Weekly Atheist Chat

Every Tuesday @ 8 PM I will be in the chat room to be asked questions, debate, etc. (CLICK ME to visit the chat room)

Atheists and non-atheists are welcome.

Feel free to stop by the chat room at anytime, perhaps you may catch me in it randomly. Also check out/post in the forum (CLICK ME).

jezuzfreek777 talks to a robot

This is why Christians need to stay away from technology. The robot understands that God equates to the self, we are the creator of our universe. The brain creates a virtual reality out of observing patterns via nervous system input and attempts to create patterns within the observed patterns to understand. Which is why a person who was born blind doesn't understand what color is -- color doesn't exist in their universe. The idea of others existing in our universe is nothing more than an idea. We are truly alone, I am the closest thing to God in my universe and you are in yours. We are often mislead by our imagination, the cold-hard reality is that this universe is nothing more than my (your) imagination at work. The robot quickly understands that it is the creator of its own universe, an understanding that most humans have yet to arrive at.     

Shockofgod: Why is TheAmazingAtheist afraid to debate me?

What a tool.

Christianity is making the claim, it is up to them to prove it. Atheists are denying the claim, and Christians have provided no evidence. Why would it be up to the atheists to prove their position? The atheist position is true thus far because Christians (or believers in other deities) have failed to prove their position (atheists obviously being deniers of God). Many of the bible's claims have been scientifically/historically disproven, and the bible is the source of the Christian god (this shows that the writers were full of it). Atheism can only be disproven if God (or any god) is proven to exist (hasn't happened yet). The atheist stance is only that there are no deity/s, the burden of proof does not rest on them because they are not making a claim (atheists are denying the claim of god/s existing).

Shouldn't all of this be obvious? If you read this Shockofgod, think long and hard about the below example, and how it is applicable to you.

Me: "There is an invisible unicorn in my room that can freely move through any object."
Unicorn Skeptic: "Okay, prove it!"
Me: "Well, you can't prove that it isn't real.."
Unicorn Skeptic: "You're the one making the claim, you're the one with the burden of proof.."
Me: "So you're saying that you cannot prove that my unicorn doesn't exist?"
Unicorn Skeptic: "You're such a f@cking moron.."  
Me: "See, you can't prove that they aren't real. This means I must be right!...

Pro-Life Atheist (arguments for why abortion is wrong)

Needless to say, I am a pro-life atheist. It should also be needless to say that most atheists are pro-choice.

Abortion is morally wrong, and can be easily argued against using secular-reasoning. While moral-relativists will attempt to twist logic to justify its practice, they are unable to do so without completely devaluing human-life.

In the below video, Sam Harris fails to present an argument for why destroying human-life (albeit young) is morally permissible.

Firstly, he claims that every cell in "your" body has the potential for creating a new life, which is dodging the issue by creating a fictitious scenario. There is a difference between potential and actual occurrence (hindsight vs. foresight). An embryo is human life that is actually occurring. The said life would develop into a fully functioning human being (excluding death via disease and murder). By his logic it is morally permissible for a mother to kill her offspring regardless of age. She could potentially have gotten an abortion in the past (which is impossible outside of this warped logic), which is "morally acceptable" if we accept abortion as being moral. The life could potentially have not existed at all, so it is not wrong to end it if we use our imagination. Using the imagination to create scenarios of what potentially could have happened in the past can be used to justify anything. Obviously we should be looking at what is actually occurring, and leave fantasy out of the debate.

As far as consciousness is concerned, it is impossible (at the moment) to know of consciousness outside of the self. We see life that is similar to us and assume it must have it, but we cannot know for sure. The consciousness argument (i.e. lack of consciousness in an embryo) doesn't hold water for the simple fact that we do not know what consciousness is. It is impossible for us to determine scientifically what does and what doesn't have consciousness. But, let's say that consciousness exists subjectively only if we are able to remember it (for the sake of argument, obviously memory of consciousness does not equate to consciousness itself). Does lack of consciousness completely devalue human life/potential? Is it morally permissible to murder someone after knocking them unconscious (referring to the act of murdering the unconscious, not the act of knocking someone out)? Of course people that are knocked unconscious have the potential to be conscious, given enough time, and the same is true for an embryo/fetus.

With his morally bankrupt rational I could justify the murder of anyone. For example, let's say I have an annoying neighbor. I go over to his house and put an end to his life (without going into the details). Me putting an end to his life is not murder because his life potentially could have ended on that day anyways (or shortly down the road). Besides, everyone is going to die eventually, right? If it wasn't me that killed him, something surely would have eventually. As long as I remember to make him go unconscious, it is morally permissible to do whatever I want with him. This logic doesn't sound as great now does it? Human life should obviously not be valued on the consciousness it has at a particular moment (we all have to sleep).

The point here is that many pro-choicers use their imaginations to distract them from what is actually occurring (making murder an easier pill to swallow). They create fantasies in order to distract and justify their wicked beliefs (to themselves and others). When human-life exists and a person acts in order to put an end to that life, that is murder by definition (if the life agrees to be killed then that is euthanasia, which is a separate issue).

The reality is that an embryo is a human life in and of itself (a very dependent one, like most humans are in one way or another), and will grow into a fully functioning human-being if it is not murdered beforehand. Pro-choicers create fictitious scenarios and use word-play as a means of dodging the actual issue. This is one area within the atheist community that disappoints me. It shows that many atheists are as sheepish as anyone else. Anyone that actually thinks about what is occurring here should easily see how immoral abortion is. Sociopathic individuals will warp reality and logic to suit their own ends, regardless if human life gets in their way. Of course for the practice of abortion to be morally acceptable (as well as not a crime) pro-choicers must do everything they can to convince others that they are not actually destroying human-life. Pro-choicers use their imaginations as a means of diversion as well as a means of dehumanizing human-life (which can't be done with any intellectual honesty).

If you agree with this, share it on Facebook (see buttons below).

Christians also need to start using secular arguments for debating abortion, God is not a convincing argument for atheists/secularists. 

Carl Sagan's influence on Neil Tyson.

Carl Sagan was such a great person, and a similar passion for science can be seen in Neil Degrasse Tyson.   Neither are appreciated like they should be in my opinion. 

Neil Degrasse Tyson: "If you're scientifically literate the world looks very different to you"

Atheist Richard Dawkins: Scientific Thinking And Moral Philosophy

We should draw lines, otherwise we will have to stop eating animals and plants (why value life that has a nervous system over that which doesn't?). Human life/human interest should always rise above that of other animals, otherwise human-life will end (animals are afraid of humans because we kill them, if we stop they will start killing us). Human life is very unique in the world, no other creature has even close to the intellectual capacity of a human. Intelligence should be what we value as a species, and in this realm we are the greatest on this planet. We should not worry about the well-being of nonhuman life unless doing so is beneficial to human life. If we stop valuing life based on intelligence/potential, then we will be in a lot of trouble (a person will get life in prison for stepping on a grasshopper).