Atheist and Infidels Club

There's nothing wrong with giving back to people. I don't believe amassing wealth is morally wrong in anyway.

First off, Hi! I am an atheist (as if the name wasn't enough), but please op/everyone don't be sooo off putting to Christians, of course tell them that they are wrong, mostly there logic is wrong; but don't be overtly obnoxious about it, while i agree that religion should be abolished, throwing it in other's faces isn't the answer. Really the only truly corrupt people in the system are the piper and the ones that follow so devoutly.

Anyways, everyone's morality is simply based on a risk vs reward style system. We seek pleasure, we despise pain. So i have an incentive to do things for myself, this even explains moral charity since one gains social/emotional joy from the donation. This get's layered though, i could rob a bank and have all the money and buying power i desire, but i fear the chance of getting caught and being punished.

As for how i think charity should work, i believe that everyone should be given a base line for living standards, as long as they work they get x. Granted this base line isn't very high, and is in my mind little more then housing (like one communal bed.) and sub par quality food. Should it be a morally right to redistribute the money to a lower social class, yes, although i don't believe in morality (see above). I do believe it should be incentive's in any way possible. As for if it would upset our economical balance, idk i'm not really into economics.


Although i would like to show you guys this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfAzi6D5FpM

This guys right here i think brings out a lot of points that if we could all change our mindset; would lead to a much more charitable community.

If they actually believe what they claim to believe then they would be positively immoral for not pushing their depravities upon others. Think about it, if you really believe that the only way to ensure eternal happiness is to believe X, Y, and Z, you'd fight to convince those you care about to believe as well. Not doing so (again, if belief is serious) is facilitating the instrumental suffering of others, essentially the basis of immorality. Respect is honestly just a slap in the face of human dignity. If you agree with Christianity, then a belief in Hinduism is considered false and vice versa. The "respect" only goes as far as you telling your friend that his children are smart, perhaps not even that far. It's time we just allowed open inquiry and simply crushed the mythology that keeps us anchored to the bronze era.

Science is all I need to prove I'm right, and no 'God' will tell me how to live my life! Time for a ride, mothafuckas! Atheist since birth, Atheist for life.

And it's alive again apparently... Fancy that...

Religion gives you bliss and comfort while all it asks for is your ignorance. It's not a trade many can refuse.

Eh, some religious folks are actually quite smart.

And thoroughly indoctrinated. Repetitions make for truth.

Anything becomes truth when enough agreed it is.

If it has no empirical evidence, or even a sound argument, it isn't truth. Believe all you like that water is silicone and nitrogen, that won't change it's falsehood. Appeals to the ontological argument, notions of existence and perfection being unified or any appeal to semantics won't gain you any evidentiary support to your claim. In various discussions I had with believers they have yet to provide much in the way of proof. The main points I hear are, "we exist, therefore God exists", Pascal's wager, already discredited "sources", appeals that it betters us as individuals, the ontological argument, the "prime mover" argument, a shifting of the burden of proof, and a few less frequent arguments with no better standing ground. If any of you would like I can state my responses to them, and I would like to hear your responses if you had been challenged with the same arguments.

[align=justify][color=green][font=verdana]You're letting someone's beliefs cloud your judgement on their intelligence.

Falsehood or no, the effective truth will be the one with the most believers.

Again, I disagree, effectual truth and objective proof are not on equal footing. Empiricism will either stand to questioning/experimentation or adapt to a better model of reality, while beliefs not founded in observable or logical and deductive reasoning, has not stood to questioning nor, by definition of a dogmatically held beilef, can it adapt. Populist "truths" are far weaker than objective truth.

It is true that truth based on beliefs can not stand in a world ran by empirical data and logic. In the first place, these beliefs were based on mostly the supernatural, and rarely on empirical data.

However, I argue that belief systems have equal power as empirical truths among humans. One might argue with any logical argument he wants to, but a person who has accepted that the truth lies in blind faith will be able to disregard these arguments as lies and temptations of the devil. It is my contention that words will always retain their power.

Roflwut. I never made any point about their intelligence. My point was that with enough indoctrination it would never occur to someone to even begin doubting. Intelligence is the tool, not the drive.

If I join the club do I get free self loathing, fingerless gloves and a fedora?

Whatever you wear doesn't influence your personality, but the opposite is the case far more often. If you fit the stereotype then please find your way to the exit, or a least navigate to a different page. Cruz, that actually doesn't apply to you as I know that although I may not know what your personality is, it isn't that.

It's just lighthearted humor.

Also you're right. What you wear or how you present yourself usually doesn't "influence" your personality, but it is a reflection of it.

I do find the existence of a club dedicated to being an atheist a bit...

On more important news, there seems to be a lack of bananas in the market today.

Have the prices risen to compensate for the new scarcity?