cuchulain

There are many who decry the atheist who talks about their nonbelief. It is said, sometimes on the news, that if they don't agree they should just let others have their faith and be quiet. Yet when a Christian proselytizes, if a Christian is "called" to preach, they are treated with respect for their decision. They are thought of as special, or holy. (A note added: I do not mean to pick only on Christians, I simply know more about Christianity than other religions). I wonder, why is it that a person who feels the call internally to speak the truth they see it is judged by the title at the beginning of their name? Reverend, Friar, Father, Atheist. Of course, the first three are thought well of while the last is reviled. Disconcerting, isn't it?

Not taking your meaning mererdog. Could you elaborate?

I have tried politely to break off this debate, which seemingly has degenerated into an argument. This is the simplest way to tell you: I won't believe you. You won't believe me. End of argument. Now, you may snipe away. Get those attacks in, that I won't respond to. That way you can feel better about it, and think you won the argument. It makes me no difference.

I will first start off by saying I watched that somewhat lengthy video, and wrote names and information down to check. The names check out for the most part, although I could find absolutely NOTHING posted by Shawn with the exception of an ad for a physical therapy place after his accident. The people seem to be connected, and actually know each other and exist. That's a plus. The accident really happened. So far as the miracle, I do not believe any miracle occurred from watching this video. The only people who ever said he was brain dead were bystanders with no medical knowledge other than the doctors telling them they didn't think he would make it. I can understand how it might SEEM miraculous. Especially to people who are already deeply religious, such as the people in the video were. But that is just my opinion. I did not see actual evidence, only an anecdotal story. Still, at least this one wasn't blatantly false testimony. At least, it seems the people involved really seem to believe it.

Being a heretic is what makes it fun though. I mean, aside from the church burnings and all.

I can fully appreciate that the virtues are meant for humans separate from animals, and to help us interact with society. It makes sense, to me. I don't think you have to worry overly much about offending anyone. Some of us are easily offended, others are not. But ultimately, each of us is responsible for our own reactions to what someone has to say, rather I should say RESPONSES, instead of reactions. I think it summed up by Temperance, one of the virtues listed. Thanks for your input!

I prefer people not judge me or tell me what to do. If your God exists, that's his job, and he's failing. Oops, infallible God, my bad. Maybe he is telling me exactly how to behave, then.

I can understand that stance from the Christian perspective, but from the outside it's a very scary thing to hear, you know? I have been debating with someone locally in a chat type of room thing(not the most technically literate person, sorry), and they sound scarily like they are about one step from being the next guy in the news because it's "in the bible, therefore good".

Can't do it, eh? See, up above, you were worried about souls. Right up until you were challenged. I would only be a fool if I were unwilling to change my mind in the face of ACTUAL evidence, such as you stating that scripture. If saving souls is your goal, mine has a pretty cheap price, easy for you if you can really talk to angels and Jesus, right? How about this challenge instead: If God wants us all to be saved and believe, ask what you should say to make me believe. That's even simpler, isn't it? Then just say what he tells you and, if God is all knowing and really does exist and know what I need to hear to believe, I will clearly be swayed. After all, how could someone as foolish as me challenge the knowledge of God? If he exists, that is...but no, that won't happen either. Know why? Because you are simply speaking, crazy(I assume it's ok to call you names, after you call me names, right?). At least I am smart enough not to claim to speak for God. But, I digress. Verse? Chapter? Nah...you can't. That's why. That's all the proof I need, that you are a quack, or at best crazy. So...if you provide the verse, I will convert, and respond further. If not, I simply ignore you. Sound fair?

It would be simple beyond belief to prove out of body experiences as well, you know. They almost always say they are floating above their bodies, drifting, at peace...so put a piece of paper on a shelf where they couldn't see it from the bed, and don't know what's on it, then tell them to repeat what it says after they have an out of body experience in the hospital. But it won't happen, and apologists like Child of God will simply make stuff up as to why it wouldn't really work.

I notice you aren't telling me the verse...

Mute people don't have faith? Wow, you are good at reading minds. Not gonna take me up on my challenge, I guess? Not going to ask those angels what scripture by chapter verse I wrote down on the paper? I mean, that WOULD be the simple way to prove your claim. The only way actually. But...nope, you can't, can you?

You have claimed repeatedly to speak to angels, Jesus, etc...so a very simple test. I have written a bible verse on a piece of paper and put it in a drawer. If your angels can tell you the verse by chapter and number I will fully acknowledge you actually speak to them and I was wrong. Otherwise, I consider you personally a liar, or at best crazy.

So then no salvation for the mute community?

What do you view as virtue, whatever your religion, philosophy, etc?

All of which can be known given time. I believe that all the laws of nature are observable, and thus can be known. It may take specialized tools or circumstance to observe said laws, which may not have been developed yet, which may take time to develop. Man can't actually escape its inexorable force...I do not see it as possible to escape the laws of nature, which we are capable of reasoning out. I could be wrong, but obviously if I thought I were wrong I wouldn't type it, eh? Man is perfectly capable of going with the flow of natural law, however. We can observe natural law, determine how things work, and then order our lives to flow with that natural law instead of trying to struggle against it. Observation and the six sided die. I don't know all the laws of probability, so I cannot speculate using knowledge I do not currently have. However, answering the question you pose, I would think(not be completely certain) that the die was loaded after five or six rolls, probably. I have no idea the maximum number of times in a row a fair six sided die can roll six, but I would guess infinitely. It is possible, even if the chance of it doing so is inordinately small, otherwise it would not have odds at all. Just my thought about it, of course. So from that perspective, I could pick up a die, have it roll 6 let's say 20 times in a row, and believe it to be loaded, but still be incorrect. I assume that is the point you are trying to reach? That I could still be wrong? I fully acknowledge my ability to be in error(and for the record, I do not claim to have mastered the stoic system, merely be an adherent to SOME of it's principles). For instance, the stoics believe typically in something called Logos, which is basically the divine as they see it, and I do not.

In so far as we exist, it is possible to injure me only in a temporary manner. We all die, and this is an inevitability. Any injury done to me is of a temporary nature at best, for I will either get better and die, or stay injured and die. Either way, the end result is death for all of us. So for someone to bash my face in, as it were, would only be speeding things along, and cannot alter the end result of death regardless.

Observation exists. Existence exists. If existence did not exist, the debate would be pointless, and nothing could be Known, with a capital K. On the premise that observation exists and existence exists, we can observe the world in which we live and come to an understanding of the rules by which the world operates. Certainly there have been observed contingencies where our observations fail us, or the rules by which the universe works are suspended for special cases, but in general the universe is understandable through pure observation and the use of logical reasoning. Through use of specific manners of observation and testing, which some call the scientific theory, we can share the findings we reach with others and share the findings of others, coming to a greater understanding of how the universe works than one person could typically garner in their own life time. This accumulative knowledge to date shows that the universe works on certain principles, such as sound moving at specific speeds and in specific manners, or people having generally the same anatomy. This is my conclusions as to the veracity of existence and our ability to observe and come to an understanding of existence in general. I am uncertain as to which conclusion you wish me to demonstrate using reason alone, so I would ask for clarification, if there is a specific conclusion you wish to discuss. The only part I can see that you might be asking me to demonstrate otherwise would be about virtue, but since I am not you and have observed on many occasions that what I guess you are getting at and what you are actually getting at are often different, I prefer to ask and find out from you.

It was a partial quote by Marcus Aurelius, I will have to look up the context. Ugh, context... But I believe he was referring to mental faults. I will have to double check though, and that might take a few days, as I forget which part of the book it was in.

I do not see that as the case. A person can observe the world and garner that it relies upon certain rules to function, in my opinion. Can you clarify how you believe it relies upon a leap of faith, fallacy, or other form of nonreason, or if you believe that?

Takes a long time, and I am not certain of anything lol, but am glad you had an interesting read at the least.

Thought I would brooch the topic of Stoicism and Atheism and how they combine for me, for those who are curious as to my recent titular changes. 8 basic principles of stoicism: 1. Nature is rational. That is, nature can be rationally understood and operates on laws of existence, not all of which are known, but all of which can be known given time. 2. Law of reason. The universe is governed by the law of reason. Man can't actually escape its inexorable force, but he can, uniquely, follow the law deliberately. 3. Virtue, A life lived according to rational nature is virtuous. 4. Wisdom. Wisdom is the the root virtue. From it spring the cardinal virtues: insight, bravery, self-control, and justice. 5. Apathea, since passion is irrational, life should be waged as a battle against it. Intense feeling should be controlled. 6. Pleasure is not good, nor is it bad. It is only acceptable if it doesn't interfere with our quest for virtue. 7. Evil, poverty, illness, death, these things are not evil. 8. Duty, virtue should be sought not for pleasure but for duty. Some brief basics of stoicism are that stoics do not seek to control that which cannot be controlled. There are things within our control, but they are almost all internal, i.e. our reactions(or responses, for those who control their reactions), how we feel about things that happen to us, things of this nature. Things that are not in our control are how others feel about what we do, the weather, and just about anything else. I am oversimplifying, I am sure. I forget which stoic founder it was, but he was sitting at the side of the road when someone of importance asked him what he would like for a reward(he had done something which I also forget). The stoic responds, "please move over, your blocking the sun". Faults committed against us cannot touch us. I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly. When thou art troubled about anything, thou hast forgotten this [...] that a man's wrongful act is nothing to thee. Consider that everything is opinion, and opinion is in thy power. Take away then, when thou choosest, thy opinion, and like a mariner, who has doubled the promontory, thou wilt find calm, everything stable, and a waveless bay. The intellect is independent of the body. Everything is a matter of judgment. Every fault is in fact a false judgment, and proceeds from ignorance. Everything comes from Universal nature and in conformity with it's will. There is a mutual mixture and implication of everything within everything. "The whole is more important that it's parts"(Epictetus). Universal Reason gives form and energy to matter that is docile. We must always and everywhere distinguish the causal (reason) and the material. Human reason is a part of universal reason. These are some of the very basics of stoicism. Logic and reason are highly valued, as they seem to be highly valued amongst the Atheist community. Most of the quotes used are from Seneca the younger, some are from Marcus Aurelius. Gene Roddenberry stated that his primary motivation behind Vulcan philosophy was Stoicism, though he exaggerated it by removing emotion from Vulcans. Later this was rectified, and it was revealed that Vulcans feel even stronger than humans, they simply control it. Atheist philosophy for me is summed up with a simple statement. I don't believe in a divine power, or the supernatural. I certainly don't expect everyone(or anyone) to agree with my thoughts on these subjects. I don't control what any of you think, or feel, as a result of reading these simple statements. Just thought some people here might appreciate a slight amount of clarification as to what I believe. I don't control that either, btw. But I do control that I feel good sharing my thoughts with those who occupy this forum with me

I liked O'Reilly back when I was 19, but I have watched way too many youtube videos of him bashing those with another viewpoint without logical reason. To point, I don't think any reputable news source has ever published anything proving angels. They might publish opinion or puff pieces, but never actual hard facts proving angels exist. If they did, that would be Pulitzer stuff for sure, might even reach Nobel levels.

The opposite of harm is moral? So, then, you would support the government putting everyone on a diet based strictly on their scientific observations as to what people need nutritionally, perhaps by giving us all a daily amount of nutritious paste without any flavor or allergens? It would be the opposite of harm, especially if they included mandatory exercise with that program, but I do not think it something I would support.

Self definition is ultimately the most important, friend. I can definitely understand wanting to clarify in a forum such as this, however, where people tend to use your title in responses, and often use your title in the way THEY think it should be, rather than you do. I changed my title to stoic atheist, since that is what I define myself as, and sometimes others have used my title in their responses, usually incorrectly, in my opinion.