Topic: Atheism BS - page 4. (Read 5929 times)

Atheism existed long before Karl Marx

Except that Atheism is not a religion, hence the name.

It is the absence of theism. Theists are the ones proposing the existence of something for which they have no evidence, that's called playing pretend *real* hard.

If you simply remember that atheism is a religion, and Karl Marx's version is simply a branch of the religion of atheism, everything fits into place like it should.

You sound angry, yet your reply is absent reason or objective evidence, merely obfuscation of the original claim by trying to redefine it by another name and talking about links which clearly are not able to withstand critical analysis otherwise they would be global news.

Clearly your claim towards the 'personality' existing after death references dualism, whatever you want to label the same thing that is also known as the human 'soul'

There's no reason to believe you existed before this life and there is no reason to believe you will exist after it, either. If you existed before this life, but have no memory of it, then the 'you' that has grown from birth and identified yourself with all that you have experienced, would not be the 'you' that is often claimed preceded this life, rendering assertion towards sentience prior to this existence absurd as you might as well be talking about someone else who existed prior to this life.

Pretty sure there is evidence that the personality survives physical death, which would indicate that identity ('you') is much broader in scope than generally believed.

So what? We are talking about the personality, not the body. I linked to 40 cases; how many of them were you familiar with before posting that garbage?

As I mentioned, the content of a communication can certainly aid in determining the source.

Your 'explanations' are both premature and inadequate; if you like, we can go through cases one-by-one.

Pretty sure there is evidence daily that contradicts that.

No there isn't. Nobody comes back from death, because they would not have been dead, they would have been another state, best described as 'dying'. Claims towards there being 'proof' of consciousness existing while 'brain dead' ignore the fact that electrical and neurochemical signals are still active to some degree, even if close to complete brain death. Dream-like experiences are reported, but that would be expected considering we have similar social cues that tend to paint the descriptions to match common expectations.

All claims regarding supposed 'real' experiences 'after death' are either simply subjective anecdote or outright lie. Often it is a combination of the two, which tends to manifest as a combination of vague recall of imagery and sensation interwoven with wishful thinking and descriptive narrative.

The notion of the human 'spirit' is something that exists solely in our imagination. Just because billions of people are conditioned from childhood to believe in dualism, again purely on the basis of repeated baseless assertion, does not make it a fact.

You can't prove anything by way of general consensus.

^To clarify, it is US Government at all levels (in the form of various shell corporations) that controls most of the US stock market. Reference CAFR1.com.

That answer is only your answer, which you arrived at by looking at specific information, to the exclusion of other information, using a limited frame of reference. In an effort to stimulate your curiosity, I provide these facts:

The "law of free will" simply states that you will get what you search for, and that you cannot be given something you are not looking for.

It is fact that neither humanism nor materialism can explain the evidence for survival, so they are not adequate. An honest intellectual will never be satisfied with humanism's non-explanation for this evidence. The content of a communication can certainly aid in determining the source, and indeed it has!

No amount of uncertainty should permit the premature acceptance of 'explanations', which includes the answer "we don't know". Curiosity will eventually lead to something worth believing in: real, comprehensive knowledge. An adequate worldview will always incorporate both the golden rule and all available evidence.

This is talking about how technology is making people "useless" by putting them out of jobs, in other words, machines replacing human jobs.  For example, bank tellers, cashiers (the solution to the minimum wage question), receptionists, telephone operators, mail carriers, travel agents, typists, newspaper reporters, telemarketers,


Let's take you back to a time where computers were a luxury. A time where the concept of a USB drive the size of your thumb was laughable, a time where eight inched floppy drives would hold a few kilobytes of data. This was also a time where the social position of women was inferior, as they lacked the right to vote, earned only sixty percent of what men did on the same fields, could not produce contracts like wills, even control their earnings! Marital rape was legal, men could have sex with their wives whenever they wanted, with or without the consent of his wife, birth control was illegal, causing the man to have full control over wanting to have children. Now, fast forward fifty years, and you notice how social progress has improved. We have better human rights, more social progress for all citizens, as opposed to patriarchal states such as Saudi Arabia.  


2% of America (the corporations) control 50% of the stock market, these corporations pay no taxes, pay poverty wages, and are constantly buying elections. These corporations control the poor, by capitalizing on what they eat (Monsanto), their water (Nestle), their shelter (there are more vacant houses in the hands of the rich than homeless people in some states), what they wear (shit, this one is so obvious, I don't even have to explain) by exploiting South East Asian children to have them build your Nikes.


This is pretty self explanatory


I fail to see your point by quoting Marx and pointing out his atheism.

It would have been more relevant to quote
"Religion is the opiate of masses"

The correct answer is "We don't know" I notice that religious people love to lecture other people about jumping to conclusions the majority of their beliefs come from precisely jumping to conclusions. Also, there's a difference between acknowledging a god's existence and whether people believe in it or not. I think he's a cunt and I would never worship him, but if someone provided me with substantial evidence to prove he exists then I'd acknowledge that. As an already existing example of this relating to my Anarchism, democratic governments are supposed to exist to govern and represent the will of the people, but do I believe in that? No because I have plenty of historical and mathematical evidence that suggests otherwise, adding to this I already have lots of people who have the same belief as me.

So the same logic can easily be applied to God's, but so far, not only do I not believe in anything he or mainly his followers have to say, I have also seen very little realistic peer reviewed evidence that he actually exists in the first place, those are just the facts and denial and several centuries of brainwashing doesn't make it any more true and don't bother trying to sugar coat it because that's what it is, brainwashing, I feel the same way about public schools that teach history by the way and don't let children form their own opinions or do their own research on things by the way.

The difference between me and a theist or even an Athiest is this, I have the balls to admit when I don't know something, but the things I have seen and I do know about God make me reject the belief system utterly, why would I want to take part in a religion that advocates child abuse, the oppression of women and homosexuals and the genocide of non-believers?

An honest atheist would admit to all of these things:

"agnostic" means nothing more than "rational", for to use reason is to follow the facts and only the facts, to base conclusions only on what can be demonstrated or detected in some way, and to refrain from "jumping to conclusions" on the basis of personal preference, emotion, or "faith".
--Yet another quote from "Atheism and Secularity", Chapter 1

There is no spectrum between atheism and theism and no third position; observe that while you were saying that, you were not believing in god(s).

There is evidence for survival of the personality (after death), so what force is causing that? Humanism?

Saying Atheism is a religion is like labelling 'off' a tv channel.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

Atheism is the practice of intellectual honesty - a state of mind toxic to theism.

Yes I am, whether or not god exists or not is irrelevant to me, it's the fact that he and also his followers are a bunch of violent cunts that affects my belief system, I haven't even gone into the fact that the new testament pretty much advocates child abuse yet and already religious people are having a fit lol. I'm interested in seeing some actual scientific evidence of god existing from these so called worshippers but so far the only responses they have given amount to "Just trust me I know" and "Because I say he exists".

At this point, sun worship is a more legitimate religion than Christianity or Islam ever will be, it's also far more logical, I kind of like Buddhism as well because it basically revolves around not giving a fuck about things rather than worshipping anything or having lots of rigid rules but there you go, some people are just stupid, even the greek gods made far more sense than the religions of today.

"Absence of belief, even active rejection of a belief, is not itself a belief."

However, if you have your own unique beliefs, then you are plainly a church (religion).
Who is to say you are not an ecclesiastical authority?

"There are only two consistent positions on the god question."

"Presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?"

All dignity consists in thought and intent defines the man.

I do not have faith in man's humanist intent. Who would benefit from man taking control of man's destiny?





According to atheist Hitchens, "the order to love thy neighbour 'as thyself' is too extreme and too strenuous to be obeyed".

This ideology is pure evil, and it actually underpins the monetary enslavement system.

Those Karl Marx quotes are completely unrelated to atheism.

I usually don't argue with them - rather pointless. Whenever I do so, I do it for fun, for my own amusement. It's the burden of the religious people to prove god's existence and to stage repeatable experiments to that end. Atheists can just sit back.

By your words, you are an agnostic, by the way.


See my comment above about the stamps

I don't believe in great many things. Does it mean that I am a disciple of a million different religions?

i have a hard time labelling myself as an atheist - i just see it as a religion for people who don't believe in god.

You see this is why I'm an Anarchist, far easier to just tell God to fuck off whether he exists or not rather than argue with religious people all the time about whether or not he exists in the first place.