BirdofPrey Posted:

lol

expound plz

ok…

lah de dah! lets subscribe to a philosophy that renders life accidental and meaningless, at the same time absolving us of personal responsibility!

atheism doesn’t do any of those things by itself.

* so what if life IS accidental? anthropic principle says that there’ll be LIFE wherever there’s LIFE – ****ing obvious – even if it’s an accident. Considering how much NOTHING there is up in space – vastly more of it than there is stuff – I’d say that NOTHING is considerably more normal than you are.

* your life’s meaningless without god, is it? i’m very sorry to hear it.

* consider a person, alone, in a vast sea of nothing. you HAVE no personale responsibilities in that context – responsibilities are a macroscopic side effect of having a society to exist in. Your responsibilities are clear and obvious. If you shirk them, you will be taken down by the man, because the man = everyone else, and everyone else > you. That’s the whole point of society as a construct. Embrace your inner cog, for you are what makes the machine tick, and the machine doesn’t care whether or not you believe in that.

oh and while we’re at it lets typify all religious people as cloistered fundies who shun science!

You’re not really helping with this point, but this is also quite clearly the sort of thing that ignorant theists say to sarcastically attack atheists. Skip it.

Well bop, it’s not atheism that says you’re absolved of all moral responsibility, it’s not believing in free will that does.

No it ****ing well does not. If you believe in a lack of free-will (which, as a technicality, I do – it’s incompatible with the theory of cause and effect), that’s neither here nor there; but if you believe that that means you don’t have to think for yourself, then you’re a ****ing cretin and you deserve whatever sticky end you earn for yourself, and also you don’t understand what ‘free-will’ means.

Free-will in the context of causality is pretty narrowly defined. It’s the concept that were the entire universe to re-run from the beginning, presenting every person with exactly the same stimulus at every point in their lives, that some how you would have the ability to jump out of your own brain and change your mind on something that you already decided. Bull ****. What a stupid idea.

Most atheists pretend they still have morals despite their lack of religion, but this is somewhat of a paradox as religion is the source of all morals.

That’s the most very special thing I’ve ever heard. Religious morals are directly descended from evolved rules of societal living, so your reasoning is backwards. Morals quite clearly existed before religion did, because all religions and non-religions have the same morals in common.

Atheism is one of the devil’s many tricks to try to get you to turn from from God.

Don’t appeal to religion when answering your own questions on whether or not religion exists, it makes you sound like a retard.

Most atheists were raised by atheists parents without any moral fiber.

Yawn.

I’d say a good percent of these parents are gay ‘partners’ who have chosen to adopt. This is one of my many reasons for not wanting to allow gay adoption.

Right. Atheism is caused by gays. Go **** a lemon.

Intelligent Design is yet another tool of the devil as ID recognizes that evolution does occur but says it’s guided by God. The problem with this is that this conflicts with the bible account of things and is inherently blasphemous.

Do I even need to rebum this?

atheists who still adhere to a moral standard are basically just secular humanists

Yes… so?

and don’t even get me started on how bankrupt that philosophy is.

Are you familiar with the straw-man fallacy? You just did that, right there. Yes you did! You just said that atheists are “more or less” secular humanists (a term I’m vaguely familiar with, but certainly not a “doctrine” i’ve “subscribed to”Log in to see images!, then called that a philosophy that’s bankrupt. Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. What the hell has that got to do with me? Don’t TRANSFER YOUR ATTACK on atheists to someone else who’s in a weaker position, claiming that that someone else is all atheists. That’s quite simply bad form my dear fellow. I think in the schoolyard they call that “picking on someone who’s smaller than you”.

Do you believe evolution happened?

I wrote a ****ing genetic algorithm 6 months ago, it was a piece of ****.

not morally bankrupt, morally they’re fine by me, but it certainly doesn’t work very well as a full-fledged philosophy.

Did you just switcheroo on the old opinion there? yes you diiiiid you naughty boy! slap on the wrist.

Actually, I’m more of an ‘ignostic’.

Thread over, nana wins!

yeah by ‘self-worship’ i didn’t mean yourself, i meant mankind in general.

Religion is only valid in the context of society, so that sounds like exactly the RIGHT way to worship…

And at our best, mankind is really really great, for sure, with astonishing creativity and accomplishments, but it doesn’t take very much for us to turn to complete **** as history has shown again and again.

Again, this is only relevant in the context of society. If god exists it certainly wouldn’t give a **** about microbes as tiny as us! If we wipe ourselves out, the order of the universe continues uninterrupted. Which is both awesome, tragic and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT on the grand scale of the universe. That’s why worshipping mankind is probably a much better idea in the long run if you value being a part of this species. (And if you don’t: go go gadget emoblade!)

If there was no religion there would certainly be morals, but they would be more of a reflection of current social norms and very subject to change,

Ignoring the part of the sentence that I already rebumed, RELIGIOUS morals have ALWAYS just been a reflection of current social norms ANYWAY and ARE subject to change (the “new 10 commandments” anyone?)

Ok, excuse the trollish overtones to my reply, however I’m totally and utterly right and I don’t care what you say in reply.