-14 votes

Stefan Molyneux and Seth Andrews, host of The Thinking Atheist, discuss breaking free from religion.

Stefan Molyneux and Seth Andrews, host of The Thinking Atheist, discuss breaking free from religion, the social costs of accepting atheism, the predatory targeting of the young, religion as child abuse, the worship of ignorance, the benefits of religion and advice to religious parents.


http://youtu.be/Zp9wDT6kUtQ

The Thinking Atheist is a website, radio podcast and online community which rejects faith as a suitable tool for living. - http://www.youtube.com/user/TheThinki... - http://www.thethinkingatheist.com

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Bitcoin Address: 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs
Litecoin Address: LL76SbNek3dT8bv2APZNhWgNv3nHEzAgKT

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Faith: Someone who believes

Faith: Someone who believes without need of evidence. No prerequisite requirement.

Athieism: Someone who requires evidence to believe. Evidence is a requirement to gain belief.

These are not the same thing. At all.

Is it a leap of "faith" to say I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Leprachans? Spider Man? Thor? Flying Spagetti Monsters?

I don't believe in god because I have yet to see a shred of credable evidence beyond the "testimony" of biast witnesses who very much "want" to believe. That's like asking the wife of a convicted criminal if he did it. Its biast and therefore unreliable. I don't believe in many things that I am told in this world. Faith has nothing to do with it. I can easily be swayed on ANYTHING provided that I am given strong evidence.

The Biblical definition of Faith

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

"1After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness" is an example of saving faith.

Abraham is an example: " He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."

Bible believing Christians are fully persuaded that God sent forth his Son to die for our sins according to the scriptures. That he was buried, and rose again three days later alive and that eternal life is found only in Him.

The evidence that you speak of IS the RESURRECTION.

Jesus Christ said: " A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign (evidence); and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

So you and the rest of the

So you and the rest of the "flock" consider a bunch of gibberish written in a book assembled by the worst of Roman ologarchs at the council of Niscea by vote, to be your "evidence." Im happy for you, but its not evidence. It wouldn't hold up in court.

When you say things like: "The evidence that you speak of IS the RESURRECTION" it is utterly meaningless. What ressurrection? Did you manage to get your hands on a copy of the video? Do you know someone was there? Have we got a crime scene to examine here?

Just because someone who believes nonsense proclaims in all caps "The Flying Spagetti Monster IS the EVIDENCE!" means absolutly nothing. It provides no "actual" evidence of anything other than the one speaking either believes, or is trying reeeeeally hard to believe what he's saying (or makes a lot of money convincing others he does).

As for Abraham, first off, I have 0 respect for anyone who would murder their own child just because some blood-thirsty tyrant asked them too, I don't care what rewards said tyrant was peddling in exchange. While god stopped him at the last second, what about all the kids whose parents he "didn't" stop? As for Abraham, @#$% him. I would NEVER murder my child, I don't care if the gods tossed me in hell forever. Never.

Anyway, even if your fantasy storybook was true, and Abraham really was talking to god, where does "faith" come into the picture? Why do you need faith to believe in someone whose standing right in front of you talking? If JC came down and said howdy to me, and invited me to get to know him, id be happy as a clam to meet the fellow. But id hardly need "faith" at that point since id have all the proof I required.

"It wouldn't hold up in

"It wouldn't hold up in court." Actually it would. It falls under ancient documents rules and laws against hearsay. This briefly explains it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_document The Holy Bible has been vetted long ago and is a legal eyewitness testimony.

For a fuller account please see:

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Is that the same court of law

Is that the same court of law that burned people for proclaiming the earth revolved around sun, or burned young women for thinking?

When I said court of law, I ment a real one using proper proceedure, not a bunch of primitives with a biast interest in selling peasant control to their population of slaves who would revolt if not for the magical overlord who will burn them forever if they do so.

I see that you didn't read or

I see that you didn't read or watch a thing I recomended.
You do realize you are arguing Ad hominem?

http://federalevidence.com/rules-of-evidence Articles VIII and IX are the relevent.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

You have to be kidding me?

You have to be kidding me? Did YOU read it?

""By admitting an ancient document into evidence, it is presumed only that the document is what it purports to be, but there are no presumptions about the truth of the document's contents. A jury can still decide that the author of the document was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it.""

What does this have to do with claiming that the bible is evidence of its own truth? The Ancient Document law's only purpose is that it can used to settle and argument about what it, or an argument about its "nature" is about. For example, if the dispute was some matter of the church which bases its laws on the bible, or I was claiming that the bible was a book filled with sadism and evil, wheras you claimed it was a happy book of love and joy, we could use the bible as evidence to support one argument over the other.

Where this law comes in, is that because the bible is 20+ years old, we would know that there's no way either of us could have tampered with it to support our own arguments in advance. This has NOTHING to do with "prooving" that the cartoonish myths within the bible are true. The bible itself has no "evidence" within it to proove any of the outlandish and supernatural clames it makes.

The fact is, you can't proove christanity is true, because if you could you wouldn't need faith, and I wouldn't be an athiest.

Sorry it has taken so long to

Sorry it has taken so long to reply. Thanks for reading the references.
Yes, " A jury can still decide that the author of the document was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it". But according to the rules of evidence.
When applying the rules of evidence to the Biblical testimony, perjuring it is more difficult than commonly thought.
If you are interested in the true legal argument, look here. Short version: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenlea...
Long version: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34989/34989-pdf.pdf

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Im not sure what any of that

Im not sure what any of that has to do with with what I was originally saying.

Circular logic is not evidence. Trying to proove the bible is an authentic historical document filled with true information by finding scripture in the bible that says its all true is as silly as considering the word of a suspect to be evidence of his innocence based only on HIS testimony alone.

Of course asking Christians about the bible is pointless anyway since the vastly overwhelming majority of them don't know the first thing about it. 99.9999999% of Christians don't even know what the 10 commandments are. They think they do because they watched the movie, but they are wrong. Let alone the rest of the noensense they "pretend" to know about the bible. Its a self-reinforcing myth passed around (in error) by word of mouth, going from one mistaken and ignorant believer to the next, and getting a little more "wrong" each time it trades hands until the end result is a billion versions of christianity that don't resemble the bible in any way. And thank Jebus for that, because the bible is a horror show filled with the most dispicable evil and deprevity. People who "truly" followed biblical commands would be sadistic, blood-thirsty savages that raped, tortured and made slaves of others.

"the bible is a horror show

"the bible is a horror show filled with the most dispicable evil and deprevity. People who "truly" followed biblical commands would be sadistic, blood-thirsty savages that raped, tortured and made slaves of others."

You talk as if these things are wrong and ought not exist. Is there some objective moral law that we are obligated too? I have asked similar questions of you in the past and haven't yet received anything even approaching a coherent answer. Yet you go right on preaching sermons.

Im just going to copy and

Im just going to copy and paste because ive answered this like a dozen times. No one ever responds because I guess they can't find some way to refute without just more stupid threats of eternal damnation. So, here ya go:

First, right and wrong are not objective. They are the products of reason. Our motivation to form natural rights come from the bonds of love we form from other humans. The finished product comes from human reason. We love our kids (and others), so we view those things that cause them harm to be "bad" and those things that help them prosper to be "good." This is intrinsic in pretty much all humans who love other people. However there are going to be criminals or those who have no perspective because they have no one they love in their life.

The goal becomes: How can we, the majority of human who want to see our loved ones safe, free and prosperous, structure society to protect our loved ones from that which harms them, while fostering that which helps them? The experiments in social organizing begins.

Though thousands of years, we have failure after failure. Every social structure that depends on collectivism creates a master/slave society that ends when one class takes rights only for themselves and lives on the blood and labor of the other. This always ends in violent upheaval that leaves no one's loved ones safe, least of all the 'master" class. Be it 100 or 1000 years, Collectivism always dies in violence and chaos. You wouldn't be here if you didn't know that.

Then, some great thinkers dream up natural rights. A logical way to organize socially wherein everyone's loved one's rights are protected, and the ability for everyone to prosper is maximized. Individualism where there is no master, and no slave.

We understand that logically, no one's loved ones are truly safe until everyone's loved ones are guaranteed the same protection. Think about the "Monkey gets unequal pay" thread and apply it to rights. Humans won't settle to be second class citizens for long. Sooner or later those who don't have rights will take them. Equal rights means equal liberty, and equal justice. There will always be criminals who want to take what they did not earn, but that's our challenge as liberty loving humans, to keep out the tyrants and the criminals.

So as you can see, the concept of "equal rights," and the morality necessary to form the foundation for them are very much possible without gods. All you need is to be capable of loving those around you, and morality will follow. Reason will hone that morality into a social structure like natural rights and the non-aggression principal so long as people of reason and logic are not stamped out by the Collectivists & tyrants before their ideas can catch fire in the minds of men. You may say "but love can't exist without god!" Perhaps you're right, but I love, even though I don't believe in gods. Ask yourself, if you found out tomorrow that there was no god, would you still love your children?

The conclusion is: It doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Natural rights are the only way forward for humanity, so we should really focus on what works, and stop trying to tell each other what to be. I'm not a christian, I'm not going to be one, and I resent christians telling me I need their religion to be moral or have rights. I have both and I don't believe in god. To me morality, while not guaranteed by some kind of cosmic king, is still an ABSOLUTLY necessary ingredient to liberty. However the only "morality" I deem necessary is that everyone has a right to life, liberty and property which can not be taken from you unless you take someone else's rights unjustly first. That would be crime. There is no such thing as a victimless crime, and as long as you're not a criminal, you're free to engage in any behavior you want, stupid or smart. Not my business.

These debates, while fun, are divisive and pointless. you do your thing, ill do mine. I won't tell you have to be atheist to have liberty, you don't tell me I have to be christian. win win.

"First, right and wrong are

"First, right and wrong are not objective."
Okay, but then you say "They are the products of reason."

If someone reasons that knocking over a liquor store would help his loved ones, has he reasoned his way to a moral conclusion in the matter? If not, then why not? And while you are at it, what is 'reason' as you use the term? Is there a right and wrong way to reason, or is reasoning an individual sort of thing?(lol) Must reason to be collective in order to come to some agreed upon morality by which individual rights spring up like a rabbit out of a hat? Is there any obligation on others to recognize the reasoning of others? Are the laws of logic universal and absolute in this godless universe of yours?

This is telling.,..
"You may say 'but love can't exist without god!' Perhaps you're right, but I love, even though I don't believe in gods."

If love cannot exist without God, then what must the fact that you do love ultimately mean, Magwan? Your worldview cannot account for love other than in subjective and ultimately arbitrary ways... Yet you don't live that way, because you can't live that way. This points to something so obvious that you need to suppress it, in order not to see it.

"Ask yourself, if you found out tomorrow that there was no god, would you still love your children?"

Love would become an emotion ultimately induced by chemical reactions in that curious vat you are pleased to call a brain. These chemicals always behave this way in similar environments and temperatures. Such emotions would have no more cosmic significance or meaning than a flare on a distant star, a greedy boss or me scratching my nose just now. Of course, this would only apply if one is being consistent, which is to say rational. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are not.

"However the only 'morality' I deem necessary is that everyone has a right to life, liberty and property which can not be taken from you unless you take someone else's rights unjustly first."

In an atheist universe, this is nothing more than a personal prejudice of your own. Tyrants have a different preference, and what makes yours better than theirs? As you said, there is no objective basis for right and wrong, and thus no real overarching standard to judge between them. Tomayto, tomato?

"No one ever responds because I guess they can't find some way to refute without just more stupid threats of eternal damnation."

What a hoot!

There are fundamental right &

There are fundamental right & wrong answers pertaining to logic and within set philosophy. For example; 1+1=2 in standard math. Im pretty sure that natural rights and the non-aggression principal are the "1+1=2" of social structure. They are the "correct" answer in how humans should socially organize to maximise the potential of our species to thrive. Those who adhere to this principal are logically correct. Those who do not, are wrong and therefore cannot grasp "actual" morality as defined by logic and reason.

"IF" you choose to adopt that code, there are definate "right & wrong" action within the scope of those principals. Not everyone will agree that they are the "best" way, some will favor collectivism and so they will not see the same morality as I do. I believe they are wrong as per my example above. If your problem is that you only want to choose the one that your god favors, well then we have a question to answer. Which philosophy of morality "do" the gods favor? Well your "god" seems to favor totalitarian monarchy as we get a lot of that on earth, and its how he rules his "kingdom" of heaven if one subscribes to mythology. Of coure you'll disagree, but like 99.999999% of christians, you probably don't even know your own god's 10 commandments.

But since there isn't a god, its hardly relivant to "my" choice. Im going to follow reason and logic, and these things tell me that if we don't all have natural rights, then in the end, none of us will.

If someone believes that 1+1=3, they are wrong. Likewise, if someone believes that knocking over a liquor store to help his loved ones in a just society is "right action" because he believes in collectivism where the rich owe the poor a living, he is wrong according to natural rights and the non-aggression principal. Some may disagree, I just happen to think they are wrong and immoral because of my choosen code of ethics.

But rights are won on the battlefield. Just because I know what is "right & wrong" according to the principals I have choosen to live by doesn't mean they can't be taken from me by force, and I could be turned into a slave. Clearly, collectivism is king at the moment and we are only chipping away at that monolith.

To the point about love existing without god, I should be clear, what I was saying it is doesn't matter if "god" is the origin of love or not in terms of wether you and I can work toward the same end. "Where" love comes from is irrelivant to the development of morality which, in turn, is based on our ability as a species to form bonds of love with one another. You can believe that a god magics love into existance if you want, but so long as you understand that morality is derived from love, and also aknowledge that we athiests "feel" love just like you, then you'll understand why we are also capable of "morality" just like you. I would take it a step further even and say that we very likley love more fiercly than you do, because unlike a christian, we hold no illusions that we will get to fly to paradise and spend eternity with our loved ones in a golden city. That means the time we have here on earth is the "only" time we have with them. Because of that, their well being, saftey and happiness is vitally important to us.

But if we're going to talk about the origin of love, we KNOW what chemicals are responsable for the feeling of "love" in ours and other species. Dopamines and Serotonin. Take these chemicals out of your brain, and you don't feel love. Period. So either "god" put these chemicals into our heads, or they arose through evolution to help our species survive doesn't matter. Love is what is needed to develop meaning/principal/morality in life.

So does the love we feel have cosmic significants beyond our own conciousness? Of course not. Do you think the astroid that will some day pile into earth and wipe us all out gives a shit that we loved? We are one tiny spec of dust in a mind-numblingly gigantic universe. The only thing that we know for a fact "cares" about us is us. You may consider this a scary thought, I do not. I don't need a giant imaginary security blanket in the sky to make me feel good about living and being with my family and friends.

Religious people may think there are magical forces protecting us from evil, and because of that, maybe they'll be content to linger in ignorance, pretending to have all the answers and secure in their "specialness" in the universe, and therefore be completely blindsided by that astroid, and wiped out as a species forever.

Athiests like me understand that the universe doesn't "care" about us, or consider us "special" because its not a sentiant conciousness. Therefore we know that our survival as a species is up to us, and we can take steps to insure that our human conciousness isn't wiped out by a single unlucky space rock. Its up to us to advance our species, grow our knowledge and "make" meaning in our lives rather than depending on some imaginary king to do it for us.

What it boils down to is a battle of Individualism vs. Collectivism. These are the two states of the human mind. Individualism is reason, logic, and self ownership. Collectivism is ignorance, mystisism and blind subjegation to authority. Whichever frame of mind overcomes the other in the end will determine wether we end up exploring the stars in a golden age of human liberty, or experiance the Orwellion nightmare of "a boot, stamping on a human face, forever" to put it in his words.

Thank you for the reply, I wasn't kidding when I said no one ever responds to this. It is nice to get some debait.

"Well your 'god' seems to

"Well your 'god' seems to favor totalitarian monarchy as we get a lot of that on earth, and its how he rules his 'kingdom' of heaven if one subscribes to mythology."
Is there something objectively wrong with totalitarian monarchies in this godless universe? There is no objective right or wrong, remember?

"Of coure you'll disagree, but like 99.999999% of christians, you probably don't even know your own god's 10 commandments."

Is there something wrong with that type of behavior? Is that being a hypocrite? Is that 'wrong' to do? LOL!

"What it boils down to is a battle of Individualism vs. Collectivism."
Or so sez the chemical reactions in your bone box. It really all boils down to matter, and your 'thinking' is just the eb and flow of matter doing its thing.
Your inconsistencies run deep, while your thinking is more like a muddy mountain stream - shallow and unclear.

You talk as if reason and logic exist outside of you – as if they are something objective to follow. You say there are right and wrong ways to reason, and presumably, absolute laws of logic that exist independent of human reason (as in, something human reason discovers, rather than creates). But you also are willing to admit that love is really just a chemically induced phenomenon in the brain. Yet wouldn’t all our experiences of emotions and reason be similarly the result of chemical reactions in the brain? In fact, in an atheist universe, our consciousness (this strange concept of “you” as a being apart from other things) would also simply be an illusion created by billions of jabbering neurons. So then why should one set of reactions in your brain mean anything to the fizzing in other brains? Atheists crack me up sometimes.

If you were consistent with your own presuppositions, you would admit that in an atheist universe, the laws of logic are really not law-like at all. They are just something that happens in the brain. And what happens in your brain is not the same thing that happens in other brain. So what happens in your brain is not a law. In an atheist universe there is no more of a basis to claim a right way to reason than there is to justify an objective morality. It is all contingent. There are no standards that are, in their nature, absolute and obligatory, either over our thinking or our behavior. And even if there were, how could we know it? Yet you keep talking in ways that are inconsistent with a godless universe. You want to admit certain supposed ‘hard truths’, but turn clean around and act as if these cold realities are far less important than how we reason or behave. But one of those hard realities is that your reasoning is no more meaningful than the fizz one hears while pouring vinegar into baking soda. It’s all just atoms banging together. That’s what they do. You talk about a purposeless cosmos, then talk as if your activity within that meaningless space has meaning within itself. To be frank, you have used many words to say next to nothing of rational coherence.

"Is there something

"Is there something objectively wrong with totalitarian monarchies in this godless universe? There is no objective right or wrong, remember?"

Are you having trouble comprehending what im writing? I was sure I explained clearly that no, there is no "objective" right or wrong backed by force from a deity. Right and wrong are concepts we have come up with as a species and often differ on. When enough people hold the same idea (that has nothing to do with the rest of the universe), it can sometimes be put into place by threat of force. I very thouroughly explained how we come to these value judgments, and how whatever our opinions on the subjects, those we don't like can be forced on us by aggression, like a bunch of christians sadists burning a young woman at the stake for "thinking" as an example. "I" would consider that wrong, but the christians obviously do not, and "might makes right" when collectivist tyrants weild political power.

"If you were consistent with your own presuppositions, you would admit that in an atheist universe, the laws of logic are really not law-like at all. They are just something that happens in the brain. And what happens in your brain is not the same thing that happens in other brain. So what happens in your brain is not a law."

Amazing. Let me try to describe, again... a "law" of logic that we "discover" through reason. If I take 1 rock and add it to a pile with 2 rocks, I now have 3 rocks in the pile. That is a law of logic. This is true, wether our minds can understand it, or have yet to discover it. There is a definate correct and incorrect answer. This isn't something that just "happens" in the brain. It is objective reality as per our ability to percieve the environment around us.

Morality however is "not" Objective. Just because we can proove that the non-aggression principal is the "correct" logical choice for social organization as a species "IF" prosperity and saftey for the maximum number of humans is the goal, doesn't mean we won't be subjegated and live like slaves. Also its possible that someone will come up with an even better system eventually. We may set out certain rules that we dream up, and agree upon, such as the Non-Aggression Principal. There are right and wrong answers within the scope of the rules we set forth to govern this principal. But they are not "objective" because we don't have a collosal space wizard who destroys any who infringe upon them. They work more like the rules to the game of monopoly.

They could be considered to be "situationaly objective." For example, in the non-aggression principal, right and wrong are those things which adhere too, or violate the parameter's we set upon defining what that principal is. However they are only "objective" in the framework of that principal. Someone who disagrees with the non-aggression principal may not find them objective at all.

For example you may believe that its a matter of "objective morality" to refrain from taking the cosmic overlord's name in vain. I find its a crock of shit, and ill say his god damned name in vain if I god damned please. I don't agree with your "objective morality" on the subject and I have to wonder what kind of sadistic ego maniac would torture someone over saying their name with a bit of attitude. So, if you want me to consider your version of "morality" to be objective in this case, you have to make me believe you have a higher authority, or represent a higher authority who can claim ownership over me. Then you have to be able to enforce what you preach. Basically, you have to be able to scare the shit out of me, or make an example of me to others. For example:

1) you have to put me in thumb screws, torture me and then burn me like your church did in the good old days, fully justified because they were just enforcing an "Objective Morality!" GOD WILLS IT!

2) bide your time and wait until I die so that your god can make good on his threat, where he'll have his demon lackies rape and torture me until the end of time. No evidence that this takes place is forthcoming however. Still if you can scare other primitives into believing it, well sir, you have authority over them. Good job.

Even then, your morality is only "objective" until your priests rape one too many little boys and get torn apart by a mob of people who are sick of your tyrannical religious bullshit. So really... it was never "objective" to begin with. It was only an illusion of authority, just like all authority.

If you or your god fail to make good on destroying me for violating your "Objective Morality," then it doesn't mean shit, and ill tap dance all over it all day long as long as I god damned well please.

Another Example: I consider it morally wrong to deprive someone of their right to liberty. So when the government steals the fruits of my labor via tax, I believe they are comitting an act of immorality against me and depriving me of my right. They are now criminals. However, as they have an army of stupid thugs willing to put me in a cage for the rest of my life if I resist, I can hardly call my "right" to be "objective" can I? Neither the government, nor their jack-booted thugs give a shit what "I" consider right or wrong, and they will tap dance all over my rights as much as they god damned please until I am able to take political power and defend my rights with force, or threat of force.

Thats how things work in real life. No one gives a shit about what "you" or "I" consider "Objective." You can either take and defend your rights or you don't have them. I don't care how "right" or "Objective" you consider them.

That goes with your belief system as a whole. Just because you really want to think your concept of reality is "TRUTH" doesn't mean a damned thing, because you are wrong about the existance of god. And seeing as im no more going to a cosmic torture chamber when I die than you are going to be going to a golden country club in the sky, there is no "force" to make anything you "believe" into objective reality. So when all is said and done, im using reason to discover the parameters of this existance, and you're making wild, bat-shit crazy guesses about magic, miracles and flying, halo-clad bird-people in the sky. Of the two of us, I am infinatly more likley to being closer to the truth. Of the two of us, im the only one looking for it. You've already something that's good enough; a comfortable delusion.

Yes im afraid our brains work on electrical and chemical signals. Im afraid our conciousness and ability to network with one another is the "only" source of meaning and "reality" that we can proove. While you may claim that these are "laughable" notions to you, you cannot proove that our brains actualy fueled on magic provided by the Flying Spagetti Monster, and I don't "need" to proove they aren't, anymore than I need to proove there isn't a tooth fairy.

Honestly its a complete waste of time talking to drones like you. You have no ability to grasp reason and logic. I write things that make perfect sense to anyone capable of criticle thinking, and then you reply with gibberish, putting words in my mouth, and then misinterpreting (seemingly willfully) every concept I describe as though im somehow being inconsistant. Every concept I have described is ego-centric to human conciousness, because thats all we can proove exists. To say anything else without providing evidence is to divorce yourself from reality and enter into fantasy land like an idiot. No thank you.

"Are you having trouble

"Are you having trouble comprehending what im writing?"
Actually Magwan, you are having trouble recognizing sarcasm and irony. If there is no objective right and wrong, and if you and I obviously disagree on the importance of that issue, then anything in the moral realm that you initiate is completely void of any substance from my perspective. So when you speak this way, I just smile and kind of laugh inside.

"If I take 1 rock and add it to a pile with 2 rocks, I now have 3 rocks in the pile. That is a law of logic."
Actually, no it is not. Please tell me what formal law of logic this is?

But let's see if we can't understand ourselves better...

Wouldn’t all our experiences of emotions and reason be similarly the result of chemical reactions in the brain?
Is our consciousness (this strange concept of “you” as a being apart from other things) also simply a byproduct of brain function and ultimately springing forth from blind material forces?

We look forward to your reply.

"If there is no objective

"If there is no objective right and wrong, and if you and I obviously disagree on the importance of that issue, then anything in the moral realm that you initiate is completely void of any substance from my perspective."

We disagree, but your view is impossible to proove. Mine has been prooven billions of times throughout history. Through the ages, people like you have been saying: "My way/god/philosophy" is the Objective TRUTH. Trouble is, the enemies who come and butcher them never seem to care, and those lofty objective "truths" are lost to history and made obsolete, or supressed until a group who believes them retakes political and military power enough to put them back into effect. There has yet to be a god who has enforced those objective truths with a cosmic lightning bolt to smite the offenders.

Your claim that all meaning is given substance because there is a creator is another pie-in-the-sky notion which is impossible to proove or even quantify. Why does having a creator give meaning to anything? Is it because he has a big plan for you? What's his plan for starving children in Africa, or 3 year old girls who get kidnaped by psychopathic pedofiles? On the other hand, I have observed first hand how quickly and easily that notion can be dispelled. As a former hardcore christian, I have experianced how, with a single epithany, one can go from the; "Without God, everything is meaningless" to; "You don't need to believe in gods to find meaning in your life." When I stopped believing the lie, I noticed rather quickly and abruptly that I did not stop loving my family and friends, and if anything had a sharper realization of how precious life was because of its fleeting nature. I also did not find that suddenly the world became "random" and "meaningless."

If what you said was true, Athiests everywhere would just sit down and starve to death in a hopeless lathargy. And it make me wonder why you have yet to answered the question ive posed to you twice so far:

If you found out tomorrow there was no god, would you still love your children?

You don't need to answer the question anyway, because I already know the truth. The answer is yes, of course you'd love your children. Because in the end, you'd realize that its your childen (and other loved ones) as well as love of yourself that give you "purpose" in this otherwise random and meaningless existance. Your will to survive. The bonds of love you form. What do I care if everything I "feel" is chemical reactions? What do I care if all matter is an illusion, and actually nothing more than particles and atoms flowing through an electric current? Whatever a cake may be made out of, its still a cake to me when I eat it. This is "my" reality, whatever its made out of. Just because you took a wild guess on how it all started and then convinced yourself you were right is irrelivant to anything.

But lets talk about the nature of existance. Why exactly does it require a god to have meaning? We know that the universe has rules. We can discover what those rule are, does that somehow mean that a god created it all? Why? It seems that logically, given an infinte amount of time and space, everything, no matter how unlikley will eventually occur by chance so long as its possible.

"Please tell me what formal law of logic this is?"

Math. If all of our brains are meaningless chemicals that have nothing to do with one another, how is it that every single human being capable of reason comes up with the exact same result when adding 1+2=3? Does that seem "random" to you? We exist in a system we do not yet understand fully, and that system has rules. The rules are for us to dicern and learn to understand. It is a ridiculous notion that because we don't know them, we should give up and mope about how meaningless everything is, or worse, commit intellectual suicide and "invent" the answer to pacify our mental weaknesses.

This convorsation reminds me a good deal of arguing with deconstructionalists in philosophy. Seeing as nothing is real, its all an illusion, nothing has meaning. What I don't understand is, just because the "how" and the "why" are not things we understand yet, how does this somehow mean that our experiances and perceptions mean any more or less than when we "do" think we know the "how" and "why?" Who cares if we are nothing but particles and energy floating through a matrix. How does that fact alter the fact that we have children who we love or make them any less meaningful?

To me, discovering the "how" and "why" is far more of a meaning to apply to life than pretending to know the answers and making the "very" false assumption that you hold the objective truth/morality/philosophy. You don't. And even if you did get lucky and guess it, that doesn't mean a space rock won't collide with earth and wipe you and the last shred of knoweldge of your "objective" truth out of existance.

Math.

double post

...

Atheism is not a religion

Atheism is based on some very solid (and/or lack of) evidence behind them while religious beliefs have very little. Atheism has no scripture as its authority and worships nothing unless you think the desire for truth, reason, honesty and reality are forms of worship.

If so, you and I must have a very different definition of worship. I define worship as what I used to do when I was a believer such as pray to God and praise him. As an atheist I certainly don't have that kind of attitude towards humanity or the world.

Of course using such a broad definition of worship then one could make the argument that geometry or the alphabet are religions.

As the saying goes..."if atheism is a religion then NOT playing baseball is a sport"

Atheism is not a religion because a religion has two components which must both be present. First: It is a formalized system of ritual and belief. Second: It is focussed on a supernatural being or beings.

Speaking to "formalized system of ritual and belief", atheists are not an organization, just a number of folks that have independently, through thought and study, come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural force in the universe and that there is no rational reason to invoke a supernatural force to the universe. There is no credo, ritual, instruction manual or anything in atheism. Therefore atheism is not a religion but is merely the absence of a religion.

Actually, no

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a belief in the lack of a god. There's a huge difference.

Wondering...

...if 'atheism' is not the word for a 'belief in the lack of a god', what is the word for that?

Seems to me you are taking the meaning of agnosticism and calling it atheism, as Bill describes below...

Gnostic Atheism or Strong Atheism

"...what is the word for that?"

You can see my post "what does atheism mean" for more.

Way to retreat to a

Way to retreat to a comfortable perimeter. Like playing pin the eel to the sand or wack a mole. You guys pick whatever definition is convenient at the moment.

You guys remind me of Christian fundies who feel the need to botch science to fit their young Earth creationism: the need to hide your faith behind a respectable, defensible perimeter. They lack the forthright courage of their faith, and have to resort to fake science. You guys, likewise, lack the courage of your own faith in atheism, and have to resort to agnosticism and wordplay when called out.

Either have the courage of your convictions, or stop using the label atheist. Don't resort to wordplay and backtrack on your faith.

Agree...

that's why I brought up the word "agnostic".

People often flip-flop on the meaning of atheist, which is why I think agnostic ought to be used more often...to prevent the flip-flopping.

Come on

You remind me of atheist Evolutionists who feel the need to botch science to fit their old earth evolutionary models .. these atheists hacks fear debate and hide behind FAKE science .. We both have the same evidence (science) .. but historical or soft science IS NOT science so stop resorting to fake science atheist ... you atheists love wordplay you say the car evolved better, but in that way you mean designed then use evolution to mean unguided mutations which create new creatures ... you sir are the hucksters the charlatans

How much atheist evidence has been found to be faked? tons of it .. so go do some more research before you spout BS

Cool

nice to be called an atheist once in a while around here

Don't blame me!

Take it up with the author of your dictionary:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm
noun
1.
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I don't deny that there are self-purported atheists who state firmly that there is no god. I believe this is the minority that you're referring to as having "faith", and I would agree with you. That does not make the rest of us just as delusional.

But then...

...isn't theism also a disbelief? A disbelief or lack of belief in the non-existence of God or gods.

It seems like the 'lack of belief' part is kind of sloppy, because you could end up calling an agnostic a 'theistic atheist', or an 'atheistic theist', since an agnostic lacks beliefs in both directions.

'Agnostic' seems the better term if you're emphasizing lack of belief.

Ummm

You cut out definition 2 from your own source and then didn't attribute. That wasn't very smart since anyone can just find the source and post the part you cut out.

a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
[...]
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European roots.]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

There's a reason it has the number "2" next to it

It's a secondary definition. I'll stick with the primary.

As a wise sage once noted, calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

(For the record, if you send the query "atheism definition" through the Google machine, the first result spit out shows only definition #1. Maybe it's a conspiracy.)