Forum

The topic of Eternal Life has been brought up in another forum. SInce it's not actually particularly relevant to the original topic, but worth of note, I thought I'd make a couple comments on it here. I think that many theists who desire eternal life haven't really thought about what such a concept means. What would it really mean to "live forever"? First, let's be honest about something. Death is something that none of us are looking forward to. The desire to live, is ingrained in us for very biological reasons. However, is eternal life such a great thing? One of the things that makes life so precious is the fact that we have so finite an amount of it. We only have a small amount of time. To waste it, is a tragedy. Think of something like money. If you only have 50 dollars to your name, every penny matters, it's important. If you have an infinite amount of money, it doesn't mean much to you. Think too if you knew you would only have a day left with your parent or spouse, how would you view that time you had left? Precious. Every second. Precious. If you had an infinity? Then there's the problem of what infinity actually means. Let's assume that you love to do something, say... have sex with your spouse. Now, if you live for infinity, we can postulate that after a certain amount of time, say 1 to the 1000 power years (a number we can't even begin to comprehend) you would still have an infinity of time to ahead of you to make love to your wife. By this time you may have made love to your wife 1 to the 10000000 power times. There's still an infinity of time ahead of you. How do you feel about that? Part of the specialness of an event is in the acknowledgment that we only have a finite amount of time to experience such an event. Infinity is a cruel master. You could do everything you love to do an infinite amount of times and if you were talking about an infinite amount of time, you would still have an infinity ahead of you. That's depressing. Now, of course, it's possible that god could just tweak us so that we are happy no matter what... might as well just shoot us full of happy drugs and be done with it. What's the point of being mindlessly happy? Isn't it the fact that sometimes we aren't happy that makes the times we are, special? No. The preciousness of life is in it's finiteness. I don't find the idea of eternal life a very attractive one.

Tell us what your music taste is like, what your favorite bands are and what song in particular you would recommend to us.I like a little bit of everything, though mostly rock and you won't catch me listening to a style that isn't 'mainstream'.I really like U2 (yes I know quite some of their music is religiously motivated ) and recently I've been listening to Pink Floyd alot, courtesy of my father who is a big fan. I also like Toto, Supertramp, Foreigner and some more.. In particular the 80s have turned out to be a goldmine of music for me.If I would have to recommend a song, I'd say Time by Pink Floyd. The lyrics aren't so deep that I'm left wondering what it's all about, but it still puts me thinking in a good way.In particular this live version is excellent IMO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntm1YfehK7U

Hi, thought I'd open a topic on challenges - whether new challenges are wanted, if people have ideas on WHO we should challenge, and whether we should open new team matches, vote matches, or both. And how many. I'm looking at a couple of potential teams to challenge - "Team Lutheran" would fit our religion-challenge-theme nicely, and I thought it would be appropriate for the Godless to challenge "Chess Goddess" - who knows, maybe they can make believers out of us. So, what do you think? Eager to participate in new challenges?

Whilest making myself a cheese sandwich it occurred to me that have the assumption that more atheists are liberal minded politically than conservative. My experience would have to be the only reason I would think this because I doubt a poll has ever been taken, but I think it interesting. In the United States, conservatism has had a direct link to the christian right. This need not have been the case, but this is the state of affairs we find ourselves in today. A conservative in the vain of Edmund Burke could very well be an atheist, but that person would be surrounded by religious zealots if they were a member of the Republican party in the U.S. I personally am on the far left of the spectrum politically. All of the atheists I know may not be as liberal as myself, but they could never be considered conservative. Share your thoughts and experiences. One thing that interests me in this thread is that I believe that if one actually followed the doctrines of Christ they would be liberally minded yet I find myself in opposition of most Christians politically yet surrounded by "immoral" atheists.

Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LtiyefHCe4 Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afsa5gkvmlU

A skeptic is a person inclined to doubt all accepted opinions, and today the word has strong connotations pertaining to atheism and agnosticism. In this essay, however, skepticism is only the ability to take all factual proclamations with a beneficial amount of salt. A healthy degree of skepticism can come about in two ways: naturally or logically. Note that these two paths are not mutually exclusive. This essay will only focus on natural skepticism because it is far more powerful than logical skepticism. By definition, however, it only comes about through life experiences. The goal of this essay is to lay out the necessities for emulating the causes of natural skepticism through entertainment. Before learning what to think, one must learn how to think. Natural skepticism is more potent than logical skepticism because it invariably becomes intrinsic to a person’s reasoning. Instinctive and natural, as opposed to logical, skepticism of the stories and evidence of pseudoscientific claims is more likely to prevent waste of resources. Most importantly, increasing society’s degree of natural skepticism is more effective in increasing skepticism of religion. The following, to start us off, is a list of experiences that may produce natural skepticism in people, with varying specificity and hopefully a semblance of order: · Examining arguments for skepticism. (as noted earlier, they’re not mutually exclusive) · Learning that a practical claim learned from a close friend or relative (who usually heard it from a close friend/relative who usually heard it from a close friend/relative) is false when tested. This is the purpose of the TV show “Mythbusters” and podcast “Skeptoid”, and is why scientists, with their constantly changing fields, are usually skeptics. · Learning that a statement or preconceived notion that has been accepted and followed unquestioningly for a long time is either false or holds a far deeper meaning than previously thought. · Learning that a part or the whole of the religion that has been believed in (having followed it is optional) for a long amount of time is false. This is why it is difficult to find a non-religious person believing in pseudoscience. · Learning that a story that was accepted as true is false. · For learning that X which is A important and accepted B strongly for C amount of time is false, skepticism is increased by A * B * C. The corollary, for learning that X is true, is that skepticism is slightly (A * B * 0.2) decreased. These equations are arbitrary; anyone who wants should attempt to come up with a full mathematical system.

In light of the recent complaint of former teammate EV13 I thought it may be fun to see if we could come with something nice to say about the religious and or their religions. I'll start by saying that the Catholic church as become a great advocate for the interests of the poor and the poorer nations. It may be that their largest congregations are now centered in very poor areas of the world, but even taking that into account it is still nice to see. Let the positivity begin!

[COMMENT DELETED]

I posted something on the open forum recently, and thought that I'd post it here also, as it is probably of interest to the godless. It's a pair of videos by an ex-christian (Theramintrees - the same guy who made the horror-clip I linked to in another thread) who offers a very insightful analysis of his path from a Christian belief to atheism, and the psychology of that process. Part one Part two I could find much to relate to in that, as his reasons for becoming an atheist mirror mine, though the process took longer in me than in Theramintrees.

As one of the lower rated members of this group I still vote we accept the challenge from the other group for the match named "I love god and he is real" or whatever its called anyone else with me?

We need a political battle plan. What should we do to combat social conservatism? It is a battle that is won every generation by the social liberals, whether they be the emancipators of the civil war, suffragists for the right to vote, or today's gay marriage activists. The social zeitgeist continually turns more and more liberal, if history continues itself--but there must always be fighters to lead the pack such as Thomas Jefferson (and all the rest of the founders), Bertrand Russell, Abraham Lincoln, or Martin Luther King Jr. Although they only had the gist of what their plans for social change would cause or entail, they most certainly had plans. And we must have plans too, if our movement is to succeed. There are many questions to tackle, and I want to start by asking only two. What kind of change should we focus on? Today, religion is the primary force behind virtually all the ideas of social conservatives--but the fact that there are quite a few religious liberals casts doubt on the opinion of many of us--that religion is the most important battleground in today's political world. How do we instigate social change? Support for liberalism can only be gradually fostered. The Reconstruction Era society of America could not possibly be ready for the civil rights acts of the 1960s, but today we look at those changes with pride. Society had only passed approximately three generations, and yet so much change had occurred. Today, we must write books, make movies, and of course, get some openly non-religious politicians into our governments. So what else, and how will we do it?

Hi I believe that in an N possibility universe, assuming absolute truth, specially under the human condition, is not just arrogant but mathematically incorrect. That cleared up, i want to express that i think everyone has the right to believe in flying tunas, Santa, the tooth fairy, and a homo centric universal order. I think humanoid father figure faith played its part in the early stages of society. Now its just mainstream entertainment. My whole family is church goin, god fearin, testifin, xtans. And that's fine by me. They don't preach to me, i don't preach to them. Its all peace. I don't really like to engage in religious disputes. Its pointless. There are more important things to do. Life is way too short a ride to complain with the guy next to you about how sh***y the seats are. My gods are the sun, the stars, and the oceans. And i know they're not. I consider myself a positive nihilist.

This really doesn't have much to do with the existence of God, but I think it is a bit interesting nonetheless. Last night I was driving down the road for the last time on my motorcycle and was thinking about just how frightening it is to be moving down the road at 70 mph with little to no protection. Cars have seat belts, airbags, steel frames, and various other safety features yet thousands die in auto crashes each year while the motorcyclist has at most a helmet and a tough jacket. After thinking about this I became quite certain that I was doing a very brave thing indeed, but then I started to question my new found bravery. If many other people ride motorcycles without feeling fear then it can't be all that courageous can it? Today, while at the zoo the question was raised in a different way byy my daughter. She is only 2, but she was frightened of a statue that spits water. Finally, she built up enough courage and ran over and touched it. This got me thinking again about what can be classified as a courageous act. Obviously, I wasn't afraid of touching the statue, but that shouldn't take away from the courage she showed in overcoming her fear of the statue should it? Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines courage as, "mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty". Riding a motorcycle or touching a water spewing statue may not meet this definition to some, but I am starting to think that the defining of an action as "courageous" merely depends on the thoughts and actions of the one doing the action rather than on the opinion of onlookers. The only requirement then that I can see for an action to be classified as courageous is that the person must feel themselves to be in a fearful, difficult, or dangerous position and then must still act regardless of those feelings. A entity, person or otherwise, that has no fear can do nothing that could be labeled as courageous because they have not overcame any of those things. On the other side though, a entity that always is afraid of everything may actually commit large amounts of courageous acts just going through the motions of everyday life. I am not claiming that any of this is all that revolutionary, or even correct for that matter, but it is kind of fun to think about.

I was raised a catholic and was a believer until the age of 17. I've always wondered about one thing - Jesus dying on the cross "saved" us, but how? So God was sitting up there, we butchered his only kid and then he goes, "Right - the gates of Heaven are now open"? Perhaps this is better posed to a christian but I'd be interested on any views from this group.

Here I was, about to start a friendly chess.com group for nonbelievers, and I found this group. Instead of going ahead with my plans, I decided to join up. So far I've enjoyed what I've read and hope to contribute as much as I can. I'm a former Christian and currently atheist, and although I've learned not to rule out the possibility of shifting my own beliefs someday (after all, I've already done it once), I strongly feel like this is where I'll be for the rest of my life. I plan to share my story on here, but until then, thanks for putting the group together and I look forward to chatting with you all. -Johnathan

Hi, everyone! Just curious whether any of you have had similar thoughts. I have for many years considered myself an Agnostic, mainly because I think that proving God's existence (or non-) is simply impossible. But every once in a while I feel as though there is a God and many sub-Gods under him/her/it. And these sub-Gods are given charge of various Universes. We here on Planet Earth are simply the "rats" in our sub-Gods' laboratory. As scientists come up with all kinds of factors that they put in the rats' and mice's life in proving one thing or another, so these sub-Gods might send us an assortment of travails (tornadoes, hurricanes, diseases) or inject us with one or another of some disability or genius to test us against the "norm", whatever that might be. I could go on and on with this idea, but I think you get what I mean. I know this is way out, but have any of you ever wondered something like that?

The bag bird was always meant to be tentative so it is time to get some new ideas for the picture representing the group. Post ideas in this forum and then we can come up with a way to vote on the group's favorite. For the record, I still think the bag bird is a good picture for this group. I refuse to believe in a god that will get my nephew an i-pod when he prays for it or my next door neighbor a promotion at his shitty job, but will leave this bird stuck in a damn bag.

And for once I talked to them - well one of them - the other just stood and watched. They were leading on 'why does god allow suffering', although when I asked them which branch of theodicy they adhered to - the free will defence, for example - they didn't seem to follow me. But they had a little pamphlet, which apparently had an answer to all my questions, which was nice. And would I like to take it and read it? No thanks. So he found me the page where the rebellious student (Satan) was being allowed by the teacher (God) to write on the blackboard so that everybody could see how wrong he was - rather than just sending him out of the room, when the question may remain in doubt. I observed that rather than letting Satan write on the blackboard, God appeared to have let Satan murder half the class, while He wandered off to the the staffroom for 6000 years for a cup of tea and a cigarette. I mean, how many more wars and diseases before this point is made? Anyway, I am quite pleased with the whole experience. I got in a good point about if there were a God he would surely, however small his influence, be bringing the sects back together, rather than driving them all further apart. And I observed that persuading people to refuse transfusions when they need them is morally similar to killing them in cold blood - grievously and irredeemably evil. The JW said he wasn't trying to persuade anyone. I'm not convinced that was entirely true. I tried to involve the other JW a bit in the conversation because he would have found it hard to get a word in edgeways. But he just agreed with his mate, albeit not in a way that can be easily articulated. Anyway it was most agreeable. I hope they come back soon.

Hey all, In my many discussions/arguments that I've had with my creationist friends and family, I've come across a question that seems to stump them, or at least they aren't willing to answer. It's simply this "What would it take for you to accept the fact of evolution. What kind of evidence do you require?" I've only had one person ever give me a straight, truthful answer. They admitted they would need a time machine. What's been your experience? Have any of you asked this of your creationist friends, and if you did, what was their answer? I believe most are unwilling to answer this question because they're afraid it's possible to produce whatever evidence they state they need. That's just a hunch though.

The first group member tournament is winding down and I am wondering if there is enough interest to get some more Godless exclusive tournaments started. I am uncertain if there are enough of us at different levels to warrant multiple tournaments with level restrictions or if we should just have a large free for all. Regardless, if we want a tournament that has more than 10 players one of our platinum or diamond members will have to get it going.