Soren wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 11:55am:



touche, lol.

Well you guys are all so different, but you share a common desire to make the world a better place, and a great sense of humour.

Soren, your humour is so dry at times, I absolutely love it, well done ol' chap.

Now in regard to the commonality we share, in wishing to see the world become a better place, I think we also share the idea that we know best, how to achieve that, well at least I do, now I just need to get you guys to agree with me.

Soren wrote on Jun 24^th, 2010 at 10:25pm:


What is comes down to, is that on matters of existence and metaphysics, we are probably all wrong. All that we can say for certain on existence is that we exist. Everything else is conjecture based on observation, or at best, theory that works within certain boundaries.  

Philosophers invariably justify their own deep-seated beliefs. What can be said about the metaphysical difficulty of human existence without a monotheist creator can equally be said for  a pothytheist creationist scenario (eg the Sumerian pantheon) or the Deist worldview for that matter. Such a position doesn't uniquely justify Judaism or Islam, Christianity or Jainism for example in favour of the rest.  

There is also a huge leap of faith between 'first cause' and 'deity'. Even the requirement for a first cause, however valid that may be,  doesn't preclude a purely atheist position.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2010 at 3:42pm:



If you wouldn't mind....could you define "evangelical atheists"??????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2010 at 4:10pm:



LOL. In my view, the most irritating atheists from experience are the ex-evangelical Christians and ex-mormons. Ex-Muslims are a close third.

They seem to have this compulsive need to proselytize. For example, they love to post in forums about the negative side of religion, how we need to protect children from brainwashing etc.

Most atheists don't give a damn about trying to 'deconvert' people or change society in some way.  Evangelicals do.

muso wrote on Jun 26^th, 2010 at 9:30pm:



Well thanks for that condescendingly arrogant definition muso, it is a pity that some of your tolerance for religious idiocy cannot find it's way toward respecting the valid concerns of those who object to seeing children indoctrinated with ridiculous, religious prejudices from their earliest childhoods.
The simple , and I would contend unarguable, fact, is that religions impose their views upon society, and use the delusional belief that it is their supernaturally ordained right, and duty to do so.

These radical anti-theists merely wish to see these deluded nutjobs stop it. Keep your
religion to yourself, and especially do not seek to have it imposed upon society.

Go out in the wild and wave your willys at the sun for all I care, but do not seek to impose your beliefs upon society, because your beliefs are delusional, often harmful, and have no merit based upon your claims of being told so by an imaginary friend.

Morals can be determined by societal needs, and standards, and do not require a preacher, parson or pope, to validate them.

So when theists beliefs coincide with those of their society we have no problem, but when they clash, we do, and that is why we need to remind them that society rejects their claims of divine right to declare their own standards on anything other than their own very personal, and private morality.

Religion can do whatever it wants, as long as it does not place itself above the society it is contained in, but I do not know of any religion that does not place itself above all societies, because of their ridiculous claims of supernatural guidance, which is utterly disdainful of secular laws and standards, and only acquiesces to those standards at, or for, it's own convenience.

Actually, I would suggest that: the concept of 'nation state' is fast becoming embedded in corporativist fables - since most of the largest entities in this world know no national borders, have no national allegiences and care little about the needs and rights of citizens and the sustainability of their life-giving environment...

It is time to challenge and resoundingly reject corporativist agendas!

Equitist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 12:39pm:


Why? At least their leaders are appointed on the basis of merit, and corporations are a lot more efficient than democratically elected governments. Democratically elected leaders can also be totally dismal. Can't you see it now? - New World Inc.

(Don't take that point too seriously, but I like to knock down paradigms  )

muso wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:28pm:

Merit? And blood, like monarchies.

muso wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:28pm:

Yes, full accountability is messy and inefficient.