Dark energy wrote:

laklak wrote:My penchant for sex, drugs, and rock & roll have nothing do do with my atheism and everything to do with growing up in the 60s and 70s. Party on, dudes and dudettes! YOLO, or whatever the kids say these days.

do you believe these are sin thing? do you think a sin exist? what does sin mean to you? are you sinless?

As sinless as a newborn babe. See, there's no such thing as "sin" in a religious sense, because there's no God to sin against. There's morality, which is a moveable feast, and ethics, another moveable feast, and lastly the law, which is about the most moveable feast of them all.

Some folks think pineapple on a pizza is sinful, but I reserve that adjective for wearing brown shoes with a blue suit.

Says the person whose belief in a soul is so strong that no amount of science will change his mind. Why don't you have a problem with that?

soul is specific, personal,your soul is different then mine.

Soul = conscience in my book. Nothing woo about that - everybody believes in conscience (except psychopaths perhaps).

Keep It Real wrote:Soul = conscience in my book. Nothing woo about that - everybody believes in conscience (except psychopaths perhaps).

Consciousness, not conscience. Very different concepts.

I meant conscience, not consciousness - I am fully aware of the difference.

You think someone who does not have a conscience does not have a soul, yet everyone else does?

works for me.

So psycopaths are what exactly, they have thoughts and desires, are usually intelligent, but have no soul? If the soul is the essence of who you are, how can they exist as independent beings?

Psychopaths are missing a fundamental component of what it is to be a fully formed human being. No controversy there.

There is in the religious or spiritual sense (which is the only sense in which a soul concept is relevant)

What happens to a consciousness without conscience if it is not a soul, does it just cease to exist?

It doesn't cease to exist; it's just more like a beast than a human.

Dark energy wrote:

Says the person whose belief in a soul is so strong that no amount of science will change his mind. Why don't you have a problem with that?

soul is specific, personal,your soul is different then mine.

Your reply doesn't address what I said. Apparently it's the certainty of atheists which is a problem for you because we can't be 100% sure. You are also certain about your soul - nothing could convince you otherwise - but strangely this does not bother you. Why is it ok for you to be certain but not us?

I am not certain all the time. Sometimes I tremble in fear of the possibility of their being a deity and the thought of going to hell and only getting ugly strippers, because I do not have pasta every Friday.

Dark energy wrote:What i have problem is your surety,you cant be 100 percent sure,there is a margin of error in everything,you can be wrong.

You really haven't a clue, have you?

I cannot be 100% sure in my non-belief because of the possibility of a theist producing evidence of the existence of a deity. Until that happens my non-belief in the existence of a deity is inviolate.

So far, no theist, when challenged has, over the thousands of years of the existence of religions, ever produced any evidence of a deity except as extraneous thoughts in the human mind.

The ball is in your court. Do something about it or admit defeat and shut up.

The problem with the argument against atheistic certainty is that it is equally an argument against any certainty of any kind.

"Technically" I don't know that I exist, or that Santa doesn't exist. So what?

Rumraket wrote:

It could do with about 30,000 more columns and rows to cover all extant religions, but I think it conveys the general gist pretty well.

What's "atheism rewarded"?

Cool spread btw

Ironclad wrote:What's "atheism rewarded"?

That's when there is a God, but he's utterly aware that he didn't leave the slightest bit of evidence for his existence and accepts that atheism is the reasonable position and so you get a reward for that.