I saw where murdered TV newswoman Anne Pressly was a "good christian woman." She was brutally raped and had every bone in her face broken, good thing she was a christian; otherwise, Jesus would have allowed her to die a really horrific death.

If I decided one day to kidnap a little girl, rape her... then tie her up and torture her.... kill her by burning her in a fire... take her burnt up corpse and wrap it in a bag... and then throw her in the river.........

On what basis do you say that what I did was wrong?

Matter cannot perceive because it is purely mechanical (assumption).   Lifeforms can do more than just exist, lifeforms can perceive as they think and react.  You can say that the behavior of life form corresponds directly to the transfer of energies in the mind but where exactly (which molecule) corresponds to the time when the observer observes?

Even if you could find the energy transfer that matches up to the nanosecond that you perceive, what good would that do?  You would only have found a single atomic particle that corresponds to you perceiving.

As a thought experiment, lets take a human mind, and trim it down as much as possible. 

This perceiving mind:

1.  Cannot reproduce (reproduction is unnecessary for consciousness)

2.  Cannot think logically (problem solving abilities is not necessary for consciousness).

3.  Cannot react to any action (The action-reaction model is not necessary for consciousness).

This perceiving entity has been trimmed down from a capable complex box of nodes and wires (a sentient being) to a single perceiving node, one atom or molecule without a connecting wire.  It does nothing but the thing responsible for humans observing their own machinery.

I hear a lot of atheists claim that religion is "dangerous" or some nonsense like that.

Whenever I ask atheists about why they're "sooo concerned" about other people's belief in god or why they bother arguing with theists, I oftentimes get a responce along the lines of how "dangerous" religions are supposed to be.

Are there any atheists on here that believe this way? That religion is somehow prone to executing violence or discrimination?

In my opinion, it's almost entirely human nature. If someone wants to commit mass genocide, he's going to do it with or without religion, religion just MAYBE at best, gives him a better veil to hide in.

But it's funny how everyone conveniently skates around the fact that religions also do alot of good. Churches hold countless functions to benefit the poor, and you can't tell me that the values taught by most religions have not been used to help others.

So besides the fact that theists may believe in an entity that you might think is "illogical" or disagrees with you bigoted points of view, why do you atheists in general hate religion? Human nature spawns ignorance, bigotry, and violence, NOT religion.

Thoughts?
 

Back when ID was popular, Kansas was being besieged and the Right Wing was in power, we seemed to have no end of the arrogant bastards.

Now, it's the just odd troll that posts and runs.

Is Xinanity on the decline, or have they decided they can't win and so they run to the safe houses?

Also, where are the new Xian apologists? WL Craig is old-hat now and has been rebutted ad nauseum and there are only a few hangers-on of the Y.E. Creationist school.

It seems the strongest Xian apologists are the more Liberal Xians - you know, the ones that basically gut Xinanity of the important stuff and fill it in with New Age woo woo.

Any thoughts?

Take a look at the universe. It's a series of cause & effect reactions. However, there can't be an infinite series of causers. That is impossible. There HAS to be a prime mover, and that mover is god or anything analogous to such. Saying that there are no beginnings is ridiculous IMO, all one has to to do is follow them back.

Some of you might say " but why assume that there must be a beginning when we have yet to encounter it?"

Because it's illogical - just because we haven't encountered it doesn't make it not so. You simply have to decide whether you want to rely on logic, or data.

Hence, because of the necessity of a prime mover, there must be a god. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to believe in god than to not to?

Suffice it to say that I believe there must some kind of first principle, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, what have you, whether it be the universe or something else.

Thoughts?

All of Christianity can be classified into these groups:

1) that which derived from paganism

2) that which was derived from paganism through Judaism

3) that which derived from Judaism that is original to Judaism

4) that which derived from unknown non-Christian sources

5) that which is original to Christianity.

Based on what I know about Christianity, I believe that this should be the correct order of presumption.

Almost everything about Christianity is in group 1 or 2.

The rest of Christianity is in group 4 or 5, but we can never know which one, and should presume that the source is non-Christian because there is so much non-Christian influence that we are not aware of.

We should only believe that something is original to Christianity when we have some good reason to think that it really is original to Christianity.

--------------------------------

Almost all Christian Concepts are almost certainly pagan:

The Christian concept of god was derived from Greek pagan philosophers.

The Christian concept of Satan was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of souls was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of heaven was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of hell was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of sin was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of original sin was derived from paganism.

The Christian concept of individual redemption was derived from paganism.

Alright, this is an attempt to smack around some of the lame arguments used by atheists on this board.

Now to start off, we all know that theists stand for the belief in god and whatnot. On the other hand I am interested to know what atheists stand for. What do atheists believe in?

After numerous insight, I've come to the conclusion that many theists clearly have no idea what they stand for. On one hand some say they don't stand for anything because that puts limits on the reasons for their existence (meaning there ought not to be an "end goal" or any one reason to live life, but rather that their progress should be hypothetically "Eternal&quot while for others, its simply that they stand for freedom, material wealth, and knowledge.

Anyways, what I really want to know from you atheists is why you think you exist. I'm going to give you an explanation of the importance of this question and I hope it wont be too complicated for you and others to understand:

1) Thesists claim that the reason everything exists is because of God.
2) You deny them this explanation because you believe the belief in God to be illogical.
3) And yet, believing that there is no explanation for our existence is also illogical - because it defies the principle of sufficient reason.
4) Therefore, you must have an explanation for the cause of our existence.

...It's fun to sometimes pretend there aren't any, but as the Republicans continue to tout her as being their powerhouse contender for 2012 (after they've spoonfed her some basic geography, at least), I'm interested in hearing the other side of the story for a brief little while:

Who has a Palin button that they were proudly wearing early this November? And why - oh, why - do you like this lady so much?

Delete this if its spamming. Just thought more of you might want to answer it.

Its so popular to be a schizophrenic atheist. You get to be a materialist who believes he’s just a bunch of purposeless subatomic particles, just like any old pile of shit, and you also get to tell yourself and everyone else that you and your opinions are a lot more important than any pile of shit.

And you get away with it forever here cause none of your schizophrenic peers calls you on it. read your posts and see it yourself. You just jump right in assuming that the human race, its survival, and its opinions of itself are more important than a pile of shit. Because a human being is more complex and ordered than a pile of shit? Check it out, materialists, that’s an aesthetic judgment not a logical argument. And that judgment itself is just a pattern of purposeless particles.

So, your posts are just patterns of purposeless subatomic particles that believe they’re more important than the subatomic particles in a pile of shit.

take another bite at the apple. Fill in the blank below with a chain of rigorous deductive logic from just materialistic principles.

RRS authors and their opinions are just a pattern of purposeless subatomic particles. A pile of shit is just a pattern of purposeless subatomic particles…_________________...Therefore RRS authors and their opinions are more important than a pile of shit.