Atheists should shut up!

[Ecmandu]

You make these ridiculous claims all the time but you cannot provide any evidence for them
The reason for this is because they are obviously unfalsifiable but I also think they are false

Are you trying to convince yourself or everyone else they are true because if its the latter nobody believes you you know
I would say that the panic attacks you experienced are responsible for the way you are now thinking and no other reason

Prophets are who they are because “nobody believes them”. If I’m a prophet, it’s news to me. I think ALL religion is bullshit!

I’m certainly not trying to make a religion, I’m trying to make hyperdimensional mirror realities, and I’m not promising them here or in the “afterlife”.

If you were astute, you’d realize that earth has been resurrected —- there are many changes that are easy to notice (I call them “Easter eggs” out of the common video game term) — the most obvious one to the entire world is that before the earth was resurrected, Washington D.C. lisence plates correctly read “no taxation without representation”, now they read: “taxation without representation”

I know it’s an ego wound to YOU! That YOU can’t falsify my sentences. I can assure you that it’s not unfalsifiable on a cosmic scale. Death knows that I met death. You currently don’t. You don’t have the tools right now.

The ONLY thing that matters about ANY being is to send ALL beings to non consent violating realities forever and ever and ever.

Anything else is a false god or false prophet.

[Ecmandu]

*read above post as well*

When the gods bother me, I tell them something very simple:

“It’s much easier to destroy something than to create/build it”

Basically what I’m saying to them is that their ability to terrorize is not the highest example of power. In fact, it is the easiest thing possible to do.

If the gods come after you! Use this to defend yourself.

[Arcturus Descending]

Ecmandu,

To me, immortality is a given

.

Why do you say this? What do you base this on except for the fact that many people are unable to face the thought that at some point we may just not "be" in any shape or form anymore.

It’s been said that the whole point of philosophy is to teach us how to die... I disagree. The whole point is to teach us how to live forever.

I think that the whole point of philosophy is to teach us how to "dig". Then, when we have come upon those artifacts, we think and we go in search of answers to our questions and then we accumulate more questions ad continuum.

Perhaps that is such a wonderful journey in itself because we are far too busy digging and thinking to worry about dying and what happens afterwards because all that IS is the present moment being lived to the fullest.

I can agree with your last statement, Ecmandu, if you delete the word "forever". We have no control of that whatsoever.

[Ecmandu]

Arcturus,

I’ve explained this on the boards over 10 times now:

Continuity of consciousness is WHAT WE ARE!

If we (continuity of consciousness) die at any point in the future, it’s impossible for the us now to exist, as the us now is a subset of the larger continuity of consciousness.

I offer this argument so that people can understand this aside from intense direct experience (which many people don’t have).

I’m simply preaching the choir for anyone with direct experience, which, for people who haven’t had it, is like trying to explain the color green to a person blind since birth!

So I offer this argument for people who don’t have direct experience.

I’ve heard people all over the spectrum on this in my travels... some people think the only thing that makes life precious is mortality, others think the only thing that makes life precious is immortality.

I understand that it is the latter. If a persons life isn’t precious, they’ll cease to exist.

[Arcturus Descending]

Ecmandu

I’ve heard people all over the spectrum on this in my travels... some people think the only thing that makes life precious is mortality

,

I am, for the most part, one of the above. We really cannot know, either way, if we are immortal or not, so why not choose to learn from time and death to live our lives as fully as we can, without causing harm to others.

others think the only thing that makes life precious is immortality.

What a wasteful way to look at life. The way that I look at it, it is the not knowing which makes life precious.
I suppose though that this might also depend on the individual. Some of those might continually put off living the best life which they could, postponing their individual human evolution, living like hedonists...

Is it possible that those who think in that way actually fear death, become immobilized when they think of it. Those who want to become immortal in their own eyes and in the eyes of others, actually fear death and not being remembered. They are also narcissists.

I understand that it is the latter. If a persons life isn’t precious, they’ll cease to exist

They may not cease to exist but life may be kind of unbearable to them and they may make the lives of others unbearable.

Personally, I always liked Keats words: "I will clamber through the clouds and exist!

[d0rkyd00d]

I'm not sure if this shouldn't go in the Religion forum, but I think it belongs here. Maybe in the half-baked post forum. Help me out here, Humean.

I am an atheist. Very atheist. You can't really get more atheist than me. Completely atheist. What puzzles me is why, absent a purely political agenda, any atheist cares to argue for atheism. I have argued a bit when asked, but only about my own atheism. Not "atheism" in general. You know, stuff like, "There is no god because...". That's just foolish.

Now, it's entirely appropriate to argue over inconsistencies within the theologies of, say, Abrahamic religions. They are rife. But arguing about the existence of the Christian god - all you can really do is argue that its followers must have some of their details wrong.

Good atheist philosophy has as an assumption that there is not god. If you're still arguing about it, you're not an atheist philosopher.

So, what are you?

In my younger years, I argued for atheism. When the idea was new and exciting, after escaping a childhood of Kingdom Halls and knocking door-to-door in a cult. I think I argued for it then as a way of testing it, proving it to myself, seeing what holes could be poked in it. In a way, it is what made me fall in love with Philosophy.

After I got over it, there wasn't much meat on that bone left for sucklin'. It really is not a robust position, for me it was more of an on/off switch with profound implications that could only be understood in time.

[Dan~]

I'm not sure if this shouldn't go in the Religion forum, but I think it belongs here. Maybe in the half-baked post forum. Help me out here, Humean.

I am an atheist. Very atheist. You can't really get more atheist than me. Completely atheist. What puzzles me is why, absent a purely political agenda, any atheist cares to argue for atheism. I have argued a bit when asked, but only about my own atheism. Not "atheism" in general. You know, stuff like, "There is no god because...". That's just foolish.

Now, it's entirely appropriate to argue over inconsistencies within the theologies of, say, Abrahamic religions. They are rife. But arguing about the existence of the Christian god - all you can really do is argue that its followers must have some of their details wrong.

Good atheist philosophy has as an assumption that there is not god. If you're still arguing about it, you're not an atheist philosopher.

So, what are you?

In my younger years, I argued for atheism. When the idea was new and exciting, after escaping a childhood of Kingdom Halls and knocking door-to-door in a cult. I think I argued for it then as a way of testing it, proving it to myself, seeing what holes could be poked in it. In a way, it is what made me fall in love with Philosophy.

After I got over it, there wasn't much meat on that bone left for sucklin'. It really is not a robust position, for me it was more of an on/off switch with profound implications that could only be understood in time.

Kingdom Halls?
You were jehovah's witness?
I also was.
At the time, i felt like i had all the answers.
Later I realized I didn't.
But for a few unusual and blissful years, i felt i had all the answers.

[d0rkyd00d]

Kingdom Halls?
You were jehovah's witness?
I also was.
At the time, i felt like i had all the answers.
Later I realized I didn't.
But for a few unusual and blissful years, i felt i had all the answers.

Yes, I was. Perhaps the religion isn't as useless as I thought, it apparently directs some people to an interest in philosophy. Not sure I would have been so interested in knowing "The TRUTH" if it had not been drilled into my brain.

[Dan~]

Perhaps the religion isn't as useless as I thought,

If you had to choose between utility/useful affect, or truth and a neutral stance, which would you prefer?

Atheism is supposed to be neutrality about things we can't know or don't have enough evidence of.
But the nature of truth is usually neutral as well.
It's there, but it has no opinion or should/aught.
Should/aught is something that arises from life itself.

[d0rkyd00d]

Perhaps the religion isn't as useless as I thought,

If you had to choose between utility/useful affect, or truth and a neutral stance, which would you prefer?

I value truth over utility, if that's what you're asking?

Atheism is supposed to be neutrality about things we can't know or don't have enough evidence of.
But the nature of truth is usually neutral as well.
It's there, but it has no opinion or should/aught.
Should/aught is something that arises from life itself.

Agreed.

[omar]

Hello Faust

I'm not sure if this shouldn't go in the Religion forum, but I think it belongs here. Maybe in the half-baked post forum. Help me out here, Humean.

I am an atheist. Very atheist. You can't really get more atheist than me. Completely atheist. What puzzles me is why, absent a purely political agenda, any atheist cares to argue for atheism. I have argued a bit when asked, but only about my own atheism. Not "atheism" in general. You know, stuff like, "There is no god because...". That's just foolish.

Now, it's entirely appropriate to argue over inconsistencies within the theologies of, say, Abrahamic religions. They are rife. But arguing about the existence of the Christian god - all you can really do is argue that its followers must have some of their details wrong.

Good atheist philosophy has as an assumption that there is not god. If you're still arguing about it, you're not an atheist philosopher.

So, what are you?

I think that some argue for atheism because they are not too sure about their own decision to be an atheist. They're working things out loud in a way. But in America there is a political/religious aspect that has been lost in most of Europe, so, defending atheism and attacking theism is no mere mental masturbation.
Of course, as far as defending atheism in this forum, I agree.
I'm a pretty liberal guy. You want to believe in metaphysical X, Y or Z, you should be free to do so, provide you harm no one else. A beneficial argument could only be had if we at least agreed on some basic assumptions, and where these are wholly lacking, then arguing is just a waste of time. Just smile and let them be on their way.

[omar]

Perhaps the religion isn't as useless as I thought,

If you had to choose between utility/useful affect, or truth and a neutral stance, which would you prefer?

Atheism is supposed to be neutrality about things we can't know or don't have enough evidence of.
But the nature of truth is usually neutral as well.
It's there, but it has no opinion or should/aught.
Should/aught is something that arises from life itself.

Hmmm
Truth is not something we "discover" indifferently, guided by what is ONLY before us. We cannot derive what always is from what we have always observed and yet we do, science does because of the explanatory power we gain in the process. No necessity that the speed of light is a universal constant (held as true/is, rather than an ought) but is is held as such due to the utility one gains in trying to organize other observations.