Top 3 Mass Murderers Were Atheists

"

Inexium wrote:

Woh i already read this conversation before somewhere else..

Pavshaus will never forgive you the fact you consider that there are TRUTHS and something good/true IS true/good whatever you want, you or any human in the next 100 years, to think about it..


Yeah the world is not flat, truth rules! And somethings are good for humanity and "good" rules!

Pretty close.. what I will not forgive is the belief that there are absolute unchanging truths. Truth as we refer to it is transient.

Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it's not going to go away.
-Elvis Presley

As i said i already read this discussion elsewhere and i can predict where this discussion will head to :

Perceived "reality" VS TRUE reality

"

Pavshaus wrote:

what I will not forgive is the belief that there are absolute unchanging truths. Truth as we refer to it is transient.

But there are absolute, unchanging truths.

The tricky part is knowing them; for the most part, we have faith that something is true, but we don't know for sure. For example, we see the sun; however, you could explain that as being in a Matrix-style artificial reality simulator and we're all actually brains in jars being fed lies. Thus, even something as simple as saying the sun exists requires some degree of faith.

However, the possibility of us being in the Matrix does not exclude the possibility of us not being in the Matrix. We must act even in situations where we do not or can not know exactly how things are. To get past this hiccup, we have the capability to believe. We can have faith that something is true, without knowing it, and act upon that faith.

Science is the proper process of faith. An experiment is repeated several times, each time with the same result supporting the hypothesis; after enough trials, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory, and the process of upgrading a hypothesis to a theory is a leap of faith, since strictly speaking no proof has been given. All inductive reasoning involves faith, and almost every statement about the world as it is relies on inductive reasoning.

There are, however, exceptions: truths which are purely of a deductive nature. One example of this is 1+1=2; since it deals entirely in logical abstractions, it does not rely even one bit on inductive reasoning, and, as a pure exercise in deductive reasoning, a true proof of the fact can be authored.

Another example, courtesy of Voltaire: I think, therefore I am. Also an absolute truth.

For the most part, the absolute truths we deal with are our perceptions. I don't mean the soft meaning of that, I mean the hard, literal meaning: our input from our five senses, that which we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. The fact that such truths are purely personal doesn't make them any less absolute. If you see something, you can't unsee it; you might try to forget it, but it happened, and it's true. The only problem is explaining why you saw it; was it a hallucination or was it reality? A problem for science, obviously; this is how babies construct the world around them as they grow out of infancy, through a process of constant sensory experimentation.

I am actually inclined to agree with you in the general that the average person is far too likely to mistake faith in something for knowing that something. But to take that to the extreme of believing that nothing is knowable, and that all truth is transient, is committing the same fault you accuse others of: presuming a mere belief to be the impervious truth.

And in no case does any of that refute Aristotle: That which is, is, regardless of man's knowledge of it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Pavshaus wrote:

What is viewed as good today maybe viewed as evil in 100 years, thus they are indeed governed by a social conscience of what good and evil are.

And in much the same way, at first man believed the world was flat, then came Copernicus and Newton and we figured out how gravity works, and then came Einstein who showed the exceptions to even Newton's model of gravity. Perhaps there is a nuclear war and all of the knowledge of man is lost, and once again man believes the world is flat... does this change how things exist absolutely?

Ethical truth is just as absolute as the laws of physics. However, the human science of physics is continually evolving, as our knowledge of what exists expands and refines. In the same way, ethics is also continually evolving... but this does not mean ethical truth is merely whatever one (or society) dictates it to be. Ethics is a science, and has all the usual trappings of any science.

"

Pavshaus wrote:

Additionally a man who acts out of necessity does not have to subscribe good to a necessity in order to want to fulfill it.

He does, or he could not will his behavior to occur.

"

Pavshaus wrote:

the concept of a necessary evil is nothing new.

In that ironic phrase, the word "necessary" means "better," which is a form of "good."

"

Pavshaus wrote:

Even if you believe that the good perceived is sustaining his life you cannot logically conclude that the evil act of stealing was ever perceived as good by him.

It is more likely perceived as necessary, but necessary and good mean the same thing in an ethical context.

"

Pavshaus wrote:

Take our hungry man again.. lets say he views sustaining his life as necessary and therefor good, he has reached the conclusion that he must steal to do so.. he may still feel that the stealing is wrong and know that it is but he views it as the only way (necessary) to achieve the good of sustaining his life. Thus in this case the evil of stealing is born of the good or sustaining his own life.

This is precisely how evil works.

"

Pavshaus wrote:

To me there are no absolutes

Self-contradiction; "there are no absolutes" is an absolute.

We disagree on many levels of course once again, necessary meaning good for example, in most context necessary simply means that which required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; or essential and has nothing to do with good or evil.

In regards to not being able to subscribe good to the act of stealing for our hypothetical man... are you trying to say that stealing is good where it is necessitated therefore we do not need to subscribe good to it? If that is indeed is what you are saying... let me offer this... you have just proven that good and evil are not absolutes and vary depending on the circumstances under the conditions of which the acts personified by them are committed.

As to the other references as to necessary equaling good ... as I have already stated that is simply not the case in the context and meaning of the word as used.

I will give you this, .... my statement that there are no absolutes could be viewed as paradoxical when taken as a stand alone statement... but within the context of our discussion the inference was of course that when it comes to truths about good and evil there are no absolutes. In this context I do not think it is a contradiction at all.

"

Boem wrote:

"

Seriously, debating this ridiculous idea is about as useful as a shit enema

This is exualy a proven treatment for some forms of intestine illnesses, not commonly favored and used in europe obviously for no other reason then the moral concept of doing it. Pretty much the same as why people in europe wont eat bugs, while it is commonly known they are the cheapest and one of the richest sources of foods on this planet.

on-topic : bush was an atheist?

Theres absolutely no way anyone uses shit instead of water(or any other liquid they do it with) to do an enema mate.

I'm pretty sure bush is a religious person

God of the bible/tohra/Coran should be in the top list:

"And we took all his cities at that time, killing the inhabitants of them, men and women and children. We left nothing of them"



-Genocide of canaan
-genocide of egypt first new borns
-genocide of Sodome and gomora
-Genocide of the entire world using the flood.

God is a bad mofo.

Exodus 34: 16
Deuteronomy 1: 34
Numbers 31: 15 to 18.


Of course you need to believe all of this really appened and that the great rainbow unicorn is not the actual real god of all.

You are too small to judge God bro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iZ1-csQFUA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqzgYRBlslw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGhQmNZhlqw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag0U65NkxrI

i think this is not right to blame atheists for all the wrong happenings going on in this world . after all they are humans too. we all have bad and good people in our religions.

"

Inexium wrote:

You are too small to judge God bro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iZ1-csQFUA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqzgYRBlslw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGhQmNZhlqw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag0U65NkxrI

no one can judge the great invisible pink unicorn!