Author Topic: Ken Ham  (Read 3566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2014, 03:56:29 PM »
That is a fine opinion for your father to have. But, I have met atheists who say that death is better than life because there's no worrying involved when you are dead, no paying bills, no working, etc etc etc. Not everyone thinks life is awesome. Some people hate life.

You're mixing atheism with nihilism. Don't.

Well, there is no ultimate purpose of life for an atheist. It is a depressing to have. At least we theists have hope that something better will happen for us when we die. Atheism is just depressing and hopeless. I can't understand why anyone would want to believe in atheism over theism.

Wouldn't you rather have hope instead of darkness?

Imagine someone's child dies. What seems more heartfelt to say?

A. Your child is in Heaven with the Lord singing with the angels.
B. Your child's dead. You're never gonna seen him/her again.

Yea, what jdawg said.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 04:12:16 PM by Ataraxia »
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2168
  • Darwins +70/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2014, 03:58:57 PM »
Wouldn't you rather have hope instead of darkness?

Wouldn't you rather have truth instead of fiction? Reality instead of fantasy?

Obviously not.

edit to add:
Quote
Imagine someone's child dies. What seems more heartfelt to say?

There you go again, preferring fantasy over reality, fiction over truth.

Reality is harsh, there's no doubt about it. And, I guess if you can't handle it, then fantasy may be the way out for you. But why you try to get us, or anyone, to go along with your fantasies simply boggles my mind.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 04:17:35 PM by Dante »
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10773
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2014, 04:09:46 PM »
Well, there is no ultimate purpose of life for an atheist. It is a depressing to have. At least we theists have hope that something better will happen for us when we die. Atheism is just depressing and hopeless. I can't understand why anyone would want to believe in atheism over theism.

I'm beginning to think you're retarded. Not kidding. I just told you not to mix atheism and nihilism, and what do you do? You do exactly what I told you not to do. Must I explain the difference between atheism and nihilism?

Wouldn't you rather have hope instead of darkness?

I'd take truth above all else, and the truth is there is no intrinsic purpose of life. Only life can give life meaning.

Imagine someone's child dies. What seems more heartfelt to say?

A. Your child is in Heaven with the Lord singing with the angels.
B. Your child's dead. You're never gonna seen him/her again.

I'll go with jdawg70's option C.. Nice try with the false dichotomy, though... Well, not really. False dichotomies are easily spotted.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1240
  • Darwins +48/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2014, 04:29:16 PM »
Caring about other people and the future is a religious principle...Thinking others are just as important as you is a religious principle.

According to the Bible, nearly 2.5 million were slaughtered by Yahweh and his chosen.  And it continued right on, long after Jesus was hung from a tree. Your history as a Christian is filled with the blood of innocents you cared nothing about.

According to atheistic principles...

Please cite your reference for "atheistic principals". 

There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2014, 04:42:06 PM »
Well, there is no ultimate purpose of life for an atheist.
Life gives us the opportunity to have a purpose and to pursue it until such time as we die.  Think about your point of view regarding atheism: you feel that without a second act after your current life is done, you may as well not have the current life.  Does that make sense to you?  It is the opposite that is true for me: knowing that this is my only ride gives it that much more purpose and meaning to me.  You are spending this life waiting on the next one.  I am enjoying this one because it is the one I have.  Who do you think would approach life with a greater purpose?

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2014, 04:49:03 PM »
Theists like skeptic and Ham seem to think atheists have no empathy, despite evidence to the contrary. It shows how blinkered they are. And how lacking in empathy they are themselves, if they really can't imagine someone being altruistic without religious belief.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline shnozzola

Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2014, 05:25:43 PM »
I can't understand why anyone would want to believe in atheism over theism.
Bold Mine

Really, believe in?  - how long can you argue here and not understand who it is you argue with. There is a new article in the latest New Yorker, about Neil deGrasse Tyson (not free).  In it, he mentions the term atheist, and wonders why it is even a term -
Quote
"It's odd that the word 'atheist' even exists," he says.  "I don't play golf.  Is there a word for non-golf players."

 (when pressed, Neil calls himself agnostic - and, as the article says, his observatory gets a lot of money from David Koch)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/17/140217fa_fact_mead
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 05:28:08 PM by shnozzola »
“I wanna go ice fishing on Europa, and see if something swims up to the camera lens and licks it.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12122
  • Darwins +644/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2014, 06:47:52 PM »
This was explained by countless theologians.

God's reason for existence is that God cannot not exist. God is necessary.

ipse dixit.  Just because someone imagined a reason does not make that reason true.  One could say the reason for yeti existence is because yeti cannot not exist.  Yeti are necessary.  You may substitute any fantastical creature.  It will have the same truth value as your statement.



Atheism is just depressing and hopeless.

what makes it depressing and hopeless is being surrounded by brainless theists, knowing you will never see the preposterously stupid idea of god banished in your lifetime.  Knowing that the majority of human animals will always be irrational chimps.   THAT is what is depressing and hopeless.

I can't understand why anyone would want to believe in atheism over theism.

It is not a matter of want.  It is a matter of acceptance.  I do not believe in gods because I cannot.  I have tried.  It doesn't work.  If you think you can, try believing the the Tooth Faerie for the month of March.  Tell me how that goes.

I only want to believe what it true.  Let us recite the Litany of Tarski:[1]
If there is a god in the universe,
I desire to believe that there is a god in the universe;
If there is no god in the universe,
I desire to believe that there is no god in the universe;
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.

I cannot understand why people would want to have false beliefs.

Wouldn't you rather have hope instead of darkness?

Not if darkness is the reality.  Let us recite the Litany of Gendlin:[2]

What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.
And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it.


A. Your child is in Heaven with the Lord singing with the angels.
B. Your child's dead. You're never gonna seen him/her again.

Why the fuck would anyone say B?  Do you think that is what atheists say to people?

And A makes as much sense as saying, "Your child is in the CandyCane realm, playing with peppermint kittens and chocolate dragons."

Wishful thinking does not cause reality.

 1. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Litany_of_Tarski
 2. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Litany_of_Gendlin
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2643
  • Darwins +217/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #37 on: February 14, 2014, 02:51:09 AM »
You are getting annoyed with some who has the IQ of a mole rat, but not the digging ability.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2963
  • Darwins +256/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2014, 03:49:02 AM »
Wouldn't you rather have hope instead of darkness?

"Hope is the denial of reality.   It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it." - Raistlin Majere, in Dragons of Autumn Twilight.

Skeptic, I've been through the "What's the point?" phase in life -- Over 45 years ago.  As you might surmise from this message, I'm still alive despite that dance with meaninglessness.

And it is a dance of sorts, between the outside world and our egos.  We value our actions and feelings as something special and unique, something that no one else in the entire universe could ever experience.  We see the eventual loss of our consciousness, our viewpoint, as something so utterly catastrophic that the entire universe should weep at our passing.

I think this is where fear of death originated:  A flicker of awareness, confined in the shell of flesh and bones is all the average human knows.  The thought of that light going out is terrifying.  Promises of eternal life, and of a pat on the back from an invisible super-Me, make it possible to push the fear away rather than dealing with it.

I'd rather deal with it.  Rather than hoping for eternal life, I prefer to accept the finitude of life in a human body and drop the pretense of being a Special Snowflake.  Anything I've done, anything I've ever thought, someone else can do too -- Perhaps in a completely different galaxy, tens of millions of years from now.  Meaning is not in what is done, but in the experiencing.  Meaning is not static; it is alive while we are alive, changes as we change, and dies with us.

And that's okay, because someone else in a galaxy far, far away may have found the same meaning or will find it someday.

Chain yourself to your thoughts and deeds if you want, Skeptic, but I'm going to look up at the distant stars and wonder who else has lived things that I am living right now -- And smile, and let go of fear like a puff of breath into the air of a cold winter night.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10773
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #39 on: February 14, 2014, 05:01:03 AM »
I know the atheists will hate to hear this, but Ham is 100% right. If you won't remember anything when you die, what's the point of anything?

So Alzheimer's patients, babies, and children's lives are pointless. Gotcha.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #40 on: February 14, 2014, 05:46:35 AM »
I can't understand why anyone would want to believe in atheism over theism.

Wouldn't you rather have hope instead of darkness?

I wish I had a pony.  I would like my mother's dementia to be gone.  I would love to win the lottery.  I wish that there was no murder or abuse in the world.

How I would LIKE things to be is totally irrelevant to the way I believe things ARE.  You seem to be saying "just believe, even though you don't believe!" - which makes zero sense.


Imagine someone's child dies. What seems more heartfelt to say?
A. Your child is in Heaven with the Lord singing with the angels.
B. Your child's dead. You're never gonna seen him/her again.

I think this is the biggest stumbling block to your understanding - your assumption that (B) is something that an atheist would in fact say.  And also, that you are (again) conflating what IS, with what gives comfort.

Consider this counter example, which can apply to believers and atheists.

Imagine that you are round a friends house.  This child is late back from an area of town you KNOW to be dangerous, and you reckon there is a better than 50/50 chance their lateness means something bad has happened.  Which seems "better" to say to them?
A.  I'm sure its just a flat tyre or something - I'm sure they'll get back soon.
B.  I'm sure they are lying dead with a knife in their back.  I'm sure they're never coming home.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2643
  • Darwins +217/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #41 on: February 14, 2014, 08:52:31 AM »
A.  I'm sure its just a flat tyre or something - I'm sure they'll get back soon.
B.  I'm sure they are lying dead with a knife in their back.  I'm sure they're never coming home.

C. So and so is an unreliable, inconsiderate halfwit, who probably started trying to impress some old friend with his drinking skills; unable to part with him because of some arbitrary insecurity.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1900
  • Darwins +337/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #42 on: February 14, 2014, 09:25:33 AM »
How I would LIKE things to be is totally irrelevant to the way I believe things ARE.

The strange thing is that I think skeptic54768 gets that.

Arguing about it saying, "Sounds too cruel to be real!" will get you nowhere in the grand scheme of things. Nobody ever said the truth had to be pretty.

Which makes his line of argumentation...perplexing.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2014, 09:31:47 AM »
When we die, we are gone.  But the impact that we have had on the people around us, on our ecosystem, on the systems that we participate in, and on the structures that surround us, will live on.  Anything that we have created, will live on.

The children we have nurtured, the art we have created, the discoveries we have made, the policies that we advocated for, the friends and family who have benefitted from our support or encouragement or inspiration, the communities that we contributed to, these things will survive us.  As will the garbage that we created.  It will all live on, and be our legacy. 

For me, there is no better argument for living a positive, productive life.

I feel that everything you said is true for the individuals of a society. We each keep on the memories and traditions of our fore bearers and our societies should be engineered to ensure we can continue with that tradition for as long as possible. There is a very real threat of it all being lost if we follow the obvious path set before any species. We should strive to be the exception to the rule. It would be a real shame if we lost all of our progress and all the ripples of humanity were stilled because we couldn't figure out how to get along and share our toys.
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 707
  • Darwins +17/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2014, 09:58:07 AM »
He's stuck in the chicken and egg thing with all these purposes and causes.

But he's missed the point even there. We are here to produce the eggs. And have fun with it. ;D

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4719
  • Darwins +531/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2014, 06:37:54 PM »
I know the atheists will hate to hear this, but Ham is 100% right. If you won't remember anything when you die, what's the point of anything?
What about everyone else in the world who will continue living after you're gone?  Your actions will affect them, directly and indirectly.  The point is not about an individual person - that's human egotism at work.  The point is about people as a whole.  And that's why Ken Ham - and by extension, Christianity - is wrong.  Christianity seeks to exalt a singular being - YHWH, Jehovah, God, whatever name you use - and treats everyone else who ever lived as an adjunct to that being.  Worse, it attempts to bribe and threaten people into falling in line - if they exalt the deity, they will get the present of eternal life so they can continue exalting it forever, and if they refuse to, they will get tossed into a lake of fire or the equivalent instead, to keep others who might waver in line.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Caring about other people and the future is a religious principle.
No, it isn't.  It's a moral principle.  Morality and religion are not the same thing, and you shouldn't try to act as if they are.

Quote from: skeptic54768
According to atheistic principles, it's every man for himself. No one is as important as me. Everyone else is not important. Thinking others are just as important as you is a religious principle.
You're conflating theism and morality here, and you really need to stop doing that.  There is no reason at all that an atheist must espouse amorality and every reason why they can be perfectly moral regardless of what they believe.  The only reason you think otherwise is because you believe that morality comes from your god - which brings us back to exalting it.

Quote from: skeptic54768
For example, if you go out of your way to help build a house for the homeless, what do you get out of it? It's not your house. You get nothing out of it for yourself. Why even bother? Helping is based on religion. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Sure, I would get stuff out of being altruistic.  I get the pleasure of knowing that I helped another person, I get the satisfaction of having helped do something worthwhile, and I might even make some friends.  All of those things benefit me without costing anyone else anything.  What part of that is "getting nothing out of it for yourself?"

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2014, 10:47:58 PM »
You are getting annoyed with some who has the IQ of a mole rat, but not the digging ability.

Too much credit? Maybe?

I think he leaves here with stuff we post, gets some coaching on how to respond, returns to post his twaddle. He doesn't completely follow through on his statements. Partly cause he can't, but I think mostly there are 2 possibilities;

1- He really believes what he says (If he debates his stuff to the end, it would blow up his arguments, therefore he can't continue).

2- He's a TROLL who thinks he is playing with us.
I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2456
  • Darwins +45/-415
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #47 on: February 15, 2014, 12:17:33 AM »
You are getting annoyed with some who has the IQ of a mole rat, but not the digging ability.

Too much credit? Maybe?

I think he leaves here with stuff we post, gets some coaching on how to respond, returns to post his twaddle. He doesn't completely follow through on his statements. Partly cause he can't, but I think mostly there are 2 possibilities;

1- He really believes what he says (If he debates his stuff to the end, it would blow up his arguments, therefore he can't continue).

2- He's a TROLL who thinks he is playing with us.

That is not something I agree with. Atheists claim to be tolerant and respectful people, but then they say I have the IQ of a mole rat. How is that nice and tolerant? If anything, that is furthering the stereotype that atheists are arrogant and think they have everything all figured out. Not to mention they belittle people for not sharing non-belief.

If I suddenly became an atheist again, would you guys all of a sudden say I am a very smart individual? Non-Belief does not equal intelligence and it never will.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 12:20:06 AM by skeptic54768 »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2456
  • Darwins +45/-415
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #48 on: February 15, 2014, 01:40:57 AM »
Wouldn't you rather have truth instead of fiction? Reality instead of fantasy?

Obviously not.

This is something I would like to expand upon.

Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2963
  • Darwins +256/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #49 on: February 15, 2014, 02:00:01 AM »
Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven.

This is true; we don't have evidence, one way or another.

However, life after death doesn't sound as likely to Me.  Life after death where, and why can't we find this place?  Death is a regular occurrence on this planet, and yet no one in thousands of years has succeeded in identifying a process or gateway to this purported afterlife.  Interestingly enough, it also seems to be a one-way trip (although near-death experiences and concepts like reincarnation would have us believe otherwise).

The admittance criteria for a "good" afterlife differ widely, and frequently focus on the beliefs held in life by the now-deceased individual.  This bias makes it even harder to take claims of life after death seriously -- Why would a good god send a basically decent person to be tortured forever just because they didn't believe the same things as the god's followers?

Quote
Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

I'll grant that for many people it may be more psychologically satisfying to believe in an afterlife.  Beliefs, however, can be wildly out of sync with reality. "Makes much more sense" is not a term that I would use.

Quote
This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

For some atheists, this may be true.  It may even be true of a few believers, especially if they think their destiny is not heaven but hell.  Personally, I don't see physical death as nothingness; I see it as an opportunity to be recycled (not "reincarnated") into other forms of matter, and perhaps one day experience life again from a completely different perspective.  Why would I want to be an unchanging self for eternity when I can be many selves?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 731
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #50 on: February 15, 2014, 08:13:12 PM »
SKEPTIC 

Please answer my question below.


SHEPTIC
I know the atheists will hate to hear this, but Ham is 100% right. If you won't remember anything when you die, what's the point of anything?

Caring about other people and the future is a religious principle. According to atheistic principles, it's every man for himself. No one is as important as me. Everyone else is not important. Thinking others are just as important as you is a religious principle.

For example, if you go out of your way to help build a house for the homeless, what do you get out of it? It's not your house. You get nothing out of it for yourself. Why even bother? Helping is based on religion. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Based on the bolded statement in your post;

If two electricians decide to donate their time and skill to help build a house for a homeless family. One is religious, the other is an Atheist.

They both do the same amount of work, they put in all the wiring, hook up the A/C, install the circuit box, put up the fixtures, install the all the switches and outlets, they do the exact same amount of work.

Are you saying the religious electrician gets points for his afterlife in heaven and the Atheist electrician wasted his time?

Yes or no please.............

Or elaborate on what each gets out of their virtuous task.

I'd cut him if he stands, and I'd shoot him if he'd run
 Yes I'd kill him with my Bible and my razor and my gun

Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.
Aristotle

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1287
  • Darwins +86/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #51 on: February 15, 2014, 08:41:23 PM »

Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

Shep, you have finally said something sensible and admitted that your religion is just a guess and that your preference is based on emotional needs. I would like to give you a higher mark than +1 for this.

As for the second part of your statement, Atheists can believe in afterlives too. Ask any Buddhist! Gods or Christianity are not in the least necessary for an afterlife.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 08:47:24 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #52 on: February 16, 2014, 02:37:19 AM »
Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

So religious belief is simply wishful thinking and an emotional crutch?  Unusual for a believer to admit that, but fair enough.

This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

Trouble is, it also tells me this:
Both atheists and theists agree that there are problems with this world: it is not ideal.
The theist decides to believe that there is a better world to come, when everything will be fixed.
The atheist decides to believe that this is all there is - so make the most of it.

Since - as you say - there is no proof in afterlife, which person is more likely to make the world a better place for others?  Which one is more likely to fully engage with this world?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2168
  • Darwins +70/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #53 on: February 17, 2014, 09:44:22 AM »
Wouldn't you rather have truth instead of fiction? Reality instead of fantasy?

Obviously not.

This is something I would like to expand upon.

Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

How does it make more sense? On what basis is your wishful thinking based on the very real "sense" of reality?

And, further, why do you find the concept of oblivion so depressing? Remember what it was like for you before you were born into this world? No? That's because you were oblivious. Was that depressing for you? It's not depressing to me, it's simply the likely reality. As such, I'll be free from the wonderful pains of life. And I wont care, because I'll be oblivious.

Which leads me to another question: What was your eternal soul doing before you were born? Where was it located? Doing what, playing pinochle? It's all nonsense, bro. Complete and utter bullshit.

Quote
This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

Putting aside the false dichotomy you've put forth, I'd say we prefer and want to deal in reality. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't have a choice in the matter. Reality doesn't change because of anyone's wants and preferences. We, being skeptical of fantastic claims, such as gods and afterlives, will need evidence to believe your version of reality true.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1900
  • Darwins +337/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2014, 10:09:48 AM »
Which leads me to another question: What was your eternal soul doing before you were born? Where was it located? Doing what, playing pinochle? It's all nonsense, bro. Complete and utter bullshit.

Minor point - I'm not sure skeptic54768 has implied that his soul existed before he was born.

Quote
Putting aside the false dichotomy you've put forth, I'd say we prefer and want to deal in reality. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't have a choice in the matter. Reality doesn't change because of anyone's wants and preferences. We, being skeptical of fantastic claims, such as gods and afterlives, will need evidence to believe your version of reality true.

skeptic54768, I think you need to be very clear about something here.  Do you acknowledge that what you or anyone else prefers has no bearing on what actually is real?  Yes or no?  Because, like verses in the bible, I can find posts of yours that would support either answer.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Xero-Kill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Wait... what?
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #55 on: February 17, 2014, 12:00:33 PM »
You are getting annoyed with some who has the IQ of a mole rat, but not the digging ability.

Too much credit? Maybe?

I think he leaves here with stuff we post, gets some coaching on how to respond, returns to post his twaddle. He doesn't completely follow through on his statements. Partly cause he can't, but I think mostly there are 2 possibilities;

1- He really believes what he says (If he debates his stuff to the end, it would blow up his arguments, therefore he can't continue).

2- He's a TROLL who thinks he is playing with us.

That is not something I agree with. Atheists claim to be tolerant and respectful people, but then they say I have the IQ of a mole rat. How is that nice and tolerant? If anything, that is furthering the stereotype that atheists are arrogant and think they have everything all figured out. Not to mention they belittle people for not sharing non-belief.

If I suddenly became an atheist again, would you guys all of a sudden say I am a very smart individual? Non-Belief does not equal intelligence and it never will.

You are right, being an atheist does not automatically make you smart, nor wise, nor empathetic, nor... anything, except an atheist which is itself only a response to another position. The term only exists as a contrary to another state. If you became an atheist "again" you would not be smart, per se, but you would be smarter than you were for your new found incredulity. That may sound condescending, and perhaps it is, but in all fairness your ideas deserve to be mocked. In the exact same way that you would mock a person for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Tolerance and respect does not necessarily mean constantly giving you compliments and blindly accepting everything you espouse as Gospel. We can respect each other and criticize each other, all at the same time, even if the punches hit a little near the belt. You are no saint in this capacity either, so save your holier-than-thou attitude.

As for the arrogance? Really? You come to us, claiming to KNOW the truths of the universe that you admit you can't possibly know as bestowed upon you by... magical insight from the creator of the Universe. You provide nothing but bare assertions like: God exists, souls exists, souls behave in this way, heaven operates in that way, God wants this, God wants that, We can't know what God wants... I could go on for fucking ever. You come to us with a constant stream of fallacious arguments like: The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true.  You insist that we hold positions that we don't such as: Nihilism and Naturalism. You group us all into one lump of atheism and then attack your own imagined representation of atheists. You constantly conflate your own ignorance and lack of knowledge with virtue. You dodge very direct and simple questions, ask a tangential question and then bemoan us for being meanies when we hold you accountable for your claims.

Everything you say amounts to the following:

You: THESE THINGS ARE TRUE!
Us: How do you know?
You: GOD!
Us: Why should we believe you?
You: Fuck YOU! It's just true! That's why!

And we, in our position of "I don't know, but let's find out!" are the arrogant ones?



Which leads me to another question: What was your eternal soul doing before you were born? Where was it located? Doing what, playing pinochle? It's all nonsense, bro. Complete and utter bullshit.

Minor point - I'm not sure skeptic54768 has implied that his soul existed before he was born.

But he has implied that the soul is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created; it must have always existed. Therefore by his assertions, his soul has always existed, even before[1] it was placed in his meat sack.
 1. It is impossible to use language to describe eternities because so many words simply cannot be applied, by definition. "Created, before, after, time..." what do these word mean to that which is eternal? Any reference to a time frame automatically contradicts the concept of "eternal".
"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

~Tyler Durden

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1688
  • Darwins +179/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #56 on: February 17, 2014, 12:19:54 PM »
You are getting annoyed with some who has the IQ of a mole rat, but not the digging ability.

Too much credit? Maybe?

I think he leaves here with stuff we post, gets some coaching on how to respond, returns to post his twaddle. He doesn't completely follow through on his statements. Partly cause he can't, but I think mostly there are 2 possibilities;

1- He really believes what he says (If he debates his stuff to the end, it would blow up his arguments, therefore he can't continue).

2- He's a TROLL who thinks he is playing with us.

That is not something I agree with. Atheists claim to be tolerant and respectful people, but then they say I have the IQ of a mole rat. How is that nice and tolerant? If anything, that is furthering the stereotype that atheists are arrogant and think they have everything all figured out. Not to mention they belittle people for not sharing non-belief.

If I suddenly became an atheist again, would you guys all of a sudden say I am a very smart individual? Non-Belief does not equal intelligence and it never will.

You are right, being an atheist does not automatically make you smart, nor wise, nor empathetic, nor... anything, except an atheist which is itself only a response to another position. The term only exists as a contrary to another state. If you became an atheist "again" you would not be smart, per se, but you would be smarter than you were for your new found incredulity. That may sound condescending, and perhaps it is, but in all fairness your ideas deserve to be mocked. In the exact same way that you would mock a person for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Tolerance and respect does not necessarily mean constantly giving you compliments and blindly accepting everything you espouse as Gospel. We can respect each other and criticize each other, all at the same time, even if the punches hit a little near the belt. You are no saint in this capacity either, so save your holier-than-thou attitude.
Further, and as usual, we're getting a demonstration of group-identity assigned thinking: an atheist said that he has the IQ of a mole rat, thus no atheists are nice or tolerant. It's like talking to a wall.

The rest of your post was spot-on too Xero-Kill. Seeking actual proof should be the default position, not the exception to the rule. Double-think is worse than useless.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2456
  • Darwins +45/-415
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #57 on: February 17, 2014, 12:55:10 PM »

Neither "life after death" nor "complete nothingness after death" can be 100% empirically proven. Since both of these are beliefs, it makes much more sense to believe in the hopeful afterlife than the depressing nothingness.

This tells me that atheists PREFER and WANT nothingness instead of paradise!

Shep, you have finally said something sensible and admitted that your religion is just a guess and that your preference is based on emotional needs. I would like to give you a higher mark than +1 for this.

As for the second part of your statement, Atheists can believe in afterlives too. Ask any Buddhist! Gods or Christianity are not in the least necessary for an afterlife.

It worries me deeply that atheists would choose to believe in nothing over hope. You guys keep saying, "this is reality!" but that hasn't been proven either. It's merely your belief. I can easily say, "This is reality! You just wish God wasn't real!"

There's no way to test which reality is the true reality considering reality is always defined subjectively anyway.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)