There is no God, But There Are Kings

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a disturbing trend in atheism today of which stems from the shortsighted outlook of many atheists as to how to defeat “them”.  Every pro-atheist book, article, and discussion I have read boils down to proving to the zealots of religion how wrong they are.  This action is a waste of time and energy to the cause of atheism.  Instead of telling the ignorant masses that God is an illusion, we should be telling them how real Mankind is.

Religion was created to answer man’s then unanswered questions and to set down rules for a productive society.  Science has reached point that can answer any question one has about one’s past, present, and future.  We are now left with a series of archaic laws that have no basis in real life and cause nothing but oppression in society.  Those who continue to believe in a religion burden themselves with unnecessary restraints on their lifestyle.  Dogma orders people what to eat, what to wear, whom they should marry, whom they must hate.  But Atheism takes away such limiters on a person, providing an infinite amount of choices as how one lives his or her life as they see fit.

The question before all atheists is why do you continue to live, think, and argue like the religious person?  How about becoming better than them by taking the path that they cannot?  Atheists should not bother to argue with the religious man.  They cannot be swayed from their blind path as much as you cannot be swayed from yours. The effort you make arguing with others about the benefits of a God free society could be better spent into improving yourself as a leader they will gladly follow later in life.

If evolution has taught us anything, it the fact that survival goes to the strongest.  Thankfully, man’s knowledge of science and technology has removed his basic need for food, shelter, and clothing. In today’s modern society, we face a new kind of survival of the fittest. A man or woman must struggle against the others of the human race in order to fulfill their desires for a productive life. We, atheist and religious alike, fight for our right to have the most desirable mate, to have the grandest house, and to obtain more material wealth.  This is basic animal instinct.  But what about when your path to your desires is blocked by another who is physically and mentally your equal or greater?

The answer lies in taking advantage of the spiritual weakness of your opponent.

Ultimate moral authority does not bind atheism. A man who does not believe in God has more choices to his problems than a religious man.  If to get by in life an atheist has to lie to friend as to where he has been, he does so without regret.  If an atheist steals a loaf of bread to feed himself another day, then he will do it without hesitation.  If a desirable woman turns down an atheist to engage in sex, he will force himself on her and impregnate her.  If an atheist quarrels with another man over possessions and there is not a desirable settlement, the atheist will kill other man and take all of his possessions.

Does this seem repulsive?  That’s because religion has warped even the typical atheist’s way of thinking by inventing the abstract concepts “good” and “evil”.  Thou shall not kill, thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife, thou shall no bear false witness, etc…  These rules have been hammered into our heads since birth. But without God, these rules have no basis in the way the world really works. Organisms kill, get greedy, and deceive all the time in nature.  Why should man put a limit to those qualities that are beneficial for his survival?

So I ask again to all atheists out there, why are you thinking and living your life within the boundaries of a religious person?  Cheat, steal, and kill more to succeed in life.  A true atheist would stop in their climb for personal growth because there will be always one person better that you must overcome.  And yes, there are laws, created by the believers, which punish people who do “bad things” in life.  But the system punishes only those who get caught.  So, if one is committing an act that the religious society deems “wrong” don’t be caught doing it.

With a bit of planning and caution, there is nothing stopping an atheist from doing what he or she deems necessary to fulfill their desires.  The only moral authority they must answer to is themselves.  By doing so, an Atheist becomes a king among men and rules over others.  And thus shall the end of religion come, not by an argument, but by a command.

not science gtfo

Although it is not scientifical in the purest sense, I believe it fits here. At the root of our persuit of science, is philosophy, and that is what this is.

Atheists should not bother to argue with the religious man.  They cannot be swayed from their blind path
This is pure bullshit, and the only thing I read after "ATHIESM IS RELIGON LOL".

So to recap, basically you're saying that religion is the laws that hold society together. And Athiests are just as zealous as bible thumpers. I think you could say this, and provide adiquite support in a much less verbos way. Also you should present a solution with your problem.

I personally believe that the bible and other religions are the structure of seciety. With out the common morality, what one person views as acceptable varries radically from other peoples, and so when one person does what another views are immoral conflict results. The problem with the new consumerist atheism is that there are no rules, and even when there are people bend the rules a little more and a little more till there are no rules. Being from Oregon most of the athiests I know are not consumer athiests, and are still guided my the fundametals of right and wrong.

Personally, I am more than agnostic and less than religeous. I believe that there is something else out there, and perhaps we are not ment to know what it is. After reading (well really just looking at the picutes) Messages From Water, I have kind of settled on the idea that there is a positive and a negitive, what could be discribed as a force or energy. The only true meaningful thing a person can do with thier life is contribute good, positive, to the world. How to implement this in one's life is a hard and confusing task. There are the little things, no matter what happens, you can choose how you feel about it, and not being angry and hateful is the most difficult thing to chage. By being angry and hateful you are truely hurting your own soul the most, by channeling all that negitiveness. Smiling and nodding to stranger, holding the door, and such, the little things that brighten someone elses day are also very meaningful things to do.

The biggest thing you can do is dedicate your life to something like mercy corp or the likes. I could very easily have a good career as an engineer, or some such doing R&D, and yes maybe my reasearch would have meaning, but I could have so much more meaning by teaching in some third world country, or by engineering irigation systems in Africa. I struggle with this choice, a chance at a nice comfortable life style doing work I would love, or a life making a real difference in the world. In the in the reward of knowing I am doing the right thing would far surpass the pleasures of the first.

>>1

There's nothing wrong with atheists today. Let me remind you that atheists are nothing more than butthurt theists. That's why they're obsessed with the shit.

The ones who really do not care and mind their own business are called agnostics or irreligious.

>>6
Your an idiot they are the same thing its just the way you label them

Wut is a gods?

OP here...

>>5

Do you, an agnostic,(which is term for athiests without guts.) refuse to eat beef?  Have a fish fry on Friday? Abstain from alcohol?  These are “good” morals too, as deemed by various religions.  Do you follow them along with not killing, stealing and lying?

Of course not!

Morals are abstract inventions of religion to discourage people to committing the actions which come naturally to all organisms, i.e.: to survive and better themselves. In order to convince people that they should follow these draconian rules, religion offers a reward at the end of good service. The chance to go to heaven, to reincarnated as a better person, etc… But take God out of the equation and the rewards of heaven and reincarnation is meaningless. 

Thus, there is no “wrong” you can do.  There is only you to decide what is “right” for yourself.

So why do you, an agnostic, continue to follow a silly set of laws that offers you no reward and impedes your struggle to improve yourself?  If you had the chance to blackmail or kill your boss, get away with the “crime” scott-free, and move up in position with better pay and perks, you should take it.  No, you MUST take it.  If you deny a chance to improve upon yourself, you are a weak organism who deserves to be used consumed by a stronger organism. (And in that example, that stronger organism would most likely be your boss or co-workers.)

My friend, your thoughts are still trapped in a religious mindset, despite the fact that you claim that you are agnostic.  If there is no afterlife or reincarnation, then why not take the best you can in this life and hope to pass those improvements it on to your chosen genetic offspring?  Once you are dead, you can’t take it with you.

OP, you are unfamiliar with ethics as contrasted to morality.  Don't confuse the two.  I assume you intend to do a great disservice to atheists in saying they should uphold no good.  Most atheists are very good people, abiding by their own code of self-imposed ethics.

OP again...

>>10

I am quite aware of the differences between morals and ethics.  To the uninformed, the difference is this, Ethics deals with what is “good” for society.  Morality deals with what is “good” for the man.  Also, Ethics change from one society to the next.  Morals change from man to man. 

If society is based on individuals, then society’s ethics is based on an individual’s morals. Morals are based on man’s belief in a God and an afterlife.  So thus, the logical conclusion stands that if there a man believes that there is no God, then there is no morals in that man.  If a society believes there is no God, then there is no ethics.

As for “intend to do a great disservice to atheists in saying they should uphold no good,” This is mere rubbish based on the religious dogma pressed onto you when you were young.  As the hippies would say, “Free your mind!”  Look around you.  There is no good.  There is no evil.  How about a lion killing a baby gazelle?  Is that “wrong” to you?  Of course not.  That is nature, and nature is neither good nor bad it just is.

So thus, an atheist’s weltanschauung should be that based on the basic laws of nature.  And nature’s first law is survival of the fittest!  We see that law being verified everyday, with that lion killing a baby gazelle, for example.  If killing is in the best interest to the atheist, he kills.  He will kill to eat.  He will kill to eliminate the competition.  He will kill to protect his chosen genetic offspring.  He will to get ahead in life.

And what “morals” are there to stop him from killing?  None! There are no morals in an atheist’s life because there is no “God” or any other supreme moral judge on his character.  Naturally, you would say that society’s laws are the moral judge, but I would point out your original remark about “ethics” vs. “morals”.  A judge and jury can punish an atheist for acting “unethical” in society. (And only if they can prove that the crime actually happened.)  However, who can judge an atheist for an “unmoral” act that he gets away with?  God is a myth, as is all religious principals.  There goes that judge of morals.  Society judges ethics only and only if can be proven that the laws of ethics have been broken. So thus, the only judge of a single man’s morals is man himself.

Hey OP where is this coming from?

Wuts a gods?

WUTS A GODS?!

as i said in Atheism versus Theism
62
"even if you win what will you achive anyways?
(corection: what will it achive for me? i dont care about you)"

this means your endless war between 2 beliefs is meningless
if you dont belive in gods then dont belive in gods if you do its the same thing
if your an atheist truthfully religion shouldnt matter to you in the slightest(or mabey we should clasify the atheists that rant about how they dont belive in god in a new category)
whatever it is i dont care so please stop bothering me

>>14
a god is an entity that someone belives in and dosent have to be real
(effectively i am god if someone belives that i am)

>>16
thats a retarded definition.

WUT a GOD?

>>16

U Maek nu spences.  WUT a GOD?

What OP describes seems to me to be barbarism and anarchy, where only the "strong" has a right to survive.

If we had a world like you describe where we would go around killing and raping just to be "the best", society would cease to exist. Everybody would go around afraid of their neighbour, stagnating the evolution of mankind.

Religion was created to supress to common man by fear of an allmighty being dishing out "justice." Atheism frees us from that fear so we can no longer be supressed by it, but rather evolve ourselves into freethinkers.

In my mind, ethics is what distance us from animals, we have the ability to cooperate towards a common goal; exploring space, a cure for the cancer that is killing /b/ and so on.
We shouldn't go around being egocentrical when we could help humanity progress and help it survive till the end of time...

I frankly have to say that I'd like to see people not contributing to a better society die, like homeless bums, brain damaged people and priest. That being said, we still need people taking care of our trash and selling us food...

I frankly have to say that I'd like to see people not contributing to a better society die, like
niggers.

ITT tl;dr and straw men.

For the most part I agree with >>20.  However I wouldlike to draw attension to brain damaged people being included in his list of useless people who should die. Unless he is refering to comatose people, mentally handicapped will ofen do the jobs that noone else will. For thoes of you who have read the einter Hitchhiker's series, recall the race who sent all of what they considered "trivial" people away, hair dressers, janitorial staff, and so on, so only the more inteligent remained. After sending all the trivial people away on a space ship the remaning population was wiped out by a virius that bread in telephone booths, which all of the remaining population considered themselfs to important to clean.

i agree with 23 to some exstent for instants the so called useless can be used to perform tasks we rely on for survival the only truely useless are the "bums" or home less ones..
with 20 i agree this form of atheism would only lead to the great end of society and we would cease to exist except for maybe one final man. not that the world would allow our atheism to spread to that exstent the world is far to over populated with the belief of a higher power (god). we could not even creat a way to get a way with some much as murder and rape. only the strong survive thats relative we may find ourselves more capable of succeding in life but we know we are far too out numberd by the weak, thus those who appear strong become the weak and those who appear weak become the truely strong through unity.

if we all agreed with the ways of 1 then we would be competing for survivle against  other atheists and the religous man we wouldnt stand a chance with his mind set

Does anyone else get the impression there's only one guy arguing against himself here?

ouch me head hurt too biig righting

science/math?

Alright, here's my opinion.....
I'll begin with the basis of religion. Darwin's basic rule is "survival of the fittest", and everyone knows that.  But this is not survival of a single species, it's the survival of a race. Now, think of religion as the gene in a species which allowed stability and order to dominate over anarchy and chaos.  This allowed those who adopted theism to live longer, reproduce more, and prosper overall.  As such, you can think of the basic morality and ethics which come from the bible as a way of ensuring the stability.  This is enforced over our more primal genes by using these genes against themselves.  Fear of a higher spirit compels these genes to fight against what they were designed to do in order to create a society in which people work together.

Now, in saying this, I am not disagreeing with you. There is nothing wrong with people doing what they wish for personal growth. It is only up to the individual to decide what will fill their life and make living worthwhile.  For you, for instance, it seems to be gloating intelligence and making others believe what you have to say.  There's nothing wrong with that, for my goals are along the same lines.  But for the religious, it may fill them to be so, because religion was designed for that purpose.  It fills people's lives so that it seems insane  to them to do anything else other than that.

This all being said, it simply come down to what is best for the species versus what is 'best' for the individual.  What is best for the species is for it to flourish with cooperation, while what is best for the individual is normally quite the opposite of that which is best for society.  Thus, a war erupts.  The despotism which is best for the species fights with the anarchy which is best for the individual, resulting in the stalemate of democracy.  This occurs with religion, as well, as people who are religious cease to consider the individual with promises of an eternal afterlife, while those who's more primal genes became more dominant whether it be through breeding or circumstance. These freed people then become closer on the spectrum to atheism, whether it be by becoming less devout theists, becoming agnostics, or refusing to accept any religion.  No choices of this sort are right or wrong, merely a matter of opinion. Atheists themselves are not to blame for stealing, nor theists for trying to maintain their order, and yet you aren't to blame for blaming. It is simply an exercise in the futile, nothing resulting in anything, as when too much freedom arises, the species collapses and becomes devout once more; or the species becomes devout until it's habitual, in which case the primal traits arise again. So to argue either case is neither right nor wrong in the end, just play to what you will.

>>28
I'll begin with the basis of religion. Darwin's basic rule is "survival of the fittest", and everyone knows that.  But this is not survival of a single species, it's the survival of a race.
Wrong beyond belief.

Also, not everything has to be adaptive. Religion almost certainly is not.

>>29
I'll admit I stated that in a terrible manner. "It's not the survival of a single organism, it's the survival of a species." is what I meant to say. A bee versus a hive, for example. Also, if something endures for any period of time, it adapts, or else is overcome by something which does not adapt. Perhaps if you'd read my rambling in its entirety, you'd see the evidence behind religion's adaptation. Last of all, a troll of your quality belongs in Barrens chat, not 4chan....

"It's not the survival of a single organism, it's the survival of a species." is what I meant to say.
That's still wrong. Group selection was shown to be bullshit decades ago. Selection happens strictly on the gene level.

A bee versus a hive, for example.
That's a very specific example that complicates matters even more. Since most bees in a hive are clones of each other, I'm not sure it even makes sense to consider a bee to be an individual rather than just an extension of a large organism, the hive.

Also, if something endures for any period of time, it adapts, or else is overcome by something which does not adapt. Perhaps if you'd read my rambling in its entirety, you'd see the evidence behind religion's adaptation.
You didn't understand what I meant when I said religion probably isn't adaptive.
"Adaptive" does not mean "having the power to adapt". It means "something that gives the possessor of said trait an edge over individuals that don't possess it". You were claiming religion was adaptive in that sense (by claiming religious societies are necessarily more orderly, which is very obviously bullshit; the most religious society in the West also has the highest murder rate, and disproportionately high crime rates), and that's what I was taking issue with.
The origin and popularity of religion are well understood side-effects of the way our brain works, and it isn't a deleterious enough a trait to have been selected against (genetically or memetically) strongly in the amount of time it's been around.

Yes, big whoop, religions evolve, and the possess traits that are adaptive for their own memetic purposes. That doesn't mean religion itself is an adaptive trait.

Last of all, a troll of your quality belongs in Barrens chat, not 4chan....
BAWWWWWW!

Fun fact: people calling you on your bullshit != trolling.

>>31
The "not organism survival, species survival" is not entirely wrong. Evolution does not select on "survival", but rather on reproductive success. Imagine an organism is born with lifespan equal to half the normal lifespan of its species, but it reproduces five time as many offspring as the average member of its species does. This organism obviously doesn't "survive" as well as normal members of its species, but it is better from the evolutionary point of view.

>>32
So the only part of it that's "not entirely wrong" is the bit about organism survival not being a factor. Since the point of mentioning it was to go on to say species survival is, it's still profoundly wrong.

>>1
Religious propaganda detected.  According to you, atheist = 100% egoistic asshole.  This is utterly wrong, not only because there are lots of humanists among atheists but also because altruistic behaviour («group egoism») is ultimately more effective (it was actually proven).

>>34
The fact that you call it ``group egoism'' leads me to believe you don't understand the causes of altruistic behavior.
You're right when you say you don't need religion for it, though.

>>31
First of all, calling something bullshit does nothing at all to disprove it. Second, allow me to quote the definition of adaptive straight from 'Webster's New College Dictionary: adaptive - capable of, suitable for, or tending toward adaptation. So, no, adaptive does not mean "something that gives the possessor of said trait an edge over individuals that don't possess it", nor is it even the noun you described it as. Third, I cannot stress enough how correct I am on the matter of species' survival. First,I'll note that "survival of the fittest" and 'natural selection' are the same thing. Now, let me quote directly from Wikipedia's page on natural selection. "Natural Selection is the process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes." This means that traits in a species which allow the species as a whole to grow in population become more popular among the species. Now, in my earlier reference, I compared religion to a trait of this sort in that it brings stability to a society through enforcement of principles which increase reproduction and cut down on the chaos. If you have any arguments against that statement, please provide citation to back it up, because a statement from someone mistaken for a troll isn't much evidence. So, here's a full list of what you need to do:

1. Cite evidence that no order is brought forth by religion, because it is most certainly not "obviously bullshit"

2. Stop using the word bullshit as evidence, it makes you look terrible.

3. Go to a local store and purchase one dictionary, so perhaps you'll not make yourself look like an idiot again.

4. Go to Google and search for natural selection; you obviously have no idea what it is.

5. Act like an adult so you won't be mistaken for a 10-year-old troll again.

>>36
So, no, adaptive does not mean "something that gives the possessor of said trait an edge over individuals that don't possess it", nor is it even the noun you described it as.
And now see if you can figure out what the word means in the context of evolutionary biology.

This means that traits in a species which allow the species as a whole to grow in population become more popular among the species.
And again you're getting confused. The reproductive success of individuals has nothing to do with the growth of the population as a whole.

1. Cite evidence that no order is brought forth by religion, because it is most certainly not "obviously bullshit"
Learn to fucking read. I didn't say religion doesn't bring forth order, I said it's not necessary for order, and there's no evidence religious societies are more orderly than non-religious ones.

2. Stop using the word bullshit as evidence, it makes you look terrible.
I'm not. I'm using it to point out when what you're saying is bullshit.

3. Go to a local store and purchase one dictionary, so perhaps you'll not make yourself look like an idiot again.
Welcome to /sci/, where people use words as they're used in scientific contexts. I realise this is new to you.

4. Go to Google and search for natural selection; you obviously have no idea what it is.
That's rich, coming from someone who believes in group selection.

In conclusion, lurk moar, faggot. If you want to bring evolution into this argument, make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about. The five minutes you spent with Wikipedia aren't going to cut it.

frosted butts

Alright, adaptive in the context of evolutionary biology has the exact same meaning. If an organism or species is adaptive, it is capable of adapting...and that's all it means. I don't care what you or any other scientist THINKS it means, that is what it means, so says any dictionary.

Now, let's assume an individual hasn't the capability to reproduce. This will affect the population of the species as a whole. Wherein it may have been able to produce five offspring, it now produces zero, thereby effectively reducing the population by five. Also, if individuals make up the species, and the individuals don't effect the species, then what is this second element affecting the population?

Last, instead of

You said religion doesn't necessarily bring order. I'm not sure what you meant by necessarily, seeing as it is an adjective and you used it to describe a verb. So learn a tad of grammar so you may clearly get your message across.

Yes, you are using the word bullshit as evidence. When you have no evidence contradicting something, and then point out its incorrectness using a word, then that word becomes the only evidence of said contradiction.

Words have no meaning other than that in the dictionary. Some scientists are simply so pretentious as to believe they can create new definitions for words, and they should be ignored.

Lastly, I've not proposed that group selection is entirely correct. Whole groups aren't selected; individuals are selected based on what allows them to reproduce most. Seeing as individuals make up the species, this will benefit the species as a whole. So, stop telling me what I believe; it's a terrible sort of assumption.

>>39
<<Words have no meaning other than that in the dictionary. Some scientists are simply so pretentious as to believe they can create new definitions for words, and they should be ignored.>>

I don't think it's pretentiousness. It's perfectly fine for a scientist or mathematician to use a word that means something similar to what he wants, as long as he makes his redefinition clear. For instance, in mathematics we say a set is "open", not because, like an open door you can somehow "go through" it, but for some other (specific) definition. In fact the fundamental definition will vary slightly between various forms of mathematics, but in general we always know what we're talking about.

The problem only occurs when ignorant members of the public pick up on such words and take them for their dictionary meaning. A good example is Marx's redefinition of the word "exploitation", which has led to a widespread misinterpretation of politics and human nature, namely Communism.

>>39
Underage b&.
The grown-ups are talking, kid. GTFO.

You're way out of your league here.

>>39
Jesus fucking Christ, you had better be trolling, nigger.
No wonder /sci/ is going down the shitter.

>>40
You do make a point, but in 37's case, he did not clearly redefine the word, and while I agree with you in saying that scientist may use words in abstract manners, they may not assume that the previous definition is incorrect. This is the sort of pretentious attitude I'm referring to.
>>41
Actually, I believe you should grow up a tad. You've contributed nothing, only repeated an over-used statement in an effort to attack me. Please, focus on yourself, and perhaps some day you'll have the intelligence to make a valid argument.
>>42
I'm not sure why your parents let you on 4chan or if they know you cuss, but that's really no way for a 10-year-old to act. Oh, and actually, /sci/ is turning to crap because of these bash posts; they do nothing to contribute and make this community look like a lot of squabbling monkeys. I'll give you the same advice as 41. Focus on yourself, perhaps see if WalMart has any common sense in stock, just whatever it takes. Until then, stick to /b/.

>>43
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ZXcVsqNGQ&feature=related
haha your talking me you shitfaced cockmaster how fucking smart are u to have the courage to diss me over the internet acting all tough and shit man give me ur address i will cut ur ass up. HEres mine edmonds, washington 202 9th Ave. S. 98020 IF you want to do some real shit then shut me up but if not fuck my balls