TheMaker

I'm not convinced I have any "belief" insofar as this is concerned. None of us knows the origin of man, so all any of us really has is a collection of testable hypotheses. Some are ridiculous on their face (flimsy religious non-explanations, for instance), whereas others seem to point to further questions (evolution, for instance, or the Big Bang theory, each of which sufficiently answers at least one important question but in so doing introduces a few of its own). Since religious attempts to address man's origin are completely unsatisfactory (we can boil them down to a single one-word answe

If I were a believer, I'd probably resort to saying something like "I don't like your tone, mister!" or "Stop being so mean!" right about now. Instead, I'll simply point out that ignoring my evidence - and it's only "mine" in that I happen to be the guy bringing it to the discussion - won't make it go away. And not giving a shit sure doesn't hurt my core argument any... In addition to never having existed, Jesus Christ as he is described in the bible was not without sin. He was not above bigotry or class warfare. He was not immune to committing acts of ghastly violence, up to and including

In what way is "randomness" a "god?"

I don't think I've ever positioned anything as "scientific law" in my life. Even gravity and evolution are "merely" accepted theories that have stood up to centuries of scrutiny and have managed to anticipate new scientific discoveries. Corroborating evidence is central to upholding such theories, which is why science has such a tremendous advantage over religion in the physical, or "real," world. That god does not exist is a scenario that is likely enough to be considered true by nearly every objective measure. That doesn't necessarily make it "scientific law," but it's certainly a fact ins

I don't think either position is "below me," Winston. I simply don't see how they represent anything other than philosophical dithering and halfhearted apologetics. The fact remains: there is no evidence pointing in the direction of the existence of any god that man has yet invented. If that weren't conclusive enough, we can analyze the shit out of religious texts and rather convincingly trace their origins to pagan rituals, wishful thinking, caste systems, and any number of other ancient, brutish substitutes for reason and intellect. I've torn scripture to shreds in several posts now; nobody

I'd just like to point out that, as of page 35, the board's religious faithful has been putting virtually all of its energy into arguing that quite literally anything is theoretically possible. You might want to pick up the pace a bit, guys. I'm a graphic designer and artist by trade; if I make up bumper stickers that read "GOD - ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, SO WHY THE FUCK NOT?" can I count on you guys to buy two each?

That's not proof of the existence of anything other than one hot piece of ass.

I didn't write that message assuming you do or don't believe in god. My logic isn't going to change based on whether you're a devout Christian or someone who simply enjoys playing the devil's advocate. Read it over again if you don't believe me. It certainly scans.

Tons of great thinkers have self-identified as theists throughout history. My own argument has less to do with religion being used as a crutch and more to do with religion being a rather obvious lie. It can become a crutch as easily as it can become a tool of oppression or vengeance or any number of other things, up to and including kindness and generosity. Not all of religion's intellectual side effects are poisonous, but it does us no favours as a species to obfuscate the fact that religion itself is a terrible lie. We have seen great thinkers inspired by god, true, but we have just as frequ

Actually, this isn't excellent at all, kwall. It's simply naive and designed to obfuscate the meat of most arguments against theism. First of all, it should be crystal clear to everyone following along at home that I am not remotely "threatened" by your naivete, Winston. I am simply confounded by your insistence that I do the impossible. You cannot prove a negative in practical terms. It's true that a lack of evidence can never disprove a given hypothesis, but a large enough number of negative instances can make it so improbable as to be eliminated from serious consideration. A prime exa

So you're admitting that belief can be incorrect on its face, then, or at least wrongheaded/ill-conceived?

Right. The idea of a benevolent' date=' loving creator figure serves much the same purpose, only adults are encouraged to believe in one 'til their dying day. Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Christian conventions are so embedded in western society that it's practically automatic for people of every stripe to say things like "Hallelujah" and "Goddamn" and "God bless you" and "Jesus fucking Christ on a motherfucking cross, all covered with his own disgusting blood and feces?" Nah. Couldn't be. It probably has something to do with all atheists' secret desire

Serious question: are you actually bothering to read what I write? Because I'm sincerely beginning to suspect you aren't. Please refer to the Newton/LaPlace example that I have provided at least five times in this thread. Free inquiry is what I'm advocating, as free inquiry is the only thing that has the capacity to free us from myth and superstition. This has been proven millions of times in the course of human history. It is religion's official position to answer the question "Why is the sky blue?" with a pat "Because it's the will of Bog, my child." Science does not accept this pure fuc

Then consider yourself lucky. Like I said, this is the norm in 2008. But the very real threat of social ostracism is indeed a major player in the secret lives of many closeted American atheists. I'm not one of these douchebags who hits up Google every time he posts on a messageboard and then litters his posts with links, but I'm half-tempted to pluck out a few prime examples for you. I suspect you're being disingenuous, though, so I'm not going to bother. Again, think of how many atheists you're aware of in public office, in entertainment, and so on. There are a great number of polls available

What's so funny? Religion is still an unadulterated lie, it's still ridiculous on its face, and all that we have agreed on here today is that good can flourish under most any circumstances. Within cults, in the secular world, etc. How does this help religion's case in any way, shape or form? Mother Theresa was driven to help the poor at least in part because of her faith in god. Warren Buffet, an "agnostic," is driven to help the poor for entirely more practical concerns. The fact of the matter is that both of these individuals have done much good in their time, irrespective of their spiritu

Yeah, sure. Hope springs eternal, right? Not faith, mind you - hope. Big difference. And so it stands to reason that in a universe characterized not by the guiding hand of an invisible saviour, but rather capricious acts of great physical violence, good can spring from nearly any scenario. Oskar Schindler, "in darkest light..." and all that jazz. Perhaps it would be more appropriate in this context to mention the legend of Santa Claus, and the joy and hope it stirs in the imaginations of small children. Most would agree that it's all well and good for small kids to believe in such tall ta

Wow. You must have the worst sense of humour in the world. Big fan of Friends and Two and a Half Men, are we? The Scary Movie series? Hot Shots Part Deux? My contribution to the thread: Bob Dylan crashed his motorcycle in Woodstock in 1966; he didn't have a meltdown because of hitting the road too hard with way too many drugs in his system.

We saw this a lot in the last thread. Lots of smiley faces jacking themselves off and stifled fake yawns. Covering its eyes and ears and mocking its critics is what religion does best, after all. There is nothing else it can do. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The Wizard of Oz is real, I tell you!" And of course the infantile "you said 'Jesus Christ,' that means you believe" insinuation always seems to crop up on a long enough timeline, however playfully. Yeah, it's absolutely fucking riotous that a society that is overwhelmingly Christian is loaded down with colloquialisms

You seem kind of naive.

That's exactly right. Religion is the most successful mitigating factor ever to prop up warfare and empire-building alike. And look, M.Christine, I understand your argument, but I maintain that it's a naive one. The relationship between belief and lifestyle is inextricable in so many ways, which is something I've been attempting to prove through example in at least two threads involving this particular clutch of themes. Again, you have a nice, happy, tolerant view of religion and spirituality, but it does not address several stumbling blocks that represent very real problems for the human ra

Just like religion. Heh. (I'd leave, but you all just seem to enjoy my participation so much...)

Wilco is a band I look forward to seeing whenever they blow through town, but I mostly listen to the studio recordings. I'm a CD guy, generally. Misunderstood Why Would You Wanna Live I Must Be High Impossible Germany Venus Stop the Train Jesus Etc. (maybe the most durable melody I've ever heard...) Remember the Mountain Bed (with a huge tip o' the cap to Woody) You Are My Face Pieholden Suite (I really came around to this one over the years) In a Future Age Muzzle of Bees And a bunch more!

Sorry for mixing you up with somebody else, bobbob. At any rate, orchestra's got the right idea. I presented numerous examples of how religion poisons thought in that other thread, ranging from the myriad ways it inspires violence and war, to the knack it has for stifling free inquiry at even the most basic and unconscious level. You might argue that you're protecting only moderates with your well-intentioned tolerance, and that may seem fine to many on the surface; moderates aren't as constrained in their beliefs as fundamentalists, but they nonetheless enable the destructive fantasies of,

Stop being disingenuous. I don't know how you're set as far as your commitments go (aren't you the guy who basically sees every Wilco show in the Western world, or am I thinking of a different poster?), but I certainly don't have the time to repeat myself endlessly. You know my stance on religion (that it's total, unadulterated bullshit), thanks to our last go-round. I was merely addressing the Biblical record, which is quite different from the historical one. My point, since you clearly need to have it spelled out for you, is that not only is religion a fantasy, it is also contradictory and

Man, I'm the exact same way. And here I'd been thinking I was alone! I'm always blown away by the number of folks who profess listening to music at work. One of my jobs involves a lot of typing and phone calls, and I just can't listen to music while doing that sort of thing; my other job involves peace and quiet and a lot of visually oriented computer tasks, and when I'm doing that stuff I find I'm constantly listening to music.