# Atheism: It begins in our breakfast



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2014)

Thought there was a bit of good natured ribbing present in this article and some of you may enjoy it.

Link: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Atheism-It-begins-in-our-breakfast-20140707



Atheism: It begins in our breakfast

07 July 2014, 14:36
Today I came to the conclusion that an abnormal build-up of cerebrospinal fluids within the brain of an atheist can cause an intense inclination toward irrationality leading to conversations of total irrelevance and blundered scientific facts. Something that comes to mind as I’m writing this article is that of their theory of the earth being a result of a cosmic accident. Consider for a moment the earth coming into existence through a cosmic blast powerful enough to infuse within its centre a deathly flaming core. Now, if I had that same build-up of cerebrospinal fluids I’d be hoping the sun does not explode out of chance as well at any moment, burning to a crisp my body: resting in peace my soul. But then again I’d have no soul as a soul doth not exist. This is what I believe as an atheist and in this I find comfort. In the core of my evolution I find solace. I’m joyful towards the fact that I’m gladdened in my worth as being the same as dirt.
Having been created by evolutions processes by means of modern organisms having descended upon us from ancient ancestors, I’d constantly be living and thinking in survival mode which would also clarify my passionate craving for H2O. I don’t use the term H2O loosely because intellectual superiority was infused within by the same evolutionary processes that also formed the snail, bringing about a substantially larger intelligence incapable of understanding that what the creationists termed water.
As I browsed the web this evening, pondering a typical day in the life of an atheist, I came across a rather interesting article about an atheist seeing evidence of the big bang in a piece of toast while grabbing a quick bite to eat one morning.
Atheist sees evidence of Big Bang in piece of toast
Excitement is growing in the Northern England town of Huddersfield following news that local atheist Donald Chapman saw an image of the Big-Bang in a piece of toast. In an exclusive interview with "The Huddersfield Express" Chapman, 36 explained that he was sitting down to eat breakfast when an unusual toast pattern caught his eye.
"I was just about to spread the butter when I noticed a small hole in the middle of the bread surrounded by a burnt black ring," said Chapman. "Then the direction and splatter pattern of the crumbs caught my eye - they were flowing outward from the centre of the black hole and their shades were changing as distance from the centre grew - a perfect match to the non-linear patterns that followed the Big-Bang. It's the beginning of the world - right there in my breakfast!"
As Chapman attained copyright on the pieces of toast moments after he made the discovery in order for future university curriculums to be credited to his name, I unfortunately cannot display the images here as well without giving proper credit to the site I copied this section from. In order to view these scientific finds please follow the link in recognition of this site - http://www.andfaraway.net/blog/2008/02/14/man-sees-image-of-big-bang-in-a-piece-of-toast/
Ever since news of the discovery made national headlines, local hoteliers have been overwhelmed by an influx of atheists from all over the country who have flocked to Huddersfield to catch a glimpse of the scientific relic. "I have always been an Atheist and to see my unbelief validated on a piece of toast is truly astounding," exclaimed one guest at the Huddersfield Arms hotel.
To the surprise of many, the UK Atheist Association has asked its members to ignore the story despite its potential to inspire less faith. "Given what the religious believe already, this is an easy sell," complained one disgruntled activist who said he was going to Huddersfield anyway noting that "Seeing is not believing."
The irrelevance of an Atheistic world-view
In conclusion to this article I reiterate the first point I made regarding the abnormal build-up of cerebrospinal fluids on the brain of an atheist. For the sake of the layman cerebrospinal fluids simply refers to these literati of people as having excessive amounts of water on the brain. The build-up is often caused by an obstruction which prevents proper fluid drainage – an obstruction undoubtedly caused by a typical power surge somewhere along the ranks of their evolutionary processes. The type of damage to the brain can cause headaches, vomiting, blurred vision, cognitive problems, and walking difficulties which can lead to fatalities if left untreated.
In order to treat a condition such as this successfully a few scenarios does exist – for the sake of closing this writing lets briefly examine only one:
Atheists follow out what they believe. Therefore there is no reason for living at all, because they just live on an extremely dangerous planet, with an extremely dangerous universe, with zero hope for anything at all. There is no moral distinction between any actions at all, and murder is just as equal as kindness in relation to morality, because in their worldview there is no such thing. And they have no explanation for something like when someone prays for something and it actually happens other than by ‘chance’.”
This statement will undoubtedly lead some atheists commenting in ways such as this: “You are so ignorant. I have never met someone so ridiculously ignorant. You are not even worth my time. I obviously have an extremely smart and thought out objection to this statement of yours but I find no need to tell it to you. You probably wouldn’t understand. You are not open-minded enough. It would surely make you melt where you are sitting. All I have to say to you is that you are filled with fallacies and should go back to the third grade!”
The cure to this cerebrospinal fluid build-up lies in their ability to either listen to reason or to storm away angrily at this point. Staying and listening will be the first step in releasing some of those pressures on the brain. Storming away fuming will merely increase their headaches to greater degrees and also contribute to the walking difficulties they might be experiencing...
 *** Later on during the week I’ll try to post an article on atheists contemplating a march to the relevant authorities to deliver a petition to abolish Murphy’s Law.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 9, 2014)

> Therefore there is no reason for living at all, because they just live on an extremely dangerous planet, with an extremely dangerous universe, with zero hope for anything at all. There is no moral distinction between any actions at all, and murder is just as equal as kindness in relation to morality, because in their worldview there is no such thing. And they have no explanation for something like when someone prays for something and it actually happens other than by ‘chance’.”


All of this has been explained and communicated countless times. Seems to be right out of the Christian playbook on Atheist. 
Sorry, but that, along with other stuff in your playbook is just plain lies. 
Good for Christian pep rallies but, that is it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2014)

Well there is 5 minutes of my life that I cant get back. Its just another garbage article that plays on a Christians beliefs.
And the Big Bang in the toast thing comes from a satire website which he conveniently doesn't mention and purposely gives you a different link.
http://satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html
Its actually making fun of Christians claims of the same sort.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> And the Big Bang in the toast thing comes from a satire website which he conveniently doesn't mention and purposely gives you a different link.
> http://satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html
> Its actually making fun of Christians claims of the same sort.



I caught the satire and despite being a Christian was still able to smile.( Imagine that!!!).   In fact you may have a hard time believing this, but quiet a few of us think it's very odd(as in embarrassingly odd)  when someone sees Christ's, the Virgin Mary's, St. Peter's etc. image in a jar of peanut butter, shadows cast by a street light, or a 3 year olds finger painting on the carpet.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 9, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I caught the satire and despite being a Christian was still able to smile.( Imagine that!!!).   In fact you may have a hard time believing this, but quiet a few of us think it's very odd(as in embarrassingly odd)  when someone sees Christ's, the Virgin Mary's, St. Peter's etc. image in a jar of peanut butter, shadows cast by a street light, or a 3 year olds finger painting on the carpet.



I don't know why.  It's as clear as the curls in a nautilus or the spots on a trout or the Goldilocks Zone or any of the other undeniable, plain as day "proofs" of the "hand of God". 

A sign is a sign.  If I think the hair on a dogs behind looks like the Shroud of Turin who are you to tell me that it isn't God himself speaking directly to me.

If you're gonna allow ghosts and demons then you're gonna have to allow this:


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know why.  It's as clear as the curls in a nautilus or the spots on a trout or the Goldilocks Zone or any of the other undeniable, plain as day "proofs" of the "hand of God".
> 
> A sign is a sign.  If I think the hair on a dogs behind looks like the Shroud of Turin who are you to tell me that it isn't God himself speaking directly to me.
> 
> If you're gonna allow ghosts and demons then you're gonna have to allow this:



Saw one of those once but it's ears were longer and had pronghorn antlers.


----------



## Israel (Jul 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know why.  It's as clear as the curls in a nautilus or the spots on a trout or the Goldilocks Zone or any of the other undeniable, plain as day "proofs" of the "hand of God".
> 
> A sign is a sign.  If I think the hair on a dogs behind looks like the Shroud of Turin who are you to tell me that it isn't God himself speaking directly to me.
> 
> If you're gonna allow ghosts and demons then you're gonna have to allow this:


I not only have less than zero problem "allowing that", I receive it. (I receive it is a sometimes over used perhaps, idiom, by some)...nevertheless...
Who is anyone to tell you God isn't speaking to you? 
I for one would have to deny the faith to agree with that. But then it does make it a little bit of an unkind stretch to lay upon your brothers, if one were to say "I don't believe there's a God, you know, the one I just said was speaking to me". Cause, you get the inference, right? Most of us can't live in that land of seeming contradiction...yet.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I caught the satire and despite being a Christian was still able to smile.( Imagine that!!!).   In fact you may have a hard time believing this, but quiet a few of us think it's very odd(as in embarrassingly odd)  when someone sees Christ's, the Virgin Mary's, St. Peter's etc. image in a jar of peanut butter, shadows cast by a street light, or a 3 year olds finger painting on the carpet.


I actually don't find it any wackier than talking donkeys or men living inside fish. They are all hinged on believing it because you want to.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know why.  It's as clear as the curls in a nautilus or the spots on a trout or the Goldilocks Zone or any of the other undeniable, plain as day "proofs" of the "hand of God".
> 
> A sign is a sign.  If I think the hair on a dogs behind looks like the Shroud of Turin who are you to tell me that it isn't God himself speaking directly to me.
> 
> If you're gonna allow ghosts and demons then you're gonna have to allow this:


Even for a morally bankrupt nonbeliever I find that to be just not right


----------



## Israel (Jul 9, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Even for a morally bankrupt nonbeliever I find that to be just not right


Seriously Walt...what's not right about it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I actually don't find it any wackier than talking donkeys or men living inside fish. They are all hinged on believing it because you want to.



As opposed to believing something because you don't want to?  Sorry never seen that.  All beliefs are self serving to some degree.......yours as well as mine.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2014)

Israel said:


> Seriously Walt...what's not right about it?


If a dogs butt hole looked like Hitlers face I would be fine with it


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 9, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> As opposed to believing something because you don't want to?  Sorry never seen that.  All beliefs are self serving to some degree.......yours as well as mine.


Theres a number of things that I believe that I don't want to. Some things are true/false whether we want to believe them or not.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 9, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> If a dogs butt hole looked like Hitlers face I would be fine with it





But, it is a very funny pic.  I think folks spottin' Jesus in corn flakes is funny too.  For one.......what did Jesus look like (insert "baby Jesus" clip from Taledega nights here.....)


----------



## Day trip (Jul 9, 2014)

But there is truth.  Not one statement that will summarize all of the universe but a much more complicated and intricate interwoven syncitium of laws that govern our universe. In other words, the world makes sense.  If we could understand all of the variables, everything is predictable and repeatable.  

  The  problem is that everyone gets one small little glimpse of the truth and then thinks they have the whole thing figured out.  So they go, "Eureka!  I've got it! and they start arguing.  Absolutely certain that they are right and anyone else is wrong.  And they are often right about the small piece of the puzzle they see, but they see such a small quantity of truth, it would be like describing a giraffe in intricate detail by only seeing one spot.  

You have to admire our enthusiasm.  

Let me give a small example.  All the young externs and students who come to work at an office,  they have a small amount of knowledge and experience.  Very little practical knowledge, most of it from a book.  Then they see one case.  Something they've read about or where lectured on.  From that one case, they deduce that they now know every possible thing there is to know about the problem.  One will announce their understanding, so proud that they've got it.  Then another (who saw the exact same case) will say, "no!  You've got it wrong!"  And then explain their understanding as they see it.  The whole time the experienced senior clinician, sits back quietly, letting them argue, knowing that talking and explaining will bring them no closer to the truth.  For what each one saw from their points of view IS the truth.  But to see the whole picture, they must humble themselves.  Look at all the facts and details.  See the case many, many times, looking at all the variables and how they affected the case.  Then at some point, without realizing it, they understand what is true.  Then they  can handle that case in the future, no matter how it presents.  But that's just one case. There are millions if not more different cases.  But each learning process, being so intricately related teaches you about the whole system to some degree.  

So if we would be patient, not forming opinions too quickly and keep open minds, we can discover the truth.  If we live long enough.  (Now you guys are going to love this)  For a head start, read the bible.  Not asking anyone to believe anything.  I personally have yet to find one word that I understand that isn't absolutely true.  There is plenty that I don't understand and so I simple leave that alone.  It is just amazing to me to read something that was written by a person, thousands of years ago that tells me in their own words, something I worked so hard to discover on my own.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Theres a number of things that I believe that I don't want to. Some things are true/false whether we want to believe them or not.



There are a number of things I believe that I don't like, but in the end I have the free will to accept them or reject them, hence I have to either want or not want to accept them.  I had a great uncle that believe it or not, would not accept that the world was round.  No kidding.  He did not want to accept it.  Free will is the power to either accept or reject a proposition.  You still have to WANT to accept even the obvious, no matter how unpalatable, or you may not WANT to and reject it.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> If a dogs butt hole looked like Hitlers face I would be fine with it



Funny, I think all dogs booty hole looks like Hitler.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There are a number of things I believe that I don't like, but in the end I have the free will to accept them or reject them, hence I have to either want or not want to accept them.  I had a great uncle that believe it or not, would not accept that the world was round.  No kidding.  He did not want to accept it.  Free will is the power to either accept or reject a proposition.  You still have to WANT to accept even the obvious, no matter how unpalatable, or you may not WANT to and reject it.


I get what you are saying but for me personally I view it differently. I TRY (not always successful) to remove what I want or don't want to believe from the scenario.
For example as an Agnostic, what If I WANT to believe that Christians are just stupid? I would have to ignore all the intelligent conversations that I have had with various Christians. Sure I have the free will to ignore the intelligent conversations and believe what I want but that is just lying to myself to support what I already want to think.
I would end up being ignorant about a whole lot of subjects. On purpose.


----------



## Israel (Jul 10, 2014)

660griz said:


> Funny, I think all dogs booty hole looks like Hitler.



Then Hitler is...?
And dogs butts are...?


----------



## Israel (Jul 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I get what you are saying but for me personally I view it differently. I TRY (not always successful) to remove what I want or don't want to believe from the scenario.
> For example as an Agnostic, what If I WANT to believe that Christians are just stupid? I would have to ignore all the intelligent conversations that I have had with various Christians. Sure I have the free will to ignore the intelligent conversations and believe what I want but that is just lying to myself to support what I already want to think.
> I would end up being ignorant about a whole lot of subjects. On purpose.


 How much simpler it is to deal with caricatures than real people. We can shade them in our minds to whatever degree we care, (applying to "believers" as much as unbelievers)
Ignorant, (OK, who wants to cross intellectual swords with CS Lewis...?) 
deceitful and intransigent (OK, who wants to read Chris Hitchens essay on "That Which Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger"...written candidly as cancer ravaged his body and a deep rethinking of bragodocio occured)

Frankly, I am wonderfully blessed to be at the point where I no longer feel compelled to entertain every word that comes my way. A man who extends the merest possibility of respect, I will endeavor to meet with the same. If you think all christians are knuckle dragging ludites, fine...have at it, but it's a fool's earrand for me to try to show I'm anything less than a dolt, so I'll have to let that conversation take place without me.
Likewise, if a christian, and you believe those who don't hold the KJV 1611 on a pedestal, well, I'll also be free to let that convo slide elsewhere.

If one doesn't see the possibility of rethinking any position, (which doesn't necessarily mean abandoning conviction), but may include a further enlightenment of what the truth of that position may mean...well, then...we will just keep both ourselves locked up, and seek to keep others bound.

When I was younger and more stupid than I am now, being "set for the defense of the gospel" inculded a diligent searching out for even the merest hint of contradiction, never realizing the hope was more for "battle" than reconciliation...but young stupid men are jammed full of urine and vinegar.
Now, I am discovering the defense of the gosepl actually has something to do with the gospel. And not with men trying to conquer others.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 10, 2014)

Israel said:


> Then Hitler is...?


Dead


> And dogs butts are...?


 smell like dead.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I get what you are saying but for me personally I view it differently. I TRY (not always successful) to remove what I want or don't want to believe from the scenario.
> For example as an Agnostic, what If I WANT to believe that Christians are just stupid? I would have to ignore all the intelligent conversations that I have had with various Christians. Sure I have the free will to ignore the intelligent conversations and believe what I want but that is just lying to myself to support what I already want to think.
> I would end up being ignorant about a whole lot of subjects. On purpose.



I understand your point also, but when we are dealing with things that cannot be verified, such as origin, meaning, destiny, (our world view in short), IMHO, to say that someone believes "x" because "they want to" while no doubt true at its core, is kind of meant as a subtle insult.  It implies (in every case where I've personally seen it used) that they didn't base their belief on any cognitive thought what-so-ever but only on emotion.  

I don't think that's the case in ANY instance regardless of what worldview we are speaking of or what individual we are speaking of.   Anyone and everyone has cognitive reasons for believing what they believe.  Not to say that emotion plays no part, but no matter how intelligent or dull someone is, if you ask them why they believe what they believe, I think you would be hard pressed to find one that replied "Because it makes me feel good. " or "Because
I want it to be true."  I think overwhelmingly they will give you a reason that is tangible to them.  You may not like or agree with it, but you can't say it's not tangible to that person.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 10, 2014)

Generally speaking, children born to Christians end up Christians.
Children born to Muslims end up Muslim. Children born to Jews end up Jewish, etc. 
There are a few outliers. Switching religions or giving it up but, for the most part...
However, I am not opposed to being proven wrong. Stats I see for the increases in the various religions is attributed to birth rates. 
So, show me something different.
From what I can see, for the majority, it is the lottery of birth and not cognitive thought.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I understand your point also, but when we are dealing with things that cannot be verified, such as origin, meaning, destiny, (our world view in short), IMHO, to say that someone believes "x" because "they want to" while no doubt true at its core, is kind of meant as a subtle insult.  It implies (in every case where I've personally seen it used) that they didn't base their belief on any cognitive thought what-so-ever but only on emotion.
> 
> I don't think that's the case in ANY instance regardless of what worldview we are speaking of or what individual we are speaking of.   Anyone and everyone has cognitive reasons for believing what they believe.  Not to say that emotion plays no part, but no matter how intelligent or dull someone is, if you ask them why they believe what they believe, I think you would be hard pressed to find one that replied "Because it makes me feel good. " or "Because
> I want it to be true."  I think overwhelmingly they will give you a reason that is tangible to them.  You may not like or agree with it, but you can't say it's not tangible to that person.





> IMHO, to say that someone believes "x" because "they want to" while no doubt true at its core, is kind of meant as a subtle insult.


Why does it have to be an insult? 
It can also be said just as an observation with no insult intended.
You can watch court cases on TV where the son is found guilty of murder and while he is being led away in handcuffs the mother shouts out "but he is a good boy".
And obviously he isn't. But she wants to believe he is. That observation doesn't have to be an insult. It could just be true and tragic and sad.


> I think you would be hard pressed to find one that replied "Because it makes me feel good. " or "Because I want it to be true."


Not a lot of people can be honest enough with themselves to realize that is actually their reason. A lot of people don't question what they believe. They are comfortable and satisfied just believing it.


> I think overwhelmingly they will give you a reason that is tangible to them.  You may not like or agree with it, but you can't say it's not tangible to that person.


Sure I agree. As in the case of your uncle who didn't believe the earth was round. Apparently that was tangible to him. And he wasn't hurting anybody by believing that even though its obviously wrong.
The problem comes in when somebody tries to push something that is tangible to them onto you.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I understand your point also, but when we are dealing with things that cannot be verified, such as origin, meaning, destiny, (our world view in short), IMHO, to say that someone believes "x" because "they want to" while no doubt true at its core, is kind of meant as a subtle insult.  It implies (in every case where I've personally seen it used) that they didn't base their belief on any cognitive thought what-so-ever but only on emotion.
> 
> I don't think that's the case in ANY instance regardless of what worldview we are speaking of or what individual we are speaking of.   Anyone and everyone has cognitive reasons for believing what they believe.  Not to say that emotion plays no part, but no matter how intelligent or dull someone is, if you ask them why they believe what they believe, I think you would be hard pressed to find one that replied "Because it makes me feel good. " or "Because
> I want it to be true."  I think overwhelmingly they will give you a reason that is tangible to them.  You may not like or agree with it, but you can't say it's not tangible to that person.



"Because it makes me feel good" is the only reason anybody does anything.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 10, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> "Because it makes me feel good" is the only reason anybody does anything.



Then why am I at work?  Oh, so I CAN do things that make me feel good.


----------



## Israel (Jul 10, 2014)

660griz said:


> Then why am I at work?  Oh, so I CAN do things that make me feel good.


it is kinda hard to escape self interest, ain't it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Why does it have to be an insult?



It doesn't and shouldn't, but most often is meant as one.



WaltL1 said:


> It can also be said just as an observation with no insult intended.



Yep



WaltL1 said:


> You can watch court cases on TV where the son is found guilty of murder and while he is being led away in handcuffs the mother shouts out "but he is a good boy".
> And obviously he isn't. But she wants to believe he is. That observation doesn't have to be an insult. It could just be true and tragic and sad.



Yep it's always amazed me how many gang bangers and thugs get shot on the way to choir practice, but never in a criminal act.



WaltL1 said:


> Not a lot of people can be honest enough with themselves realize that is actually their reason. A lot of people don't question what they believe. They are comfortable and satisfied just believing it.



I disagree and don't understand how anyone can "know" that well enough for that belief to be founded upon anything but pride.



WaltL1 said:


> Sure I agree. As in the case of your uncle who didn't believe the earth was round. Apparently that was tangible to him. And he wasn't hurting anybody by believing that even though its obviously wrong.
> The problem comes in when somebody tries to push something that is tangible to them onto you.




The truth with regards to this statement is that EVERYONE does this whether it has to do with religion, politics, etc.  There is no vacuum and there is no one who wishes there was.  There are only those who hold power and sway and the others who wish to replace them with their own.   All beliefs strive for exclusivity, though not all portray this until they hold the majority of the power.


Ex.
Mohammed wrote peaceful Surahs until he overthrew the ones in power.  It was only after he assumed power that his writings turned malevolent.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 10, 2014)

Israel said:


> it is kinda hard to escape self interest, ain't it?



Don't know. Never tried.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2014)

660griz said:


> Don't know. Never tried.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It doesn't and shouldn't, but most often is meant as one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post 


> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> Not a lot of people can be honest enough with themselves realize that is actually their reason. A lot of people don't question what they believe. They are comfortable and satisfied just believing it.





> I disagree and don't understand how anyone can "know" that well enough for that belief to be founded upon anything but pride.


There are examples all around you -
Ford is better than Chevy
Chevy is better than Ford.
Now ask those people to tell you the rates of "break downs", customer satisfaction numbers, annual maintenance costs etc for both that supports what they think and generally you will get a blank stare. Try it.
Another example -
My God is real and yours isn't.
PROVE their God isn't real. For that matter PROVE your God IS real. 
And on and on.  Why? -


> They are comfortable and satisfied just believing it.


Its not rocket science its just human nature. That's why its difficult to question ourselves on what we believe. We don't like someone else proving us wrong never mind proving ourselves wrong.


> EVERYONE does this whether it has to do with religion, politics, etc.  There is no vacuum and there is no one who wishes there was.  There are only those who hold power and sway and the others who wish to replace them with their own.   All beliefs strive for exclusivity, though not all portray this until they hold the majority of the power.


Sure that's why there are check and balances built into the system. Opposing parties. Voting. Laws. Its why there is a separation of church and state. Your religion is protected from "us" and we are protected from "you".


> Mohammed wrote peaceful Surahs until he overthrew the ones in power.  It was only after he assumed power that his writings turned malevolent.


Nothing unusual about that.
If Christianity was the dominant power how long would abortions be legal? Alcohol sold on Sundays? Gay marriage?.........................
Some would call that malevolent too.


----------



## Israel (Jul 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> 
> 
> There are examples all around you -
> ...


While making an excellent case on many points, you also make a case for something we were discussing before...the notion of being objective. Especially when casually implied, as though it's frequently "applied".
Truly, no atheist wants to start down the "you say you are moved and believe in stuff you can't see touch or feel" road without opening himself to just how many things govern his day that are neither touched, seen nor provable. For starters,  lets go small, and check his blood pressure if someone asks him to borrow his wife for a few nights.
Heck, we may not even have to use so subtle a measure.


----------



## 660griz (Jul 10, 2014)

Israel said:


> For starters,  lets go small, and check his blood pressure if someone asks him to borrow his wife for a few nights.



As if I own her. Ask her. If she says yea, I'll get another one..


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> There are examples all around you -
> Ford is better than Chevy
> Chevy is better than Ford.
> Now ask those people to tell you the rates of "break downs", customer satisfaction numbers, annual maintenance costs etc for both that supports what they think and generally you will get a blank stare. Try it.



Great example, but look at what you are doing.

You are asking them which is "better" according to YOUR definition of "better".   Better to them may be based on looks, how shiny the rims are, how it sounds, etc or have anything else in common with your definition of better.  That doesn't mean they don't have tangible reasons for their choice.  

 I can say my world view is better than anyone's if I too can define the term "better".  What I can't do is make a sweeping statement such as "All people who drive X model trucks do so without any tangible evidence they are better without being arrogant enough to think I and only I am the arbiter of what is tangible and what is not.




WaltL1 said:


> Another example -
> My God is real and yours isn't.
> PROVE their God isn't real. For that matter PROVE your God IS real.
> And on and on.  Why? -



For that matter prove there is no God.  

The only point I'm trying to make is I may think the reasons for your choices are sub par, irrational, even ludicrious, but I would be a fool to think your reasons aren't tangible TO YOU.



WaltL1 said:


> Its not rocket science its just human nature. That's why its difficult to question ourselves on what we believe. We don't like someone else proving us wrong never mind proving ourselves wrong..



That's due to pride and you are right; it's part of human nature.  That being said, everyone believes in something and they arrived at their conclusions based on the best of their ability or at least based on the ability they chose to expend/exercise toward that goal.  Some regardless of their belief, undoubtedly exercise more energy in this pursuit than others.  Some are just intellectually lazy.



WaltL1 said:


> Sure that's why there are check and balances built into the system. Opposing parties. Voting. Laws. Its why there is a separation of church and state. Your religion is protected from "us" and we are protected from "you".
> 
> Nothing unusual about that.
> If Christianity was the dominant power how long would abortions be legal? Alcohol sold on Sundays? Gay marriage?.........................
> Some would call that malevolent too.




Just curious, but do you see those checks and balances holding up for another 200 years as we move from a predominantly Christian centered national psyche to a predominantly secularistic one?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Great example, but look at what you are doing.
> 
> You are asking them which is "better" according to YOUR definition of "better".   Better to them may be based on looks, how shiny the rims are, how it sounds, etc or have anything else in common with your definition of better.  That doesn't mean they don't have tangible reasons for their choice.
> 
> ...


You are getting wound up again and losing focus.


> You are asking them which is "better" according to YOUR definition of "better".   Better to them may be based on looks, how shiny the rims are, how it sounds, etc or have anything else in common with your definition of better.  That doesn't mean they don't have tangible reasons for their choice.


I didn't ask anybody anything. The premise is that THEY said Ford is better than Chevy.
Not red is better than blue or shiny is better than dull.
If you claim one product is BETTER than another product its fair to ask what is better about it. Its not color or shiny rims because you can get the same for both products. For the average person BETTER means lasts longer, does something the other doesn't, get more for your money etc.
better
adj. adjective
1.Greater in excellence or higher in quality.
And we have already agreed that choices are tangible to the individual.


> I can say my world view is better than anyone's if I too can define the term "better".  What I can't do is make a sweeping statement such as "All people who drive X model trucks do so without any tangible evidence they are better without being arrogant enough to think I and only I am the arbiter of what is tangible and what is not


See above. I was using the definition of better not my personal view of better. Otherwise I agree.


> For that matter prove there is no God.


I cant. That's why I don't claim there isn't one. 
And that's the point.


> Just curious, but do you see those checks and balances holding up for another 200 years as we move from a predominantly Christian centered national psyche to a predominantly secularistic one?


If you mean the checks and balances that protect your ability to worship your religion, then yes I do. I don't know anybody that wants to close your churches or restrict your worship. I do however see the trend continuing in removing any religious (all religions) influence from schools, laws (booze on Sunday etc) or any other public influence.
Now of course if in 200 years if we are Muslim controlled then you guys are out of luck. As we all are.


----------



## Israel (Jul 10, 2014)

I love an expression I recently heard from a fellow seeker, DayTrip.
"laws of the soul". 
Some may see them, some may seek to be in congruence to them, some may not even imagine they exist. Some may say they don't.
But the thing I have seen, even just very recently , that even if we may be trying to deny them, we affirm them.
One man posts a dog's posterior saying "who's to say God's not speaking to me" (I imagine, through that).
Yes, there's probably a time I would have taken offense...but now? Hardly. If the God who created dogs, and every part of them, unashamed, sought to make himself known, even in a place that might lead to derision...(and what is the cross...but that...precisely?) I'd be way more of a fool to argue.
Another man says even "he" wouldn't go that far.
Another would be glad for Hitler to appear there.
There seems a general consensus, that even if not in agreement with what "good" is...nevertheless, to each...there is an indication of it.
As in the above post...the good, better, best, arguments...all argue for a referee...an appeal to a concept that we may not agree on, but which we seem to agree...is.
It would seem this issue of "judgment" leaves us all in a peculiar place.
Call it discernment, or whatever...
There seems a place to which experimentation may lead, those unintended consequences discovered in the quest of certain things...perhaps learning, as Oppenheimer did.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You are getting wound up again and losing focus.



No.  I'm not.  We can drop it.

Have you ever read any of Mark Steyn's books?  After America or America Alone.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  I'm not.  We can drop it.
> 
> Have you ever read any of Mark Steyn's books?  After America or America Alone.


Nope. I'll be honest, one of my intellectual weaknesses may be that I would rather bang a nail into my head with a hammer than listen to or read political columnists or talk radio like Rush and all those other dudes. 
I see this guy has some youtube videos that I will check out to see if Im lumping him in with them unfairly. I probably am.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Nope. I'll be honest, one of my intellectual weaknesses may be that I would rather bang a nail into my head with a hammer than listen to or read political columnists or talk radio like Rush and all those other dudes.
> I see this guy has some youtube videos that I will check out to see if Im lumping him in with them unfairly. I probably am.



I don't care for Rush, Hanity, etc, but Steyn is quiet different.  To start with he's actually entertaining.  He's funny and a whole lot brighter and worldly than any of the others.  My opinion anyway.  Check him out if you get time.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'll be honest, one of my intellectual weaknesses may be that I would rather bang a nail into my head with a hammer than listen to or read political columnists or talk radio like Rush and all those other dudes.



I don't think that's a weakness Walt.  If it is, I'm intellectually weak myself.  I can't stand political talk radio.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I don't think that's a weakness Walt.  If it is, I'm intellectually weak myself.  I can't stand political talk radio.


Yeah I find them to be sooo extremely one sided that its insulting. As though they are banking on the fact that you cant think for yourself and expect you to eat what they are feeding you without question. Then you can change the station and get the exact opposite extreme position who are also banking on that you cant think for yourself. I mean I guess its fine if you agree with either extreme position but almost 100% of the time the truth falls somewhere in the middle.


----------

