Ask an alcohol-drinking, girl-kissing, pot-smoking Atheist!

[American Eagle]

Christians don't have time to be thoughtful. Feel free to give short answers, xiao.

Obama or Romney? Why?

Setting aside all cases of rape and incest, do you think abortion is morally acceptable? Criminal? A woman's right?

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

We've not even survived as our modern species even one million years! Our entire genus is less than ten million years old! We cannot be considered the dominate species, not even genus, especially as we are very possibly going to cause another mass extinction that very well may take us out with thousands of other species. Unless we survive it, we're just an insignificant blip in the record of life on earth... no more "dominant" than the *ASTEROID* which took out the dinosaurs.*

Yeah. For a few minutes, that sucker REALLY was in control!!

It's staying power, really, that really determines fitness. We've barely even begun to be tested. We very well may fail. In fact, up until about 10 thousand years or so most places we really COULDN'T live, and only in the last 100 years or so do we really "control the world" as you say.

That doesn't change anything - we are still currently the dominant species of earth. If any of these massive catastrophes you described happen, do you think we have less of a chance of survival than cats, frogs, or monkeys? I don't think so, bud. We might be new to the game, but we're on top right now.

That depends on what you're using to measure. What do you mean by "dominant"? It's kind of a relative term. Because in terms of number of individuals in the species, we aren't even close. We're outnumbered by bacteria, ants, fish, cattle, and termites. And if you mean the thing that can kill the most, that honor would go to bacteria by far. We don't stand a chance against bacteria, especially with it constantly adapting to our anti-biotics so that we have to keep up this biological arms race.

And we're definitely not the only species that you would call "dominant" that's lived on the planet. Dinosaurs, relatively not to long ago were the dominant group, wiping out nearly all of the mammals, keeping mammal numbers way down.

Christians don't have time to be thoughtful.

I only mean we have to do a whole lot of thinking to arrive at the point where we're at. It's very easy to just believe what we want to believe and not think about it, but it's very hard to come to the position that there's no such thing as a god. Plus, those of us on here are challenged quite often by the fundamentalist community so we have to keep on our toes since we're the only ones who don't believe in god on here (at least the only ones who we've seen come out as atheists, not an easy task let me assure you).

[Whitty Whit]

but by their nature they will always become corrupt

What is their nature?

[xiao]

Obama or Romney? Why?

Neither - I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Sure, you could go on about how I'm throwing away a vote, but I strongly believe we need a third legitimate political party in the US, and choosing the "lesser of two evils" is the only reason we have only evils to choose from in the first place.

Setting aside all cases of rape and incest, do you think abortion is morally acceptable? Criminal? A woman's right?

It's hard, because I'm not sure acceptable, criminal, or a woman's right are terms I would use to describe my stance on abortion. From a legal standpoint, I think it should be legal (except in cases of late trimester abortions) simply because they will happen whether they're legal or not, and legalizing them regulates them and makes them safer by putting them in the hands of professionals. From a moral standpoint, it's a fuzzier issue, but I can certainly empathize with a woman who just simply isn't ready to go through childbirth and raise a kid (or even give them away). I think it's very different per case.

What is their nature?

Human. They're human organizations, run by humans. They will always eventually become corrupt.

[Whitty Whit]

Human. They're human organizations, run by humans. They will always eventually become corrupt.

Therefore, humans are corrupt, correct?

[Sherlock]

Obama or Romney? Why?

Neither - I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Sure, you could go on about how I'm throwing away a vote, but I strongly believe we need a third legitimate political party in the US, and choosing the "lesser of two evils" is the only reason we have only evils to choose from in the first place.

^ This.

(Worthwhile contribution to this this thread? What?)

[xiao]

Human. They're human organizations, run by humans. They will always eventually become corrupt.

Therefore, humans are corrupt, correct?

Yep. Everything is, to some extent, corrupt.

[~JCGJ~]

As an agnostic/aitheist (who apparently enjoys sexual relations with girls), how do you view homosexuality?

Are you against it, tolerent of it, don't care at all, completely for it, or something else entirely?

[Whitty Whit]

Do you believe in an after-life?

[jelly]

Christians don't have time to be thoughtful.

I only mean we have to do a whole lot of thinking to arrive at the point where we're at. It's very easy to just believe what we want to believe and not think about it, but it's very hard to come to the position that there's no such thing as a god. Plus, those of us on here are challenged quite often by the fundamentalist community so we have to keep on our toes since we're the only ones who don't believe in god on here (at least the only ones who we've seen come out as atheists, not an easy task let me assure you).

Man, you're gonna have to come out of your bubble one day and realize that you don't have the intellectual monopoly on life that you think you do. You think that the young, naive fundamentalists you love to pick on are the equivalent to the entire faith-based mindset. This is ignorance on your part. You've probably never met someone who's life is literally and fully dependent on faith because the questions that haunted them their entire lives have led them in that direction. You have the audacity to assume that true faith-based living is 'easier' then atheistic living. There's a difference between 'blind faith' and a true, fully-committed leap of faith. Learn that difference before you assume intellectual superiority over the people that you so eagerly stereotype.

Your assumed arrogance is your weakness. At least take a hint from xiao and start taking the arts more seriously.

[xiao]

As an agnostic/aitheist (who apparently enjoys sexual relations with girls), how do you view homosexuality?

Are you against it, tolerent of it, don't care at all, completely for it, or something else entirely?

Good question. Homosexuality is a complex issue that we still have a lot to learn about, but I'm entirely tolerant of homosexuals. I don't judge anyone based on their sexual orientation and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with homosexuality. I do believe marriage should be legal for them. I don't really understand the argument against it, or against homosexuality in general. It seems to be a chemical imbalance in the brain, but it harms no one, and luckily they're able to live happy, fulfilling lives with their partners.

I don't think homosexuality is a choice and I completely disagree that it is "unnatural". You didn't choose to be straight, homosexuals don't choose to be gay. The very notion is ridiculous. Are there some attention-seeking adolescents who dabble in homosexuality for the commotion it causes? Sure, but for every one of them there are thousands of genuine homosexuals. We also see countless examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. There's also some evidence to suggest homosexuality is a purposeful evolutionary trait that benefits the species in gene variance, but I'm not so sure about those claims. Either way, I believe every individual has the right to live their lives in whatever way brings them happiness, and the thought of a gay person trying to forcefully deny their brain's sexual function and just "get over it" because society pressures them to do is disgusting and saddening.

Do you believe in an after-life?

Now here's an interesting one. Yes and no.

I don't believe in the afterlife Christians believe in, or of any "magical land" we go to when we die and see our loved ones. This feels like a reassuring fairy tale to me, and there's absolutely no evidence supporting it other than wishful thinking. However, matter cannot be created or destroyed, which means every atom, every particle that makes up your body, your brain, your blood - has been here since the beginning of time, and you, as a person, are just one of the countless manifestations of that matter. Life is a brief opportunity where that matter comes together in a way that can live, feel, think, and reflect on itself. It is an absolutely beautiful phenomenon, one that I believe is cheapened by the idea of an afterlife. All things that live must die. If they do not die, they have never truly lived. What is the point of life if it is not temporary? We are simply scared of the finality of death.

We live on in our actions. In the hearts and minds of our loved ones. In the work we leave behind. We live on as our matter decomposes and fuels new life - the same cycle that led us to our existence. We are an integral part of the most amazing show in the universe - life. The iron in your blood is chemically proven to be the same iron that's in a floating asteroid, because it came from the same place. That idea is more exciting, more beautiful, and more fulfilling to me than any sort of "heaven" story.

[Whitty Whit]

Would you please define science?

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

Obama or Romney? Why?

Neither - I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Sure, you could go on about how I'm throwing away a vote, but I strongly believe we need a third legitimate political party in the US, and choosing the "lesser of two evils" is the only reason we have only evils to choose from in the first place.

Our system of politics contributes itself to a two party system. Here's the whole idea of the third party in the United States. Say we have a third party that comes along and gathers up a lot of votes in the Presidential election. The problem is that it's taking away votes from the party that the third party votes identify with. So you vote for the libertarian candidate, that's taking votes away from Obama. If enough people do that, since most people are only going to vote Dem or GOP, the GOP wins because of all those votes that were given to the libs instead of the Dems. It's better to vote for someone that can represent your position better and have a little bit of say in the government than vote for someone who doesn't have a chance and than get a President that doesn't represent you at all.

This video doesn't completely represent our system, because of silly electoral college shenanigans, but it's basically the way our system works.



Also Libertarian? Really now? "Oh let's roll back regulations on big business so they can exploit even more people and totally wreck the environment even more than they already do. We want Industrial Era business laws!" -facepalm-

Christians don't have time to be thoughtful.

I only mean we have to do a whole lot of thinking to arrive at the point where we're at. It's very easy to just believe what we want to believe and not think about it, but it's very hard to come to the position that there's no such thing as a god. Plus, those of us on here are challenged quite often by the fundamentalist community so we have to keep on our toes since we're the only ones who don't believe in god on here (at least the only ones who we've seen come out as atheists, not an easy task let me assure you).

Man, you're gonna have to come out of your bubble one day and realize that you don't have the intellectual monopoly on life that you think you do. You think that the young, naive fundamentalists you love to pick on are the equivalent to the entire faith-based mindset. This is ignorance on your part. You've probably never met someone who's life is literally and fully dependent on faith because the questions that haunted them their entire lives have led them in that direction. You have the audacity to assume that true faith-based living is 'easier' then atheistic living. There's a difference between 'blind faith' and a true, fully-committed leap of faith. Learn that difference before you assume intellectual superiority over the people that you so eagerly stereotype.

Your assumed arrogance is your weakness. At least take a hint from xiao and start taking the arts more seriously.

You consistently misrepresent me at basically every opportunity. This is getting into personal territory so it's something that really should be taken to a private conversation. However, I will answer the accusations here and further conversation should be taken to PM or facebook.

Man, you're gonna have to come out of your bubble one day and realize that you don't have the intellectual monopoly on life that you think you do.

I have never claimed that I have an "intellectual monopoly on life." You constantly make me out to be more arrogant than I really am. I don't claim to have all the answers, and I never have. Well, actually, that's not true. I did claim to have all the answers when I was a Christian. I know that I don't know everything, that's virtually impossible.

You think that the young, naive fundamentalists you love to pick on are the equivalent to the entire faith-based mindset.

No, no I don't. I've never said that. There are plenty of smart, thoughtful people in the world who are also religious. Non-religious people are not the only ones who are smart, I can assure you.

You've probably never met someone who's life is literally and fully dependent on faith because the questions that haunted them their entire lives have led them in that direction.

That is pretty much all of my family with precious few exceptions. That is my sister who I have regular conversations with. That was me four, five years ago. Do not presume to know who I know.

You have the audacity to assume that true faith-based living is 'easier' then atheistic living. There's a difference between 'blind faith' and a true, fully-committed leap of faith. Learn that difference before you assume intellectual superiority over the people that you so eagerly stereotype.

That's because in my experience, faith is an easier position to take. It's easy to say that this thing is true without evidence for it. Now granted if you're a thoughtful and logical person, that's going to be so much more difficult because that leap of faith is not logical. You're basically saying that you want to believe it and the real world doesn't matter. So if you're trying to be logical about faith, of course it's going to be hard. However, in my experience, childlike faith is very easy.

However this is one thing you are correct about. I do need to think about this position more clearly. It's an actual argument instead of useless ad hominem.

Your assumed arrogance is your weakness. At least take a hint from xiao and start taking the arts more seriously.

Oh my goodness, just kill me now. You have this hangup about the arts that is unbelievable. Which I do love about you, you just argue the weirdest stuff.

Ok, so I love the arts. I really do. I celebrate them and encourage them. They are a worthwhile pursuit, for sure. I enjoy things that can be called "the arts" every single day. I would never advocate for the arts to be banned or something stupid like that. And I seriously believe that the arts are a huge benefit for people and for school children. My generation had those stupid recorders, and it really benefited us in the long run to have that artistic output.

HOWEVER, there is no such thing as a subjective truth. For everyone else that isn't me and Jerryfish and a couple other people, this last comment from him was a continuation of an argument we had awhile ago over the idea of "subjective truth." Ok, so basically this entire argument is going to hinge on the definition of truth. My definition of truth is "that which is" or "reality." And as such, reality is the way it is regardless of what we think. If you doubt this, go out and try to imagine yourself going to Hogwarts or in Narnia or whatever. Or just imagine a fairy granting you wishes flying around. Does it come true? No of course not, because we can not change reality based on what we think. Therefore there is no such thing as a "subjective truth."

And there's the invisible dinosaur idea that we talked about. Say we go outside and say Jerryfish believes there's an invisible dinosaur outside. I say there isn't. We can test that, we can use our instruments to test whether there is one. Now the instruments may say that there is or that there isn't. But regardless of what they say, there is a right answer. There either is or isn't an invisible dinosaur out there regardless of what either of us thinks.

That is extremely different from the idea that Jerryfish uses for "truth" and that, to the best of my knowledge of his position (correct me if I'm wrong), is the idea that "truth" is all the emotions and experiences that we feel at whatever time. Which is all well and good, and there is plenty of value for that. For his definition, there is plenty of "subjective truth" because we all have different experiences. My experience when I read Harry Potter might be different from your experience reading Harry Potter. And that is fine, we can than discuss those different experiences and what we got out of them. But the problem here is that we are using the same word to describe very different things. I would object to using the word "truth" here because it just becomes confusing.

Anymore ad hominem personal stuff should be sent to pms and facebook, any more debates on ideas, I'm fine with posting here.

[Anna><>]

Do you think one would focus on studying better if they did weed before they studied? Or would doing weed before a midterm relax you and help you do better on it? Have you tried either of those things?

[Whitty Whit]

Human. They're human organizations, run by humans. They will always eventually become corrupt.

Therefore, humans are corrupt, correct?

Yep. Everything is, to some extent, corrupt.

Because everything is corrupt to some extent, do you think that humans could be wrong about any issue in life without any proof to back it up?

[bookworm]

What is your view of religious people?
Do you see them as fools because they’re still holding to what you believe are false ideas?
Or are you fine with them believing in a God, it’s just not for you personally?

[Sherlock]

Our system of politics contributes itself to a two party system. Here's the whole idea of the third party in the United States. Say we have a third party that comes along and gathers up a lot of votes in the Presidential election. The problem is that it's taking away votes from the party that the third party votes identify with. So you vote for the libertarian candidate, that's taking votes away from Obama. If enough people do that, since most people are only going to vote Dem or GOP, the GOP wins because of all those votes that were given to the libs instead of the Dems. It's better to vote for someone that can represent your position better and have a little bit of say in the government than vote for someone who doesn't have a chance and than get a President that doesn't represent you at all.

I wanted to respond to this, since this is exactly the argument I used when I voted in the last election. I wasn't crazy about either candidate (Obama or McCain) but I felt guilty voting for a third party since people said it would end up stealing votes from candidates who actually had a shot.

In the course of four years, I dug a little deeper into our two party system, and it basically comes down to following the money. Both candidates are funded by the same corporate and financial interests, and both adopt positions so similar that it seems like the Media and various spin machines must work harder and harder to give the illusion of choice.

To name a few examples:

Bail Outs: Both supported corporate welfare programs
Federal Reserve: Both support the policies of the Fed as well as Chairman Ben Bernanke
Iranian Sanctions: Both support
Patriot Act: Both support
NDAA: Both support [National Defense Authorization Act codifies into law, for the first time in our history, the right to imprison US citizens indefinitely WITHOUT trial]
Universal Health Care: Both support [Marginal differences]
Gun Laws: Both support the same registration procedures
Foreign Aid: Both support same levels of foreign aid
Support for Israel: Both fall over themselves touting full-throated support
Aggressive Foreign Policy: Both have advisors advocating imperial ambitions
Goldman Sachs: Largest donor to both campaigns

So why do we need a third party? Perhaps the better question is, do we need a SECOND party? Are the Republicrats interested in the American People or in the people picking up their bills (Goldman, JPMC, etc)? Most countries have a multiparty system in which the vote is divided several ways, and people have several choices. It's a healthier system. So, to me, a vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote at all, especially if issues like NDAA/Patriot Act/bailouts/foreign aid and foreign policy never make it to a debate table because the major parties are in line.

War is money-making business. And to keep making money, you need to keep making wars. It will take a truly independent voice to change that in America and, in my opinion, the major parties stopped working for the American people a long time ago. If the US President, whomever he is, has to choose between policy that benefits Goldman, and policy that benefits Joe the Plumber, you can guess what will happen. The system is a corrupt, colluding, controlled mess but sadly the people pointing it out are constantly dismissed as crazy conspiracy theorists.

But I do what I can.

"Between Romney and Obama, there isn't all that much difference."
-George Soros

Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean?
It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not
avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
-Helen Keller, in a letter written in 1911

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

I agree with basically everything you just said. I've known that money controls elections not people for quite some time. Except that war makes money. War is bloody expensive. We've spent a ton of money, pouring into the deficit to fund several wars.

[John Chrysostom]

War is expensive yes and much of that money goes to the military industrial complex. It for sure isn't going to the private over in Afghanistan or the veteran in the VA hospital.

[snubs]

Our system of politics contributes itself to a two party system. Here's the whole idea of the third party in the United States. Say we have a third party that comes along and gathers up a lot of votes in the Presidential election. The problem is that it's taking away votes from the party that the third party votes identify with. So you vote for the libertarian candidate, that's taking votes away from Obama. If enough people do that, since most people are only going to vote Dem or GOP, the GOP wins because of all those votes that were given to the libs instead of the Dems. It's better to vote for someone that can represent your position better and have a little bit of say in the government than vote for someone who doesn't have a chance and than get a President that doesn't represent you at all.

This is how I feel as well.


Are you against saying "Merry Christmas"?