Topic: When did you stop believing in God?
Green started this discussion 13 years ago #29,757
I, for one, never believed in god. There were a few times when I would lose my wallet or something and I would start blaming god, but when I found it, I realised there was no god again.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #433,105
I never really believed in God. I don't think I ever will.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #433,107
It was more better when people believed in actually useful Gods n Goddesses. Boiled down to just One and a Son and Sons mother just don't cut it.
Greek = Roman==
Zeus= Jupiter
Poseidon= Neptune
Hades= Pluto
Hera= Juno ( No children)
Demeter= Ceres
Hestia= Vesta (No children)
Ares= Mars
Aphrodite= Venus
Athena= Minerva
Hephaestus= Vulcan
Hermes= Mercury
Dionysus= Bacchus
Apollo= Apollo
Pan= Faunus
Hecate= Trivia
Hebe= Juventas
Hypnos= Somnus
Enyo=Bellona
Persephone= Prosperina
Nyx=Nox
Tyche=Fortuna
Eros=Cupid
Nike=Victoria
Mnemosyne = Moneta
Amphitrite = Salacia
Artemis=Diana (no children)
Boreas=Aquilo
Themis=Justitia
Zephyrus=Favonius
Greek = Roman==
Zeus= Jupiter
Poseidon= Neptune
Hades= Pluto
Hera= Juno ( No children)
Demeter= Ceres
Hestia= Vesta (No children)
Ares= Mars
Aphrodite= Venus
Athena= Minerva
Hephaestus= Vulcan
Hermes= Mercury
Dionysus= Bacchus
Apollo= Apollo
Pan= Faunus
Hecate= Trivia
Hebe= Juventas
Hypnos= Somnus
Enyo=Bellona
Persephone= Prosperina
Nyx=Nox
Tyche=Fortuna
Eros=Cupid
Nike=Victoria
Mnemosyne = Moneta
Amphitrite = Salacia
Artemis=Diana (no children)
Boreas=Aquilo
Themis=Justitia
Zephyrus=Favonius
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 27 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #433,109
Age 19.
doctor dw md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #433,111
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #433,115
Riffraff joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #433,116
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #433,117
@previous (Riffraff)
> > > > I never really believed in God. I don't think I ever will.
Actually this. I remember being little and in church and thinking none of this was meant for me.
> > > > I never really believed in God. I don't think I ever will.
Actually this. I remember being little and in church and thinking none of this was meant for me.
Riffraff replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #433,123
@previous (squeegee)
Me too, it seemed really bizarre to me.
I'm grateful my father never believed in indoctrination.
Me too, it seemed really bizarre to me.
I'm grateful my father never believed in indoctrination.
Internet Atheist !H0DYeRe3gg joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #433,126
!KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 55 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,132
@previous (Internet Atheist !H0DYeRe3gg)
hav u ever been so atheist u own copies of the bible & koran
hav u ever been so atheist u own copies of the bible & koran
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,133
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,134
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 32 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,136
@433,126 (Internet Atheist !H0DYeRe3gg)
> implying a real atheist could accept a moral absoulte against killing people.
> implying a real atheist could accept a moral absoulte against killing people.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,137
@previous (K)
Why not?
Did you really need some religion to tell you it was wrong? Wow.
Why not?
Did you really need some religion to tell you it was wrong? Wow.
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,141
@previous (G)
Reason of course. Silly ideas regarding right to life and murder being wrong are of course descendents of religion.
Reason of course. Silly ideas regarding right to life and murder being wrong are of course descendents of religion.
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,143
@433,137 (G)
You claim it's wrong, but that's your whole arguement. Well that's not good enough for a real atheist as it's bascially the same as some nutjob claiming there is a God.
You imagine murder to be wrong. Yet you have not reasoned why that is true for absolutely all situations.
You claim it's wrong, but that's your whole arguement. Well that's not good enough for a real atheist as it's bascially the same as some nutjob claiming there is a God.
You imagine murder to be wrong. Yet you have not reasoned why that is true for absolutely all situations.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,147
@433,141 (K)
No they arent, they are descendants of survival. Religions just jumped on the coat tails.
No they arent, they are descendants of survival. Religions just jumped on the coat tails.
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,148
@433,143 (K)
Good thing for secular laws then, it might be all that keeps me from a murdering rampage.
Good thing for secular laws then, it might be all that keeps me from a murdering rampage.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,149
I kinda believed when I was a kid, but not fully. Agnostic, in a way, I suppose. I guess I stopped believing at all around 12ish? Not sure exactly.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 50 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,160
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,168
I never thought about it. When I started thinking very hard about death, I began having panic attacks and I realized that I was an atheist
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 39 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,173
Early August of 2010. Happened at the Prado.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,198
Same age I stopped believing in Santa.Anonymous O double-posted this 13 years ago, 21 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,199
Same age I stopped believing in Santa.
Anonymous O triple-posted this 13 years ago, 25 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,200
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,213
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,214
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,215
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I get the feeling he equates atheists with robotic machines, wtf man.
I get the feeling he equates atheists with robotic machines, wtf man.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 48 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,222
@433,213 (G)
The point is killing another person may or may not be beneficial to the individual and even society at large. It depends on who's being killed. It is not possible to make a rational case for murder being universally wrong.
I bring this up to demonstrate how most atheists are still suffering under the programming of false religions.
The point is killing another person may or may not be beneficial to the individual and even society at large. It depends on who's being killed. It is not possible to make a rational case for murder being universally wrong.
I bring this up to demonstrate how most atheists are still suffering under the programming of false religions.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,223
I have never stopped believing. Jesus lives
Green (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,224
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 53 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,261
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,262
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,268
@433,222 (K)
> It is not possible to make a rational case for murder being universally wrong.
This is not true. With utility you would look at the net increse in benefit to society by either executing them, or n9t executing them.
It could be argued that there is more value in a life than there is in a death pretty easily. It stands to reason that murder is universally wrong.
I actually remember this from college. This was all in the textbook. It's about how ethical principles can lead to moral action,
And about how the ethical principles are based in logic brought about by reason.
Some shit like that.
Anyway. Murder is universally wrong, but killing a man is not always murder.
Take self defense for instance.
Killing a man in self defense is not murder, however, if you do not take other possible equally safe alternatives to killing, such as running way or letting the man escape, then it is murder.
Make sense?
> It is not possible to make a rational case for murder being universally wrong.
This is not true. With utility you would look at the net increse in benefit to society by either executing them, or n9t executing them.
It could be argued that there is more value in a life than there is in a death pretty easily. It stands to reason that murder is universally wrong.
I actually remember this from college. This was all in the textbook. It's about how ethical principles can lead to moral action,
And about how the ethical principles are based in logic brought about by reason.
Some shit like that.
Anyway. Murder is universally wrong, but killing a man is not always murder.
Take self defense for instance.
Killing a man in self defense is not murder, however, if you do not take other possible equally safe alternatives to killing, such as running way or letting the man escape, then it is murder.
Make sense?
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,362
I sometimes wish I believed in God or Jesus as for some reason The Bible is comforting to me in some very strange non-religious ways.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,363
Green (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,364
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,365
@433,222 (K)
Murder =/= killing. Usually only Kantians or other deontologists hold that "killing" is universally wrong. Most ethicisits draw a line between, for example, killing in self-defense vs. killing someone because they cut you in line at the supermarket. You're advocating act-utilitariansm which is pretty philosophically dead (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/#FulVerParRulCon) because there are a lot of very basic problems with it.
Murder =/= killing. Usually only Kantians or other deontologists hold that "killing" is universally wrong. Most ethicisits draw a line between, for example, killing in self-defense vs. killing someone because they cut you in line at the supermarket. You're advocating act-utilitariansm which is pretty philosophically dead (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/#FulVerParRulCon) because there are a lot of very basic problems with it.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,372
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 35 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,373
@433,365 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Are you saying it is not ethically acceptable to respond with deadly force to somebody cutting in line at Tesco?
Are you saying it is not ethically acceptable to respond with deadly force to somebody cutting in line at Tesco?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,374
@previous (B)
Well, if you're in a big hurry it's fine but you should really try not to do it too often.
Well, if you're in a big hurry it's fine but you should really try not to do it too often.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 24 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #433,375
@433,373 (B)
Unless you are muslim and they are an infidel. Then it is your responsibility to kill the both of you
Unless you are muslim and they are an infidel. Then it is your responsibility to kill the both of you
melodrama !!FVJOHfXUk joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #433,445
Never. I am a lutheran.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #433,446
@433,268 (squeegee)
> It could be argued that there is more value in a life than there is in a death pretty easily. It stands to reason that murder is universally wrong.
That's utilitariansm, a line of logic that doesn't really flow though the way you think it does. If one life is greater than one death, it is of course also true that many lives are greater than one death. So the murder of one to save many is ethically justified, and therefore, murder cannot be universally wrong.
>
> I actually remember this from college. This was all in the textbook. It's about how ethical principles can lead to moral action,
> And about how the ethical principles are based in logic brought about by reason.
>
> Some shit like that.
That's all true. But not everyone holds the same principles. Even still, they'll only ever lead to moral action when they are worshiped or enforced. It's quite common for people to demand 'principled' behavior from others while being rather unprincipled themselves.
>
> Anyway. Murder is universally wrong, but killing a man is not always murder.
> Take self defense for instance.
> Killing a man in self defense is not murder, however, if you do not take other possible equally safe alternatives to killing, such as running way or letting the man escape, then it is murder.
>
> Make sense?
So by your reasoning, I continue to owe an ethical obligation to man who has demonstrated his intent to kill me? No, that does not make sense.
> It could be argued that there is more value in a life than there is in a death pretty easily. It stands to reason that murder is universally wrong.
That's utilitariansm, a line of logic that doesn't really flow though the way you think it does. If one life is greater than one death, it is of course also true that many lives are greater than one death. So the murder of one to save many is ethically justified, and therefore, murder cannot be universally wrong.
>
> I actually remember this from college. This was all in the textbook. It's about how ethical principles can lead to moral action,
> And about how the ethical principles are based in logic brought about by reason.
>
> Some shit like that.
That's all true. But not everyone holds the same principles. Even still, they'll only ever lead to moral action when they are worshiped or enforced. It's quite common for people to demand 'principled' behavior from others while being rather unprincipled themselves.
>
> Anyway. Murder is universally wrong, but killing a man is not always murder.
> Take self defense for instance.
> Killing a man in self defense is not murder, however, if you do not take other possible equally safe alternatives to killing, such as running way or letting the man escape, then it is murder.
>
> Make sense?
So by your reasoning, I continue to owe an ethical obligation to man who has demonstrated his intent to kill me? No, that does not make sense.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #433,452
Leonidas joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #433,454
oops
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous T double-posted this 13 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #433,455
1994