# 10 Myths and Thruths about Atheism



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism
from: 
http://edge.org/conversation/10-myths-mdash-and-10-truths-mdash-about-atheism
By Sam Harris [12.24.06]


In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

SAM HARRIS is a neuroscientist and the author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. Mr. Harris' writing has been published in over fifteen languages. He is the author of The Moral Landscape and Free Will.


10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism

[SAM HARRIS:] Several polls indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said, "promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist."

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

> In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?


This is not true at all


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

> On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.


What does that even mean?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

> 10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
> 
> If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
> 
> We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.


This is an absolute joke that we been over many times in here.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

It doesn't matter how much one tries, morality and meaning cannot be reached through naturalism, it is simply a logical impossibility.

I'm not stating that an atheist can't make up their own meaning that they like, or a moral framework that they think is cool, but without God, meaning and morality cannot possibly really mean anything.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What does that even mean?



Which part confuses you? 

The living life to the fullest part, or the part about deriving a meaning from life from living it to the fullest?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Which part confuses you?
> 
> The living life to the fullest part, or the part about deriving a meaning from life from living it to the fullest?



Both


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Both



I'm sorry, I'm at a loss here, I really am. 

You're saying that the notion of "living life to the fullest" is lost to you?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This is not true at all



string it is true.
Believe or Burn
Be good or Burn


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This is an absolute joke that we been over many times in here.



It has been gone over many times here and I have yet to see where you or anyone else has proved anything in your favor.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It doesn't matter how much one tries, morality and meaning cannot be reached through naturalism, it is simply a logical impossibility.
> 
> I'm not stating that an atheist can't make up their own meaning that they like, or a moral framework that they think is cool, but without God, meaning and morality cannot possibly really mean anything.



"But without God"........
Please stop with the nonsensical assertions.
It is proven we have morals and those morals have meaning.
Still no proof of God. Still no proof of which God. Still no proof of Who's God. Still no proof of what is a God.
Seems like believers can make up lots of things too.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 9, 2013)

> It doesn't matter how much one tries, morality and meaning cannot be reached through naturalism, it is simply a logical impossibility.
> I'm not stating that an atheist can't make up their own meaning that they like, or a moral framework that they think is cool, but without God, meaning and morality cannot possibly really mean anything.


Uh you just proved his point String.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm sorry, I'm at a loss here, I really am.
> 
> You're saying that the notion of "living life to the fullest" is lost to you?



What does "living life to the fullest" include and how does it give life meaning?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string it is true.
> Believe or Burn
> Be good or Burn



I help the poor out of concern for their suffering, am I an athiest?


Bullet, it's not a true statement.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "But without God"........
> Please stop with the nonsensical assertions.
> It is proven we have morals and those morals have meaning.Still no proof of God. Still no proof of which God. Still no proof of Who's God. Still no proof of what is a God.
> Seems like believers can make up lots of things too.


LOL, I must have missed that thread.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I help the poor out of concern for their suffering, am I an athiest?


It means you are a human with compassion.




stringmusic said:


> Bullet, it's not a true statement.


It might be a statement you do not agree with but it is a statement that certainly has truth to it.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Uh you just proved his point String.



In the first sentence, I am speaking of inherent meaning, not meaning that someone makes up. Meaning that someone makes up is not inherent meaning.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What does "living life to the fullest" include and how does it give life meaning?



Let's deal with this one at a time, here, if you don't mind. 

How can I define for you what living your life to the fullest is? 

Maybe you living your life to the fullest is trying to emulate Jesus. Maybe it's like mine and doing everything you can do that you enjoy and makes you feel fulfilled, while you have time on this earth, and not leave it being thought of as a total tool? 

I can't answer that for you in any more detail than the concept of the phrase. 

As far as it giving life meaning, I can't answer that for you, either. I can tell you what I perceive as giving my life meaning, and that means no more to you than yours will to me. 

The point being is that I was asking if the concepts were lost on you, or if you were just trying to punch a hole in the OP by saying that there was no objective way to measure any of that?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It means you are a human with compassion.


But according to the quote it would mean that I'm not a Christian, because the only reason Christians help the poor is because God will send them to he11 if they don't(which, by the way, is also untrue)


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> LOL, I must have missed that thread.



It was the thread(or ten) where believers said we have morals and non-believers said we have morals, then the thread9or ten) went on to give examples of morals and their meaning.
The only thing never settled in the thread(or ten....and in all the threads) is this God thing. It gets lots of credit for being so absent.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But according to the quote it would mean that I'm not a Christian, because the only reason Christians help the poor is because God will send them to he11 if they don't(which, by the way, is also untrue)



It means you do not have to be Christian or any religion to help the poor.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Let's deal with this one at a time, here, if you don't mind.
> 
> How can I define for you what living your life to the fullest is?
> 
> ...



"living life to the fullest give life meaning" is a universal statement, meaning that Harris is speaking of inherent meaning. If every human "lives life to the fullest" they have meaning, according to him.

I'm asking the question of what living life to the fullest includes and how that gives life meaning.

You may not be able to answer the question and I understand that as you're not the one that made the original statement.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

> In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?





stringmusic said:


> But according to the quote it would mean that I'm not a Christian, because the only reason Christians help the poor is because God will send them to he11 if they don't(which, by the way, is also untrue)



Exactly WHERE does it say what you have posted?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Exactly WHERE does it say what you have posted?





> Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?


The statement indicates that Christians only help the poor because Gods wants them to, and not because they are cocerned with their suffering, and that is not true.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It means you do not have to be Christian or any religion to help the poor.



No it doesn't. Again, it stating that atheists help the poor because they are concerned for the poor, but Christians only help because they have a fear of going to he11.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The statement indicates that Christians only help the poor because Gods wants them to, and not because they are cocerned with their suffering, and that is not true.



The quote mentions rewards and or suffering but it also starts out with "In most cases"

I think you are trying to add and omit to suit. Not working.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No it doesn't. Again, it stating that atheists help the poor because they are concerned for the poor, but Christians only help because they have a fear of going to he11.



No actually it does not. It states:



> In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?



It gives 3 examples that IN MOST CASES are true.
It also asks if you help the poor out of concern for their suffering. You may be a Christian that does it for that purpose OR one of the other 3 options.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

LOL, now it's in most cases. "In most cases" is clearly meant for the first sentence.

 I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this issue Bullet, it clearly says what it says.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

Can you answer post #3 Bullet?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> LOL, now it's in most cases. "In most cases" is clearly meant for the first sentence.
> 
> I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this issue Bullet, it clearly says what it says.



You are right...it says what it says....clearly.

The "in most cases" was to set the tone of "it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available."
The second part "Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?" is the example of the first sentence.
It is all tied together.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Can you answer post #3 Bullet?



I can give you an answer that would pertain to me.

I would live life in a way that made me happy with no regrets. I would be respectful of my family and friends and I would be respectful the laws and limits that society has set for me. I would try to accommodate all into living my life to the fullest. If I want to work 100hours a week because that makes me happy I'd do it. If I wanted to enjoy the outdoors I would do it. If spending an entire year in Alaska in a trappers cabin to see if I could make it was on my bucket list I would do it. Right now I have a good balance of family, friends and the outdoors and my life gauge is registering "full".


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I can give you an answer that would pertain to me.
> 
> I would live life in a way that made me happy with no regrets. I would be respectful of my family and friends and I would be respectful the laws and limits that society has set for me. I would try to accommodate all into living my life to the fullest. If I want to work 100hours a week because that makes me happy I'd do it. If I wanted to enjoy the outdoors I would do it. If spending an entire year in Alaska in a trappers cabin to see if I could make it was on my bucket list I would do it. Right now I have a good balance of family, friends and the outdoors and my life gauge is registering "full".


Ok, so in what way does that give your life inherent meaning?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, so in what way does that give your life inherent meaning?



I am a part of nature. If I live to be 100yrs old it is a very short time. I hope to enjoy it and make a positive impact on the others around me. Those memories will be all that is left to carry my name on at some point. It is a basic part of life to be happy.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What does that even mean?



Can't answer for everyone...of course but, I can answer for me. 

Carpe Diem 

Being as good of a father and husband as I can and having as much fun(your fun may be different), and experiencing as much of the earth, as legally possible before I die because...that's it.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

660griz said:


> Can't answer for everyone...of course but, I can answer for me.
> 
> Carpe Diem
> 
> Being as good of a father and husband as I can and having as much fun(your fun may be different), and experiencing as much of the earth, as legally possible before I die because...that's it.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The "in most cases" was to set the tone of "it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available."



You see examples of this everyday. Even the news gets in on. Folks whining that we need to bring God back to prevent all the evil folks are doing. These folks, need a BAD reason to behave well. 

I would feel MUCH better if folks were good because it made them feel bad to be bad,  instead of because they don't want to burn in an imaginary he11. 

That doesn't sound right but, I hope the meaning comes through.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But according to the quote it would mean that I'm not a Christian, because the only reason Christians help the poor is because God will send them to he11 if they don't(which, by the way, is also untrue)


I think you are really stretching what it says but I see your point and heres the thing -
I personally and I would bet everyone else here don't give a squat if the quote, in fact, said thats the ONLY reason ALL Christians do good things. I (we) know that isn't true in ALL cases. And the author didn't believe it either that's why he said in most cases. Maybe some cases would have been more accurate. Moral of the story is just because someone wrote it you still have to use your own brain and not just blindly believe it.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 9, 2013)

Subject #1:
Use to rape and pillage all the time. Found God and has changed his ways. 

Subject #2: 
Thought about raping and pillaging but, the thought of hurting someone physically, and possibly mentally for the rest of their life prevents him from doing any harm. 

Which one do you want to live next to with your family?
Can you pick the bad reason for being good?

You can also substitute rape and pillage with being an alcoholic, drug abuser, wife beater, thief, murderer, etc. They just didn't have a reason to change until they found God.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am a part of nature. If I live to be 100yrs old it is a very short time. I hope to enjoy it and make a positive impact on the others around me. Those memories will be all that is left to carry my name on at some point. It is a basic part of life to be happy.





660griz said:


> Can't answer for everyone...of course but, I can answer for me.
> 
> Carpe Diem
> 
> Being as good of a father and husband as I can and having as much fun(your fun may be different), and experiencing as much of the earth, as legally possible before I die because...that's it.



Are these definitions inherent in all humans? Because "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived" is a universal statement.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are these definitions inherent in all humans? Because "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived" is a universal statement.



In both instances we state they are definitions for us as individuals.
In fact my answer is a reply from a question YOU asked me about ME!

Every human has a definition inherent and unique unto themselves.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In both instances we state they are definitions for us as individuals.
> In fact my answer is a reply from a question YOU asked me about ME!
> 
> Every human has a definition inherent and unique unto themselves.



It can't be inherent to the individual. The meaning you describe is either inherent in humans universally or it's not.

And if it's not universally inherent in all humans then it's not inherent meaning and it's just something you made up.

And remember we are talking about the univeral statement "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived", that statement goes for all humans i.e. inherent.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It can't be inherent to the individual. The meaning you describe is either inherent in humans universally or it's not.
> 
> And if it's not universally inherent in all humans then it's not inherent meaning and it's just something you made up.
> 
> And remember we are talking about the univeral statement "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived", that statement goes for all humans i.e. inherent.



The right to live life to the fullest is an inherent right to all. Whether or not they take advantage of it is up to them.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The right to live life to the fullest is an inherent right to all. Whether or not they take advantage of it is up to them.



?

I'm not asking you about rights, I'm still talking about inherent meaning.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> ?
> 
> I'm not asking you about rights, I'm still talking about inherent meaning.



Well the other forums you switched to must be slow today since you have all this time to be interested in what I have to say. You know the answers you just have not figured out a way to twist em how you need em yet.
I'll oblige you after supper.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> ?
> 
> I'm not asking you about rights, I'm still talking about inherent meaning.



Why must there be inherent meaning the way you're asking for it??? IMO, there is absolutely NO REASON to think that there MUST be inherent meaning to life the way you are referring to it.

I've been catching up on several threads today, so IDK if it's this one that's talked so much about the agnostics and atheists just choosing one more religion to not subscribe to than the believers, but either way... There are 20,000 religions because so many people want there to be an inherent meaning... and that what lets people live life to the fullest, is having an inherent meaning that satisfies them. So create what you want, fit in where you want. If it makes you feel good, then it must be your inherent meaning.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Well the other forums you switched to must be slow today since you have all this time to be interested in what I have to say. You know the answers you just have not figured out a way to twist em how you need em yet.
> I'll oblige you after supper.



Lol


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Why must there be inherent meaning the way you're asking for it??? IMO, there is absolutely NO REASON to think that there MUST be inherent meaning to life the way you are referring to it.
> 
> I've been catching up on several threads today, so IDK if it's this one that's talked so much about the agnostics and atheists just choosing one more religion to not subscribe to than the believers, but either way... There are 20,000 religions because so many people want there to be an inherent meaning... and that what lets people live life to the fullest, is having an inherent meaning that satisfies them. So create what you want, fit in where you want. If it makes you feel good, then it must be your inherent meaning.



I'm not the one that brought it up, Sam Harris did that in the OP.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Lol



Inherent is an essential quality that is part of a person or thing. 
Isn't "living life to the fullest" an inherent quality?

But again after reading through Harris's article it is YOU that is asserting the word "inherent". I knew there was a twist or tweak in there somewhere.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 9, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not the one that brought it up, Sam Harris did that in the OP.



I don't think Sam Harris mentioned the word "inherent" in the OP at all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 9, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism
> from:
> http://edge.org/conversation/10-myths-mdash-and-10-truths-mdash-about-atheism
> By Sam Harris [12.24.06]
> ...



Fact.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott were not the INEVITABLE product of unbelief, but they were product of 
atheism none the less.  Their actions ARE the direct result of what can happen when meaning, morals and the sanctity of life are no longer anchored to a transcendent platform.

Unbeliever will be quick to point out that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, however there is a fundamental difference from the actions of fore mentioned.  It is this.  Atrocities committed in the name of Christ directly contradict his teachings, whereas those committed in the name of Atheism contradict no one's, because in atheism the individual decides for himself what the rules are.   Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest were just living out the law of moral relativity.  



bullethead said:


> 3) Atheism is dogmatic.
> 
> Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."



Should we take this statement 'on faith', especially based on his illogical quote from Roberts?  One would think a neuroscientist and author, not to mention a 'most intelligent and scientifically literate' atheist would be wiser than to make such logical blunders.



bullethead said:


> 4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
> 
> No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.
> 
> The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.



Again a contradiction.  It's not chance.  It's chance plus.....
Gotcha.  Wink.  Wink.  Nod.  Nod.   It boils down to something from nothing, no matter how you slice it.  Maybe that's what the 87% of believers have a hard time believing about atheism.



bullethead said:


> 5) Atheism has no connection to science.
> 
> Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.



Another blatant fallacy. It just goes to prove intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous.  

If science is the study of natural order as it claims to be, and scientist use their brains to do so, and the brain according to Darwinian Athiest is just a product of time ,matter, and CHANCE, why should any scientist believe anything his brain tells him.  His very belief undermines its own credibility.

On the other hand if we are created in the image of an intelligent designer and we are presented WITH an intelligent design, it should stand to reason that we can understand and trust what we observe in nature.

Neither does science undermine Christianity.  Truth is exclusive, and both are this truth expressed in different terms.  You will notice that Mr. Harris did not mention that the Universe as science now understands it, with a set beginning point, is exactly what one would have expected if one was to have read Genesis 1.  Maybe it's atheism that can't bear the weight of science.





bullethead said:


> 6) Atheists are arrogant.
> 
> When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.



Atheist are arrogant?  Maybe we should refer back to the previous comments and see if this 'myth' holds any validity.  "Pretending to know things one does not know is a liability in science.", yet Atheist state there is no such thing as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being when in fact the ONLY way one could know that was if one WAS omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.  Are Atheist pretending to know there is no God or are they pretending to BE God?  Note:  pretending is a liability to your credibility also.



bullethead said:


> 7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
> 
> There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
> 
> There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.



No Mr Harris.  Those are claims science can't authenticate or maybe YOUR definition of 'spiritual experience".  There are many things science can't authenticate.  If you ever see a question beginning with "Why" there is a good chance science can't authenticate the answer.  This doesn't mean, as you imply, that there is no answer or that it can't be authenticated in some other manner.  And suffice it to say that we don't have to subscribe to your definition of "spiritual experience" nor do we.  



bullethead said:


> 8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding
> 
> Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.
> 
> From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.



Fact:  Most atheist don't believe in anything supernatural.
On the deepest questions of life regarding origin, meaning, morality and destiny, their answers are bleak and would correspond as such 
Origin: time plus matter plus chance
Meaning: what ever you decide
Morality:  see Meaning
Destiny:  death is the end.  Back you go into the cosmic recycle bin



bullethead said:


> 9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
> 
> Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.
> 
> In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?



Been there.  Done this. 



bullethead said:


> 10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
> 
> If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
> 
> We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.



Again.  What if someone decides cruelty is right.  In atheism nothing impedes that from happening.  There's no transcendent law of right and wrong to judge one by.  Everyone is their own judge.  More people were slaughtered in the 20th century as a result of moral relativity than all other centuries combined.  Is that the progress he speaks of.

You know, Sam Harris is held as a prominent Atheist thinker by many.  I see this stuff and as a Christian I realize that it can't stand up to God's truth.  That's the reason for all the distortions, fallacies and duplicity.  Without those atheism is exactly what we see it as:  a lie, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I don't think Sam Harris mentioned the word "inherent" in the OP at all.


I thought it was just me. I read the OP at least 5 times to try to understand what this "inherent" discussion was about. The word or assertion doesn't even appear in the article.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Fact.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott were not the INEVITABLE product of unbelief, but they were product of
> atheism none the less.


 They were evil men. (period) The difference in their attrocities vs attrocities in the name of God has been explained numerous times. You didn't get it then and you won't get it now. If you did, that would take away one of your anti atheism talking points. 





> Their actions ARE the direct result of what can happen when meaning, morals and the sanctity of life are no longer anchored to a transcendent platform.


What this really means is you(religious folks) just can't deal with the real world. I think Plato even had some theories on how to solve this. What happens if every thing that makes us happy and fulfilled is taken away? We can't be expected to handle that on our own.  



> Unbeliever will be quick to point out that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, however there is a fundamental difference from the actions of fore mentioned.  It is this.  Atrocities committed in the name of Christ directly contradict his teachings,


 Once again, modern day witch hunts and other atrocities can be directly related to bible verses but, you continue to put your fingers in your ears and yell na na na na! 





> whereas those committed in the name of Atheism contradict no one's, because in atheism the individual decides for himself what the rules are.


 Not true. You are just not listening.  





> Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest were just living out the law of moral relativity.


 Hitler was not an atheist. However, I don't believe his motives were based on a religious belief. 
Now, if you want to count deaths attributed to folks just based on their beliefs or lack of them, I do believe religion has the atheist hands down on the number of deaths. 




> It boils down to something from nothing, no matter how you slice it.


 It can happen. 
E=MC(squared) Of course that is unbelievable to you but, picking one God out of 20000 to dub the supreme creator and ruler of the universe seems perfectly logical.  




> His very belief undermines its own credibility.


 Huh?



> On the other hand if we are created in the image of an intelligent designer and we are presented WITH an intelligent design, it should stand to reason that we can understand and trust what we observe in nature.


 Intelligent designer meaning? It had to follow the rules of physics? Why?



> is exactly what one would have expected if one was to have read Genesis 1.


 What? You mean some parts of the OT are still applied? Truly shocking. 




> Atheist are arrogant?


 Some folks are some folks aren't. Never been able to nail it down to belief, lack of belief, sports, intelligence. 



> If you ever see a question beginning with "Why" there is a good chance science can't authenticate the answer.


 You prefer to just pray or say God did it? See polio for start.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Inherent is an essential quality that is part of a person or thing.
> Isn't "living life to the fullest" an inherent quality?
> 
> But again after reading through Harris's article it is YOU that is asserting the word "inherent". I knew there was a twist or tweak in there somewhere.





bullethead said:


> I don't think Sam Harris mentioned the word "inherent" in the OP at all.



C'mon Bullet, I know you're not going to throw logic out the window here.

The statement "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived" is a universal statement for ALL humans. The statement is not qualified in any way, it doesn't say " Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived, except when...". This  means that if one "lives life to the fullest" they have meaning that is inherent.

I asked what living life to the fullest meant, and you gave me an answer, but said it was only an answer for you, which means that's it not really inherent meaning, it's just the answer you like.

No matter which way you look at it, the statement "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived" is incoherent and cannot be true. It's a universal statement that cannot be applied universally. Which is why I constantly argue the fact that all human life cannot have inherent meaning in the naturalistic worldview.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I thought it was just me. I read the OP at least 5 times to try to understand what this "inherent" discussion was about. The word or assertion doesn't even appear in the article.



See post #53. Inherency is implied very clearly.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Fact.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott were not the INEVITABLE product of unbelief, but they were product of
> atheism none the less.  Their actions ARE the direct result of what can happen when meaning, morals and the sanctity of life are no longer anchored to a transcendent platform.
> 
> Unbeliever will be quick to point out that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, however there is a fundamental difference from the actions of fore mentioned.  It is this.  Atrocities committed in the name of Christ directly contradict his teachings, whereas those committed in the name of Atheism contradict no one's, because in atheism the individual decides for himself what the rules are.   Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest were just living out the law of moral relativity.
> ...



I've got a busy day today but I will get back to you on this.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> See post #53. Inherency is implied very clearly.


That's what the article says -


> Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so


All it is saying is your life can have meaning by really and fully living it. An example of that is with relationships with those we love. It doesn't require a belief in a god for life to be meaningful. 
No more, no less.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 10, 2013)

"Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived"

Some interpret this to say that because life is imbued with meaning, the result is a life really and fully lived.  But this cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that all lives are lived really and fully because they are programmed to do so.

I think a better interpretation would be that when a life is really and fully lived (for whatever motivation), the result is a life that was imbued with meaning because of the experience.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived"
> 
> Some interpret this to say that because life is imbued with meaning, the result is a life really and fully lived.  But this cannot be the correct interpretation because it would mean that all lives are lived really and fully because they are programmed to do so.
> 
> I think a better interpretation would be that when a life is really and fully lived (for whatever motivation), the result is a life that was imbued with meaning because of the experience.





> "Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived"


By the use of the word "by" it can only mean this -


> when a life is really and fully lived (for whatever motivation), the result is a life that was imbued with meaning because of the experience


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> That's what the article says -
> 
> All it is saying is your life can have meaning by really and fully living it. An example of that is with relationships with those we love. It doesn't require a belief in a god for life to be meaningful.
> No more, no less.



But it doesn't say "can" have meaning, it says life "IS" inbued, all life, everybody, universal, inherent in all humans.

 Which tells me that whatever I decide living life to the fullest is, that that somehow gives my life universal/inherent meaning.

It's kinda of a "decide your meaning and reality will adjust accordingly" statement.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But it doesn't say "can" have meaning, it says life "IS" inbued, all life, everybody, universal, inherent in all humans.
> 
> Which tells me that whatever I decide living life to the fullest is, that that somehow gives my life universal/inherent meaning.
> 
> It's kinda of a "decide your meaning and reality will adjust accordingly" statement.





> all life, everybody, universal, inherent in all humans.


That is your own personal interpretation not what he actually said. When using the word life you can apply it to an individual or you can apply it to ALL life. You are applying it to all life that's why you keep using "inherent".
Life "IS" good. Does that mean everybodys life is good?  That's how he's using the word life.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> That is your own personal interpretation not what he actually said. When using the word life you can apply it to an individual or you can apply it to ALL life. You are applying it to all life that's why you keep using "inherent".
> Life "IS" good. Does that mean everybodys life is good?  That's how he's using the word life.



Which individual life is he referring to?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 10, 2013)

By this definition of meaning, Hitler, Stalin and the rest of those boys led a real meaningful life.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 10, 2013)

Compare the statement to:

"Victory is attained by scoring the most points."

This statement does not infer that victory is inherent or even that it applies to everyone.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Compare the statement to:
> 
> "Victory is attained by scoring the most points."
> 
> This statement does not infer that victory is inherent or even that it applies to everyone.



Not everybody has victory, but everybody has life.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> By this definition of meaning, Hitler, Stalin and the rest of those boys led a real meaningful life.



Yep.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 10, 2013)

Maybe if we reversed the order of the sentence it would be clearer.

Scoring the most points is the way to attain victory.

Really living life to the fullest is the way to imbue life with meaning.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> By this definition of meaning, Hitler, Stalin and the rest of those boys led a real meaningful life.



By most definitions, they did.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Which individual life is he referring to?


Really? What individuals is the subject of the entire article about?
Bottom line you are creating your own confusion by using your own interpretation of what was said and not the meaning of what was actually said. That's all I can tell ya. I got no more.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> because that makes me happy I'd do it.



What if cutting off puppies feet makes someone happy?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> What if cutting off puppies feet makes someone happy?



Then chances are they won't listen to a lesson on morality no matter the source.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> What if cutting off puppies feet makes someone happy?


Its questions like these that cause some to view others as really being ignorant. Just saying.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Really? What individuals is the subject of the entire article about?
> Bottom line you are creating your own confusion by using your own interpretation of what was said and not the meaning of what was actually said. That's all I can tell ya. I got no more.



LOL, if he was talking about himself, he would have said "my life is imbued with....", he was clearly using "life" as a universal word in the sentence.


We got any English teachers in the house?


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Its questions like these that cause some to view others as really being ignorant. Just saying.



Did you see his avatar? I think he really wants to know.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Its questions like these that cause some to view others as really being ignorant. Just saying.



It's a question one needs to answer if they buy the notion that people get to choose whatever meaning they want for their lives and do what makes them happy.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Maybe if we reversed the order of the sentence it would be clearer.
> 
> Scoring the most points is the way to attain victory.
> 
> Really living life to the fullest is the way to imbue life with meaning.



He's is not telling us how to imbue life with meaning, he's saying that life IS imbued with meaning.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Its questions like these that cause some to view others as really being ignorant. Just saying.



There is nothing ignorant about the question at all.  The evident answer is "it is an immoral act" but why?  I believe the the more ignorant answer is "because WaltL1 says so".  
The Christian answer is "because the arbiter of truth says so".

Just saying.


PS 660griz appears to have no problem with the question which I believe is consistent with what he believes.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then chances are they won't listen to a lesson on morality no matter the source.



I would agree with you there.  Without belaboring the issue the ultimate question is who is the arbiter of morality?

I am certainly relieved it is not me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> LOL, if he was talking about himself, he would have said "my life is imbued with....", he was clearly using "life" as a universal word in the sentence.
> 
> 
> We got any English teachers in the house?


What we need is a Reading teacher.


> What individuals is the subject of the entire article about?


Note I said individuals. That is plural. Automatically eliminates that I said he was talking about "himself" which is singular.
And the title of the article tells you who the individuals are that he is talking about -
10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism
 And he is clearly, to those who can read, talking about the lives of the individuals whom the article is about.
We got any Reading teachers in the house?
So yeah as you said LOL


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> There is nothing ignorant about the question at all.  The evident answer is "it is an immoral act" but why?  I believe the the more ignorant answer is "because WaltL1 says so".
> The Christian answer is "because the arbiter of truth says so".
> 
> Just saying.
> ...


Gotcha you just happen to choose cutting off puppies feet as a question to an Atheist about what makes him happy when you already know the answer but were really looking for Why which you didn't ask. Okaay.....


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> What if cutting off puppies feet makes someone happy?



Are these puppies alive? 
If so, putting a bullet in the back of that person's skull would make me happy. 

I was going to go into the entire moral thing again. But, it appears shock value is more important. 

We cannot deny there are psychopaths out there.  They have mental disorders which are really not in scope.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

660griz said:


> Did you see his avatar? I think he really wants to know.



that is a 30 year old picture of me.  Before I knew Christ.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> that is a 30 year old picture of me.  Before I knew Christ.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

660griz said:


> By most definitions, they did.



but not by the Christian definition.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> but not by the Christian definition.



Well give it up. 

Here is one:
mean·ing·ful (m n ng-f l). adj. 1. Having meaning, function, or purpose

Hitler definitely had a purpose.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

660griz said:


> Are these puppies alive?
> If so, putting a bullet in the back of that person's skull would make me happy.
> 
> I was going to go into the entire moral thing again. But, it appears shock value is more important.



I would not disagree with the bullet in the head.  (Fortunately for everyone involved I don't get to make that decision)  But the question is not about shock value, it is about this idea of "no moral arbiter"  being drawn out to it's logical conclusion.


"In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes."  Judges 21:25


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

660griz said:


> Well give it up.



But the Christian meaning of life is: 


To glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever. 

We glorify God by word and deed.   For example: puppies are to be loved not mutilated.  Widows and orphans are to be cared for.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> it is about this idea of "no moral arbiter"  being drawn out to it's logical conclusion.



Click here to learn about atheist.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> But the Christian meaning of life is:
> To glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.
> We glorify God by word and deed.   For example: puppies are to be loved not mutilated.  Widows and orphans are to be cared for.



Oh. I see what you did there. Meaning of life switched with meaningful life. Good one.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> There is nothing ignorant about the question at all.  The evident answer is "it is an immoral act" but why?  I believe the the more ignorant answer is "because WaltL1 says so".
> The Christian answer is "because the arbiter of truth says so".
> 
> Just saying.
> ...



So your god tells you not to cut off puppy feet? Can you tell me where the bible says that?


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So your god tells you not to cut off puppy feet? Can you tell me where the bible says that?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Dec 10, 2013)

I'm not saying I like the idea of it... but where/how did your moral arbiter communicate that to you? I use to cut off puppy dew claws... 15-30 at a time. Mutilated? Where would that be differentiated??


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

660griz said:


> Oh. I see what you did there. Meaning of life switched with meaningful life. Good one.



We were discussing definitions.

Some see a Meaningful life as a full time party, a continuous fishing trip, a never ending safari, ANYTHING that pleases them. 

I don't much difference.  I will not have a "meaningful life" if I do not know the "meaning of life". 

I once had what I thought was a meaningful life.  As I said that changed 30 years ago.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> I would agree with you there.  Without belaboring the issue the ultimate question is who is the arbiter of morality?
> 
> I am certainly relieved it is not me.


As I understand the definition of "arbiter" there is no ultimate arbiter. Our morality is defined as a product of the society and culture in which we live. No individual can decide to change that for everybody. One person can begin the process of change though and they can also choose to define something society/culture considers moral as not being moral to themselves and not do it. And vice versa.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> As I understand the definition of "arbiter" there is no ultimate arbiter. Our morality is defined as a product of the society and culture in which we live. No individual can decide to change that for everybody. One person can begin the process of change though and they can also choose to define something society/culture considers moral as not being moral to themselves and not do it. And vice versa.



Yes that is the view of many AA's I know.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I'm not saying I like the idea of it... but where/how did your moral arbiter communicate that to you? I use to cut off puppy dew claws... 15-30 at a time. Mutilated? Where would that be differentiated??



In His revelation to man.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> Yes that is the view of many AA's I know.


Actually its the only factual view. However there certainly can be other views/beliefs.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What we need is a Reading teacher.
> 
> Note I said individuals. That is plural. Automatically eliminates that I said he was talking about "himself" which is singular.
> And the title of the article tells you who the individuals are that he is talking about -
> ...


So only atheists lives are "imbued with meaning"?

The mental circles you're having to go through to make this point should show you something.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I use to cut off puppy dew claws... 15-30 at a time. Mutilated? Where would that be differentiated??



I never removed the dew claws of my puppies and never had a problem with any of them.  (even though I know hunters who had a friend of a friend who............. or my dad always did it or the breeder told me too.........)

I put that in the same category as ear clipping and tail bobbing.  They all have a purpose (the claws, tail, etc.) so why do it?  Maybe some would call it mutilation but I would call it questionable.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually its the only factual view.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So only atheists lives are "imbued with meaning"?
> 
> The mental circles you're having to go through to make this point should show you something.





> So only atheists lives are "imbued with meaning"?


I have no clue how you determined that.


> The mental circles you're having to go through to make this point should show you something.


String on this we couldn't agree more.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


>


Well lay out your FACTS not beliefs as to why it isn't factual and I will do the same and that  will change to this


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I have no clue how you determined that.


It wasn't hard....


WaltL1 said:


> What we need is a Reading teacher.
> 
> Note I said individuals. That is plural. Automatically eliminates that I said he was talking about "himself" which is singular.
> And the title of the article tells you who the individuals are that he is talking about -10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism
> ...


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> In His revelation to man.



What does God's revelation to man say about the morality of slaughtering babies?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2013)

Madman said:


> What if cutting off puppies feet makes someone happy?



Context madman, context.....You did not include the parts where I specifically state:


> I can give you an answer that would pertain to me.
> 
> I would live life in a way that made me happy with no regrets. I would be respectful of my family and friends and I would be respectful the laws and limits that society has set for me. I would try to accommodate all into living my life to the fullest. If I want to work 100hours a week because that makes me happy I'd do it. If I wanted to enjoy the outdoors I would do it. If spending an entire year in Alaska in a trappers cabin to see if I could make it was on my bucket list I would do it. Right now I have a good balance of family, friends and the outdoors and my life gauge is registering "full".



Now if cutting the feet off of puppies makes someone happy then they are going to do it. They will have to answer for it though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

> And the title of the article tells you who the individuals are that he is talking about





stringmusic said:


> It wasn't hard....


Yeah String and if I wrote an article about Chinese people and I said Chinese people have 2 ears....
Then what I meant was ONLY Chinese people have 2 ears. Or maybe because the article was about Chinese people they are the only ones I mention because, well, the article was about Chinese people.
One of those makes sense. You are picking the other one.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Fact.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pott were not the INEVITABLE product of unbelief, but they were product of
> atheism none the less.  Their actions ARE the direct result of what can happen when meaning, morals and the sanctity of life are no longer anchored to a transcendent platform.
> 
> Unbeliever will be quick to point out that many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, however there is a fundamental difference from the actions of fore mentioned.  It is this.  Atrocities committed in the name of Christ directly contradict his teachings, whereas those committed in the name of Atheism contradict no one's, because in atheism the individual decides for himself what the rules are.   Hitler, Stalin, and all the rest were just living out the law of moral relativity.
> ...



Just tried to read through this and the stuff that did not show on here where you quoted what I posted and then your answers are right in there with the quotes.....
After getting through all that there is nothing new in any of those answers that you have not asserted before and then have not backed up with any sort of examples.
It is just too messy to try to break it down.
Instead of me speaking for Harris, I'll let you email him directly.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 10, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah String and if I wrote an article about Chinese people and I said Chinese people have 2 ears....
> Then what I meant was ONLY Chinese people have 2 ears. Or maybe because the article was about Chinese people they are the only ones I mention because, well, the article was about Chinese people.
> One of those makes sense. You are picking the other one.



How about just give me a one word answer on who he was talking about in that sentence about life and meaning.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How about just give me a one word answer on who he was talking about in that sentence about life and meaning.


Atheist.
Again because the article was about Atheist. He didn't include or exclude anybody else because the article wasn't about anybody else.
That was my last shot.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Atheist.
> Again because the article was about Atheist. He didn't include or exclude anybody else because the article wasn't about anybody else.
> That was my last shot.



He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.

If _every_ atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in _every _atheists life.

If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.
> 
> But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.
> 
> ...


String obviously I am unable to communicate to you in a way that you understand. Several other people have tried to tell you the same thing I have. Maybe they can do a better job than me so please direct your questions to them.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.
> 
> But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.
> 
> ...



Why do you find it so easy to pick through every word written in here to find out what it means, how it is used, it's implication, who it pertains to and how logic gets you to these questions and conclusions, yet you don't even so much as raise an eyebrow at the Bible???.... because if you did you would be the leading Atheist in the country.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.
> 
> But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.
> 
> ...



Correct me if I am wrong but in the book you follow didn't God break out his big 'ol pencil eraser called a FLOOD and kill tens of millions of people because he was "unhappy"? Wouldn't that imply logically (and inherently possibly)that killing all of those people made him "happy"...???

I am just not sure where your loaded question of an "Atheist" killing 6 million Jews comes into play when the person you are eluding to practiced Christianity...the people pulling the triggers and lifting the gas nozzles and following orders were Christians, the country in question was Christian, and the representatives of the Christian Church gave their blessings to the cause.
Maybe you just used the wrong example huh??


----------



## 660griz (Dec 11, 2013)

It is at least obvious to me that the OP quote was about a 'meaningful life'.

There is meaningful life, meaning of life(philisophical question related to man's existence), and meaning of live for me(personal philisophical question). 

Meaningful life is defined as life with a purpose. That purpose is/can be unique to the individual. Some folks may like hanging with family and reading Shakespear. Some may want to hanglide as much as possible. Some may want to eat at every Cracker Barrell in the U.S.A. That is their purpose in life. It doesn't have to be some grand acheivement. As long as they are happy, then so be it. 

Kind of like the meaning of success. 
Success to some may be having millions of dollars, others, it may be having a roof over their heads and food on the table. 

My point is you can have a purpose in life and not know the meaning of life. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the meaning of life, just LIVING it takes up most of my time.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

660griz said:


> It is at least obvious to me that the OP quote was about a 'meaningful life'.
> 
> There is meaningful life, meaning of life(philisophical question related to man's existence), and meaning of live for me(personal philisophical question).
> 
> ...


Slow down. You have to start here - 


> He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.


You have to get him to understand that since the article was about Atheists that does qualify the authors statement. Much in the same way a Ford manual doesn't mention Toyotas, Chevys etc because obviously its about Fords.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Slow down. You have to start here -
> 
> You have to get him to understand that since the article was about Atheists that does qualify the authors statement. Much in the same way a Ford manual doesn't mention Toyotas, Chevys etc because obviously its about Fords.



The article was about atheists, but he also talks about Christians in it. Am I to assume that he was really talking about atheists when he mentions believers as well?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> String obviously I am unable to communicate to you in a way that you understand. Several other people have tried to tell you the same thing I have. Maybe they can do a better job than me so please direct your questions to them.



I granted you that he was talking about atheists for the sake of discussion, I'm not sure what else you want me to do. 

Do you not find my question valid?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The article was about atheists, but he also talks about Christians in it. Am I to assume that he was really talking about atheists when he mentions believers as well?


Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

This week, *atheist philosopher Sam Harris *


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
> 
> This week, *atheist philosopher Sam Harris *





stringmusic said:


> He would have qualified his statement by saying "For Atheists, life is imbued...." if he was only talking about atheists.
> 
> But for the sake of discussion, I'll grant you that he was only talking about atheists.If _every_ atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in _every _atheists life.
> 
> If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?





			
				stringmusic said:
			
		

> I granted you that he was talking about atheists for the sake of discussion, I'm not sure what else you want me to do.


Can we be done with that?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Can we be done with that?


Your question was -


> The article was about atheists, but he also talks about Christians in it. Am I to assume that he was really talking about atheists when he mentions believers as well?


That's what I answered.
New/different questions -


> So only atheists lives are "imbued with meaning"?


He didn't say that. That is your assumption based on not understanding what he actually said. What he said was -


> Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived


Its a philosophy that says you don't need a god for your life to have meaning. Really and fully living your life is meaning. Its an Atheist philosophy. Did you need him to state that its not a Christian philosophy or is that just a tiny bit obvious? Actually maybe its not obvious or I wouldn't be typing this.


> > If every atheists life is full of meaning, then logic follows that meaning is inherent in every atheists life.


He didn't say that. Its a conclusion you are making based on your incorrect understanding of what he actually said. However yes I think your statement is logical. However that logic is dependent on EVERY Atheist following the philosophy.


> Do you not find my question valid?


Your questions are based on not understanding its a philosophy. However as random questions that has nothing to do with what he actually said, MY OPINIONS are -
No
Invalid assumption
Not valid to the article in discussion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madman View Post 


Well lay out your FACTS not beliefs as to why it isn't factual and I will do the same and that will change  to this


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Your question was -
> 
> That's what I answered.
> New/different questions -
> ...


...


stringmusic said:


> If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?


I always find it interesting what some Christians decide to ask. You could make the same point/ask the same question and not use puppy dog feet or murdering Jews but yet you don't. Interesting indeed. I can only guess it somehow makes you feel good or is somehow a thrill to put atheist and murder in the same sentence. Odd way to get a thrill. 
But I cant answer your twisted question because -
We don't know its a fact that we are "meant" for anything or that everyone actually ends up doing what they are "meant" for.
People, Christians included, do disgusting things for reasons we don't know or understand sometimes.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Quote:
> 
> I always find it interesting what some Christians decide to ask. You could make the same point/ask the same question and not use puppy dog feet or murdering Jews but yet you don't. Interesting indeed. I can only guess it somehow makes you feel good or is somehow a thrill to put atheist and murder in the same sentence. Odd way to get a thrill.
> But I cant answer your twisted question because -
> ...



I'm not trying to get a thrill out of anything, or put atheists with murder, not even sure where you're coming up with that??

So basically, you don't have an answer to the question?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not trying to get a thrill out of anything, or put atheists with murder, not even sure where you're coming up with that??
> 
> So basically, you don't have an answer to the question?





> or put atheists with murder, not even sure where you're coming up with that??


And yet you did. That's how I came up with it. And there is a reason for it. I took a guess as to what the reason is.
I stated it was a guess -





> I can only guess


 Note I didn't say it was a fact.


> So basically, you don't have an answer to the question


Not sure where you come from but where I come from we call this an answer to a question -


> But I cant answer your twisted question because -
> We don't know its a fact that we are "meant" for anything or that everyone actually ends up doing what they are "meant" for.


See all those words? I typed them in response to your question. That's called an answer. So yeah I do have an answer and that was it.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> And yet you did. That's how I came up with it. And there is a reason for it. I took a guess as to what the reason is.
> I stated it was a guess - Note I didn't say it was a fact.
> 
> Not sure where you come from but where I come from we call this an answer to a question -See all those words? I typed them in response to your question. That's called an answer. So yeah I do have an answer and that was it.


LOL, from where I come from, I take "I can't answer your question" to mean that you don't have an answer.


WaltL1 said:


> Quote:
> 
> I always find it interesting what some Christians decide to ask. You could make the same point/ask the same question and not use puppy dog feet or murdering Jews but yet you don't. Interesting indeed. I can only guess it somehow makes you feel good or is somehow a thrill to put atheist and murder in the same sentence. Odd way to get a thrill.
> But I cant answer your twisted question because -
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

We can be done with this Walt. You don't seem to want to take the implications of the statement to it's logical conclusion, you want to twist it up as, "we don't know if we have purpose", "I can only guess" "you're just trying to put atheists in the same sentence with murder to get a thrill" while at the same time give me a hard time for asking questions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> LOL, from where I come from, I take "I can't answer your question" to mean that you don't have an answer.


You better sit down for this one String because its gonna blow your mind - Telling you I cant answer is actually classified as an answer. 
Unbelievable I know but its actually a fact! And believe it or not its a good answer because your entire question is based on whether we are "meant" for anything. Until we know that the rest of your question is meaningless.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> We can be done with this Walt. You don't seem to want to take the implications of the statement to it's logical conclusion, you want to twist it up as, "we don't know if we have purpose", "I can only guess" "you're just trying to put atheists in the same sentence with murder to get a thrill" while at the same time give me a hard time for asking questions.


Your entire question is based on whether we are in fact 
"meant" for anything. The rest of your question has zero value until we know that answer first.
That is the definition of using logic.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 11, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You better sit down for this one String because its gonna blow your mind - Telling you I cant answer is actually classified as an answer.
> Unbelievable I know but its actually a fact! And believe it or not its a good answer because your entire question is based on whether we are "meant" for anything. Until we know that the rest of your question is meaningless.



Yea, and 37 would have technically been an answer to my question too.


I'm basing my question off the article in the OP, I didn't make the claim that life has meaning, Sam Harris did.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yea, and 37 would have technically been an answer to my question too.
> 
> 
> I'm basing my question off the article in the OP, I didn't make the claim that life has meaning, Sam Harris did.





> Yea, and 37 would have technically been an answer to my question too.


Correct! And not even just technically but factually and completely.That's what makes this false -


> I take "I can't answer your question" to mean that you don't have an answer.


However the difference between your example of 37 above and the answer I gave you is, 37 makes no sense although it is in fact an answer. The answer I gave you is a fact, logical and true. See String you see that as somehow dodging or evading when in fact the only way to give you the answer you are looking for or any other answer than what I gave you is to ignore fact, logic and truth and lie to you. Sorry not gonna do that.


> I'm basing my question off the article in the OP, I didn't make the claim that life has meaning, Sam Harris did


that's what he said -


> Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived.


Notice that you are leaving off half of what he said. That half you are leaving off is crucial to understanding the philosophy and what he is saying. Its why you are asking the same question over and over and denying the oh so obvious answer over and over.


> the claim that life has meaning


Don't have to do anything. Life has meaning whether you do anything or not. This is what you keep saying he says.


> Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived


How does life get meaning? You have to do something. What do you have to do? 





> by being really and fully lived


. 
That's the exact opposite of this -
Don't have to do anything. Life has meaning whether you do anything or not. This is what you keep saying he says.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2013)

By the way String just so Im clear that I wasn't trying to dodge this question -


> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life, is that really what his life was meant for?


Note that all of this is just you setting the circumstance/giving the details -


> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews is living life to the fullest and is his meaning in life,


This is the actual question part of it -


> is that really what his life was meant for?


Absolutely no one on this planet could honestly answer that question because how would anybody know what this particular guys life was "meant" for? I don't know, you don't know, no-one knows. All we know is that he did it. I turkey hunt, is that what my life was "meant" for? You duck hunt, is that what your life was "meant" for? Some people are alcoholics, is that what their life was "meant" for? He murdered, is that what his life was "meant" for? Apparently he decided it was but you would have to ask him. Its possible he was "meant" to be a preacher but he didn't know that so decided to be a mass murderer instead.


> You don't seem to want to take the implications of the statement to it's logical conclusion


So it isnt a matter of me not wanting to take it to its logical conclusion its that it is impossible to get to a logical conclusion without knowing what his life was "meant" for. Because he did it doesn't logically mean that's what he was "meant" for. 
So your judgment of me in this situation is based on dung and the fact that you asked a question that cant be answered logically. That doesn't much matter to me and maybe it doesn't matter to you. I don't know.
Im curious to know how you would answer your own same question?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 12, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> By the way String just so Im clear that I wasn't trying to dodge this question -
> 
> Note that all of this is just you setting the circumstance/giving the details -
> This is the actual question part of it -
> ...


The article in the OP is what suggested that we decide what "living life to the fullest" is and that gives our lives the meaning we want our lives to have. In which case a person buying this theory would have to stand over the coffin of Hilter and say "he sure did live a meaningful life" 


As far as me answering the question, Hitler's life was meant to worship and glorify God in all that he did. I don't particularly think he did that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The article in the OP is what suggested that we decide what "living life to the fullest" is and that gives our lives the meaning we want our lives to have. In which case a person buying this theory would have to stand over the coffin of Hilter and say "he sure did live a meaningful life"
> 
> 
> As far as me answering the question, Hitler's life was meant to worship and glorify God in all that he did. I don't particularly think he did that.


Hitler did lead a meaningful life. So meaningful that most everyone knows who he is and what he did and we are talking about him right now.
Obviously we don't think it was a "good" life but it certainly had meaning. 
And as far as him worshipping and glorifying God most everybody will say he didn't worship or glorify anybody but himself whether they think there is such a thing as a god or not.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The article in the OP is what suggested that we decide what "living life to the fullest" is and that gives our lives the meaning we want our lives to have. In which case a person buying this theory would have to stand over the coffin of Hilter and say "he sure did live a meaningful life"


You( and others) sure talk about Hitler enough so in some ways "he sure did live a meaningful life" . 70+ years after the fact his name is mentioned regularly if not daily somewhere.




stringmusic said:


> As far as me answering the question, Hitler's life was meant to worship and glorify God in all that he did. I don't particularly think he did that.





> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
> 
> -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


----------



## bullethead (Dec 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> As far as me answering the question, Hitler's life was meant to worship and glorify God in all that he did. I don't particularly think he did that.



Are you saying Hitler's and all human lives are meant to worship and glorify God in all that he did?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2013)

> Quote:
> 
> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
> 
> -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


This is why I always have to wonder when a Christian uses Hitler as an example or an example such as String used that eludes to Hitler on the subject of Atheism if they have ever cracked open a history book instead of the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 12, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> This is why I always have to wonder when a Christian uses Hitler as an example or an example such as String used that eludes to Hitler on the subject of Atheism if they have ever cracked open a history book instead of the Bible.



Walt, for some it is better to live within a comfort zone rather than go outside of it and find out why things really are as they are.

For the people that want to use Hitler as their bad guy crutch in that he is the poster boy for evil and cannot possibly be connected to a "good" God, I urge you to see where Hitler got much of his teachings from:

I am sure many of you are familiar with Martin Luther. Luther is responsible for initiating the Protestant Reformation. His theology and writings not only challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church but his writings reached France, England and Italy, and the Reformation eventually split Western Christianity and forever weakened the power of the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther also wrote a book called "On the Jews and their lies". Do some research into this book and you will find how it influenced many people if not a nation. I doubt anyone wants to argue just how "christian" Martin Luther was/is.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 12, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> This is why I always have to wonder when a Christian uses Hitler as an example or an example such as String used that eludes to Hitler on the subject of Atheism if they have ever cracked open a history book instead of the Bible.





bullethead said:


> Walt, for some it is better to live within a comfort zone rather than go outside of it and find out why things really are as they are.
> 
> For the people that want to use Hitler as their bad guy crutch in that he is the poster boy for evil and cannot possibly be connected to a "good" God, I urge you to see where Hitler got much of his teachings from:
> 
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


>





> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> If an atheists decides that murdering 6 million Jews





> Since 1945-46, the most commonly quoted figure for the total number of Jews killed in the holocaust has been an estimate of approximately six million.




Just a coincidence I guess


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 12, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


>



It was an example Walt. It wasn't real, I didn't say that Hilter was an atheist or a Christian or anything else. I was giving an example of something terrible.

The point was that atheists can decide to do bad things and still live a "meaningful" life, yet you never hear atheists say that anyone evil lived a meaningful life.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It was just an example Walt.
> 
> The point was that atheists can decide to do bad things and still live a "meaningful" life, yet you never hear atheists say that anyone evil lived a meaningful life.


I edited my above post. But yeah I guess Im just imagining the similarities



> you never hear atheists say that anyone evil lived a meaningful life


Im what I believe is Agnostic so does this count -


> Hitler did lead a meaningful life.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2013)

String at some point you are going to figure out that nonsense is easily pointed out. I hope you do, it will save us a lot of typing.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 12, 2013)

waltl1 said:


> string at some point you are going to figure out that nonsense is easily pointed out. I hope you do, it will save us a lot of typing.



lol


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2013)

> Originally Posted by waltl1 View Post
> string at some point you are going to figure out that nonsense is easily pointed out. I hope you do, it will save us a lot of typing.





stringmusic said:


> lol


By the way I want to clarify that I dont think everything you post is nonsense. But you do have a tendency to misinterpret, misunderstand and just plain ignore a lot of things that are written. We seem to spend a lot of time addressing those things which takes away from discussing your perfectly legitimate statements and questions which get lost in the chaos.
And at times Im sure I am guilty of the same. Occasionally. Once in a while. Not very often. Hardly ever. Almost never. Once or twice a decade. Not this decade.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 12, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> By the way I want to clarify that I dont think everything you post is nonsense. But you do have a tendency to misinterpret, misunderstand and just plain ignore a lot of things that are written. We seem to spend a lot of time addressing those things which takes away from discussing your perfectly legitimate statements and questions which get lost in the chaos.
> And at times Im sure I am guilty of the same. Occasionally. Once in a while. Not very often. Hardly ever. Almost never. Once or twice a decade. Not this decade.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 12, 2013)

stringmusic said:


>



string, in all seriousness, take some time....now,next week, next year...whenever.....and read/research about Martin Luther's book.
He wrote it, the words in it are not mine they are his. I am not saying it is anything but what it is and you can take from it whatever you take from it, but at least research it just a little before you face palm dismiss it immediately. 

Once you dig deep enough into history you can find reasons for things taking place.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> string, in all seriousness, take some time....now,next week, next year...whenever.....and read/research about Martin Luther's book.
> He wrote it, the words in it are not mine they are his. I am not saying it is anything but what it is and you can take from it whatever you take from it, but at least research it just a little before you face palm dismiss it immediately.
> 
> Once you dig deep enough into history you can find reasons for things taking place.



I didn't facepalm because of anything about Martin Luther, I facepalmed because of this sentence 



> "Walt, for some it is better to live within a comfort zone rather than go outside of it and find out why things really are as they are."



I don't really know why or how ML got brought up.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I didn't facepalm because of anything about Martin Luther, I facepalmed because of this sentence
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really know why or how ML got brought up.



You brought up about 6 millions Jews being killed. Nearly everyone automatically associates Hitler with a remark like that....I took it one step further by linking anti-Jewish sentiment with ML that took place hundreds of years earlier that certainly played a role with Hitler and others before him and still today. Not many people realize there are lots of dots to connect.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Not many people realize there are lots of dots to connect.



I don't think I have ever seen those particular dots connected.  Interesting....


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I don't think I have ever seen those particular dots connected.  Interesting....



Have you looked? There are reasons why people are so easily led into a line of thought. One person can come in and pull it off but it is decades if not centuries in the making. it is not just one country but many that contributed to atrocities against a race of people.

This is just an example of a different magnitude but:
Think about "ObabmaCare"...
This nit-wit is not smart enough to dream all that up by himself after he was elected and he certainly did not make it his life long project with his 2 years as Senator....This stuff was years in the making and they needed the right guy in the right spot to implement a plan that had been in the works for a long time. Nobody else would touch it but 20,000+ pages of that train wreck existed long before the elections.

Hitler was just the nit-wit needed in the right spot at the right time to do what Germany, and half of Europe wanted done. Check into what happened to the Jews in some other countries during that time. That extermination was centuries in the making not only originally founded within religion but backed by it.


----------

