Alright.. quick point.. let's see where it goes.  I will, for the purpose of this thread, make some strong assertions regarding concepts I may not be completely familiar with-- that is, however, what I'm trying to get at.  One satisfactory response is all I need... so, here we go.

 Here is the premise on which the discussion lies:

All things are material and all material things follow certain universal laws.

Discussion:

The application of this premise would be best represented by this analogy:

If I was in space and threw a quarter into the midst of a billion different quarters, what would happen?  I would guess that one quarter would hit another, energy would be dispersed, those two quarters would hit other quarters, etc, until energy is dispersed to the point that it seems no movement is occuring at all.

The following is an incomplete extract from Sisyphus, an Ancient Greek satirical play. Written by either Critias (460-403 BC) or Euripides (480-406 BC).

It is one of the earliest (if not the) examples of an atheist world view. Gods are claimed to be the creations of deceitful men and used to frighten people into being docile and law-abiding.

  “A time there was when anarchy did rule
The lives of men, which then were like the beasts’,
Enslaved to force. Nor was there then reward
For good men, nor for wicked punishment.
Next, as I deem, did men establish laws
For punishment, that Justice might be lord
Of all mankind, and Insolence enchained.
And whosoe’er did sin was penalized.
Next, as the laws did hold men back from deeds
Of open violence, but still such deeds
Were done in secret, -- then, as I maintain,
Some shrewd man first, a man in counsel wise,
Discovered unto men the fear of Gods,
Thereby to frighten sinners should they sin
E’en secretly in deed, or word, or thought.
Hence was it that he brought in Deity,
Telling how God enjoys an endless life,
Hears with his mind and sees, and taketh thought
And heeds things, and his nature is divine,
So that he hearkens to men’s every word
And has the power to see men’s every act.
E’en if you plan in silence some ill deed,
The Gods will surely mark it. For in them
Wisdom resides. So, speaking words like these,
Most cunning doctrine did he introduce,
The truth concealing under speech untrue.
The place he spoke of as the God’s abode
Was that whereby he could affright men most, --
The place from which, he knew, both terrors came
And easements unto men of toilsome life --
To wit the vault above, wherein do dwell
The lightnings, he beheld, and awesome claps
Of thunder, and the starry face of heaven,
Fair-spangled by that cunning craftsman Time, --
Whence, too, the meteor’s glowing mass doth speed
And liquid rain descends upon the earth.
Such were the fears wherewith he hedged men round,
And so to God he gave a fitting home,
By this his speech, and in a fitting place,
And thus extinguished lawlessness by laws.”. . .

This is the reality that the "beneficial" theory of religion causes.

One of the more unnerving reports out of the president's seminar with the pundits came from Brooks, who quoted Bush as saying: "It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist." 

HENCE WE HAVE PERPETUAL WAR...because obviously it's what king bush god wants.

Here is the rest....


Bush's Cognitive Dissonance
__

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A19

One hopes the leader of the free world hasn't really, truly lost touch with objective reality. But one does have to wonder.

Last week, George W. Bush invited nine conservative pundits to the White House for what amounted to a pep talk, with the president providing the pep. Somehow I was left off the list -- must have been an oversight. But some columnists who attended have been writing about the meeting or describing it to colleagues, and their accounts are downright scary.

National Review's Kate O'Beirne, who joined the presidential chat in the Roosevelt Room, told me that the most striking thing was the president's incongruously sunny demeanor. Bush's approval ratings are well below freezing, the nation is sooooo finished with his foolish and tragic war, many of his remaining allies in Congress have given notice that come September they plan to leave the Decider alone in his private Alamo -- and the president remains optimistic and upbeat.

Bush was "not at all weary or anguished" and in fact was "very energized," wrote Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report. He was "as confident and upbeat as ever," observed Rich Lowry of National Review. "Far from being beleaguered, Bush was assertive and good-humored," according to David Brooks of the New York Times.

Excuse me? I guess he must be in an even better mood since the feckless Iraqi government announced its decision to take the whole month of August off while U.S. troops continue fighting and dying in Baghdad's 130-degree summer heat.

It's almost as if Bush were trying to apply the principles of cognitive therapy, the system psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck developed in the 1960s. Beck found that getting patients to banish negative thoughts and develop patterns of positive thinking was helpful in pulling them out of depression. However, Beck was trying to get the patients to see themselves and the world realistically, whereas Bush has left realism far behind.

"He says the most useful argument to make in support of his policy is to show what failure would mean," Barone wrote of the president and Iraq. "It would mean an ascendant radicalism, among both Shia and Sunni Muslims, and it would embolden sponsors of terrorism such as Iran. Al-Qaeda would be emboldened and would be able to recruit forces."

Excuse me again? This is what Bush believes would happen? Hasn't he noticed that these catastrophes have already befallen us? And that they are the direct consequence of his decision to invade and occupy Iraq?

At a news conference last week, someone tried to point this out. Bush replied with such a bizarre version of history that I hope he was being cynical and doesn't really believe what he said: "Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course. . . . It was his decision to make."

Let's see, we have learned that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. That means Bush is claiming that Saddam Hussein "chose" the invasion -- and, ultimately, his own death -- by not showing us what he didn't have.

"Bush gives the impression that he is more steadfast on the war than many in his own administration and that, if need be, he'll be the last hawk standing," wrote Lowry. The president says the results of his recent troop escalation will be evaluated by Gen. David Petraeus, wrote Barone, and not by "the polls."

Translation: Everybody's out of step but me.

One of the more unnerving reports out of the president's seminar with the pundits came from Brooks, who quoted Bush as saying: "It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist."

It's bad enough that Osama bin Laden is still out there plotting bloody acts of terrorism, convinced that God wants him to slay the infidels. Now we know that the president of the United States believes God has chosen him to bring freedom to the world, that he refuses to acknowledge setbacks in his crusade and that he flat-out doesn't care what "the polls" -- meaning the American people -- might think. I'm having trouble seeing the bright side. I think I need cognitive therapy.

[email protected]

Can any atheist give me an example of an atheist musician or group. Music is transcendental and not exactly secular.

I love The Who and Pete; I find him talented and "spiritual", even though he questions his spirituality.

Does atheistic music exist?

I would post this elsewhere, but still do not feel comfortable posting under "free thought".

I have over 200 points, what does this prove? Better yet, what does this earn me? A freedom from brussul sprouts and indulgence into cotton candy or something else?

What do points prove?

I don't have issues with weak atheism, but I do with strong atheism. For the purpose of this thread I am going to take a "agnostic/deistic" perspective on the creation of the universe. (I am well aware that my "deistic" conclusions can be substituted for the 'god of the gaps' argument). As a deist, I am not refering to an anthropomorphical biblical god, but a "transcendental entity/force " responsible for the creation of the cosmos.

My arguement is that strong atheism requires faith; a suspension of logic, reason, and empirics. How can a strong atheist boldy make the claim that there is not a "transcendental entity/force" responsible for the creation of the cosmos. As an agnostic, not all the evidence is in to disprove the existence of a transcendental entity.

"Freethinkers Anonymous" Forum:

"NO THEISTS ALLOWED IN THIS FORUM. THEIST POSTS WILL BE DESTROYED."

Are you guys for real??

Hi all,

I've been involved in an ongoing discussion thread on Amazon, and would like to invite you to join in, as I'm a little burnt out in addressing the same issues many times.

The latest post is here and if you'd pop in and give some clear arguments, I'd appreciate it.

I just posted this to The Other RRS, over here: http://www.righteousresponders.com/index.php/topic,1350.15.htmlI'm crossposting it here in case they scream and pee their pants.   Quote from: Hamandcheese on July 18, 2007, 04:17:20 PM "These words, and hell fire, are incontestably bad for our children and bad for our world. "

Atheism is just as much faith based as some theism.

I am pissed that RRS labeled me as a theist and excluded me from free thought.

I am a deist-agnostic and can subscribe to a "transcedental entity". I love how you can excommunicate me from free thought as long as you label me as a theist.

I have little disturbance against "weak" atheism.

"Strong" atheism requires just as much faith as theism.

By the way, who labeled me as a theist? At most I am a deist. What gives you the right to label me and restrict me from free thought?