannot have free will. No. No way. Can’t happen! Just as sodium cannot react with chlorine and decide that it is going to be sugar instead of salt, you are stuck with your personal chemical reaction that has made you maybe a 5’6″,bitter, unemployed, mouth-breathing, neck-bearded gamer with poor hygiene or Lady GaGa. Who ever, what ever you are, it’s not your fault. Which is why you are almost certainly a liberal. You are not responsible for your lack of success. It is perfectly clear to you that the more successful chemical reactions are not responsible for their successes either. Since you are both equally culpable, as are all the people of the world; it logically follows that you should all enjoy the same standard of living. In your mind you should have all the stuff a douche like Donald Trump has or he should only have the stuff that you have. You count on your government to make that happen. Your vote counts as much as Trump’s even if you are living on inflated student loans to an online “university” and food stamps. Darwin would not approve.

And there is another upside to being an atheist, you don’t have to fear the coming zombie invasion. According to legend, zombies are just fellow soulless chemical reactions that have been restarted. Satan has taken their souls. They are looking for new ones. ”No problemo!” You don’t have one. So just download MJ’s “Thriller” video. Practice the zombie dance. When it comes, just get down with your bro’s.You will fit right in. When you think about it: you have no choice.

I have a new blog at http://www.atheistsrfun.com/

Freewill is an interesting question. Rather than worry about it, or have anxiety about it, we study it to see what reality can tell us about our selves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will






Always question, and always investigate.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like fstratzero's post
28-10-2012, 08:41 PM
RE: So, you are an atheist.
That's the A-squared I was lookin for! Well said brother.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
28-10-2012, 10:35 PM
RE: So, you are an atheist.
(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  “Come on! You are an ATHEIST! It’s simple: No God! No soul!” If you believe in one of those, you are not an atheist. Clear. I certainly hope so.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Atheism simply does not acknowledge a theistic world-view. Nothing to do with a deity or a soul. Deists are technically Atheists because they reject a theistic world view, but that doesn't mean they reject the idea of a soul.

I don't actually struggle with either of those ideas at all; my 'soul' is simply my consciousness created by the firing of neurons, and I haven't been presented with any compelling evidence that any of the thousands of man-made-deities are real.

My Blog
[Image: 1z5qgiq.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NeonMoment's post
28-10-2012, 10:37 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2012 10:42 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: So, you are an atheist.
(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  So, you’re an Atheist. You believe in Science instead of a God. Right. Obviously you are a very smart guy. It’s Science. No God. No soul. I get it. It’s all explained by Science. By Science, we – humans – are really complex chemical reactions. Chemistry is really atomic and molecular physics. Biology, DNA, and all that are really just chemistry. Right? Knuckle tap. Yea! No God. No soul. No heaven. No hell. Just chemistry. Got it.

Ultimately, according to you and Science, human life is an oxidation reaction: a slow burning fire. Oxygen in. Carbon dioxide out. Until it is extinguished, by a fast-moving beer truck or a heart attack or an angry ex-lover, or an angry ex lover driving a beer truck causing you to have a heart attack. Right? I thought so. Bro hug. That’s the way it was explained to me by my first college physics teaching assistant Mr. Fitzroy. No God. No soul. Just Science.

Accurately put, a human is soulless chemical reaction. Right? I have heard this echoed many times in the chat rooms, dorm rooms, forums, and sites where fervent soulless chemical chain reactions gather to share their empty glass and ridicule religions. When pressed, they will agree that life on earth is simply soulless chemicals reacting with other soulless chemicals. Right? Thus, therefore, and in conclusion you are, from your big toe to the highest hair in your purple Mohawk, you are a soulless chemical reaction reading this on some electronic device right now. And most of you are proud of who you are? Right! Damn right? High five!

But some of you may be saying, “Man, I am not buying into all that.” Then you want to ramble on about messed up stuff in the Bible, Hitchins, or whatever.

“Come on! You are an ATHEIST! It’s simple: No God! No soul!” If you believe in one of those, you are not an atheist. Clear. I certainly hope so.

And given that you are a soulless chemical reaction, for the sake of personal integrity, you should admit to it. Some would point out that soulless chemical chain reactions have no reason to have integrity but Dawkins says that many soulless chemical chain reactions have integrity. Here is why: “Darwin and um, natural selection, random stuff. and then millions of years is like a long time, a hundred monkeys on a hundred typewriters, it evolved. OK!”

“Yeah, Riigght.”

And you should also admit that you have no spirituality. Again many of you are saying, “No Problemo, dude!” in Jeff Spicoli’s voice.

But some are saying “Hold on, I am a spiritual person. I am! I am! I love puppies and kittens, and long walks on the beach.”

“No you’re not! I’m calling bull crap on that! “Spiritual” is a non-science thing. You believe in S-C-I-E-N-C-E! You are a soulless f’ing chemical chain reaction. Accept it. Do we need a 12 step program here? Sheesh, even Bigbird gets this.”

And when you are having special pre-sexy time pillow talk with your current soulless chemical reaction hook-up, you can not look in its eyes and talk about a spiritual connection. Face it, you are a soulless chemical reaction about to possibly have a hot, steamy chemical reaction with another soulless chemical reaction that could maybe start a dependent soulless chemical reaction in the reaction chamber of the xx chromosomed soulless chemical reaction. Hopefully you are ready for said dependent soulless chemical reaction to start. If it is inconvenient, you can easily extinguish this chemical reaction with a “morning after” reaction inhibitor pill or a trip to Planned Parenthood. I bet guilt-free, pimp-style living is just… wonderful.

As for love, forgetaboutit. It’s just pheromones (aka chemicals). That’s why they call it “chemistry”. There is no magic here! Hasn’t the Once Amazing Randi debunked this?

And as an atheist you do not have to worry about the dilemma over “free will” vs. predestination. It’s mind boggling for the rest of us, but not for you. Even Barney knows chemical reactions cannot have free will. No. No way. Can’t happen! Just as sodium cannot react with chlorine and decide that it is going to be sugar instead of salt, you are stuck with your personal chemical reaction that has made you maybe a 5’6″,bitter, unemployed, mouth-breathing, neck-bearded gamer with poor hygiene or Lady GaGa. Who ever, what ever you are, it’s not your fault. Which is why you are almost certainly a liberal. You are not responsible for your lack of success. It is perfectly clear to you that the more successful chemical reactions are not responsible for their successes either. Since you are both equally culpable, as are all the people of the world; it logically follows that you should all enjoy the same standard of living. In your mind you should have all the stuff a douche like Donald Trump has or he should only have the stuff that you have. You count on your government to make that happen. Your vote counts as much as Trump’s even if you are living on inflated student loans to an online “university” and food stamps. Darwin would not approve.

And there is another upside to being an atheist, you don’t have to fear the coming zombie invasion. According to legend, zombies are just fellow soulless chemical reactions that have been restarted. Satan has taken their souls. They are looking for new ones. ”No problemo!” You don’t have one. So just download MJ’s “Thriller” video. Practice the zombie dance. When it comes, just get down with your bro’s.You will fit right in. When you think about it: you have no choice.

I have a new blog at http://www.atheistsrfun.com/

Time for a nice, fun game of "identify the brand of Christian". I'm admittedly a very novice player (many of the fine distinctions between sects and interpretations of Christianity escape me), so I invite more experienced persons to weigh in with their own analysis. Granted, I don't KNOW that this guy is a Christian. Call it a hunch, just like me assuming the OP was male rather than female. In any case, let's play!

Let's start with the fundamentals. Despite the sarcastic, ironic tone (which plays hell with trying to figure out whether someone is presenting something seriously or not), if we take this guy's irony at face value, he believes the opposite of what he's saying. If so, that's fine, because he's being obvious (and thus a twisty sort of honest) about it. Except for the piddly little fact that he doesn't seem to HAVE THE LEAST CLUE ABOUT WHAT ATHEISM MEANS! (For starters, atheism and science are very, very distinct, and atheists enjoy on average more financial success than Christians. Also, lower incarceration rates, though that wasn't brought up.) So, with the caveats about irony and sarcasm in place, I have to call False Witness on this.

Granted, it's not the type of false witness who was there to actually SEE person A do the murder, and then testifies that it was person B who did it, even though he never saw person B there. No, this is the type of false witness who wasn't there to witness something, who then falsely presents himself as a witness when he in fact isn't, and MAKES SHIT UP. Or perhaps goes on rumor or innuendo or what he wants to believe. And given that the denunciation was made in a public forum, and was both negative in its tone and defamatory in its content... yeah. Definite false witness.

(Yes, atheists -- or ignostics like myself -- can believe that it's wrong to bear false witness. Just because some people think it's only wrong if the Bible and/or God says its wrong, doesn't mean others can't come to the conclusion that misrepresenting people is a shitty, shitty thing to do.)

From this act of false witness, we can conclude that the OP is not, in fact, a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists by and large put heavy emphasis on the commandments. Would an upright fundamentalist actually break the commandment against False witness? Of course not! Never in a million years!

Similarly, the OP's apparent stance on Free Will suggests he is not a Calvinist, and his denouncement of casual sexual encounters rule out any form of liberal Christianity. Also, maybe Lutheranism. I don't know much about Lutheranism as a whole category, but an ex-girlfriend was a Lutheran minister's daughter and she was quite firm on the point that all of that fell under blanket Forgiveness. But it was a liberal sort of Lutheranism, so I dunno.

Nor is he an apologist. Competent apologists give their religion a long, hard look, at least for the narrow purpose of finding something they can use. That's why they spend so much time scraping the bottom of the barrel, rather than blithely assuming the barrel is full, as this poster does. (Also, he isn't trying to prove anything.) It's quite obvious that this poster has NEVER given Christianity as a whole, or even the Bible specifically, a good hard look. Forget all the stuff about genocide and contradictions and stuff, I'm talking about the basic, core gospel that is getting ignored. Examples:

* Not rendering judgement. (Okay, I take that back. He's not actually RENDERING judgement. He's just pointing at it with both fingers while gesticulating for attention, mouthing "hey look at THAT", and waggling his eyebrows suggestively.)

* Worrying about the mote in our eyes rather than the beam in his. (Okay, everyone else's eye, as an ignostic his comments weren't explicitly directed at me.)

* His remarks were quite socially and fiscally conservative. Not only is he casting judgement, but the nature of that judgement links quality of person with financial success. This is not someone who has carefully considered things like getting a camel through the eye of a needle, or the notion of giving away all his worldly possessions, or redistributing from each according to their means to each according to their needs. Much less the notion that Jesus as presented in the Bible fits the description of a "bitter, unemployed... neck-bearded gamer with poor hygiene." (Hygiene, of course, was difficult to come by in antiquity, and I've read on several bumper stickers that Jesus saved and took half damage.) And it seems to have NEVER CROSSED THIS GUY'S MIND THAT HE WAS DESCRIBING HIS SAVIOR ALMOST TO A T!

In short, this person would appear to have never, ever, ever looked at his own life and beliefs with a critical eye, even so far as to question whether or not he was being a good Christian. I was almost tempted to say Catholic, for Biblical illiteracy, but this lack of self-criticism doesn't jive with Catholicism in the least, and really the whole "Catholics don't read the Bible" thing is kind of a dated stereotype. Also, Catholics tend to remember the Commandments. Phew. Nice catch, me.

So I'm going to guess that this guy already considers himself "saved" by belief, without having to worry about good behavior. I imagine that his church has the word "non-denominational" in its description (though I'm guessing there), and emphasizes making everyone feel good about their membership and financial contributions and maybe Christian Rock, rather than a message of self-examination and -improvement that might drive off contributing parishioners when they realize someone might be suggesting that they're not already great people. Also, to emphasize "don't go away", the preacher spews that atheists (and probably other religions) are evil by misrepresenting them. This guy has blindly accepted those lies without even once questioning how his preacher came to preach them, and is now magnifying that act of idiocy by presenting those lies to those who know them to be lies, and in the process is alienating his audience to that religion by showing off said idiocy in all its glory while at the same time defying its most fundamental values and presenting himself (implicitly but falsely) as its representative.

That, or he's a Poe, rather than a Christian.

Anyhow, that's my speculation. How does that jive with everyone else's?

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
29-10-2012, 01:06 AM
RE: So, you are an atheist.
(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  Accurately put, a human is soulless chemical reaction. Right? I have heard this echoed many times in the chat rooms, dorm rooms, forums, and sites where fervent soulless chemical chain reactions gather to share their empty glass and ridicule religions.

And as an atheist you do not have to worry about the dilemma over “free will” vs. predestination.

It’s mind boggling for the rest of us,

Actually he sounds quite bitter, angry, and confused.

We'll see just how long his "soul" lasts after 5-10 minutes of oxygen not being grabbed randomly by the Iron atom in Hemoglobin, and oxygenating his brain cells.

Maybe if, instead of listening in pubs and all that other crap, he actually learned some Chemistry and Biology in a classroom he would not have such a boggled mind.

Sorry that Free Will is causing you such agony. Dump the idea. It's very simple. Of course with that, out goes all the other shit. No wonder you have to hang onto it so desperately, and are so jealous of those who have rid themselves of the idea.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-10-2012, 05:39 AM
RE: So, you are an atheist.
(28-10-2012 10:37 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(28-10-2012 10:42 AM)Theist_Typing Wrote:  So, you’re an Atheist. You believe in Science instead of a God. Right. Obviously you are a very smart guy. It’s Science. No God. No soul. I get it. It’s all explained by Science. By Science, we – humans – are really complex chemical reactions. Chemistry is really atomic and molecular physics. Biology, DNA, and all that are really just chemistry. Right? Knuckle tap. Yea! No God. No soul. No heaven. No hell. Just chemistry. Got it.

Ultimately, according to you and Science, human life is an oxidation reaction: a slow burning fire. Oxygen in. Carbon dioxide out. Until it is extinguished, by a fast-moving beer truck or a heart attack or an angry ex-lover, or an angry ex lover driving a beer truck causing you to have a heart attack. Right? I thought so. Bro hug. That’s the way it was explained to me by my first college physics teaching assistant Mr. Fitzroy. No God. No soul. Just Science.

Accurately put, a human is soulless chemical reaction. Right? I have heard this echoed many times in the chat rooms, dorm rooms, forums, and sites where fervent soulless chemical chain reactions gather to share their empty glass and ridicule religions. When pressed, they will agree that life on earth is simply soulless chemicals reacting with other soulless chemicals. Right? Thus, therefore, and in conclusion you are, from your big toe to the highest hair in your purple Mohawk, you are a soulless chemical reaction reading this on some electronic device right now. And most of you are proud of who you are? Right! Damn right? High five!

But some of you may be saying, “Man, I am not buying into all that.” Then you want to ramble on about messed up stuff in the Bible, Hitchins, or whatever.

“Come on! You are an ATHEIST! It’s simple: No God! No soul!” If you believe in one of those, you are not an atheist. Clear. I certainly hope so.

And given that you are a soulless chemical reaction, for the sake of personal integrity, you should admit to it. Some would point out that soulless chemical chain reactions have no reason to have integrity but Dawkins says that many soulless chemical chain reactions have integrity. Here is why: “Darwin and um, natural selection, random stuff. and then millions of years is like a long time, a hundred monkeys on a hundred typewriters, it evolved. OK!”

“Yeah, Riigght.”

And you should also admit that you have no spirituality. Again many of you are saying, “No Problemo, dude!” in Jeff Spicoli’s voice.

But some are saying “Hold on, I am a spiritual person. I am! I am! I love puppies and kittens, and long walks on the beach.”

“No you’re not! I’m calling bull crap on that! “Spiritual” is a non-science thing. You believe in S-C-I-E-N-C-E! You are a soulless f’ing chemical chain reaction. Accept it. Do we need a 12 step program here? Sheesh, even Bigbird gets this.”

And when you are having special pre-sexy time pillow talk with your current soulless chemical reaction hook-up, you can not look in its eyes and talk about a spiritual connection. Face it, you are a soulless chemical reaction about to possibly have a hot, steamy chemical reaction with another soulless chemical reaction that could maybe start a dependent soulless chemical reaction in the reaction chamber of the xx chromosomed soulless chemical reaction. Hopefully you are ready for said dependent soulless chemical reaction to start. If it is inconvenient, you can easily extinguish this chemical reaction with a “morning after” reaction inhibitor pill or a trip to Planned Parenthood. I bet guilt-free, pimp-style living is just… wonderful.

As for love, forgetaboutit. It’s just pheromones (aka chemicals). That’s why they call it “chemistry”. There is no magic here! Hasn’t the Once Amazing Randi debunked this?

And as an atheist you do not have to worry about the dilemma over “free will” vs. predestination. It’s mind boggling for the rest of us, but not for you. Even Barney knows chemical reactions cannot have free will. No. No way. Can’t happen! Just as sodium cannot react with chlorine and decide that it is going to be sugar instead of salt, you are stuck with your personal chemical reaction that has made you maybe a 5’6″,bitter, unemployed, mouth-breathing, neck-bearded gamer with poor hygiene or Lady GaGa. Who ever, what ever you are, it’s not your fault. Which is why you are almost certainly a liberal. You are not responsible for your lack of success. It is perfectly clear to you that the more successful chemical reactions are not responsible for their successes either. Since you are both equally culpable, as are all the people of the world; it logically follows that you should all enjoy the same standard of living. In your mind you should have all the stuff a douche like Donald Trump has or he should only have the stuff that you have. You count on your government to make that happen. Your vote counts as much as Trump’s even if you are living on inflated student loans to an online “university” and food stamps. Darwin would not approve.

And there is another upside to being an atheist, you don’t have to fear the coming zombie invasion. According to legend, zombies are just fellow soulless chemical reactions that have been restarted. Satan has taken their souls. They are looking for new ones. ”No problemo!” You don’t have one. So just download MJ’s “Thriller” video. Practice the zombie dance. When it comes, just get down with your bro’s.You will fit right in. When you think about it: you have no choice.

I have a new blog at http://www.atheistsrfun.com/

Time for a nice, fun game of "identify the brand of Christian". I'm admittedly a very novice player (many of the fine distinctions between sects and interpretations of Christianity escape me), so I invite more experienced persons to weigh in with their own analysis. Granted, I don't KNOW that this guy is a Christian. Call it a hunch, just like me assuming the OP was male rather than female. In any case, let's play!

Let's start with the fundamentals. Despite the sarcastic, ironic tone (which plays hell with trying to figure out whether someone is presenting something seriously or not), if we take this guy's irony at face value, he believes the opposite of what he's saying. If so, that's fine, because he's being obvious (and thus a twisty sort of honest) about it. Except for the piddly little fact that he doesn't seem to HAVE THE LEAST CLUE ABOUT WHAT ATHEISM MEANS! (For starters, atheism and science are very, very distinct, and atheists enjoy on average more financial success than Christians. Also, lower incarceration rates, though that wasn't brought up.) So, with the caveats about irony and sarcasm in place, I have to call False Witness on this.

Granted, it's not the type of false witness who was there to actually SEE person A do the murder, and then testifies that it was person B who did it, even though he never saw person B there. No, this is the type of false witness who wasn't there to witness something, who then falsely presents himself as a witness when he in fact isn't, and MAKES SHIT UP. Or perhaps goes on rumor or innuendo or what he wants to believe. And given that the denunciation was made in a public forum, and was both negative in its tone and defamatory in its content... yeah. Definite false witness.

(Yes, atheists -- or ignostics like myself -- can believe that it's wrong to bear false witness. Just because some people think it's only wrong if the Bible and/or God says its wrong, doesn't mean others can't come to the conclusion that misrepresenting people is a shitty, shitty thing to do.)

From this act of false witness, we can conclude that the OP is not, in fact, a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists by and large put heavy emphasis on the commandments. Would an upright fundamentalist actually break the commandment against False witness? Of course not! Never in a million years!

Similarly, the OP's apparent stance on Free Will suggests he is not a Calvinist, and his denouncement of casual sexual encounters rule out any form of liberal Christianity. Also, maybe Lutheranism. I don't know much about Lutheranism as a whole category, but an ex-girlfriend was a Lutheran minister's daughter and she was quite firm on the point that all of that fell under blanket Forgiveness. But it was a liberal sort of Lutheranism, so I dunno.

Nor is he an apologist. Competent apologists give their religion a long, hard look, at least for the narrow purpose of finding something they can use. That's why they spend so much time scraping the bottom of the barrel, rather than blithely assuming the barrel is full, as this poster does. (Also, he isn't trying to prove anything.) It's quite obvious that this poster has NEVER given Christianity as a whole, or even the Bible specifically, a good hard look. Forget all the stuff about genocide and contradictions and stuff, I'm talking about the basic, core gospel that is getting ignored. Examples:

* Not rendering judgement. (Okay, I take that back. He's not actually RENDERING judgement. He's just pointing at it with both fingers while gesticulating for attention, mouthing "hey look at THAT", and waggling his eyebrows suggestively.)

* Worrying about the mote in our eyes rather than the beam in his. (Okay, everyone else's eye, as an ignostic his comments weren't explicitly directed at me.)

* His remarks were quite socially and fiscally conservative. Not only is he casting judgement, but the nature of that judgement links quality of person with financial success. This is not someone who has carefully considered things like getting a camel through the eye of a needle, or the notion of giving away all his worldly possessions, or redistributing from each according to their means to each according to their needs. Much less the notion that Jesus as presented in the Bible fits the description of a "bitter, unemployed... neck-bearded gamer with poor hygiene." (Hygiene, of course, was difficult to come by in antiquity, and I've read on several bumper stickers that Jesus saved and took half damage.) And it seems to have NEVER CROSSED THIS GUY'S MIND THAT HE WAS DESCRIBING HIS SAVIOR ALMOST TO A T!

In short, this person would appear to have never, ever, ever looked at his own life and beliefs with a critical eye, even so far as to question whether or not he was being a good Christian. I was almost tempted to say Catholic, for Biblical illiteracy, but this lack of self-criticism doesn't jive with Catholicism in the least, and really the whole "Catholics don't read the Bible" thing is kind of a dated stereotype. Also, Catholics tend to remember the Commandments. Phew. Nice catch, me.

So I'm going to guess that this guy already considers himself "saved" by belief, without having to worry about good behavior. I imagine that his church has the word "non-denominational" in its description (though I'm guessing there), and emphasizes making everyone feel good about their membership and financial contributions and maybe Christian Rock, rather than a message of self-examination and -improvement that might drive off contributing parishioners when they realize someone might be suggesting that they're not already great people. Also, to emphasize "don't go away", the preacher spews that atheists (and probably other religions) are evil by misrepresenting them. This guy has blindly accepted those lies without even once questioning how his preacher came to preach them, and is now magnifying that act of idiocy by presenting those lies to those who know them to be lies, and in the process is alienating his audience to that religion by showing off said idiocy in all its glory while at the same time defying its most fundamental values and presenting himself (implicitly but falsely) as its representative.

That, or he's a Poe, rather than a Christian.

Anyhow, that's my speculation. How does that jive with everyone else's?

Fuckin' excellent piece of analysis.

But I'm not sure this guy was worth the effort... probably, it's a drive-by. Higher quality than many, but still a drive by.

With your analytical skills, I hope, in time, to see a KC- or Stark-style "I will give my (honest) opinion of you" thread from you.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: