A wonderful Article

[Gandhi>Bush]

My Hero

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings.
The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.

Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.

As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.

The world sucks... That's your proof that God doesn't exist?

 

[Maxmillian]

Heh. I sincerely doubt you know why most "teens" listen to green day, wear jeans, and tote ipods, or anything else for that matter. No one can verify anything you say, because it's all a lot of hokey anecdotes set forth for the ostensible purpouse of self-aggrandizement. There are people who claim to be master markesmen, archery teachers, and kung-fu experts as well as astrophysicists on the side. Most of which is highly spurious. However, if you must "know," Ipods are fairly convenient, and consumerism is a good thing for the economy.

Yeah, I'm sure all those rich west van kids had the good of the economy in mind when they went to the mall and all bought trendy and expensive (and above all, portable) cries for approval.

Moreover, jeans are utilitarian depending on the make, are usually comfortable, and well, some people like the rich harmony of GD music.

I agree iPods are convienient, but there are other brands out there that don't have batteries that last three charges and are cheaper. They buy iPods mostly to bend to peer pressure. Now, if you want to talk about self-aggrandizement, it seems that a kid with Aspeger's just triggered your small-penis complex; a terrible blow to your ego. Now, you could've said to yourself that you don't believe me, but instead, you write a huge essay on how much I am lying (you obviously have an overwhelming need to "A. Waste time"). Yes, most people are idiots, have bad memory, and exaggerate everything, but not all people.

I don't really see the comfort of sweatpants, and memorizing songs is fairly pointless, unless you feel the overwhelming need to:

A. Waste time
B. Listen to music in your head

Like I said, it doesn't take long for me to memorize things.

Oh yea, I am sure you really do have an IQ of 128. The last one I took said 132, but that really doesn't matter, since I can hardly tie my shoelaces, and IQ is not even an accurate measure of knowledge. If you have such a photographic memory, are so pedantic, and have a mind better that storage media, why cannot you remember simple grammar rules that you would learn in 5th grade, such as the confusion of pronouns. You began your second sentence with "one" and then switched to "they" half-way through the sentence.

If you knew anything about grammar, you'd know that my use of "one" and "they" in the same context is correct.

You have an IQ of 132? That's either lying, or you took the "Tickle" IQ test, which is a fraud. That would classify you as a genious, and would put you in the top 0.5% of the population.

But you're right, IQ isn't an accurate measurement of knowledge, it is however an accurate measurement of intelligence (hence, Intelligence Quotient). Intellect and knowledge are two completely different things. Some people can memorize and rattle off all the prime numbers up to 1,000, but to calculate them in your head within a few seconds; that's intelligence.

The rest of your paragraph is more of the same masturbation material that you promulgated in the first paragraph, which is entirely intended to make people believe you are some prodigy. Most likely you are a liar or someone in desperate need of attention.

No and no. Again, you use "most likely", not "you are". Like I said, not 100% of the population are moronic "normies".

Yea. And I would like a pony. Googling is an almost indistinguishable fascade for real knowledge when online, Mr. Fantastic. Do you really expect anyone to sift through your wank material and believe you? You sound like something farted out of Kim Jong Ill's propaganda matrix.

Ouch, a little Kim reference. Why don't you just tear out my heart while you're at it? However, contrary to what you might think, I do possess real knowledge, but your horribly sensitive ego won't let you believe that.

 

[MrFungus420]

If you want to criticize grammar...

Heh. I sincerely doubt you know why most "teens" listen to green day, wear jeans, and tote ipods, or anything else for that matter.

There is no reason for the quotation marks. Capitalization that should have been used: Green Day and iPod. When making a list, there is no comma put between the second to the last item and the conjunction.

No one can verify anything you say, because it's all a lot of hokey anecdotes set forth for the ostensible purpouse of self-aggrandizement.

Superfluous comma.

There are people who claim to be master markesmen, archery teachers, and kung-fu experts as well as astrophysicists on the side.

Again, the comma before the conjunction shouldn't be used.

Most of which is highly spurious. However, if you must "know," Ipods are fairly convenient, and consumerism is a good thing for the economy.

There shouldn't be quotation marks used there. The capitalization is still iPod. You should have started a new sentence at consumerism.

Moreover, jeans are utilitarian depending on the make, are usually comfortable, and well, some people like the rich harmony of GD music.

It should be, "...comfortable and, well, some..."


If this hasn't made the point, I could finish correcting your post. I think that this is enough to make the point clear, however.

So, I would recommend brushing up on grammar and punctuation before criticizing others.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

If you knew anything about grammar, you'd know that my use of "one" and "they" in the same context is correct.

Sorry, but you are quite, quite wrong. Now, unless your sentence was deliberately amphibolous, it was an error. Observe:

You are talking about your "photographic memory" and your knowledge of English and science beyond your teachers' knowledge. You then claim, One can learn all they need in a few short years if they are observant.

This sentence is linguistically absurd, since, in the way you write it, it denotes that one can learn all someone else needs if someone else is obsevant. You intend to say, one might learn all one needs if one is observant. . The latter sentence is the only denotation that makes sense, if and only if you are trying to say it is quite easy to do what you do. You do not confuse the first and the second pronouns. If you begin with one, you continue to use one. It is improper to mix pronouns.

You have an IQ of 132? That's either lying, or you took the "Tickle" IQ test, which is a fraud. That would classify you as a genious, and would put you in the top 0.5% of the population.

You do know that average intelligence ranges ofn IQ tests differ, right? The average IQ range shifts with to represent the mean of the population. Average intelligence can range from 90 to over 100. Further, your statement is a false dichotomy, since there are more than two options available. You are an IQ of 128, which is above average well enough to be considered an entry-level genius on several versions of IQ tests---and no, not online ones.

But you're right, IQ isn't an accurate measurement of knowledge, it is however an accurate measurement of intelligence (hence, Intelligence Quotient). Intellect and knowledge are two completely different things. Some people can memorize and rattle off all the prime numbers up to 1,000, but to calculate them in your head within a few seconds; that's intelligence.

[/quote]


Actually, it's not even a good measurement of intelligence, especially among populations of individuals. IQ tests have been quite suspect. The fact that it's called Intelligence Quotient really is meaningless. Intelligence is the ability to learn. That's extremely difficult to test, and IQ tests are spurious at best.

I agree iPods are convienient, but there are other brands out there that don't have batteries that last three charges and are cheaper. They buy iPods mostly to bend to peer pressure. Now, if you want to talk about self-aggrandizement, it seems that a kid with Aspeger's just triggered your small-penis complex; a terrible blow to your ego. Now, you could've said to yourself that you don't believe me, but instead, you write a huge essay on how much I am lying (you obviously have an overwhelming need to "A. Waste time"). Yes, most people are idiots, have bad memory, and exaggerate everything, but not all people.

Yes, they are convenient. Yes, there are other brands. Which brands do you recomend? I don't buy the whole peer pressure nonsense with Ipods. I have yet to see someone say, "Hey jonny, your only cool if you get an Ipod!" Then again, I haven't been on the Middleschool scene in quite a while.

Why would I say to myself I don't believe you? This is a forum, if everyone followed that maxim whenever in disagreement, then no one would post anything. Not a very good match for the CI.

Nothing's a blow to my Ego, because I don't build myself up with nonsense credentials wherever I go, but you, on the other hand, feel like injecting your line of phantom achievements into debates. You're full of tark, trying vainly to inflate your middleschool status on a webboard because you probably fail to achieve that at home. For every board, there are roughly 2-3 of you lurkers who pride themselves on their "invisible" achievements which have nothing to do with the actual debates.

If you are what you say you are, then provide evidence. Anecdotal evidence is meaningless.

Like I said, it doesn't take long for me to memorize things.

Which has nothing to do with anything I said. It's still a pointless endeavour, unless you enjoy listening to music inside your head, which means you need more help than anyone here can bestow upon you. You remind me of the guy on Liberal Forum who claimed to be an astrophysicist working for SDI, a kung-fu expert, a veteran, and several other diametrically opposed Uebermensch activities.

No and no. Again, you use "most likely", not "you are". Like I said, not 100% of the population are moronic "normies".

Of course you use a comma, because it is an introduction. Notwithstanding, you have no evidence to substantiate your claims. It's a meainglessly wank secession. Most likely, you're lying for acceptance.

Ouch, a little Kim reference. Why don't you just tear out my heart while you're at it? However, contrary to what you might think, I do possess real knowledge, but your horribly sensitive ego won't let you believe that.

No, you don't, and no your own adulations amid a see of turgid rhetoric.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

There is no reason for the quotation marks. Capitalization that should have been used: Green Day and iPod. When making a list, there is no comma put between the second to the last item and the conjunction.

Actually, there is a reason for them, or else I wouldn't have put them there. Capitalization should have been used, yes. However, you are wrong, there is a comma placed between the second to the last item and the conjuction for stylistic purpouses, according to Purdue. Now, you could be talking about the unit prior to the "or." That is a typo, and you are right. It doesn't belong there at all.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian
No one can verify anything you say, because it's all a lot of hokey anecdotes set forth for the ostensible purpouse of self-aggrandizement.

Superfluous comma.

Actually, there are two different styles of writing. Some institutions do not want you to use a comma prior to a dependent clause, but that is not universal. In fact, that particular case is similiar to the cases involving the misuse of apostrophe items. Some sources say you don't use the apostrohe with plurals, yet others do. There are amazing difference among educational institutions. Comma placements are optional when using because and joining two sentences, but very rarely when joining a main clause and the dependent clause. Oddly, confusing "one" and "they" are never appropriate. I would italicize one and they for emphasis, but I really don't feel like it.


That same structure of sentence is found pefectly fine in various grammar textbooks, including English In Review, part of the German In Review series.

Again, the comma before the conjunction shouldn't be used.

False, it is entirely stylistic whether one decides to put a comma after the last item in a series. It is not grammatically incorrect whatsoever.

It should be, "...comfortable and, well, some..."

True, but well shouldn't even have been present in the sentence. It makes it needlessly verbose.


Since I am spuriously claiming to be a prodigy, whilst he is, your analysis of my webboard prose is therefore meaningless.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Edit: "False."

If this hasn't made the point, I could finish correcting your post. I think that this is enough to make the point clear, however.

The word "that" in your sentence is entirely unnecessary. You could cut it out and the meaning of the sentence would remain solid. KISS. You should also use a conjunction between the last and second-to-last sentence because it is quite choppy without it.

Regardless of this semantic babble, your point is entirely irrelevant when critiquing me, since I am not claiming to be a genius or a child prodigy who pedantically memorizes everything with photographic abilities. For a "genius" as he, he should know it all as he so claims. Reading comprehension must not be a priority where you live, or else you would have obtained the point. You miss his diabribe about how fantastic he is, yet seem completely in belief. It's completely absurd, and you're duped far too easily by it.

However, it is odd that you should pretend if someone makes mistakes elsewhere, he must be wrong in the area in which he is commenting. That's poor logic. I am completely correct. The fact that I might make errors elsewhere does not invalidate the orginal claim. To suggest such is merely a clever ad hominem.

 

[ngdawg]

I agree completly. I dont recall sharing a personal experience as being 'prechy', but I am sorry if I came off that way.
Realize that I also deserve your respect, I did not laugh or make jokes at the fact that your an atheist, and beleive in something that I believe is untrue, and I expect you to do teh same.

I never said I was an atheist...NOW who's making assumptions?

 

[ngdawg]

Yep, that was two years ago. I'm thirteen, I've surprised many people by writing droning essays. I wrote 1,800 words or so on nulear fission theory for my science fair. I didn't win, mostly because the attention span of my teachers is less than mine. In fact, I'm such a strange person that when I was younger, the counselor at our school thought I had Asperger syndrome, a form of High-Functioning Autism(and he might be right).

I usually agree with people who think young'ins are cranially lacking. Adolescents are malleable, and are duped easily. Ever wonder why most teens listen to Greenday, wear jeans, and tote iPods (I, however, listen to Beethoven and The Doors, wear sweatpants, and memorize all my songs, which is infinitely better than any portable hard-drive)?

In the case of teenonfire, this is mostly of a lack of wisdom.

However, view me as an exception. Why? I have wisdom beyond my years (IQ, 128). One can learn all they need in a few short years if they are observant. I have a photographic memory, and I notice and observe every little detail of even the most trivial situations. I can comphensively read faster than my english teacher, and my knowledge of the mainstream sciences are on par with those doing their first year at university in such subjects.

This is a fair warning to everyone on this forum: treat me as you would a grown man.

Had you not said your age, never would I have guessed it as you show more maturity and thought in what you say than many here with a few years on you. It's not the tossing about of large words that shows how smart one is, but the thought conveyed. And you seem to have done so without resorting to insults as well another sign of a good head(your little aside in the Natural Healing thread notwithstanding).
IQ is not always indicative of intelligence. Mine hovers in the 140's but for some things I'm smart, in others I have some learning to do.
Yes, you too are still at a point of malleability and your views at 23 will not be as they are now, perhaps. But I will say that by the time I was 14 or 15, I did question my need for organized religious teachings and as I have gone through life, I have made decisions back and forth until I reached my current conclusions.
Far more important than any labelling or belief system is the ultimate goal of being a spiritual human being, in touch with onself and ones world. The Universe is vast and as much as science gives us, there is so much more to the unknown than the known. Following some doctrine or dogma fits some such as teenonfire, for others, following the heart, finding the soul is more important.
Whatever path you choose, you seem to be starting off rather well and I hope you continue to do so.

 

[teenonfire4him77]

I never said I was an atheist...NOW who's making assumptions?

I think you might have hit on an idea for a new evangelical tv show:
"Pray for us Atheists" .
Yes, Brethren, we are atheists, but with YOUR help..maybe, just MAYBE we can change..Yes!!! Just write your prayer for our ever-hardening hearts on a $20 bill....send it to our home.....

Unless this was some roundabout way to agree with my christian beliefs, then this tells me that you don't believe in a God or gods, making you an atheist, and since you did not tell me otherwise, then that is what I believed.

 

[MrFungus420]

However, it is odd that you should pretend if someone makes mistakes elsewhere, he must be wrong in the area in which he is commenting. That's poor logic. I am completely correct. The fact that I might make errors elsewhere does not invalidate the orginal claim. To suggest such is merely a clever ad hominem.

I never said anything about what you actually said. For the most part, I agree with you.

You just hit a pet peeve of mine, using incorrect grammar, spelling, capitalization, etc. when correcting someone else. That, and you hit me in a crabby mood. I was getting ready to go to work. So there...:nahnah:

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Bah. You are right, though. I tend not to use proper punctuation when online. Few do. I should, but I am lazy. I have my own pet annoyance-:spin: -online makebelievers who make themselves out to be Mensa members when I sure as hell know they aren't.

 

[ngdawg]

I think you might have hit on an idea for a new evangelical tv show:
"Pray for us Atheists" .
Yes, Brethren, we are atheists, but with YOUR help..maybe, just MAYBE we can change..Yes!!! Just write your prayer for our ever-hardening hearts on a $20 bill....send it to our home.....

Unless this was some roundabout way to agree with my christian beliefs, then this tells me that you don't believe in a God or gods, making you an atheist, and since you did not tell me otherwise, then that is what I believed.

It's called 'tongue in cheek' humor, also known as sarcasm......something you have yet to learn about....I have no need to explain my beliefs to you, dear child.

 

[George_Washington]

The world sucks... That's your proof that God doesn't exist?

Yeah that's basically his proof. And that God's an asshole. :rofl

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Yeah that's basically his proof. And that God's an asshole. :rofl

I'm confused about how God is an asshole. How do the problems within humanity reflect an imperfection within God?

 

[teenonfire4him77]

It's called 'tongue in cheek' humor, also known as sarcasm......something you have yet to learn about....I have no need to explain my beliefs to you, dear child.

Well if you are choose to not share your beliefs with me, then that in fact is your issue, and until then, I will assume that you are infact an athiest.
I may be a teen, but I am older then you in more ways then that. Just because you don't can't come up with a response, it is quite childish to resort to degrading me, merly on the fact 'im older so i don't have to explain anything to you'
Now, whos the child?
If you dissagree with me just say it, if you had no idea what age I was, would you be doing this? I don't think so.
Respect me as I have respected you.

So enough with this nosense:
So back on topic.....

 

[ddoyle00]

Christ, this isnt an online professional writing course. The thread originaly started as an article submitted by Technocrat and was going fine until the Writing Nazis took over. I can imagine all the prepubescent theists (teenonfire) are enjoying us correcting each other when the real subject is philosophy and/or religon. Can we get back to insulting religon and those who subscibe to that rhetoric?