capliberty said:

Did the design design itself or was there a designer of the design, acutual I don't

lean one way or the other, I'm bipartial to all, why, because one must

remove emotion from reason, alot peoples beliefs aren't based on

cultural seperation and unbiased observation, for me assume one way or the other has no point because I truly don't care,

why do people care and debate views, find one that works for you, dogma to me is arbitrary as a tool for the preceiver to preceive..

---

Cracka_X said:

What brought you to Atheism?

---

as much as others will try to apply logic to this and say this is not a fair question, this question does hit a spot in human nature.

People, as much as they think they are logical don't chose beliefs that are logical, but those that fit them better

Take a look at what atheism offers that even you might like, and that's your answer

I'm not an atheist, but I think the pluses of atheism are obvious:

-first of all, the number one reason is sexual freedom.
There is nothing above mans urge to screw someone or something, and you can get a person to do anything and believe in anything if you appeal to his sexual urges.
-There are no standards to which you have to behave and think other than those you accept yourself or are enforced to by by guns.
-it does not require any kind of understanding or thinking: you are an animal, there is no god, period, no deeper philosophy in it.
-human life is a coincidence, therefore people hold no responsibility to do or be anything, they can just sit around all day and do nothing, or eat till they get 200kg, it doesn't matter, because the universe does not care wheather they are here or not.

Atheism is a much more pleasant view on life...well, until someone dies.. 

MushmanTheManic said:

Lots of unanwsered questions.

---

Cracka_X said:

What brought you to Atheism?

---

Quote:

I'm not an atheist, but I think the pluses of atheism are obvious:

-first of all, the number one reason is sexual freedom.
There is nothing above mans urge to screw someone or something, and you can get a person to do anything and believe in anything if you appeal to his sexual urges.

-There are no standards to which you have to behave and think other than those you accept yourself or are enforced to by by guns.

-it does not require any kind of understanding or thinking: you are an animal, there is no god, period, no deeper philosophy in it.

-human life is a coincidence, therefore people hold no responsibility to do or be anything, they can just sit around all day and do nothing, or eat till they get 200kg, it doesn't matter, because the universe does not care wheather they are here or not.

---

One can have standards without believing in a supernatural deity.  This argument against atheism/agnosticism is tired and old.  Ethical standards, personal responsibility, compassion, love, ambition, philosophy, meaningfulness, philanthropy, self-discipline, are all independent of the fear and worship of G-O-D.

All the behaviors you attribute to atheism are regularly practiced by those who call themselves believers.  How is their professed belief in God preventing their animal nature from running wild?  Or is the argument here that true believers never misbehave, due to their heartfelt faith in an all-loving, vengeful father figure?

I am more agnostic than atheist, as I believe it is impossible to either prove OR disprove the existence of supernatural beings.

I have not seen nor experienced any evidence of the existence of the Christian God, but leave open the possibility that a conscious energy empowers and enlivens the Universe.

It seems highly unlikely to me that this energy is concerned with our choice of sexual partners, overconsumption of food, or candidate for President. 

Huehuecoyotl said:

You mean George Bush wasn't chosen by God?

---

Quote:

Now, when we get to that point in Buddhism, Buddhists do a funny thing, which is going to occupy our attention for a good deal of this seminar. They don't fall down and worship. They don't really have any name for what it is that is, really and basically. The idea of anatman, of non-self, is applied in Buddhism not only to the individual ego, but also to the notion that there is a self of the universe, a kind of impersonal or personal god, and so it is generally supposed that Buddhism is generally atheistic. It's true, depending on what you mean by atheism. Common or garden atheism is a form of belief, namely that I believe there is no god--and Hans Enkel[?] is its prophet. (I'm speaking of a famous atheist). The atheist positively denies the existence of any god. All right. Now, there is such an atheist, if you put dash between the 'a' and 'theist,' or speak about something called 'atheos'--'theos' in Greek means 'god'--but what is a non-god? A non-god is an inconceivable something or other.

---

Silversoul said:

Huehuecoyotl said:

You mean George Bush wasn't chosen by God?

---

He had to be. He sure wasn't chosen by the people.

---