(February 18, 2013 at 12:46 am)justin Wrote: You comprehened the content of what i was saying not because of the different experiances we had in typing it but because you recognize the bad grammar and basic spelling errors and make mental corrections as you go that are based off of high probability assumptions to fill in the insenseable gaps that are scattered through out my response. That of which i recgonize myself and accept the ridicule not as offensive but as an unbiased truth that may help me make corrections to the problem by pointing out the flaws so as to avoid future repetition of said ridicule.
Fine, then also accept that you are more of an idiot than some of the religious people on this forum.
(February 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm)justin Wrote: while evolution may give answers it doesn`t mean that you need evolution for atheism. atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. it isn`t dependant on anything other than the lack of the evidence for the propersition of the god being made. he wouldn`t be talking to bricks walls about atheism just because he didn`t relay his experiance of how he came to evolution or the explaination of evolution because they are not needed in order to ridicule the irrational beliefs of theism, thought they do help.
If it is possible to ridicule a theist without science, then it is also possible to believe in theism and science. Why isn't this rational?
(February 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm)justin Wrote: he holds them accountable because they have a choice in the matter to change their way of thinking. evolution does not have goals or does what is best for the species, the species must adapt of suffer. in this cause changing the way religion is held in order to adapt to a more pregressive time ultimatly.
Free will can be as much of an illusion as god. Adapting to believe in free will and god could give someone less suffering, so how is challenging them with atheism and determinism adapting more progressively?
(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote:(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote: do you have no hope for humanity?
Quote:Hope is a synonym for faith my friend. I do not have faith that over 7 billion people will understand my experience of atheism, no. But please think about that next time you debate someone with faith.
Indeed, when one truly considers the vastness of the universe, the insignificance of humanity is overwhelming.
yes, but we have more reason to have hope for humanity than we do in stone age myths because of historical moments of changing for the better. oh and humanity exists. seems pretty reasonable to have hope in humanity though it is difficult sometimes.
Universe = 13.7 billion years. Humanity = 200,000 years. You = 100 years.
I have more faith in the universe, 96% of which we cannot comprehend.
I genuinely think it is wiser of a human to accept that humanity will not objectively provide them with any significant answers of purpose in their time period.
(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote: i`m not saying that without religion there would be no problems i am just saying there would be less without it.
"Religion" and "problems" is such a broad spectrum that it is simply an untrue claim.
People can be healthier with faith, similar to how people can be healthier with love.
(February 16, 2013 at 5:05 pm)justin Wrote: what seems to be true and what are true are two different things. besides he is just merely pointing out that while more people may believe in superstition it does not ACTUALLY make it wiser or true. it is just false perceptions.
Free will seems to be true. Whatever you or I believe to be true will not be true in another 200,000 years.
(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote: so should the slave stay a slave for the fear or the possibility that he may have to fight his master for freedom?
Being faithless can enslave people more.
(February 15, 2013 at 1:12 am)justin Wrote: excuse my naivity.
Ahh fuck, I've already replied to it...
...
(February 18, 2013 at 1:03 am)Question Mark Wrote: He believes it to be true, and wishes other people to see it that way too. The ramifications of it being accepted are not really important. In his view it'd be the same as accepting some uncomfortable fact of reality, which cannot be changed but only recognised, or ignored.
I understand what you are saying but clearly the ramifications of it being accepted are important if he truly wishes people to see what he sees - a lot of people with and without faith do not. Or they do and it is more suffering than before.
To some people, all of their theistic experiences being untrue is the equivalent to all of his scientific experiences being untrue. Moreover, one cannot talk of the ramifications of religion being accepted without addressing this seriously.
