Why I Am An Atheist

[Immanuel Can]

Not so, for this to be true you have to assume an interfering 'God'. You also have to assume that the purpose of the Universe is us?

No. There is no "interfering" implicated. And of course, as a Theist or Deist, one would never assume the purpose of the universe was simply "us."

Not so, you'd have to assume people are indifferent and they are obviously not with respect to each other.

No, actually, you wouldn't. The idea that the attitude of other people could "give" me some kind of rights is absurd, since it must surely be manifest to everyone that their assessment could simply be wrong. WWII Nazis decided Jews had no special dignity; we don't say they had to be right about that merely because their view was more popular than the opposite, do we? Moreover, what is there beyond other people to reassure me that I have some kind of dignity if they decide I do not?

[Hobbes' Choice]

bastard

I fear I have done you a disservice: in your anger with me you have said something for which you must give account one day. I would not, for all the world, wish that upon you.

I will provoke you no further. I do not wish to add to that.

I'm really not angry and genuinely have no wish to spend eternity with people who think as you do, .

That is a good point, and reason enough to reject god and all his works, whether he exists or not.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm really not angry and genuinely have no wish to spend eternity with people who think as you do, so do your worst. But if you have any faith in any version of the ontological argument, you might do me a great service in proving that it is sound.

I imagine that if someone came up to you and said, "I think your child, or spouse, or parent, or other loved one is a horrible person, and I want to talk with you so I can have a chance to vent my spleen about that," you'd likely decline the pleasure. So is it really so hard for you to grasp that I would not want to speak to someone determined to misrepresent and rail against the One who gives meaning to life itself?

I do not agree with anything about your characterization of God, and I find the manner of your questions abusive. But believe it or not, that does not mean I dislike you so much I want to see you judged for it. In your interest -- not because of what you believe, but because of what I believe -- I will not provide you the chance to heap up judgment to yourself.

You have spoken as you feel, apparently. For your own good, we are done.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm really not angry and genuinely have no wish to spend eternity with people who think as you do, .

That is a good point, and reason enough to reject god and all his works, whether he exists or not.

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get exactly what you have asked.

[Immanuel Can]

bastard

And now, you and I are done. For precisely the same reasons as uwot.

[yiostheoy]

The only reason some people (3%) are atheist is because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and they have never had a very hard life.

They have never crouched in a foxhole and clung to a gun.

They have never needed anything at all besides their trust baby money.

They have grown up sheltered.

And they have become fairly useless to society.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm really not angry and genuinely have no wish to spend eternity with people who think as you do, so do your worst. But if you have any faith in any version of the ontological argument, you might do me a great service in proving that it is sound.

I imagine that if someone came up to you and said, "I think your child, or spouse, or parent, or other loved one is a horrible person, and I want to talk with you so I can have a chance to vent my spleen about that," you'd likely decline the pleasure. So is it really so hard for you to grasp that I would not want to speak to someone determined to misrepresent and rail against the One who gives meaning to life itself?

I do not agree with anything about your characterization of God,.

Since your 'loved one' is a idealational manifestation of an ineffable entity and exists only in your mind, you have no warrant to make this hopeless analogy.

[Lacewing]

If He is the First Cause of all things...

That's not a state of knowing anything.

Of course, if you don't believe He exists, you are thrown back on guessing that our personalities are just another supremely improbable but hugely fortuitous way the atoms just happened to line up in a totally random universe.

I'm not thrown back to that at all. I simply don't think "order" and "impulse" require a separate entity.

Pick your version of the story.

But there's more than two. Theists like to narrow everything down to "pick good or bad", "pick light or dark", pick "right or wrong" -- and all of these are based on limited and shifting human perception and understanding and JUDGMENT. They are meaningless when applied beyond our most immediate functioning.

no claim to respect, interest or dignity

This is all made up. You have a structure where one thing is built on top of another, and hinges on another. Perhaps this is why "looser, flowing, changing arrangements" make no sense to you. But there are many legitimate ways to perceive, because there are many facets to the crystal "of all things". How could that not be so? How could the truth be limited to a simplistic, linear, non-evolving, hierarchical structure based on OUR limited forms and values at any given point in time (even though those points have varied greatly)? That seems outrageously naïve and self-indulgent, doesn't it?

[Lacewing]

The only reason some people (3%) are atheist is because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and they have never had a very hard life.

They have never crouched in a foxhole and clung to a gun.

They have never needed anything at all besides their trust baby money.

They have grown up sheltered.

And they have become fairly useless to society.

What has led you to write something so idiotic?

[Hobbes' Choice]

If He is the First Cause of all things...

That's not a state of knowing anything.
This is a person in IC's Head

Of course, if you don't believe He exists, you are thrown back on guessing that our personalities are just another supremely improbable but hugely fortuitous way the atoms just happened to line up in a totally random universe.

I'm not thrown back to that at all. I simply don't think "order" and "impulse" require a separate entity.

This is a person in IC's Head

Pick your version of the story.

But there's more than two. Theists like to narrow everything down to "pick good or bad", "pick light or dark", pick "right or wrong" -- and all of these are based on limited and shifting human perception and understanding and JUDGMENT. They are meaningless when applied beyond our most immediate functioning.

no claim to respect, interest or dignity

This is all made up. You have a structure where one thing is built on top of another, and hinges on another. Perhaps this is why "looser, flowing, changing arrangements" make no sense to you. But there are many legitimate ways to perceive, because there are many facets to the crystal "of all things". How could that not be so? How could the truth be limited to a simplistic, linear, non-evolving, hierarchical structure based on OUR limited forms and values at any given point in time (even though those points have varied greatly)? That seems outrageously naïve and self-indulgent, doesn't it?

[Skip]

Misplaced duplicate

[Skip]

The only reason some people (3%) are atheist is because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and they have never had a very hard life.

They have never crouched in a foxhole and clung to a gun.

They have never needed anything at all besides their trust baby money.

They have grown up sheltered.

And they have become fairly useless to society.

What has led you to write something so idiotic?

He's not responsible. It's hard piss-ant-wiring.

*sigh* now i'll erase the other one.

[Hobbes' Choice]

He's not responsible: it's just piss-ant-wiring.

Sadly true; but then if there are two of them in there... who is "he"?

[Skip]

I'd have to suppose, the creator.

[Immanuel Can]

How could the truth be limited to a simplistic, linear, non-evolving, hierarchical structure based on OUR limited forms and values at any given point in time (even though those points have varied greatly)? That seems outrageously naïve and self-indulgent, doesn't it?

Rather, what you're describing as the alternative seems not to refer to what ordinary folks mean by "truth" at all. And if it includes contradictions in a vain attempt to be universally inclusive (which I suspect is its only charm) then it bears no resemblance to basic logic either; for it immediately falls afoul of the law of non-contradiction or one of the related principles essential to any exercise of logic at all.

I generally find that the truth has all the simplicity of...well, truth, actually. That, and the profundity of truth as well. But contradiction...of that, it has none.

It's kind of linear that way...