I hope you realize that, in refuting all the other major dogmas, you've created a dogma yourself and are telling people to follow it. Just saying.
Lack of belief is not a belief. At best, what is written on this art poster is like a sort of guess and shoulder shrug. After weighing the facts available, the author/creator has simply deduced a working philosophy; one that is far more logical and meaningful in the end than a theistic stance.
Is it nihilism? Not exactly. Nihilism is the belief that everything comes from nothing, is pointless and ultimately is destroyed. Has he said life is pointless? No, he said it means whatever you want it to mean.
And, by contrast, is eternalism any better? What is the point of living forever? Simply existing in perpetuity isn't any more meaningful than being mortal. Similarly, a theistic belief isn't any more meaningful since all meaning is arbitrary and subjective. In the end, they are equal, whether the meaning is ascribed by YOU or by "God." Meaning is ascribed by someone and someone exists for a period of time, imbuing his various actions with meaning of his choosing and whose choices affect t
hose around him. They are equally meaningful or meaningless.
Atheism is, however, the more logical choice for the very obvious reasons that there are in reality no inherently existing things. An inherently existing thing could have no beginning, no end and no possibility of change. Yet, everything in the universe begins, changes and ends, existing only as very temporary phenomena in dependence upon other temporary phenomena. This flux appears to have existed eternally and, logically, there is no reason to believe otherwise. Therefore, God is a truly nonsensical concept in the most straightforward sense. But, then, we all knew that from the very simple question "if all things supposedly need a creator, who created the creator?"
Your argument states that changes/states of flux are eternal. Thus through your argument, change is in fact an inherently existing thing since everything is and apparently has been changing with no apparent beginning and no apparent end in sight. Even the big bang is a continuous cycle with not apparent end or beginning, and because of that cycle the big bang's continuous and eternal state of change ensures that flux/change never will change.
mind frak?!? thanks for the string of thought buddy
The rejection of belief is not a belief in itself. What your putting forward is akin to saying that not smoking is a habit, or not collecting coins is a hobby.
Lack of belief in God or anything else is a belief because you believe it's fake. You can't stop believing like you can smoking because belief is an idea and a very different concept than smoking or collecting something. You smoke or you don't but just because you don't smoke, it does not mean you believe it's wrong. To not have a belief is to not have an opinion on a subject at all. If you say something does not exist then you hold the belief that it does not exist there for believing. Also believing is not a choice if you are sane and you see the sun rise then you must believe the sun rises. However there are certain things you can choose to believe in, mostly things you can't see happening or verify them yourself. Atheism means no belief in a deity or deities and if you go by the very stupid notion that religion equates to belief then atheism would be considered a religion just as Buddhism or satanism believe in no higher power but are in fact religions.
Not smoking is a choice just as smoking is a choice.
There for not believing in anything is just as much of a choice as believing is.
What does choice have to do with religion?
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION, get it in your fraking head.
Not playing hockey is not a sport. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Nothingness is not something. Null is not a number.
frak, why is this so hard for you dimwits to understand?
atheism isn't a religion, but it is a belief. you believe there is no god and choose to live as such. anger brings you nowhere, in fact, it probably humorous to the people you are trying to "convince"
my friend. atheism is just what is says. not theism. it is not a belief system. disbelief of religion is not a belief in and of itself.
No, Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The lack of belief in a god could be qualified as agnosticism or atheism, but both are defined and very different. As such, you either need to accept that theism MAY be true and you just don't know, or assert that it is NOT true, which requires some evidence on your part. You aren't just given a free pass on this because.
WOW seems like someone needs to jump on the happy train.
everything is nothing, it is all an illusion that we try give meaning to. what im trying to say is that ur nothing means something to me and vica versa....... anyhow peace be with and take a chill pill
Negative. Not believing in religion is not a religion. FYI, 'not collecting stamps' is not a hobby.
his/her point is not that of religion, the point was that we don't need to follow guidelines set by others and conform to society, we can make up our own morals. Atheism is a religion, its just not a main stream one
Atheism is a religion, its just not a main stream one
It definitely is not a religion.
This poster is trying to tell other people how to live their lives. sounds like religion to me
You clearly have no idea what a religion is then.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods
--American New Oxford Dictionary
...atheism is def not a religion
No you are wrong neoform, because your are creating your own religion by not believing, as much as you do not wish to believe it you are an atheist. Which is a religion, not a very knowledgeable one but is still a religion.
Nope, you're wrong.
I'm an atheist alright, but atheism isn't a religion. Notice how you didn't capitalize the word "atheist"? Think about that for a second.
Also note that 'religion' is defined as a belief in a super natural being or beings. Atheists do not believe in ghosts, gods or goblins or any other fairy tales, and we do not ascribe to any religion.
Like I said, atheism is as much of a religion as 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.
I would agree with you that atheism isn't a religion, but it is a worldview. The funny thing is, the theist has more logic/reason than you do to support their worldview! I doubt you have any sort of reason to think God does not exist. But what does it matter? You are already dead. Any effort you put in this world, you are just wasting time till the inevitable heat-death and cosmic expansion of the universe. You do not even know the inevitable consequences your worldview MUST imply.
Logic?! Reason?!?! Are you serious!? I think you should read the bible again. If you look at it from a logical standpoint and a higher intelligence quotient than 65 you would be able to see that it resembles fairy tales quite strikingly.
Ha, atheism isnt a world view, it is simply not believing in a god. that is all it is. and how can you say theists have more logic than atheists? the whole point of religion is that there is a certain amount of belief involved. and belief is not logical.
World-view: A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing natural philosophy, fundamental existential and normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.
Don't be an idiot and deny that being an atheist isn't a world-view. And while you are correct that being an atheist is simply not believing in a god everyone adds a twist to it "God is fake evolution is true!" or "Evolution and god don't exist life is nothing" so on and so forth. Belief is logical. I believe the sun rises every day. I believe that if I put my hand on a hot stove it will hurt. Belief is part of life kiddo. Get used to it, oh and start using your goddamn brain.
No you don't, you know the sun rises every day, you know the stove is hot.
How do you know these things? You can scientifically conclude this through experimentation and logical deduction.
Too many people confuse what they know with what they believe. Then they take the word "faith" and make it synonymous with "belief", and make it seem like it's normal and logical to believe in something that cannot in any way, shape or form, prove the existence of a supernatural being.
If you believe in god(s), feel free to point out why YOUR god is the right one, and how every other god(s) out there is wrong.
I await your evidence.
those were legitimately the most faulty analogies ever. nice try
Read my other post that explains my point. "Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature."
That is the definition of religion it does not mean you must believe in something supernatural it just means you have to have beliefs about life in general through that definition atheism is a religion which isn't a bad thing you just hate the word and you know it.
Actually Ryan, If you look at the facts, Atheism is the more knowledgeable one as we have more "factual" evidence of our beliefs (or non-beliefs). If you choose to believe that there is an invisible man in the sky that can listen to all we say and do at all times it is called religion. If you choose not to... it is atheism, plain and simple. Then again, I guess it would all depend on the your definition of the word "religion". Why don't you look it up for yourself.
has anyone noticed that the ones arguing for atheism, seem to harbor a lot of animosity towards anyone that does not share their own beliefs, while the "others" seem to be quite pleasant and non-darrogatory , i found this humorous
But atheists, historically, have never taken that animosity further by organising a crusade, or placing a jihad upon a person or group. Traditionally the concept of "believe what I tell you, or I'll hurt you" has been the practise for most religions. And even cases in recent history as well as today, this is demonstrated. (Belgrade, Bahgdad, Bombay, Beirut, Belfast and Bethlehem to name a few...)
There's a reason 'the burden of proof arguement' is a favourate one amongst atheists, because acknowledging 'fact' through 'proof' and 'evidence' has been pretty successful in bringing us useful medicine, and astounding sciencfic knowledge, as well as being one of the best trains of thought to have been conceptualised in the history of man.
Hey, has anyone noticed all those places begin with 'b', and 'b' is the first letter of 'bumble-bee'??? This is a totally irrelevant, fallacious argument, feel free to ignore.
Communism is responsible for quite a few dead and is based on athism as much as the evils done by Christians is based on what Jesus taught.
People do not kill in the name of no god, they kill people because they're politically problematic.
Religious murders are often done because people think their man in the sky wants them dead.
Try having religion rammed down your throat your whole life.
just say "no thank you I am full" the politely excuse yourself from the table to do other things. Maybe stumble upon?
Nice to see you are able to make yourself superior to both sides.
jeese. cant ANYONE just take this for face value and just move on?? noone cares about anyone else's opinion apperently, especially the stubborn, so just add this to your beliefs or dont, then shut up and move on.
Have to disagree with you there Anonymous Dude. Dogmas involve rules that apply to all individuals regardless of their persona or situation. To ask people to follow their 'authentic' selves, as it were, is exactly what he claims: Anti-dogmatic. Just saying ;)
This is a truly wonderful observation.
there's typos all over this.
*There are typos all over this.
Finally, I can live my dream of being a pedophile and sex offender and there is nothing anyone can do about it! I mean, there are no morals, right? In the absence of God, all things are permitable. All meaning is man-made, therefore any meaning I create for myself is just as equal as anyone elses. There is no "good" or "better" meaning, to each his own. Wow, this is great : )
If the only reason you do good things and avoid doing bad this, is because you fear reprimand from your god, that is very sad indeed.
Careful there! A pedophile's own morality wouldn't categorise his/her actions as bad. He/She has a different morality. Exactly by what 'standards' would you categorise such actions as bad?
Following God's law in Christianity is not a chore. Christians know that the law has no power over them. To know the Triune God, is to know true peace.
Disturbing thought. You feel an invisible man in the sky has control over you...
Disturbing though. You feel life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content...
Yeah, that EXACTLY what I said.
Where do you people come from? Do you wander the streets yelling at stop signs for being too red?
This image very clearly states that you need to make your own meaning and fill your life with happiness and not expect it to come from nowhere.
AT NO POINT DOES ANYONE SAY IT'S OK TO RAPE, MURDER AND PILLAGE, YOU frakING TWIT.
-shrugs- saying morals are man-made gives anyone free reign to do as they please. Stop being a fraking idiot and think about it: if there is no God, no standard for morality, THEN THERE IS NO frakING REASON NOT TO RAPE, MURDER, AND PILLAGE! Unless you feel like conforming to what society says; at which point you aren't really free.
to help out mister Average idiot. Just as you are not saying that life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content, neither is he saying that we feel we are controlled by an invisible man.
I want to ask this to probe your mind a little. I implore you to be a little open-minded with this question. Suppose you are wrong? What if there is a God? What are the consequences of your not believing? Now, what if I'm wrong? What are the consequences if there is no God and my beliefs are false? If you are wrong you spend eternity in hell. If I'm wrong I simply die and decay. Doesn't it seem more worthwhile to believe?
If you believe in god solely because you figure it's better to believe than not to... then you really don't believe. In which case, IF (and that's a huge if) god exists, don't you think he'd see through your game?
You misunderstand the argument I'm making. I'm not saying to believe just to believe. By my question, does it not make more since to believe that God is the God of the universe and that he sent his son Jesus because he loved you and wanted to spend eternity. Does it not make more sense to generally believe that? Also, you have once again conveniently ignored the question I asked. I want your answer to the question. Not somebody else's answer through wikipedia, I want your genuine answer to the question.
a side note question, what is the difference between believing and pretending to believe? because you are pretending to believe your actions will still reflect your pretend belief, in essence your pretend belief is not different than believe.
you get off by being condescending?, its really quite pathetic
Where do you come up with the idea that without god all things are permissible? You are still subject to your environment. That includes the father of the children you decide to sexually abuse. This common misunderstanding often coming from people with no foresight as to the consequences of there actions. If you are being "good" because you are afraid that a celestial being will throw you into a pit of fire if you're not then you are not, in fact, a good person by any standard.
Morality *is* man made because society ("man") creates the rules and standards that we should all live by. We all need to ensure survival by getting along with our fellow man in society. Face it, we need other people to survive. The survival instinct in us all has developed a higher morality (do unto others...) in order to keep us from being alienated. Some people do not have this innate sense of what is right and wrong. I am an atheist, I do not believe in god but I believe in treating my fellow man with respect and not killing and raping. It is offensive, to say the least, that you imply that simply because I do not have a god, I will be a horrible person. In fact, I have higher moral standards than 99% of the God-fearers I know because I know that people cannot forgive as easily as your alleged God. You believe God has your back, and I believe that my friends and family have my back. Please look into your own soul, or lack thereof, before you lump the godless with the insane.
To say that your moral standards are above all "God-fearers" is complete ignorance. You make accusations on a religion that you do not understand. The Bible is pure stupidity for those who do not believe it. For you to make wild accusations about our moral standards is pure ignorance
Society is not the same as an individual. Morality among the members benefits the society, but not necessarily all the individuals especially the stronger ones. In fact, the major beneciaries of morality and empathy are the weaker individuals. That seems to be a counter-evolutionary trend. However, morality, at least in-group morality, makes for stronger societies. So the source of morality cannot be individuals motivated by biological/evolutionary self-interest. There has to be a higher purpose, even something as low as the society that the individual is part of, but necessarily something higher than the individual himself/herself.
If you deny a higher purpose to your existence, as the picture here does, you are necessarily suspect about your morality. Reward and punishment (in the here of hereafter) etc are necessary only to force those that do not feel this higher purpose to act morally. But if you deny such a higher purpose AND have no fears you are justifiably a threat to the soci
"There has to be a higher purpose"
You say that only because you feel there needs to be one, not because there actually is a purpose, but instead because if there wasn't you'll feel everything you do is for nothing, which in the very long run, it essentially is.
Deal with it.
One day, you will die. You will not live forever. Everything you do will eventually be undone.
No, I don't feel there needs to be one, I know there is one even if I don't know what it is. For morality to exist a higher purpose is a LOGICAL necessity. It is with reference to the higher purpose is how we can judge right or wrong of individual actions. So anyone who feels a strong urge to live morally feels this purpose, even if he/she doesn't know it. You may yourself not feel it, but I suspect most living creatures other than humans don't feel it either, so I am not surprised some humans don't.
The individual cells in my body die much sooner than I do. But they have a purpose while they live, to keep me alive. Their work isn't undone as soon as they die and my work doesn't get undone when I die. I don't have a problem in dealing with my mortality.
I find it hilarious that people like you who believe your life has no essential purpose, trying to convince others their doesn't either. Why are you so desperate to convince others that their lives are meaningless? By your own claims pe
ople can invent any meaning for their lives as they please. So what exactly is your problem if they invent a meaning that attributes a meaning to the universe itself? Or is that unable to discover the meaning yourself, you are trying to convince yourself that no one else has either?
I love it when that happens, you have no logical reason whatsoever to believe something is the case.. YOU JUST DO.
Is it like a premonition, or intuition..? Does your gut tell you?
I wish I had the power to JUST KNOW THINGS like that. Maybe I could prove the poincare conjecture that way..
To suggest that you have morality by your own means it is false, because your a making it by your means making it only based upon your judgement. Your morality you make up is either in your head or made by the world, or by God. If it is made by either of the first two it is meaningless. because you have no end result.
You either don't feel an internal urge to act morally or you are simply incapable of understanding logic.
An urge to act morally cannot be explained in terms of anything drawn from evolutionary biology, much like evolutionary biology itself cannot be derived from laws of physics.
If a being acts in a way that doesn't benefit its genes and is internally compelled to do so, there logically has to be some other purpose it is trying to fulfil a purpose not of its own making.
Even if you personally felt moral compulsions, you would recognise others do. So if you were scientific minded, you would accept the evidence. However, you are desperate to erase the evidence or try to deny it exists.
Nice assertion, lemme do the same thing you just did:
Either you're ugly, or an idiot.
See what I did there? I postulated two options, and asserted them as being the only two options.
In the last sentence in the previous comment there is a 'no' missing between 'felt' and 'moral'.
Bickering is a waste of time. Who cares what anyone else believes? What's important is that you believe whatever it is you believe, and that you are at home in it. Forcing one's opinion on others, either for or against deity, is a base human behavior. I mean seriously. We can be better than that. Maybe if we didn't occupy ourselves so much with telling other people what they should and should not believe, we could take the time to get closer to God or ourselves or whatever it is that floats your boat. Then, maybe, we can move forward together.
Ah, post modernism is a joke! Your philosophical thought is a false. Your basis of thought is that all ideas are relevant. How is that possible? That would mean your thought process is possible and then that makes an infinite number of ideas possible.
No, his "basis of thought" is that someone else's belief shouldn't be important to you, your belief should be the only belief that is important to you.
He says that basically, don't shove your beliefs down others' throats.
Huh... well then, forgive me for thinking your philosophy is absurdest for following a clever physicist who said
"There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." ~ Albert Einstein
Nothing personal - just the fact that one quote is particularly pessimistic and comes from a seemingly obscure source on the internet that I stumbledupon and the other comes from a successful physicist who is widely known.
You also say:
"Deal with it. One day, you will die. You will not live forever. Everything you do will eventually be undone."
Which to me seems like a detrimental argument - you see Ganapati HAS dealt with it by coming to terms of living a fulfilling life that he enjoys through religion - whereas you are merely stating your opinion again like a broken record. It seems to me that YOU are the one who has to come to terms with how to live your own life. Generally it is frowned upon on society to give into whatever dark disturbing
lust you have whether it be pedophilia, murder, or torturing someone else and society sets laws in place to discourage that.
If the universe has no importance then neither does our system as humans. Saying that a game of poker is stupid because the rules are largely based on luck is silly because some people find joy in that game. Saying that life is pointless is silly because there are many people who do *not* find it pointless.
You've probably grown quite defense by this point so I guess I'll just openly say that you seem to be an exemplary definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and it might be wise for you to realize that your not "one notch above the rest" per se just because you have decided to point fingers and claim that your religion of "non-religion" is the best...
FYI You said that not collecting stamps is NOT a hobby, but if your syllogism of a (cannot equal) b therefore b (cannot equal) c when c = a
Then your formula states that: NOT having a child is NOT parenting
Which is clearly false as the decision of abortion is a big one in parenting considering it decides jut how long they are going to have to parent that fetus/person.
Oh and the link for the Dunnning-Krueger Effect before I forget:
New Testament at least... Old Testament is merely a record of events
It must be nice living in a world where things are the case just because you want them to be so. I bet if you wish hard enough you'll live forever. hahahahahahahahahaha
This picture kind of bothers me. Emotions are not man-made; they're a byproduct of our long-term development as a species. What dictates purpose is essentially what spurs your emotions, and what spurs your emotions is dictated by what helps you survive and live prosperously. This in turn implies that morality could be worked out by what makes the human species survive the most efficiently and live the most prosperously, all from a naturalistic, secular basis.
Sure, there isn't such thing as a purpose or some predefined "order of things" for the greater universe, but mankind itself is pretty deeply pre-defined by our evolution. We aren't all that varied by what makes us tick, so to imply such individualism (as in this picture) seems like an illusion in and of itself.
I concur, in saying that other religious statements are false, you have also claimed yours to be true. If what you say is true then we are not free at all, rather bound by the "reality" that you have given the illusion of freedom to.
If this is indeed a world free from morals, purpose, and and ultimate goal, then we are free from nothing, but joy and meaning in life.
To all the "believers"...the fraking sun doesn't rise. At all. The earth spins around. Where did you people go to school?? Lol. Religious fights are always funny to me.
Name an established scientific theory that (as you say) cannot be known...
I'd love to hear this.
Evolution cannot be known as you say. No one has every been able to scientifically prove macro-evolution, such as the big bang or that humans came from single-celled organisms, that's why it's a scientific theory not a scientific fact or law. I will ask, How can you then prescribe to the idea that something was created out of nothing? Or how can you believe that order was created from chaos when the second law of thermodynamics states that everything is moving from order to chaos? the odds of one protein molecule forming are 1 in 10^113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. Can you just believe that happened by chance?
You say scientific theories can be known yet the reason they are theories not laws and facts is because they cannot be known. Even Darwin said he may be wrong when he spoke of evolution. He would - if alive - agree that he was wrong seeing as macro-evolution has not been proven.
The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable," and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.
This is from Wiki's List of Common Misconceptions
Yep, evolution is a theory, just like gravity.
I bet you don't believe in that one either? I suggest you check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Maybe you should re-examine what you know about the concept of a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#List_of_notable_theories
Except he isn't. Evolution has been verified countless times, macro-evolution included. You simply choose to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend like it isn't the case.
First, none of what you just said did anything to disprove what I was saying. You showed me that Evolution has a lot of support and is a notable theory, neither of which proves that it is true.
Second, gravity can be and has been proven while evolution cannot. The issue here is not gravity, it is evolution though. You can sit here and tell me all day that it has been proven and I can sit here and tell you how it has been proven and mine will carry significantly more weight. You cannot simply argue by saying it has been proven simply by saying it has been proven. Give me evidence of its proof, not that is has support and that it is a notable theory.
Another argument that I did not previous mention in disproving evolution is irreducible complexity. The idea that there exists forms that cannot be reduced. One such example is the flagelar motor on bacteria. This motor has 23 parts to make it work. If you take any of these parts away it will not work. Evolution teaches that for a new additi
on to any being the addition must benefit it for it to remain and that only one thing is added at a time. if any one of those parts is added it will in no way benefit the life form and therefore will be discarded. All 23 must be present which in the theory of evolution cannot happen.
You have no interest in the truth, you just want to muddy the waters with doubt where there is none. Any/all sane minded people accept evolution as truth. You just want to attack a very justified and well reasoned theory in order to promote your own ridiculous idea (creationism, where there is zero evidence).
Second, gravity can be and has been proven while evolution cannot.
Really? Can you please explain to me why gravity happens? I'd be very interested in what your explanation as to WHY (not "how") it happens.
Give me evidence of its proof, not that is has support and that it is a notable theory.
Only in math can you have proofs. Everything else is through deduction and evidence.
I bet you'd make a great lawyer. You'd tell the jury, "Suuure, the murderer was found at the scene covered in th
e victim's blood, holding the dagger, and was shouting "WHY DID I KILL HER?!!!"... but..! did anyone see him do it?! I THINK NOT! THEREFORE! HE'S CLEARLY INNOCENT!!"
Here's the funny thing though, evolution HAS been observed. It's been verified and reproduced time and again.
Another argument that I did not previous mention in disproving evolution is irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is non-sense invented by Michael Behe, a creationist pretending to be a scientist. It has no support in the scientific community, and only gets parroted by religious people with an agenda.
I must ask you this why do insist on giving me none of the evidence that you claim exists? You have done nothing but attack me. I am still waiting to here the evidence. If you can provide any I will be more than willing to listen to what you have to say. What I mean by evidence, is not that it is a well accepted theory.
How can you say I have no interest in truth? If that were the case, I would have simply stopped debating this. But I must ask that you stop attacking me and focus solely on the topic at hand being evolution.
No, I cannot explain WHY gravity happens, neither can you explain WHY evolution happens. You continue arguing that it is true because it is true. This is a logical fallacy which holds no water.
No, that is not the sort of Lawyer I would be. you say ignore the evidence, yet you fail to provide me with any. If this analogy, I do not know that the murderer was found at the scene covered in to victim's blood holding the dagger, because you have failed to provide me with
an such information. Whenever you provide me that information I will look at it.
You tell me that irreducible complexity is non-sense, but you do not tell me how. For me to believe you, I must know how it is non-sense before I can believe it. Telling me that he is a creationist pretending to be a scientist is no such evidence. The fact that it gets no recognition in the scientific community also not evidence enough to prove it is non-sense.
I must repeat my earlier question and ask that you stop using logical fallacies to win this debate. Also, I ask that you answer the questions in my first post of how you explain how something can come from nothing? and the questions that follow.
I had another thought sticking with your completely fallacious and off topic Lawyer analogy. From what you have given me this is the type of lawyer you would be
Giving no evidence, "He did it, I know he did!" - you
"Ah, but where is the evidence?" - me
"Oh, there is evidence." - you
"Yes, but where is it?" - me
"He did it." - you
"How do you know?" - me
"I know because he did it." - you
If you don't believe this is accurate take a look at the evidence you have shown me. None. Well, none that matters at all.
Dude. Google called.
You have done an excellent job in giving me proof that micro-evolution exists. Which I will agree with you there, changes within a species over time to adapt to environment is true. It is provable that that does happen. However, you show me common descent. Is it not also plausible that they are some similarities between different species because of they all have the same creator in common? One of the examples your wikipedia site showed me was a fish that over time changed to a completely different fish. Is there no chance there was a lot of cross breeding there mixed with micro-evolution? You cannot say that a mule is a mutation of a donkey or a horse. It isn't it is the result of breeding the two together. Yet, the mule has a lot of similarities with both of them. You still cannot logically conclude that it evolved to that because it hasn't. Micro-evolution, yes. Macro-evolution, no.
You have yet to answer a huge foundational question of evolution and that is of the big bang. How can
something be created from nothing?
As another request to this argument, I would prefer that you either provide me with evidence yourself or that you choose scholarly sources, not wikipedia. instead of going to google. go to http://scholar.google.com. Please of course.
Name one that can.
All established scientific theories are falsifiable. As well, they are considered tentative(by law in the US), progressive and dynamic. Therefore, they are highly mutable and cannot truly be known.
1) "by law in the US", Us law has absolutely nothing to do with science.
2) If you take the angle that nothing can be proven (which is a completely useless mode of thought), than there is never any reason to assert anything whatsoever. You might as well stop thinking at that point.
Side note: math can be proven.
Science can reasonable prove many things. Religion cannot prove anything, not even close. All it can do is make self-reinforcing, non-falsifiable claims. Which leads me to say: "What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
Yes, I do take that angle. Such is what pushes me to quest for more knowledge, more evidence. There is no proof in reality, only evidence and either belief or non-belief in said evidence. How can one dismiss evidence and assert opinion as truth?
Yes, I do take that angle. Such is what pushes me to quest for more knowledge, more evidence.
Knowledge and evidence becomes meaningless if you think that nothing can be proven and that you cannot trust your senses.
Everything you learn will be of no value, and everything you do will be futile.
There is no proof in reality, only evidence and either belief or non-belief in said evidence.
What value is evidence if you cannot trust it? How do you know evidence even exists if you can't even be sure you exist? (see how pointless it is to think that way?)
How can one dismiss evidence and assert opinion as truth?
I never asserted an opinion as truth. I assert scientifically reasoned logic as truth.
How is agreement with a theory not opinion?
How is critical thinking futile and pointless?
I find it odd how you assume that lack of proof would nullify both knowledge and evidence.
Moral behavior is relative to external circumstances. It's called Subjective Moral Relativism, in opposition to Objective Moral Absolutism. There is no good and evil, only good decisions and bad decisions. If I kill somebody while trying to defend my life, I'm not a morally evil person. I'm a person who made a bad choice based on an external situation I had no personal control over. Life is gray, our perceptions change based on social structure. Evil does not, cannot and never will exist, nor will your idea of good. Morality changes based on the evolution of society. That my friends is called Social Evolution, it exists, it is a science. All things evolve, biological, technological, and sociological. Whether you like it or not. Look at the theory of networks, and how they evolve to meet the demands of the system. Morality is no different.
What a load of junk. Read some Chesterton.
Go read some Rene Descartes. Understand that empiricism is proven from circular reasoning. It is irrational to believe that the universe is explainable through empirical observation. In fact, a lot of science today is based off of unobservable phenomena to the human senses. Reality is an illusion so you should go out and make of it what you will, but do not belittle it with the arrogant idea that we humans have figured it all out by just tossing aside any idea that we might disagree with when it comes to things that we just cannot know for sure. You should also take a look at Robert Anton Wilson's "Maybe Logic". He is a very intelligent man and talks about everything from religion to quantum physics. I will agree with you though, Atheism is not a religion just the same as Buddhism is not a religion.
neoform your the best!
We were put here on this Earth for one purpose and one purpose only, to serve the Lord Jesus Christ!!!!
I don't serve invisible men in the sky.
Billy Talty, whoever you are, does not know, could not know if what he believes is true. It is pure assumption and it is foolish. I would much rather be a slave to 'Jabber the hut' then to ever be subjected from the flawed and greedy ideals of the one, true, none existent GOD. If you feel uneasy in what this says, 'An hero' yourself. Do not disregard the flaws in religion trust in this new ideal of 'Making Your Name'. There is no Father no heaven; evolution has created you, everyone has flaws.. you could also call that evolution? And to whoever wrote this: Perfect, love it, need more ppl to light the new way :) eat a dick and die Billy... fraking bible bashers
This is just existentialism people. Gotta love it. Not that the universe cares.
Damn straight, all you frakers stop arguing and go out to a party and live it up! I think I'll crack open that six pack.
You know this counts as a philosophy, right?
Coooooooool. By making your statement look visually edge-y, you feel it will be more appealing to a broader audience. Not the content of the words, but the fact that it looks neat.
These comments are funny... all the atheists demanding proof that can never exist and all the theists offering theories as evidence. The atheists rebut with beliefs born of evidence, to which I retort, "We are all free to believe the evidence we choose to agree with. Neither side of the argument can be proven."
Yeah, except there's plenty of reason to believe in science and no reason to believe religion.
Are they not both just collections of agreed upon theories?
Also; What is your basis in denying an others evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) from their choice?
No, they aren't. Religion has a hypothesis, that under any reasonable test fails. Religion postulates and asserts what it cannot possibly know.
Anecdotal evidence is just that. I really don't need to say anything more.
So, science doesn't postulate things it can never know and if it doesn't happen in a controlled, repeatable environment it's invalid.... interesting.
Can you guys stop being ignorant and saying absolutely nothing at all. All you are saying is "atheism is a religion" "no it's not". If you want to have a discussion with a purpose, take a step back - define what religion means!! Otherwise you are having a meaningless conversation.
The idea of this poster is to open your minds to the fact that we are autonomous beings, and should act as such, not based on the whims of others.
define what religion means!!
You know, there are books called "Dictionaries" that do that...
Great! especially the new 'verb' : rembember
This contradicts itself. What separates us from all other matter in the universe? What gives us the right to create meaning? Who has given us the paintbrush with which we paint our canvas, which must have also been provided? How are we capable of creating meaning? Only through consciousness is any of this possible. It's the ultimate superset of the universe. But you deny deities which, in turn, denies consciousness because there would be no connection through which consciousness is made. Only with some sort of entity outside of everything is any sort of creation of meaning possible.
Also, we are born with certain aspects that differ from one another. We can make our own meaning, yes, but it must match the path we are meant for. It's called diversity! Different brains are hardwired different ways. You can't work outside your means. You are born with a certain shaped cup and the water of life fills it and morphs to the shape. But the journey is what matters the most. How you get the wate
r to fill it. There is no ultimate goal we work to reach except the picture as a whole. There is no grand finale except for when you can look back at what you have done and be proud.
ALL OF YOU WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD CAN TELL HIM WHY YOU DIDN'T THINK HE EXISTS WHEN YOU DIE :)
It seems you're all wrong. These arguments are pointless.
The atheists continue to believe that they are free from brainwashing and can live under their own accord, yet they are slaves to their own weakness as they continue to argue, debate or rather, "convert" those that follow theistic beliefs. Christians are always perceived as the ones obsessed with converting others to their religion, and here the atheists work to a similar end: converting the religious to "non-religion". You change the way you play, but it seems the game remains the same.
The theists have turned faith into a twisted game of right and wrong. Backed up by logic or not, you shame the very things you believe in. Faith is necessary in certain circumstances. I know people in my life that would not be alive today if it weren't for belief. Faith and hope can be senseless and illogical, but at the same time, it's because of these self-contained properties that make it so potent and powerful. Motivation needs constant rene
wal, faith and hope is simply immortal. It can overcome the harshest of times. It saves more lives than non-belief could ever hope to.
Regardless, it's this silly inability to accept other's beliefs, this pathetic little child's game that you people continue to play, with no real victory to be attained, that people will continue to go to war in the name of their beliefs. You may never accept it, but it's because of this kind of ignorance that humans will always die for nothing.
One day you will look death in the eye as you grow old and choke on your own saliva. I want you to stop and think if this was all worth it. You each think that your individual beliefs have given your life more meaning than the opposing side, but you fall to the same fate as you continue to waste your breaths. I, for one, will not be afraid when death comes, cause since my birth my existence had already been plagued by its touch... long before I came to be, people like you have roamed this earth and carried on the tradition of folly and stupidity.
Right, so not debating anything in order to avoid disagreements is better? frak off, what a load of apathetic bullshit.
Faith is necessary in certain circumstances.
frak. No. It. Isn't.
I know people in my life that would not be alive today if it weren't for belief.
Nice, you're asserting your anecdotal evidence to back this claim? Faith is necessary because without it you'd be dead? Your weaknesses in no way validates any such those beliefs.
Faith and hope can be senseless and illogical, but at th
e same time, it's because of these self-contained properties that make it so potent and powerful.
Psychotic episodes and delusions can be equally "powerful", I guess that makes them good and useful?
Motivation needs constant renewal, faith and hope is simply immortal.
Yours might, what does this have to do with anyone else?
It saves more lives than non-belief could ever hope to.
Bullshit, you've just made a completely baseless claim.
Regardless, it's this silly inability to accept other's beliefs, this pathetic little child's game that you people continue to play
Right, it's far less childish to believe in whatever you want. If I want to believe that drinking some wine (and pretending it's the blood of some 2000 year old dead guy that's supposedly the son of the creator of the universe, who is actually himself, and who died and flew up in to the sky after being killed by the Romans) every Sunday will lead to my eternal (after)life.. that's not just insane, that's just factually wrong. I will not 'just accept' someone else's delusions, nor will I allow these ideas to be perpetuated unabated.
If someone tells me "2 + 2 = 5", I will absolutely correct their error in judgement.
You may never accept it, but it's because of this kind of ignorance that humans will always die for nothing.
Without religion there would be no suicide bombers, there would be no killing in the name of god. THERE WOULD BE NO SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS. I'm so sick of this fraking argument that we would still kill without religion, obviously we would, since we already do, but guess what, the number of attacks and murders would drop substantially as we wouldn't be fighting over who's invisible man in the sky is the real one.
Good job projecting your own feelings on me. I don't fear death. I don't believe in an afterlife. I know that when I die, my existence will be identical to how it was prior to my birth.
"Do not let your life and your values and you actions" TYYYYYPPOOOOOOO.
I think what people mean when they say that atheism is a religion is that you atheists are the same sort of annoying crudheads that go to church every Sunday. frak me, you people are a great bunch of runts.
Shut your fraking mouth you whiny female dog.
Interesting fact: The book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament begins by saying life is meaningless, and this is repeated as a theme throughout the book. This is not a new concept.
Just a thought: If we need to make our own meaning in life why did the artist spend time and energy telling other people how they should live their lives?
Personal belief: It is in man's best interest to place hope in some sort of higher truth. Some sort of supreme good. It keeps people sane. It is not an average person who can live a satisfying, happy life without believing in something. In fact, I think it is extremely uncommon. Religion has its faults; people abuse its powers and distort its vision, but that does not make religion or theistic points of view evil.
No, we cannot prove there is a God, or multiple gods, or any other type of non-physical being for that matter, but we also cannot disprove it.
You are born into a religion. It doesn't mean it has to be followed. People get mad at others for not following a religion even though they have no choice what they were born into. If you were born the son of a don in the Mafia, does it mean you have to follow in their beliefs? Does crime become right because you were born into it?
1. There is a representative number of Christians in prison, but a lower-than-representative number of atheists. One interpretation of that data is that people who determine their own moral codes are, on average, actually MORE committed to them. This is not to say that Christian morality isn't meaningful to some people, but the suggestion that "God" is the only thing keeping people from raping and pillaging is patently false.
2. There are a few rules that are almost universal to humans, spanning many religions and lack thereof. These rules include: Don't kill people (outside of very narrow parameters), cheat people, or falsely accuse people. These might be seen as manifestations of the moral hardwiring of our species. Humans, like all social mammals (including dogs), have evolved certain pro-social behaviors and aversions. Left to their own devises, people will still adhere to that hard-wiring.
3. "Moral relativism" applies only to behaviors outside of that "don't hurt people" hard-wir
ing. This is why different cultures have taboos that seem ridiculous out of context. (But why, Leviticus, must I avoid contact with the tribe while I am menstruating?) The morally relative aspects of culture have to do mostly with roles, sex, and the conventions of daily life. This poster is simply advocating that we regard these conventions critically.
4. No, atheism is not a religion or even quite a world-view, though it could be an aspect of either. There are many ways to be an atheist.
5. This poster is attractive, and I think we could all use the reminder, from time to time, that we are free. I quite like the line about making, rather than finding, yourself. Nicely done.
Egarim (mirage backwards? any particular reason for this?), amen to that. Although I may not have been so dramatic or well-spoken when expressing my similar beliefs, I wholeheartedly agree.
I read this poster and thought: "Wow, this poster has some interesting points, and I wonder what I can do to apply these ideas to my everyday life while still holding onto my personal beliefs."
I did not feel any reason to think: "Whoa, that poster is wrong and bad and I must preach my religion." Nor did I think: "Whoa, this poster is right and anyone who disagrees is obviously a brainwashed Christian who is too uneducated to understand anything."
Now, first off let me say I doubt anyone pro miscuous femalead this poster actually thought any of these things I have just said, but... The comments to this poster have just been so absurd I felt some need to throw in my two cents.
Just because someone believes in God or in a god does not mean they have been brainwashed.
Likewise, just because someone does not believe
in God or a god or anything at all does not mean they have the soul of the anti-Christ.
I guess I am just not jaded enough yet to make such blanket assumptions (though that may in itself be a blanket assumption). I have never been one to preach any of my own opinions seriously, although I have recently noticed that the most interesting people are those that do preach or presume their world view to and of others. So I guess what I'm saying is, it's best to have an opinion, and it's best to tell people about it, but you should not be mean when someone does not share your opinion.
Of course, that is an opinion and it is possible to disagree with that.
My question is this, if the world is meaningless what is the point of even living?
You must find your own meaning and live for that reason. If you live your life according to someone else's meaning, you will feel quite empty.
In seeing the arguments over the classification of atheism as a religion, I feel it is important to stress that most reasonable atheists adhere to a logical system of "belief" closely mirroring the scientific method. In other words, they believe in things for which they have very strong evidence. This doesn't mean they will never accept God. It merely means that they will refuse to do so until He makes Himself known into a truly verifiable way (no "my brother knows a guy whose uncle saw Jesus in a burrito" business). I myself fall into this camp, and for the most part it simply means that I do not factor deities of any sort into my life or perspectives because they're about as practical as the Easter Bunny. Doesn't mean I think it's impossible for God to be out there. But based upon the data I have now, what other conclusion can I draw? Just as scientific theories are often radically challenged and even overturned, so too does most atheism (at least in the freethinkers I have met) seek
to revise itself, at least in terms of the small changes to our beliefs and moral views. Believe me, the atheism of my youth was arrogant and dogmatic. Now, I hope not so much. My point is that it seems kind of prudent for an atheist such as myself to say that I am entirely open and willing to be proven wrong. It'll just take a lot to do so. The universe is a crazy, fascinating, entirely wondrous place all by itself without God. If He turns out to be at the center of it all, my pure human mind will be crushed in that fear and awe of Him that's so often quoted because it will clearly destroy the rational system of thought I've tried my hardest to hone. Hope this puts maybe a positive spin on things?
Religious but tolerant<3
Wow you commentors are really really "deep". Alot of bickering and whatnot. Dont think or "believe" your self to death. lol. A bunch of well spoken
If life is really meaningless, give me a reason to exist
if there is no meaning to life, then that means you can't make a meaning to it. If there is no meaning, there is no free will, because everything can be predicted.
Hey, just realised, whenever I write the word 'f-u-c-k' on here it replaces it with 'darn', which in fact would be more offensive to religious people as 'darn' is a corruption of 'd-a-m-n'
if t were that simple there would be peace. its not.. in fact the first 4 words im ready to debate.
dont follow this idea at all.. rather make up your own and respect the next persons too.. thats it, the end.
cant we all just get along.
shut the frak up
Yeah this poster is f*cking meaningless and I'd like to watch it burn ;)
I like it. I wish it was a poster.
'Fighting meaningless is futile', - no, as you've just stated imbruing something with meaning is easy, I do it all the time. And just because it doesn't exist outside of our own human constructs doesn't mean it doesn't exist or have profound effects on the world.
Consciousness is real (it's the only thing I can be sure of! *nod* to 'I think therefore I am) ergo meaning is real.
Where do I buy a print of this
This is pretty lame honestly.
I think this is beautiful. I feel that the write needs to be drastic to get his/her point across. Please react and listen better that way.
who cares what any of u have to say,, its all in vain,,,,, big up dude
Interestig that most of you seem consumed with the argument of the authors belief/nonbeliefs rather than looking at what part of the poster may speak to you. My personal thought is that the energy spent in the posts trying to validate the individual's position are an absolute waste of time. When it comes to religion and beliefs, people hold on to them as though their very existance depends upon it and will never change. So stop the futile discussion and go out and make/live your life.
if you're gonna distress type do it by hand, downloading a bunch of typefces from dafont is pretty easy, and you showed how easy.
If there is no God and gods, no morals and the universe is not moving towards any higher purpose what exactly is the basis for your "advice"? What difference does it make if someone else believes there is a purpose and acts accordingly?
What you have declared is that no one can expect YOU to act morally and for those that do believe in morality, you are an enemy whose very existence is a threat to theirs.
Whose happiness? And why should anyone believe your recipe for happiness? What makes you think you know better how others can achieve their happiness than they do themselves?
Let me guess, if I believe in your invisible man in the sky, I'll gain all the fulfillment I've ever wanted and will live on forever and ever, and feel loved and all that, right?
Feel free to back up any of your believes with any actual proof.
you heard that on zeitgeist, talk for yourself
What the hell is zeitgeist?
Where did I mention an invisible man in the sky? Don't attempt strawman arguments.
Ab assertion has been made here and not by me. The onus is on those who make the assertions (and those that believe them) to either accept the logical conclusions of the assertion or reconsider the assertion.
Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust. It is amazing that someone can actually declare himself/herself a crook and still expect to be believed/trusted. Are you fishing for absolute special dudes who are incapable of logic and will believe anything that claims to be "atheistic"?
I think that anyone can find beauty in the argument that is existentialism. Take out all the stuff about their not being a God and really they are just telling you to take advantage of the life that you have and not get so caught up in the afterlife that you don't experience what God gave you.
It makes sense if you believe in God. However, if you don't one particular way of existence has no special significance over another. Why would anyone need someone else to tell them which way they should live, since there is no absolute reference anyway?
"Anyone who believes there are no morals is called a scoundrel/crook and is unworthy of trust."
Care to substantiate or are you just talking out of your ass? Haha.
Define your own morals you lazy ass. Quite following and start leading.
Examples of those who don't believe in morals are bandits, murderers, rapists etc. Yeah, sure, around where I live we call them scoundrels and crooks. It is possible, such are role models where you live.
You accuse me of making strawman arguments, then you go and state that people without morals are bandits, murderers and rapists? That a hypocrite.
Have you ever heard of a person without morals? There's no such things. There are simply people with *different* morals than you.
"Absolute morals," not "any morals at all." The idea that there are no morals that exist is so ludicrous that I find it hilarious that you even entertain it as a valid point to attack.
Obviously your own happiness. You knew the answer to that man, you are just trying to be a douche with the pretense of philosophical basis. Aren't you cool?
It is not that obvious. If it is my happiness that you someone else is referring to, what makes that person so sure it comes from following his/her advice? Why couldn't the advice simply be "Do whatever makes you happy"? If that means my believing in some invisible God who created the universe some 6000 years ago and will make hand me down eternal bliss/misery based on some things that I believe in or not, so be it?
So it is OBVIOUS the basis for the advice is most certainly NOT the happiness of the person being advised.
It is suggesting that really happiness can only be found by shrugging off concepts like that. I can't begin to image how you could not tell then end goal of those practices was happiness.
Maybe it turns out that that doesn't lead to happiness. But you know what? That's its goal. Which you are somehow suggesting isn't clear? Notice how you are the only on who doesn't understand that.
What makes you think you know better than someone else what they should practice to get what they want, be it happiness or something else. Or are you suggesting that there are some absolutes that you have discovered and the others haven't that you feel compelled to share with others?
just reading this whole little thing bewtween rob and ganap. dude Danapati, special dude.
You're looking at this with a view of the entire world. This advice is completely selfish, it's all about each individual in themselves; it has nothing to do with you until you take it on and even hen only your following of it would be anything to do with you.
Actually I was trying to prove the ridiculousness of attempting to "advise" someone else on what they "should" do after denying the basis for any "should".
Any advise about what a person should do assumes there is a higher purpose to one's existence than acting on immediate impulses. If a higher purpose is denied, any "should" is logically meaningless.
However, there are a lot of people babbling such illogical bullshit, some are simply not too bright and some are deliberate manipulators. I was trying to figure out which category the people here belong to.
Yea the absurdists and nihilist are gonna declare a war on morality, oh wait they do not believe in morals. But great job projecting your personal beliefs onto a otherwise cool explanation of absurdism.
philosophical debate aside, this really isn't a great example of typography. too many different and annoying clashing fonts.
Existentialism, indeed. The philosophy espoused here is so superficially sweet that it is difficult to dispute. Freedom, and making meaning for yourself, how beautiful. And yet, the discerning eye sees the fallacy.
Of all the Watchmen, the two that are the most similar are the Comedian and Rorschach. A hedonistic sociopath and a moralistic crusader. And the reason is that they both used the philosophy espoused here to come to their worldviews. The Comedian saw through the charade, the fakeness, the masquerade and realized that morality, ethics, this whole world was a joke. One big, cosmic joke. And so he took on his moniker, even though he told no jokes himself. Rorschach saw through the facade, and realized that this world had no morality, except what we decide to impose upon it. And without us, there is no morality. And so he literally was the Angel of Judgment and Death. He had to be the judge, jury and executioner, because he realized there would be none without him.
And as cool as
Rorshach and the Comedian are, they are some messed up people. Enjoy your existentialism. If you actually believed it, you'd be messed up too.
Jesus you're all dumb fraks except Ganapati. No offence, but seriously, stop with the pseudo-intellectual talk, no-one on this page knows what they're talking about, you're just expressing opinions under the guise of fact.
What's with this New Age BS? This is the sort of ignorant teenagers' "rebellious" thinking. If every people think like this then civilization will collapse. Nobody's completely free. We're all dependent lots of other people and other things. In order for you to life a huge complicated system, in which you're a part of, has to work. I'm not saying that the current system is perfect or right but at least you are here reading this sentence in (I hope) comfort and safety because of the system. By all means question the system, change the system, repair the system, but always remember that there are other people that will be affected by your decisions.
This isn't New Age. It's post-modern. Large difference.
There is no way to prove 100% that God exist or doesn't exist. I am not here to defend my faith based beliefs with facts. All I know is what has been revealed to me through the word of God and through my persistent faith in Jesus. If one does not attempt to seek out truth it will not be found. However anyone can take fact and hold onto it for a lifetime and insist I must be a fool. The world is flat and revolves around the sun. To me it seems foolish to KNOW there is no God and yet say all is subjective. If I am wrong, what do I lose? I will gladly be the "idiot" on this one. I don't watch fox news, in fact I generally try to seek out non-biased new. Also I embrace existentialism. Philosophy and science, to me (seeing as all is opinion and none is fact), continue to "disprove" God yet show the desperate need for humans to have purpose and to have reason, even if that reason being to disprove reason and purpose. I am glad my comment has bothered so many of you. May the grace and peace o
f Jesus Christ be with you.
The thing that bothers me is the fact that you and so many people even believe what you are saying.
Funny. I really can't put my finger on it, but are you people chasing the truth or imposing the meaning to be the one who's Right about this?
Why did this get labeled as "Philosophy"? This is more like "the Complete Ignorance of Philosophy".
This is more like "the Complete Ignorance of Philosophy".
Nah, that's the title you give to religion.
I completely agree with you. Religion is a horrible man made institution. However, there is a difference between religion and faith. Go think about that for a while.
I agree a little with the Anonymous Dude. And by the way, people are FREE already. Everyone is free to choose what they want to do and what religion to follow. Yeah I know, religion has been used for centuries has an excuse to create wars. But the people who use religion for war are not religious. Because almost all religions have a message of love and understanding, its the people that distort those messages. Therefore its men who is rotten, men who are FREE, and choose to decide they are better than others, men who are FREE but take away your freedom. Let me tell you something, I believe in God, not a specific one, just God. I don't have proof of his existence but I choose to believe. That is me, and my choice.
So yes its good to be free, unless you are an ass hole.
"Remember that to fight meaningless is futile, but fight anyway, inspite of and because of its futility."
That's pretty counterproductive. If you just accept that it's meaningless, then you don't have to fight at all. Yeeaahh.
Also, to go with the whole pedophile example, that's completely man-made. Just remember, several hundred years ago it was common for older men to marry young girls, even as young as 14 or 15, and it was not considered unusual. Is that "immoral"? Who prescribes morality? Man. Who wrote the bible? (Let's see if you can go 2 for 2)
Actually, if you had done any amount of research, you'd know that Christians believe we were only the tools implemented to write the Bible. (And don't get yourself all worked up about the term "tool," because that is simply to imply we used our own hands to physically write it.) The actual content was/is inspired by God himself. (New Testament at least... Old Testament is merely a record of events.) However, I completely agree with the pedophilia example... in a post-modernistic world there are essentially no morals.
This should just be called Existentialism.
Well said, I like the idea font size as well.
Thus really made me excited because its what I try to explain to myself all the time. :)
This is Camus, bastards!
Yeah I noticed that too.
What post-modernistic puppets you all are... Have a great day! =)
ITT we all recreate a 2000-year-old argument and get nowhere.
I would just like to say that I especially enjoy your font choices for this little rant...
Take a Dale Carnegie course. There is no point in arguing with religious zealots whatsoever.
Wow how original! (not) Where have I heard this before...oh, from France's most famous and iconic postmodern philosopher...
I'll give you all a hint. Starts with an "S" and ends in "arte".
Bit of a puerile comment for a Sartre fan. Anyway, I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first one to express ideas on this, and he certainly wasn't the last.
You think you can come up with a more original philosophy? You're the one who's using the title of someone else's play for a username.
As a student and academic philosopher, I have to say I'm a tad disappointed in this kind of thinking. The main message is good -- live deliberately, you are free -- but this notion that meaning is entirely man-made and therefore nothing has meaning is a grave philosophic mistake.
morals and values are man made, they are made by you. no way of getting out of it. you see someone get stabbed in front of you A) you help victim, MAKING a moral stance that this should not happen cause it's wrong B) you help bad guy, MAKING a moral stance that this is not only a good thing but should be done because it's right C) you do nothing...i guess you've got issues, or are unable to actually do anything about it.
stop arguing about religion and beliefs. this poster should be saying "believe in whatever the hell you want." if thinking that someone else is watching after you, making sure life goes well for you...awesome, why not? if believing that you make your own choices and shape your own destiny....even better in my opinion.
only crappy thing (someone already stated) is enforcing a belief on someone or having a "i'm right you suck" argument.
listen to people, be aware, try to actually enjoy other human beings, throw out new ideas to people but don't tell someone the answer un
less the day comes when you can prove, undeniably, that it is right and prove how everything else is wrong. until that day, start arguing about why there's more people yelling at each other than people supporting each other
this is why everyone hates atheists
Looks like Dafont threw up all over a GoMedia page.
nihilism is fun to practice, NOT
Actually, the philosophy in question here looks to be closer to Absurdism as a nihilist would not seek to create their own meaning.
It would have to depend. After all, Nietzsche would argue that you Should make your own meaning, and he was one of the forefathers of nihilism, or he has been labeled as such anyway.
Nietzsche was terrified of Nihilism; he spoke of it being inevitable and indisputable.
It is existentialism. Pure sarte kids.
I love this and for those who question it should become more secure about their beliefs and move on.
Can people do that? Most cant, their ego screams at them NOT TO!
I love this only because it's genius and though I do not agree with all of it,
I accept the people who do for I am secure with MYSELF. :)
This is a very strong opinion considering how many people follow a religion. Belief in something has helped people cope with their lives and hope when they think there is no hope left. There is no definite answer. Just as there is no proof that there is a God, there is no proof that there isn't one, or one of many. It's like your imposing your belief as the ultimate truth of the world, when truth is merely in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes believing in nothing helps you live your life more, sometimes believing in something does the same. It's different for each person. This is a very cool poster though and definitely speaks volumes about the artist's creativity. :)
It's a little bit like Communism, it looks good on paper and sounds great read out loud, but in reality, it just doesn't work.
'socialism without jails', just works.
God is the singularity from which the Big Bang erupted, that from which the universe was born, and thus, everything the universe now holds.
Is that the same god that loves you and will give you eternal life (only after you die, of course)?
Yeah, that god doesn't exist and is clearly the fabrication of humans that fear death and loneliness.
Disregarding the attempts at intellectual postulation in the comments section..This poster is great- inspiring complete liberation from chains which bound many. I think Sartre would smile.
You people and your bickering are giving Atheists a bad name; because of you and people like you, "Atheist" has become synonymous with "Dick".
you suck at spelling.
I'd buy this on cafepress.
When typography is involved, proper spelling is a must.
None of this is about intellect or higher education. What are you trying to prove? Your awaiting someone's evidence that there is a god? What the frak does that mean? I have no personal preference to any religion. I'm just happy to walk outside and breath fresh air. I'm amazed when the seasons change. I'm in awe of the world around us. Sure I have questions, but they will remain unanswered until I die. So give it up. Believing in God literally saves people's lives. Stop trying to take that away from them.
Believing in God literally saves people's lives. Stop trying to take that away from them.
No it doesn't..
on the other hand, it sure does result in a whole lot of killing:
I could go on and on.
So here's a question: what does religion give you that you wouldn't have without religion?
neoform... you're accusing 'religion' for all those events and while that might be accurate it is only because of the corrupt men who instigated them, HOWEVER, they were only acting under the guise of 'religion'. While they were horrible events preformed in the name of religion most religions DO NOT preach violence (rather the exact opposite.) Christianity has got it the worst and one of it's biggest obstacles is its reputation. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. all were horrible events instigated by 'Christians' but at the same time not at all Christianity's or God's fault; rather they were the wills of corrupt men. Man is to blame and not God. Christians, in my opinion, should not be out trying to convert people these days but apologizing for the horrible things done in the Lord's name.
neoform... you're accusing 'religion' for all those events and while that might be accurate it is only because of the corrupt men who instigated them,
Isn't it amazing how you can always attribute the actions to 'the few', meanwhile ignoring what actually drove them to do it. When you teach someone that an invisible man in the sky loves you, and will give you eternal life if you spread the word of his existence (amazing how an omnipotent being would need you to do that for him)... then you accuse him of being corrupt when he goes on a killing spree trying to convert everyone, and kill those that don't accept their new 'beliefs'...
Religion teaches us to believe the random thoughts in our heads are voices from the 'creator'. Religion teaches us to act in unquestioning and uncritical ways. Religion is poison.
A man has a penis and a woman has a vagina!
Who ever wrote this not only has the spirit of the anti-christ but does not know, could not know if this were true. It is pure assumption and it is foolish. I would much rather be a slave to Jesus then ever be freed from the perfect and purposeful ideals of the one, true, living GOD. If you feel uneasy in what this says, seek out answers. Do not disregard the passing down of generations of knowledge for this new idea that we have no meaning but to create a name for ourselves. There is a Father in heaven who has allowed you to be created, and he has loved you despite your flaws, cause we all have them. And to whoever wrote this: if what you say is true, please, please kill yourself because you spelled "you" where you obviously meant "your" in the 8th line of text.
Obvious Troll is Obvious. BUT if you would rather be a slave, than thats your prerogative. excuse me while i go live.
The spirit of the anti-christ? What are you smoking?
Let me ask you this. What if a religion believes that you should make up your own morals to live by? Or what if a religion believes that there Gods are not immortal or what if a religion was proven? Then what would you do? Would you join that religion if it was proven scientifically to be truth? Now think about this if you were a god and lived in your own world where you had peers and people on earth decided to stop believing in you would you feel compelled to make them believe? would you care that they stopped? I sure as hell wouldn't You see I believe in what I believe cause I want to and I have good reasons for believing it and when you try to shove your atheist ways down my throat I get just as crab juiceed as when a christian does it. I know my religion is true and it honestly doesn't matter what you believe or worship so I have no need or want to collect followers. As far as I am concerned the christian God is false and I don't go out of my way too make the point because I don't give a
im sorry but pure assumption is assuming there was some angry being in the sky who hated us so much that he sent his son down so we could kill him and then "he" called it even. sure christianity has great lessons on morality and how to be a good human, but you really think there's a magical floating consciousness in control of everyone's fate? they don't even care if you're a good person... if you believe in Jesus they say you will go to heaven. so what is the "meaning" of following christianity? there only real answer is that there are no answers. we're alone, we have no idea why we're here, and we're stranded in the middle of an inconceivably large universe stranded on this rock. if you think you have an answer, you have a serious case of megalomania, just like all the rest of the religious nuts out there.
why do you call God angry? he loved the world so much that he gave his son so that we could go to heaven upon believing (john 3:16). the bible makes many references to the heavenly FATHER so yes, it would be a 'he'. in my opinion the "christian life style" is much more practical than otherwise. say what you will, but if you think about it, abstaining from sins will make life much easier down the road (not just in a spiritual sense). there are answers. not all of them, but some. just because you havent found them yet does not mean they do not exist. i may be a religious nut, but i would ask that you please not generalize like that. i dont know your background. i dont know what youve been through. i do know that there is a God out there, and hes searching for you.
I'm sorry. "Do not disregard the passing down of generations of KNOWLEDGE for this new idea ... There is a father in heaven ... yada yada ... " ? This new idea is foolish? It is assumption? Perfect ideals of God? Hang on a minute. You are implying that there is no back up to this new idea. Uh... where's the back up to the generations of 'Knowledge' that has been passed down? Where's the proof of the father in heaven? I'm not saying I disagree with religion, and I'm not saying I agree with it either. I am merely pointing out your hipocrisy (sp?).
P.S. I love you for correcting grammar. Just putting that out there.
Yuh an' if u dun like A-mer-i-ca u kin giiiiit out! Let me guess, you watch FOX news and if it were not for Jesus you would worship Sean Hannity & Ann Coulter, wait you already do. As Jim Crawford said, "Man has always required an explanation for all of those things in the world he did not understand. If an explanation was not available, he created one"... like you have. Oh mah gawd teh ante-geist is amung uz!
your just being IGNORANT
All of you would very likely benefit from calming yourselves by going into a nice quiet room, sitting in a comfortable position and chanting, "Peace, peace, peace." It would call upon your true nature which is to move in harmony with the normal healthy functioning of the body/mind. This is accomplished primarily through the breath while concentrating upon the total body being. When this becomes the daily practice of the true philosopher, the heart is more open and the mind is free to create. Creation is the process of the entire universe. When one is aligned with this reality, clarity of ones purpose is realized. Then can go forth and establish relationships which are productive and have conversations which produce wonderful things for ones own self as well as for others. This is where morality springs from. One finds rhythm in the breath the beating of the heart, the turning of the world into night and day. Sanity and maturity is restored to the individual, and this, not quailing, chi
ldish name-calling and lording about our egos with who is right and who is wrong, is the basis for understanding. That is after all the only true reason for communication between true philosophers of life. With this in mind, we invite you all to go forth and do good things for yourselves and for one another, as well. In short we might say,without sarcasm, and in all sincerity, "Get a life." Peace!