God

[IsmAvatar]

well, in that case it's all a matter of when you started using the computer. If it was before you were an atheist, or after. Most of the people I know where involved in computers before they even knew what philosophy was, and rather just conformed themselves to society's religious brainwashing. Myself, I was a Christian while I became involved in computers, and remained a Christian for a time afterwards. Only somewhat recently did I make the switch (and there's no turning back - for more reasons than the obvious) to Agnostic Atheism.
But that's an interesting theory you have. I'm not sure about if they demand control more or if they're just stereotyped that way, or if you're making up things. With my experience with atheists, they're mostly friendly and willing to allow you to do your own bidding, and may even offer themselves to you. People tend to view atheists as cruel and selfish. This is understandable, since religion is considered "nice" and "good", so anything that goes against it, must go against the "nice" and "good" (especially since religion nearly considers atheism "evil").
Although I'm not an atheist, I'm close enough, and have had them try to fit the label on me. I'm anything but selfish or controlling. I'm one of the friendliest people you could meet - even more friendly than quite a few religious folk you could meet - as long as you don't get religious on me, in which case I practice tolerance.
Now, I know this is ironic, considering that I am the sole owner over this board (the other girl took leave and hasn't come back - you're welcome to think I gave her the boot, if you do so desire to think cynical of me), and at times may seem to rule with an iron fist. Quite frankly, I consider these boards a service to the GMC rather than a leadership oppurtunity (if it were up to me, it'd be communism). If I didn't make an RPG board, none would be made. But I won't argue the symantecs of that too much unless someone wants to argue.

[Camo Pachyderm]

I was not 'accusing' you or anyone in particular of being an atheist, nor was I saying that all atheists involved in computers are involved because of my aforementioned reasons. I was simply stating another possibility as to the reason for some of the "many" atheistic-type people being involved with computers. My "solution" seems plausible to me, your solution seems plausible to you. It's possible (and more probable) that the reality is a combination of both. Not everyone is the same, so you can't say that all atheistic people involved in computers are involved for either your or my reasons.

I don't think you understood me correctly when I said that "atheists want to feel more 'in control' of themselves and their lives". I didn't mean that they are necessarily "controlling" people, (I actually wasn't trying to imply at all in the first place that they are or might be. It's possible that some are or aren't, but that had nothing to do with my point and I had no intention or thought to bring it up.) I meant exactly what I said: that they want to feel more in control of themselves and their lives. This does not mean that a lot of them are the type of people who want to 'control things', it simply means that they feel (probably at least partially subconsciously) that there is little direction to their life, so they want to add some direction and meaning and take control.

With my experience with atheists, they're mostly friendly and willing to allow you to do your own bidding, and may even offer themselves to you.

I could say the exact same thing, just simply substituting the words, "religious people (with the exception of a few particular religious persuasions)", for the word, "atheists". I'm not attempting to imply that either of the two is "truer" than the other, I'm simply saying that saying one or the other doesn't have much significance.

even more friendly than quite a few religious folk you could meet

Well, seeing as you seem to think that religious people aren't as friendly as atheistic type people, that doesn't really mean much! "A is greater than B, and C is greater than B" doesn't really say anything about how C is related to A. (J/K )

People tend to view atheists as cruel and selfish. This is understandable, since religion is considered "nice" and "good", so anything that goes against it, must go against the "nice" and "good" (especially since religion nearly considers atheism "evil").

Why do you stereotype this way? This isn't the first time I've seen you post something like this. "Those people think that, so they must of course think that." "People tend to view atheists as cruel and selfish." Why don't you speak for yourself? I'm sorry if I sound a little bitter, but I'm already beginning to tire of you talking for me and putting words into my and other peoples' mouths.

Please don't think that I'm angry at you or upset, I'm just trying to communicate clearly (perhaps too clearly!) what it seems to me you're doing. I really do not mean for you to get upset or angry at me.

[IsmAvatar]

it simply means that they feel (probably at least partially subconsciously) that there is little direction to their life, so they want to add some direction and meaning and take control.

I think I understand you now. While we don't directly feel like our life has no direction - it has just the direction we give it. "How can someone be an atheist - how can you tolerate knowing that death is just an end, and not simply a shift to a new life form?" I don't think about the end. I think about today. I think about how I can live my life to be the best it possibly can. I utilize the time I am given. I feel my life is empty if I do not live it how I like - if I instead live it by some guideline set up by a cult - or a religion (mind you folk who prefer not to be called a cult). Religion is living your life based around death. The lack of religion is living your life based around life.
But I still see no link between this general control over life and a computer. Unless perhaps religion restricts the use of computer - in which case the free use of a computer would seem like one has more control over themselves; the free use being a result of a lack of [hypothetical religious] constraints.
One of the things I've never understood is this statement: "Do not conform any longer" which is probably some biblical quote. This doesn't seem fitting, considering that the entire purpose of religion is to conform people to a way of life that will guarantee them a good seat at their funeral -- I mean 'will get them into heaven'.
Now, you're obviously an exemption, since you don't try to convert anyone, you just allow them to find your religion through their own persuit of happiness - which is great. Heck, you're probably an exemption to most of my religious statements, and shouldn't be taking offense to them.

even more friendly than quite a few religious folk you could meet

That's a statement about some, not a lot, not all, not even many. Just some. And anybody can agree with me there - there's some martyrs that just aren't safe to be around. Take me for example - j/k j/k

Why do you stereotype this way?

It was a joke... I'm actually exaggerating - or sometimes lucky enough to be stating - many people's point of view on a subject. This is one of my key ways of joking. I pull out a minor view, and turn it into a big thing, and overstate it. Or simply combine two understood statements to prove that there is a loophole. Is it an attack? Yes! Is it a stereotype? No! I know i'm wrong. I'm not pulling out any particular person's point of view, targetting anyone in particular, nor including all. Someone who does not fit the stereotype should have learned long ago that they are exempt from stereotypical statements, and therefor take no offense. I'm very different from most people, tend to hold different views, and rarely ever fit into the stereotypes. I allow anyone to make a stereotype about 'people', and allow myself. I take no offense, because I know I am exempt. And if I am not exempt, why should a stereotype offend me if it's true? The stereotype itself is not offensive - it's the contents of the stereotype that we have innately become bellicose over. Are atheists evil? Are atheists selfish? Are girls obsessed over looks? Are guys obsessed over girls? Is society wrong? Does life have meaning? Where is my cheeseburger? Are suburbs being taken over by low-income residential housing? Is Ism lecture-crazy? (how do you think I got my name)

[Camo Pachyderm]

(mind you folk who prefer not to be called a cult)

Unless perhaps religion restricts the use of computer - in which case the free use of a computer would seem like one has more control over themselves; the free use being a result of a lack of [hypothetical religious] constraints.

The amount of sarcasm in your posts has gone up, and the quality has dropped... (IMHO ) Just making an observation.

I utilize the time I am given.

It's funny you use the word "given"... Allow me to get my "atheist terminology" down properly; it's not "gifted", it's "freak of evolution", right?

Religion is living your life based around death. The lack of religion is living your life based around life.

No, proper 'religion' (AKA "doing what your Creator wants you to do") is based around living your life the way your Creator prescribed; which includes the best (please excuse my use of my opinion) ways to enjoy your life and allow others to enjoy theirs at the same time. Part of that usually includes "living for death", but it's not like most of us spend our entire lives planning our funerals. From your point of view, you can think of it as a method of comforting and reassuring people.

Here's an analogy:

• Atheists are playing the "Video Game of Life" on a console at home. They're just there for the fun of it.
  
• "Religious folk" are playing the same video game, but at an arcade. They're playing for the fun of it, but also for the tickets that come spitting out of the machine when they do well.

But I still see no link between this general control over life and a computer.

That's because you're trying not to see it. From your choice of words, you are kind of grasping what I'm saying, but you don't really want to hear it. You think it's silly. I'll explain it again for you anyway. The 'link' I am trying to establish for you, is not really between "control of life" and "computers". It is the contrast of two different feelings. The first is the feeling of helplessness that one gets when one tells oneself that they are just here for a minute speck of time, can't and don't amount to much of anything in the grand scheme of things, and have nothing to look forward to after it's all over. The second is the momentary pleasure one gets from being able to control something. Since they feel that first one in the backs of their minds constantly, the second one allows some vague relief.

One of the things I've never understood is this statement: "Do not conform any longer" which is probably some biblical quote.

Well, seeing as I've never heard it, I can't make a comment on it.

Heck, you're probably an exemption to most of my religious statements, and shouldn't be taking offense to them.

Now when did I ever say I was offended by them? I merely stated that your putting words into other peoples' mouths --particularly the group you've labeled "religious people" (into which I fit very comfortably)-- is annoying to me and contrary to what you've been telling me is your outlook. I dislike having to deny almost everything you say we say.

That's a statement about some, not a lot, not all, not even many. Just some.

Ah, last time I checked, --in American English at least-- "quite a few" means, "a lot". "Many", even. Please be so kind as to correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not pulling out any particular person's point of view, targetting anyone in particular,

Exactly; that's what makes it a stereotype.

nor including all

I beg to differ. While not including "all", "most" is still normally considered to be making it a stereotype. "People" means "most".


Let me ask you a question (or two, or three, or...). If you don't believe that there is anything past life, and that your life has no real meaning besides allowing yourself to enjoy it, then why is murder wrong? Is it wrong to you? What is 'wrong' to you anyway? How can you define something as 'wrong' if there's no 'right'? Does that mean that you don't think murder is wrong? If you murder someone and they just 'disappear', --they don't go anywhere, (Not necessarily 'physically', mind you. I don't remember it ever happening to me, (if it did) so I can't say what it is exactly. : nothing happens-- so that they don't know what happened to them; why is it a problem? I mean, unless you really like that person and want to enjoy their company for the next infinitesimally small decade or whatever, why can't you just knock 'em over the head? If you enjoy murdering, then... why not? I mean, if it makes you happy, what's 'wrong' with it? Isn't the whole point of your life to "enjoy yourself"?

[IsmAvatar]

I utilize the time I am given.

It's funny you use the word "given"... Allow me to get my "atheist terminology" down properly; it's not "gifted", it's "freak of evolution", right?

Seeing as you wish to argue every word that pops out of my mouth, I shall refrain from arguing the topic any longer, and simply answer the remaining questions. I agree, I did make a bad choice of words, but to monitor every word I choose is rediculous, so I'll simply refrain from placing myself in the critique any longer.

Let me ask you a question (or two, or three, or...).

Please do. It seems slighly easier to carefully choose my words when answering a question than when making a statement.

If you don't believe that there is anything past life, and that your life has no real meaning besides allowing yourself to enjoy it,...

We don't think much of it that way, but true.

then why is murder wrong? Is it wrong to you? What is 'wrong' to you anyway? How can you define something as 'wrong' if there's no 'right'?

There is no wrong and right, only that which is beneficial to the general continuation of humankind.

Does that mean that you don't think murder is wrong? If you murder someone and they just 'disappear', --they don't go anywhere, (Not necessarily 'physically', mind you. I don't remember it ever happening to me, (if it did) so I can't say what it is exactly. ) nothing happens-- so that they don't know what happened to them; why is it a problem?

For starts, it's unconstructive to the human population. But supposing you could care less about humanity, which is somewhat sometimes the case, I'll answer that too. There's a little something we like to call "empathy". It's a panging in the back of your head (call it god if you will; I prefer to call it 'empathy', as to express a much vaster vocabulary than to credit every psychological impulse as "god") which tells you "If I kill this person, it will hurt them. I wouldn't like it much if someone killed me." And then, of course, there's another panging in the back of your head, a piece of the brain we have developed apart from other species, which gives us foresight of a sort, allowing us to readily realise and philosophize the consequences of our actions. "If I kill Joe, I'll end up in jail." or, "If I kill Tom's girl, Tom will come over and beat me up." You might argue that animals have an extent of this, and they kinda do. But what it really is is just memory of the consequences of past decisions. Note, this same brain piece seems to be the culprit behind the creation of a good many religions, and may even be linked to prophecy.

I mean, unless you really like that person and want to enjoy their company for the next infinitesimally small decade or whatever.

That's another reason not to kill them, lol.

If you enjoy murdering, then... why not? I mean, if it makes you happy, what's 'wrong' with it? Isn't the whole point of your life to "enjoy yourself"?

And now you touch into a new point, a genre of humans known as Psychopaths. Those who seem to take pleasure in murder. Seeing as we all fear for our lives from these people, they get dealt with by others. There is nothing stopping yourself from becoming a psychopath - other than the common sense that you'll get punished for it and everything else I've mentioned. But set aside all those traits, and decide to become one anyways - you're dealt with. Simply put.

I'm still deciding my opinion on the death penalty. It doesn't seem like a valid punishment for Psychopaths because "Once they pull the switch, all his troubles are done with".

Remember, Atheists live life for life. Therefor, no matter how short you wish to portray it, we take the friendly route by making it seem long to ourselves.

[Camo Pachyderm]

That sure seemed to get you upset, and I sincerely apologize.

I shall refrain from arguing the topic any longer

Very well. While I wasn't arguing, I shall discontinue also.


I enjoyed some parts of our discussion, and I hope you did too. Thank you.

[IsmAvatar]

But of course I enjoyed it. I learned some things from you about your side on the issue, some things about myself that I may wish to correct in the near future, and some things that I should address next time I address the issue with whomever.
That's the purpose of debate. If I didn't want that, I wouldn't have created this board.
Thanks for the discussion.

[Xenith]

honestly i don't know if you guy's have talked about anything that we don't already know, it feels more like you guys are arguing about grammar and stuff,

life after death...it's possible but with science it's really unlikely, i'm not willing to find out, i'd like to be cryogenically frozen when i die, so i can help out scientists, and who knows? i could possibly live alot longer in the future...which brings me to something else....how to live longer, alot of people say exercise and medicine, but exercise just makes you die healthy(i'm not saying that i don't exercise, i have alot of free time and i could use it for important things like exercise) but others say cloning and stem(sp)cells, anyways i think someone should create a debate thread about this and we can see what everyone thinks about it

[sub]

have u noticed how 99% of people who like rpg's also have views on god, and other 'meaning of life' topics..?

i wonder what the connection is (he said knowingly) ..eh eh, say no more.. is your wife a ..goer? eh? eh? ..say no more.. (sorry i've picked that habit up from a friend on msn)

[Xenith]

sub said:

have u noticed how 99% of people who like rpg's also have views on god, and other 'meaning of life' topics..?

i wonder what the connection is (he said knowingly) ..eh eh, say no more.. is your wife a ..goer? eh? eh? ..say no more.. (sorry i've picked that habit up from a friend on msn)

maybe since they like to create a fictional world, they've thought of the gods who created the world in their stories

[ninjadude007]

Enter the science nerd...

Last year in school, my friend and I figured out something that deals with this topic.

"Early humans who didnt understand the things around them made up God to explain the unexplainable. When science explained how these things happened, people stuck with God because they had believed in it so long, it was second nature to them."

Another thing I found was when I read 3001 A Space Oddessey. In it, religion has been abolished because they found out that the early humans in africa were worshiping the monolith like it was God. (I think, I might have to go re-read the book.)

My favorite book Series has stuff to say about God... Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Now if I could just find the book...
From what I remember, there is a part in it where man has a conversation with God, in the end, man out wits God and he ''Dissapears in a puff of logic'' I think that's what it said...
Then again... It also says that the earth is really a giant super computer that is often mistaken as a planet and is run by trans dementional mice in an attempt to find the ultimate qustion to life, the universe and everything.

On the note of creation vs. evolution...

Most everybody knows the creation story, but I'm a firm believer in evolution. One thing that people are always asking most evolutioninsts is-"But where did life come from?" That's simple, spontaneous creation, life out of thin air."But that's creationism!" No, Creation was that all the animals were made at once, spontaneous creation only made one living organism, a bacteria, and it divided into two and again and again and so on and so forth, thus creating millions of bacteria that would start the evolutionary process.

[Xenith]

I always thought that the bacterium on earth must've originated from foreign objects like asteroids/meteroids which contained the bacteria, and since the planet was in a suitable condition for things to start life, everything just began to evolve. But then we'd end up with the question where did the asteroids and everything else come from, and alot more, but since we have no idea of all that it's possible that the bacteria just materialized out of nowhere.

[IsmAvatar]

actually, thanks to science I'm pretty sure we've found out how life can sprout from non-living things. all you need is water (and some other things). Jupitor has a moon (Io?) made of ice. Heat that baby up a little and watch as we get Ions (lol).
Creationists don't argue so much where life came from as they do where the universe came from. the Big Bang is not self suppoting because what put the stuff there in the first place so that it could go boom?
Enter 3 theories (or more - I'm only listing the three major ones). Creationism - Some God decided to put it there. What supports this God's existance is beyond me. I'm not worried about these people, as that pretty much can mean that god left us here and doesn't care about us.
Multiverse - There are multiple universes, each with their own laws of physics. When a black hole forms, the matter sucked in goes into a new universe - all squished - enter big bang. My input: you can keep throwing in universes till I get sick of counting them, but you can never thwart my wonder of how they got there. Not self supporting.
String Theory - Einstein is the scientist's prophet. Strings are little itty bitty pieces of energy, a strand. Helical, some enclosed circles. All our senses are just perceptions of these energies. It takes many strings to form an object, like a quark.
Since strings are only energy, they're just about intangeable. In the beginning, there was time, and there was space. Space, progressing through time produces energy. Energy => strings. Randomly dispersed throughout space and time. They are attracted to each other, and draw together. Enter big bang. All we need to prove this is a way to observe strings and watch them be created.

[Xenith]

i've never heard of the string theory, but it sounds alot more plausible than everything else + einstein thought of it, so i'd probably take it as a better theory.

[ninjadude007]

xenith said:

I always thought that the bacterium on earth must've originated from foreign objects like asteroids/meteroids which contained the bacteria, and since the planet was in a suitable condition for things to start life, everything just began to evolve. But then we'd end up with the question where did the asteroids and everything else come from, and alot more, but since we have no idea of all that it's possible that the bacteria just materialized out of nowhere.

That could be possible but still, where did that life come from?

Multiverse - There are multiple universes, each with their own laws of physics. When a black hole forms, the matter sucked in goes into a new universe - all squished - enter big bang. My input: you can keep throwing in universes till I get sick of counting them, but you can never thwart my wonder of how they got there. Not self supporting.
String Theory - Einstein is the scientist's prophet. Strings are little itty bitty pieces of energy, a strand. Helical, some enclosed circles. All our senses are just perceptions of these energies. It takes many strings to form an object, like a quark.

Some how, I believe both. In a plane of existance such as this, any thing is possible, hell, our universe could be a cell which makes up an even larger being.