Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[Spare_change]

The lie that being free form faith is ‘religion’ is predicated on the arrogant, wrongheaded notion that a given religion is ‘true’ and that to acknowledge the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists manifests as a ‘belief.’

Another who chooses to pontificate, rather than substantiate.

So sad.

 

[ding]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

Why?

 

[ding]

The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.

Beings that know and create were predestined to exist by the laws of nature which were in place before space and time were created.

That's what the scientific method tells us.

Every person has the right to control their own body.

Yes, and a new genetically distinct human being is not someone else's body.

 

[Boss]

Two problems with that. First, There are several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate that the physical universe actually could form from apparent nothingness. Second, unless you are going to employ the logical fallacy of special pleading, then your "something must have created the universe" also requires that something must have created the creator, ad infinitum, which leads to infinite regression - also a paradox.

...several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate...
uhm.... theories do not demonstrate.

Quantum mechanics also doesn't refute physics... but IF it does, then you are now tinkering about in the metaphysical "realm" to use your terminology.

Something doesn't have to create a spiritual Creator because "create" applies to the physical. It's not "special pleading" but rather, contextual definitions.

LOL! "God is 'special'. He doesn't need creating..."

It's not about being special. TO CREATE means to bring something into physical existence. That's what "create" means. God, whatever you believe God is, is NOT physical and therefore requires no physical creation.

This is yet another example of how atheists cannot fathom something beyond the physical. Your mind is simply not capable of imagining something else. You claimed that you used to but I don't see how. I think you claim that because you think it lends you some sort of credibility. Kind of like Jake the Fake claiming he used to be Republican.

 

[Czernobog]

Based on the premise that there is no evidence to support the existence of such. Guess what? Provide objective, verifiable evidence, and that premise is proven false, and the equation changes. I am willing to concede that it is possible to change my position. Are you?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence but why would there be?

My belief is based on my life experience. I have witnessed evidence of spiritual nature in action many times. I can't ignore these experiences or pretend they were something else.

I would suggest that there is, in fact, a plethora of physical evidence that God exists. It is the ignorance of the "non-believer" that creates the supposed conundrum.

"A middle aged lady with the classic symptoms of heart failure, which is confirmed by echocardiogram. The lady is scheduled for a left heart catheterisation to further evaluate the cause. This was done the following day, and to everyone’s astonishment, the heart function was completely normal! Puzzled, a repeat echocardiogram was performed the same day, and was completely normal."

"A child in remote Mexico who is diagnosed with an obstructing tumor called nasopharyngeal cancer. These are universally fatal if not treated aggressively, and with the physician’s vast experience, he was certain this was the diagnosis even without a biopsy. The parents were instructed to bring the child back the next day for surgery.

A group of people prayed with the family. The following morning they showed up with the child. Pre-operative checklists were done, and just before the child underwent anesthesia, the surgeon took one last look. There was no tumor. They summoned the parents, and told them they had brought the wrong child, but they insisted it was the same one. There was a great deal of conversation among our team, translators, and the family, but in the end we all bore witness that this was the same child. There was no rational or medical explanation for this; these tumors simply do not disappear overnight." Derren Brown wants to see objective evidence for miracles? Challenge accepted - Premier Christianity

"Fatima, Portugal - In the Cova da Iria fields near Fatima, Portugal, a miracle occurred with the sun in October of 1917. According to legend, three shepherd children reported that the Virgin Mary told them a miracle would occur on a certain date and time, and thousands of people gathered to witness it. At high noon, after a patch of rain and clouds, the sun suddenly appeared in the sky as a spinning disk. According to witnesses, the sun then zig-zagged towards the Earth. This miracle was officially sanctioned by the church in 1930."

"One of the more recent miracles, this episode tool place in Clearwater, Florida beginning in late 1996. Suddenly and without explanation, an image of the Virgin mother appeared on the side of the Seminole Finance Building, which is outfitted in large panes of black glass. The rainbow colored image stood two stories tall, and withstood vandals throwing liquid on the side of the building. More than 500,000 faithful people went to visit this unexplained vision."

There are literally thousands of instances throughout history where prayer has resulted in unexplainable results. Whether they be medical cures, or simultaneous beeding of statues, unexplained appearance, unfathomable physical activities, or any of a myriad of happenings, those things cannot be explained by science or theory.

The unbelieving, of course, will deny these - offering alternative theories, all of which have been disproven. So, the question remains - if not God, then what or Who? Should I deny the presence of science simply because I can't understand how it applies?

Of course we deny these. These are called anecdotal experiences. I'll let you go back, and reread the thread, to catch up, and understand why anecdotal experiences are useless to rational, objective observation.

As I suspected ----- you asked for definitive proof, and then when presented with instances of proof, you smugly deny them as proof. I note that you did NOT disprove them.

You might want to go back and re-read my posts. Never once did I ask for "definitive" proof. I would never ask for such a thing, as "definitive" is a subjective te4rm. What I asked for was objectice, verifiable, measurable evidence.

An event witnessed by 500,000 people is an "anecdotal event"? Seriously?

500,000 people didn't "witness an event". Stain deposits, and weathering created an obscure pattern on a window, and gullible people who wanted to believe they saw " something", allowed their frontal cortex to interpret that pattern in a way that they wished to see. It's not different than "Jesus in the Toast". Is seeing the face of Jesus on your toast a "miraculous proof of God", or is it just a trick of the mind? Science has demonstrated it's the latter.

We are left with the inescapable conclusion that you aren't interested in proof - you are only interested in a platform to pontificate your personal views.

As such, I can think of no viable reason to continue to provide you that platform.

May God bless you and yours .... given your narrow mindedness, you're going to need it.

I'm not interested in unreliable personal accounts. I a interested in observable, verifiable, measurable evidence. I thought I made that clear.

 

[Czernobog]

Two problems with that. First, There are several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate that the physical universe actually could form from apparent nothingness. Second, unless you are going to employ the logical fallacy of special pleading, then your "something must have created the universe" also requires that something must have created the creator, ad infinitum, which leads to infinite regression - also a paradox.

...several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate...
uhm.... theories do not demonstrate.

Quantum mechanics also doesn't refute physics... but IF it does, then you are now tinkering about in the metaphysical "realm" to use your terminology.

Something doesn't have to create a spiritual Creator because "create" applies to the physical. It's not "special pleading" but rather, contextual definitions.

LOL! "God is 'special'. He doesn't need creating..."

It's not about being special. TO CREATE means to bring something into physical existence. That's what "create" means. God, whatever you believe God is, is NOT physical and therefore requires no physical creation.

This is yet another example of how atheists cannot fathom something beyond the physical. Your mind is simply not capable of imagining something else. You claimed that you used to but I don't see how. I think you claim that because you think it lends you some sort of credibility. Kind of like Jake the Fake claiming he used to be Republican.

Oh. it's not that we can't imagine such a thing. it's that we recognise that as what it is - imagination. Children let their imaginations dictate their reality. Adults understand that there is a time for playing make-believe, and a time to get on with living in the real world. Now, if this seems like a slight, well, consider that you fired the first shot with your derision about atheists. Like i said, I don't have any problem with you engaging your imagination. Just quit condescending to me when I choose not to.

 

[Boss]

Oh. it's not that we can't imagine such a thing. it's that we recognise that as what it is - imagination. Children let their imaginations dictate their reality. Adults understand that there is a time for playing make-believe, and a time to get on with living in the real world. Now, if this seems like a slight, well, consider that you fired the first shot with your derision about atheists. Like i said, I don't have any problem with you engaging your imagination. Just quit condescending to me when I choose not to.

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh. it's not that we can't imagine such a thing. it's that we recognise that as what it is - imagination. Children let their imaginations dictate their reality. Adults understand that there is a time for playing make-believe, and a time to get on with living in the real world. Now, if this seems like a slight, well, consider that you fired the first shot with your derision about atheists. Like i said, I don't have any problem with you engaging your imagination. Just quit condescending to me when I choose not to.

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

Of course it is. Just like it's my conscious choice not to believe in ghosts, fairies, and unicorns. Sorry. I see no value in giving credence to imaginary creatures.

 

[ding]

Oh. it's not that we can't imagine such a thing. it's that we recognise that as what it is - imagination. Children let their imaginations dictate their reality. Adults understand that there is a time for playing make-believe, and a time to get on with living in the real world. Now, if this seems like a slight, well, consider that you fired the first shot with your derision about atheists. Like i said, I don't have any problem with you engaging your imagination. Just quit condescending to me when I choose not to.

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

Of course it is. Just like it's my conscious choice not to believe in ghosts, fairies, and unicorns. Sorry. I see no value in giving credence to imaginary creatures.

Which is why you just created a logical fallacy straw-man. You've boiled down everyone else's beliefs to ghosts, fairies and unicorns. Bravo.

You criticize what you do not believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. You confuse this for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what you do believe to test its validity. Something you never do.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh. it's not that we can't imagine such a thing. it's that we recognise that as what it is - imagination. Children let their imaginations dictate their reality. Adults understand that there is a time for playing make-believe, and a time to get on with living in the real world. Now, if this seems like a slight, well, consider that you fired the first shot with your derision about atheists. Like i said, I don't have any problem with you engaging your imagination. Just quit condescending to me when I choose not to.

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

Of course it is. Just like it's my conscious choice not to believe in ghosts, fairies, and unicorns. Sorry. I see no value in giving credence to imaginary creatures.

Which is why you just created a logical fallacy straw-man. You've boiled down everyone else's beliefs to ghosts, fairies and unicorns. Bravo.

An analogy is not a "straw man". Boss made it clear that his faith is rooted in an "imagination" of "spiritual reality". I point out that I choose not to give credance to things that are based in the imagination.

 

[Boss]

An analogy is not a "straw man". Boss made it clear that his faith is rooted in an "imagination" of "spiritual reality".

I made no such statement. In fact, I told you specifically that my faith is based on my personal life experience which makes the consideration of spiritual nature unquestionable to me. I know there is a spiritual nature because I connect with it and gain benefit from it.

What you are attempting to dishonestly twist and morph is my statement that you are unable to imagine something outside of physical nature. This is yet another standard tactic of atheists. You just can't maintain an honest debate on merit, you have to lie and distort things.

 

[Czernobog]

An analogy is not a "straw man". Boss made it clear that his faith is rooted in an "imagination" of "spiritual reality".

I made no such statement. In fact, I told you specifically that my faith is based on my personal life experience which makes the consideration of spiritual nature unquestionable to me. I know there is a spiritual nature because I connect with it and gain benefit from it.

Really? You said, and I quote:

This is yet another example of how atheists cannot fathom something beyond the physical. Your mind is simply not capable of imagining something else.

And when I responded that I choose not to let my imagination dictate my perceived reality, rather than insisting that you don't either, you responded by saying:

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

Which any rational person would consider a concession of my position, and your comment an acknowledgement of the link between belief, and imagination.
Now, of course, you want to pretend that you did not make the argument you made, because when I drew the analogy of ghosts, and fairies, you suddenly see the absurdity of allowing one's imagination to dictate one's perceived reality. So, once again, you wish to dishonestly pretend you didn't say the very things you said.

Unfortunately for you, they are a matter of record that, as you can see, can be recalled at will.

 

[ding]

Oh. it's not that we can't imagine such a thing. it's that we recognise that as what it is - imagination. Children let their imaginations dictate their reality. Adults understand that there is a time for playing make-believe, and a time to get on with living in the real world. Now, if this seems like a slight, well, consider that you fired the first shot with your derision about atheists. Like i said, I don't have any problem with you engaging your imagination. Just quit condescending to me when I choose not to.

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

Of course it is. Just like it's my conscious choice not to believe in ghosts, fairies, and unicorns. Sorry. I see no value in giving credence to imaginary creatures.

Which is why you just created a logical fallacy straw-man. You've boiled down everyone else's beliefs to ghosts, fairies and unicorns. Bravo.

An analogy is not a "straw man". Boss made it clear that his faith is rooted in an "imagination" of "spiritual reality". I point out that I choose not to give credance to things that are based in the imagination.

Ghosts, fairies and unicorns. Blow it out of your unjustifiably sanctimonious ass.

Now tell me another lie.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh. it's not that we can't imagine such a thing. it's that we recognise that as what it is - imagination. Children let their imaginations dictate their reality. Adults understand that there is a time for playing make-believe, and a time to get on with living in the real world. Now, if this seems like a slight, well, consider that you fired the first shot with your derision about atheists. Like i said, I don't have any problem with you engaging your imagination. Just quit condescending to me when I choose not to.

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

Of course it is. Just like it's my conscious choice not to believe in ghosts, fairies, and unicorns. Sorry. I see no value in giving credence to imaginary creatures.

Which is why you just created a logical fallacy straw-man. You've boiled down everyone else's beliefs to ghosts, fairies and unicorns. Bravo.

An analogy is not a "straw man". Boss made it clear that his faith is rooted in an "imagination" of "spiritual reality". I point out that I choose not to give credance to things that are based in the imagination.

Ghosts, fairies and unicorns. Blow it out of your unjustifiably sanctimonious ass.

Now tell me another lie.

My my. Such an aggressive, intolerant response. Whatever would your Jesus think of you? Thanks for demonstrating for everyone what hypocritical lying fucks Christians really are.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the emergence of physiology as a functioning organism rather than an inert substance verifies a metaphysical presence responsible as an intelligent designer prior to its emergence and proof the axioms that exist that make up the metaphysical are responsible for the organisms viability.

 

[Boss]

An analogy is not a "straw man". Boss made it clear that his faith is rooted in an "imagination" of "spiritual reality".

I made no such statement. In fact, I told you specifically that my faith is based on my personal life experience which makes the consideration of spiritual nature unquestionable to me. I know there is a spiritual nature because I connect with it and gain benefit from it.

Really? You said, and I quote:

This is yet another example of how atheists cannot fathom something beyond the physical. Your mind is simply not capable of imagining something else.

Right, and there isn't one thing in that quote to "make it clear Boss' faith is rooted in and imagination of spiritual reality" as you falsely tried to claim. Indeed, I said exactly what I reiterated. That you are unable to imagine something outside of physical nature. YOU, not ME!

And when I responded that I choose not to let my imagination dictate my perceived reality, rather than insisting that you don't either, you responded by saying:

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

Which any rational person would consider a concession of my position, and your comment an acknowledgement of the link between belief, and imagination.

I never said I expected your imagination to dictate your perceived reality. Again, you are morphing and twisting things into a completely fabricated context because you apparently find it too hard to be honest here. It's funny how "imagination" is such a triggering word for you as you wildly imagine all sorts of shit I didn't say!

Now, of course, you want to pretend that you did not make the argument you made, because when I drew the analogy of ghosts, and fairies, you suddenly see the absurdity of allowing one's imagination to dictate one's perceived reality. So, once again, you wish to dishonestly pretend you didn't say the very things you said.

Unfortunately for you, they are a matter of record that, as you can see, can be recalled at will.

We don't have to pretend, we can read the posts for ourselves! Ghosts and fairies are not analogous until I see you spending every waking hour of every day on a message board, committed to total denunciation of all belief in ghosts and fairies. A quick search of USMB reveals you have never posted a single thread about your disbelief in ghosts and fairies. What's absurd is that you'd dare to make such a lame analogy.

 

[Czernobog]

.
the emergence of physiology as a functioning organism rather than an inert substance verifies a metaphysical presence responsible as an intelligent designer prior to its emergence and proof the axioms that exist that make up the metaphysical are responsible for the organisms viability.

The "metaphysical presence" is responsible for the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes?

I didn't know the metaphysical presence was so interested in science.

 

[Czernobog]

An analogy is not a "straw man". Boss made it clear that his faith is rooted in an "imagination" of "spiritual reality".

I made no such statement. In fact, I told you specifically that my faith is based on my personal life experience which makes the consideration of spiritual nature unquestionable to me. I know there is a spiritual nature because I connect with it and gain benefit from it.

Really? You said, and I quote:

This is yet another example of how atheists cannot fathom something beyond the physical. Your mind is simply not capable of imagining something else.

Right, and there isn't one thing in that quote to "make it clear Boss' faith is rooted in and imagination of spiritual reality" as you falsely tried to claim. Indeed, I said exactly what I reiterated. That you are unable to imagine something outside of physical nature. YOU, not ME!

And when I responded that I choose not to let my imagination dictate my perceived reality, rather than insisting that you don't either, you responded by saying:

Well at least you are admitting it's a conscious choice you make to disbelieve.

Which any rational person would consider a concession of my position, and your comment an acknowledgement of the link between belief, and imagination.

I never said I expected your imagination to dictate your perceived reality. Again, you are morphing and twisting things into a completely fabricated context because you apparently find it too hard to be honest here. It's funny how "imagination" is such a triggering word for you as you wildly imagine all sorts of shit I didn't say!

Now, of course, you want to pretend that you did not make the argument you made, because when I drew the analogy of ghosts, and fairies, you suddenly see the absurdity of allowing one's imagination to dictate one's perceived reality. So, once again, you wish to dishonestly pretend you didn't say the very things you said.

Unfortunately for you, they are a matter of record that, as you can see, can be recalled at will.

We don't have to pretend, we can read the posts for ourselves! Ghosts and fairies are not analogous until I see you spending every waking hour of every day on a message board, committed to total denunciation of all belief in ghosts and fairies. A quick search of USMB reveals you have never posted a single thread about your disbelief in ghosts and fairies. What's absurd is that you'd dare to make such a lame analogy.

See, I don't need to spend any time denouncing ghosts, and fairies, because there aren't a bunch of fanatical ghost hunters trying to convince everyone that they must believ3ein ghosts, of suffer eternal damnation. Trust me, the minute that happens, I'll be denouncing them for letting their imaginations run away with them, too.

 

[Boss]

See, I don't need to spend any time denouncing ghosts, and fairies, because there aren't a bunch of fanatical ghost hunters trying to convince everyone that they must believ3ein ghosts, of suffer eternal damnation. Trust me, the minute that happens, I'll be denouncing them for letting their imaginations run away with them, too.

It goes back to what I said before... It's not that you don't believe in God, it's that you don't believe in the Christian God. And that's likely because the Christian God holds you accountable for your sin-filled lifestyle, which inconveniences you.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the emergence of physiology as a functioning organism rather than an inert substance verifies a metaphysical presence responsible as an intelligent designer prior to its emergence and proof the axioms that exist that make up the metaphysical are responsible for the organisms viability.

The "metaphysical presence" is responsible for the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes?

I didn't know the metaphysical presence was so interested in science.

.

I didn't know the metaphysical presence was so interested in science.

you do now ... can there be true science or even exist without intervention of the metaphysical axioms that are responsible for its emergence.