Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Atheism, a Philosophy of Despair

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Without God you have no hope of redemption or healing. All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die. You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death. There is no point to life under atheism. What meaning is there to life in a world with no salvation or redemption? Nothing. I don't think it's possible to live as an atheist. Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young. Oh wait you can't, lol. Atheism is death.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 8:17:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of or healing.

Modern medicine.

All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die.

Religion doesn't solve this either.

You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death.

You can't prove or disprove the existence of free will, plus you aren't even explaining why atheists have no free will. Oh, and also modern medicine helps with the sickness, and religion still has to cope with death.

There is no point to life under atheism.

Sex, science, or whatever the atheist chooses.

What meaning is there to life in a world with no salvation or redemption?

Already stated.

Nothing. I don't think it's possible to live as an atheist.

My quite alive atheist friend, and a nice chunk of the world's population would disagree.

Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young. Oh wait you can't, lol. Atheism is death.

Yeah.... about that... I can give you a nice list... http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:24:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of redemption or healing. All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die. You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death. There is no point to life under atheism. What meaning is there to life in a world with no salvation or redemption? Nothing. I don't think it's possible to live as an atheist. Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young. Oh wait you can't, lol. Atheism is death.

Well most of this is an attack against naturalism and not atheism... Atheism generally is just a denial of God, not necessarily anything supernatural. Although, that usually follows from atheism.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 1:16:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of redemption or healing.

Yes there is. The redemption deals with each other, and we heal each other with medicine.

All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die.

Essentially. So?

You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death.

You can break away from sickness in some cases, but no, not death. Once you die, that's it..

There is no point to life under atheism.

I haven't killed myself yet, even though I know I will die, and the universe will die, and that we are insignificant in the universe. I'm still happy. It's called not being a baby, and facing reality for what it is. You can look at the universe and tell we were an accident in a universe not meant for us. The universe is mostly deadly and not bio-friendly, and extremely bizarre. Its as if we shouldn't be here; we are freaks of nature.

What meaning is there to life in a world with no salvation or redemption? Nothing.

Whatever meaning you want to give it. In an ultimate sense; there is no meaning. We are just a bunch of advanced apes on a floating sphere, tucked away in a random galaxy, in a sea of countless galaxies... In strange and bizarre universe. Why does reality owe us an afterlife? Because were scared of death? Purely wishful thinking.

I don't think it's possible to live as an atheist.

I live as an Atheist, as do all Atheists.

Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young.

Bertrand Russell... One of the greatest logicians and philosophers, lived and died as an Atheist. I can name tons...

Oh wait you can't, lol. Atheism is death.

I just did. Also, Atheism is life....Until you die.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 1:21:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I cared about what made me feel good, I would be a theist. I only care about what's true. Atheism may be a philosophy of despair, but so what? It's true. I want my beliefs to be true, I don't want my beliefs to be based on emotional reasons. No sh*t Theism is a more hopeful picture than Atheism; its still false.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 2:37:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 1:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I cared about what made me feel good, I would be a theist. I only care about what's true.
Atheism may be a philosophy of despair, but so what? It's true.
Can you please explain your truth in term of your self's reality.
I want my beliefs to be true, I don't want my beliefs to be based on emotional reasons.
No sh*t Theism is a more hopeful picture than Atheism; its still false.
Can "false" have the power of "hope"?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 2:40:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young.

Quentin Smith
A.J. Ayer
Simone de Beauvoir
Jeremy Bentham
Alain Badiou
Rudolf Carnap
Auguste Comte
Donald Davidson
Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach
William Godwin
Baron d'Holbach (
Kai Nielsen
Willard Van Orman Quine
Ayn Rand
John Rawls
Alex Rosenberg
Michael Ruse
Betrand Russel
Arthur Schopenhauer
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 3:21:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 2:40:50 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young.

Quentin Smith
A.J. Ayer
Simone de Beauvoir
Jeremy Bentham
Alain Badiou
Rudolf Carnap
Auguste Comte
Donald Davidson
Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach
William Godwin
Baron d'Holbach (
Kai Nielsen
Willard Van Orman Quine
Ayn Rand
John Rawls
Alex Rosenberg
Michael Ruse
Betrand Russel
Arthur Schopenhauer

John Anderson
Hector Avalos (still alive. Pretty old)
A.J. Ayers.

I'm way too lazy to continue this list. Here is a Wikipedia link with year of birth and death for each of them. Most of them are either still living or lived pretty long.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 9:02:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of redemption or healing. All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die. You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death. There is no point to life under atheism. What meaning is there to life in a world with no salvation or redemption? Nothing. I don't think it's possible to live as an atheist. Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young. Oh wait you can't, lol. Atheism is death.

Well really your points are rather flawed. Redemption is not some fundamental aspect of reality, it's a man created, faith based goal. You have no help of redemption either if it does not exist. As for healing, that make no sense. I have had numerous surgeries and have healed, I have many mental scars that are healed as well. There is no need for a deity to heal.

Same as free will. If it exists we all have it, if not then none of us have it. It has absolutely nothing to do with atheism vs theism.

I know atheists who have lived long and theists who die vey young.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 7:37:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of redemption or healing. All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die. You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death. There is no point to life under atheism. What meaning is there to life in a world with no salvation or redemption? Nothing. I don't think it's possible to live as an atheist. Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young. Oh wait you can't, lol. Atheism is death.

Oh but if God exists, suddenly it all becomes meaningful ? Is that what you think ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 9:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of redemption or healing. All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die. You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death. There is no point to life under atheism. What meaning is there to life in a world with no salvation or redemption? Nothing. I don't think it's possible to live as an atheist. Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young. Oh wait you can't, lol. Atheism is death.

The meaning of life is subjective, and it has always been that way. There would never be such a great search for the answer unless there were multiple interpretations. Overall, however, on the universal scale, life does not have meaning - your body is the product of 14 billion years of universal development and will dissolve in another 100 back into the universe. Further, the question of free will plagues theists as well as atheists, because an omnipotent God would already know your life path before you were even born, and therefore whether or not you are going to heaven or hell. Your body makes decisions based on the chemical nature of your brain, and that applies to people of any religion or no religion. The problems of meaning and free will transcend religion - all religion does is put a veil over them.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 5:19:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2013 8:17:11 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of or healing.

Modern medicine.
This is actually not as true as you have been taught to think.
Modern "medicine" is a business first. The pills you take in do not heal, they are almost all literal poison to you first. 90% or so health problems (cancers, asthma, heart problems, etc.) are curable with switching to the right diet without taking any pills or any extra substances. Most tumors and cancers would go away as well with eating the right diet (body no longer bombarded with constant toxins accompanied by the body getting all the nutrients it needs). It is good for pharmaceutical sector for you to be sick, simply to be sick and never get well yet not die either, that way you keep shoveling money toward them for things you don't in reality even need.

All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die.

Religion doesn't solve this either.

For something to be solved it should first be a problem. Individual death is a natural part of life.
There is malfunctioning only if the body doesn't die of natural causes. In modern times that would be the wrong food almost the entire humanity consumes, making over decades their bodies fail, encumbered with toxins in a lack of essential nutrients.
You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death.

Oh, and also modern medicine helps with the sickness, and religion still has to cope with death.
Modern medicine helps people stay sick more than heal them. And religion still has to cope with reality itself, not just death, and if it did why have religion at all...

There is no point to life under atheism.

Sex, science, or whatever the atheist chooses.
That would be individual point.
There is as well the fundamental "goal" of life - survival. We aren't, as a species, completely free of it yet. And hopefully never will...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 7:35:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 5:19:51 AM, nummi wrote:
At 11/30/2013 8:17:11 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of or healing.

Modern medicine.
This is actually not as true as you have been taught to think.
Modern "medicine" is a business first. The pills you take in do not heal, they are almost all literal poison to you first. 90% or so health problems (cancers, asthma, heart problems, etc.) are curable with switching to the right diet without taking any pills or any extra substances. Most tumors and cancers would go away as well with eating the right diet (body no longer bombarded with constant toxins accompanied by the body getting all the nutrients it needs). It is good for pharmaceutical sector for you to be sick, simply to be sick and never get well yet not die either, that way you keep shoveling money toward them for things you don't in reality even need.

Typical anti-corporate B.S. While I know what you are saying has some factual basis on the grounds of tolerance build up, the truth is, is that humans wouldn't be as healthy as we are without medicine. No matter how good you diet is, I highly doubt you can out-survive people who use medicine in cases of cancer, heart attack, and other potentially fatal diseases, not to mention type I diabetes, which requires that the person be given external non-food chemicals to live. No amount of diet helps that.

All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die.

Religion doesn't solve this either.

For something to be solved it should first be a problem. Individual death is a natural part of life.
There is malfunctioning only if the body doesn't die of natural causes. In modern times that would be the wrong food almost the entire humanity consumes, making over decades their bodies fail, encumbered with toxins in a lack of essential nutrients.

Natural causes is still malfunctioning, since it has to do with your body getting too weak to support itself. Similar to how certain parts in a machine wear out after a while, which causes the whole machine to fail.

You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death.

Oh, and also modern medicine helps with the sickness, and religion still has to cope with death.
Modern medicine helps people stay sick more than heal them. And religion still has to cope with reality itself, not just death, and if it did why have religion at all...

Religion copes with reality? I mean, unless you are referring to the churches bills, a religion is basically entirely founded on the transcendent.


There is no point to life under atheism.

Sex, science, or whatever the atheist chooses.
That would be individual point.
There is as well the fundamental "goal" of life - survival. We aren't, as a species, completely free of it yet. And hopefully never will...

It didn't specify the context of the point, it just had to be "under atheism", but yes, those too would be points.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 9:07:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 7:35:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/24/2013 5:19:51 AM, nummi wrote:
At 11/30/2013 8:17:11 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of or healing.

Modern medicine.
This is actually not as true as you have been taught to think.
Modern "medicine" is a business first. The pills you take in do not heal, they are almost all literal poison to you first. 90% or so health problems (cancers, asthma, heart problems, etc.) are curable with switching to the right diet without taking any pills or any extra substances. Most tumors and cancers would go away as well with eating the right diet (body no longer bombarded with constant toxins accompanied by the body getting all the nutrients it needs). It is good for pharmaceutical sector for you to be sick, simply to be sick and never get well yet not die either, that way you keep shoveling money toward them for things you don't in reality even need.

Typical anti-corporate B.S. While I know what you are saying has some factual basis on the grounds of tolerance build up, the truth is, is that humans wouldn't be as healthy as we are without medicine. No matter how good you diet is, I highly doubt you can out-survive people who use medicine in cases of cancer, heart attack, and other potentially fatal diseases, not to mention type I diabetes, which requires that the person be given external non-food chemicals to live. No amount of diet helps that.

Typical anti-corporate B.S.? That's very biased of you.

Humans being "as healthy as we are" has in reality nothing to do with medicine. It has everything to do with what we eat and have eaten, and the changes of diet throughout history.
The decline of health began when humans began cooking food. Honestly, for millions of years they had fed on raw foods, mostly meats, their bodies had evolved to use that food efficiently. And then came cooking, I'll just assume you are aware enough to know what cooking does to nutrients in food, and all else.
Then at one point they began consuming grains - another blow to health. I'm sure you've seen very fat people, that's grains for you.
Then came milk and dairy, although not as bad when consumed raw, still some people were and still are allergic. Then there's the pasteurized variants... as a result severe lactose-intolerance was created, aside the common effects of cooked food.
And then - now - processed foods, chemicals, extremely over-cooked foods, etc. An average person consumes near to nothing what our bodies have evolved to use over millions of years. As a result all these "fatal" illnesses that in truth are caused by nothing but wrong diet, and as a cure in most cases is switching to the right diet.

Those "fatal" diseases are fatal because those diseases are sustained by wrong diets. Diabetes is curable, again, with switching to the right diet. The body needs undamaged nutrients, without unnecessary toxins, to heal. But sure, once damage is done while eating wrong it might not always be 100% cured. Either way, first step must always, in case of every single illness, be switching to the right diet. If diet alone does not cure completely, then should look for more solutions.
What do most "doctors" suggest to their patients? Pills and medicines without a word about diet. Modern "medicine" deals with symptoms only, it doesn't care about the actual cause, nor does it care to treat the cause. There are some exceptions, some doctors who do care and actually do their best to help people, but very little.

You are what you eat. If you eat food that is partially disintegrated and destroyed by heat then you will be the same in comparison - partially damaged and not working right. Got personal experience with this.

Something to read and think over:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
And a lot more in that forum.

All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die.

Religion doesn't solve this either.

For something to be solved it should first be a problem. Individual death is a natural part of life.
There is malfunctioning only if the body doesn't die of natural causes. In modern times that would be the wrong food almost the entire humanity consumes, making over decades their bodies fail, encumbered with toxins in a lack of essential nutrients.

Natural causes is still malfunctioning, since it has to do with your body getting too weak to support itself. Similar to how certain parts in a machine wear out after a while, which causes the whole machine to fail.

That machine works, and fails. Now imagine you introduce something that doesn't belong to the machine, making it fail even faster. This is the case with humans presently.
It would be malfunctioning if the body was not permeated constantly with crap from "food". That crap is what causes that "malfunctioning". True food, real food, would not cause the body to fail like that; food - something absolutely essential to life - should not cause someone to malfunction the way people do now.
In old age a person should still be fit and full of energy. Bodily functions would and do slow down, become less efficient, but nothing as what is now in general with old people where they are literally too sick.

You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death.

Oh, and also modern medicine helps with the sickness, and religion still has to cope with death.
Modern medicine helps people stay sick more than heal them. And religion still has to cope with reality itself, not just death, and if it did why have religion at all...

Religion copes with reality? I mean, unless you are referring to the churches bills, a religion is basically entirely founded on the transcendent.
What I meant was religion still has not began coping with reality, not to mention a mere aspect of life.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 10:08:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 9:07:30 AM, nummi wrote:
At 12/24/2013 7:35:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:

Typical anti-corporate B.S. While I know what you are saying has some factual basis on the grounds of tolerance build up, the truth is, is that humans wouldn't be as healthy as we are without medicine. No matter how good you diet is, I highly doubt you can out-survive people who use medicine in cases of cancer, heart attack, and other potentially fatal diseases, not to mention type I diabetes, which requires that the person be given external non-food chemicals to live. No amount of diet helps that.

Typical anti-corporate B.S.? That's very biased of you.

Humans being "as healthy as we are" has in reality nothing to do with medicine. It has everything to do with what we eat and have eaten, and the changes of diet throughout history.
The decline of health began when humans began cooking food. Honestly, for millions of years they had fed on raw foods, mostly meats, their bodies had evolved to use that food efficiently. And then came cooking, I'll just assume you are aware enough to know what cooking does to nutrients in food, and all else.

Give up some nutrients to keep yourself from dying of Salmonella.

Then at one point they began consuming grains - another blow to health. I'm sure you've seen very fat people, that's grains for you.

Let me guess, more lies from the health department, seeing as all I've every been told is that grains are good for you?

Then came milk and dairy, although not as bad when consumed raw, still some people were and still are allergic. Then there's the pasteurized variants... as a result severe lactose-intolerance was created, aside the common effects of cooked food.

"Not as bad"? When is drinking milk (aside from when it's moldy) a bad idea?

And then - now - processed foods, chemicals, extremely over-cooked foods, etc. An average person consumes near to nothing what our bodies have evolved to use over millions of years. As a result all these "fatal" illnesses that in truth are caused by nothing but wrong diet, and as a cure in most cases is switching to the right diet.

Hey look, one thing that actually makes a bit of sense.


Those "fatal" diseases are fatal because those diseases are sustained by wrong diets. Diabetes is curable, again, with switching to the right diet.

Not type I. That's genetic, and is known to be basically incurable.

The body needs undamaged nutrients, without unnecessary toxins, to heal. But sure, once damage is done while eating wrong it might not always be 100% cured. Either way, first step must always, in case of every single illness, be switching to the right diet. If diet alone does not cure completely, then should look for more solutions.

Okay, when I get a brain tumor, I'll just switch over to some veggies and see what happens.

What do most "doctors" suggest to their patients? Pills and medicines without a word about diet. Modern "medicine" deals with symptoms only, it doesn't care about the actual cause, nor does it care to treat the cause. There are some exceptions, some doctors who do care and actually do their best to help people, but very little.

It's not that it "doesn't care" it's that it we don't know how to cure the cause. Viral infections, at the moment, can't be cured. Bacterial/fungal infections can and are cured all the time. All doctors care about their patients, and saying otherwise is just silly. You don't spend years and years in medical school just to be apathetically not curing someone of a disease to be rich, you do it because you like to help people get better, and be cured.


You are what you eat. If you eat food that is partially disintegrated and destroyed by heat then you will be the same in comparison - partially damaged and not working right. Got personal experience with this.

I got personal experience that says otherwise, and all the science to tell you that it's a good thing to eat cooked meat. Are you going to start saying that what science says is a lie too?


Something to read and think over:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...

Suggests drinking hydrogen peroxide, which according to the American Cancer Association, has no scientific evidence to support it as a cure for cancer. Not to mention that it's a bit poisonous.

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...

Only half of them have sources, and those are from more-or-less the same source, which is a blog for one thing. For another, there are no credible sources, like major news medias, or science journals. Lastly, there are only about a dozen or two stories on there. That's hardly strong evidence towards the alleged "cures".

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...

One story, therefore possibly an exception. Will probably die of uncooked meat related disease in the end.

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...

Obviously a diet helps with type II diabetes. This is well-known science fact.

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...

Doesn't really say anything with regards to curing diseases.

And a lot more in that forum.

Natural causes is still malfunctioning, since it has to do with your body getting too weak to support itself. Similar to how certain parts in a machine wear out after a while, which causes the whole machine to fail.

That machine works, and fails. Now imagine you introduce something that doesn't belong to the machine, making it fail even faster. This is the case with humans presently.

Somethings also make machines work better. A new program, like a new chemical (drug) can both harm and help something,

It would be malfunctioning if the body was not permeated constantly with crap from "food". That crap is what causes that "malfunctioning". True food, real food, would not cause the body to fail like that; food - something absolutely essential to life - should not cause someone to malfunction the way people do now.

Well of course, but that doesn't mean you have to give up thousands of years of development to get it. Just stop eating McDonalds, and you will live much healthier just by doing that.

In old age a person should still be fit and full of energy. Bodily functions would and do slow down, become less efficient, but nothing as what is now in general with old people where they are literally too sick.

Yet I still know of seniors who run the Boston Marathon. When people get old, it's just natural that they are less and less able to do things. Muscles deteriorate, bones weaken. This isn't what food you put in, this is just nature.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:26:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2013 2:40:50 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young.

Quentin Smith
A.J. Ayer
Simone de Beauvoir
Jeremy Bentham
Alain Badiou
Rudolf Carnap
Auguste Comte
Donald Davidson
Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach
William Godwin
Baron d'Holbach (
Kai Nielsen
Willard Van Orman Quine
Ayn Rand
John Rawls
Alex Rosenberg
Michael Ruse
Betrand Russel
Arthur Schopenhauer

John Stuart mill
Peter Singer
Derek Parfit
Christopher Hitchens
Alfred north Whitehead
Loads more as well. I mean it's not even limited to atheists we like. Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Pol Pot and others.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:30:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2013 7:44:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Without God you have no hope of redemption or healing.

I heal and redeem myself all the time. If you're talking about the god that I think you are, then I'd have no hope of redeeming myself (after life).

All you are is a machine that will malfunction and die.

We malfunction anyway, if that god was real, we'd just be a malfunctioning machine that it created. It is possible that transhumanism could allow us to avoid death.

You can have no free will or do anything to break away from sickness or death.

Free will is a very confusing and funny term. I feel though, that it would be harder for us to exert our will on reality if that puppet-master above existed.

There is no point to life under atheism.

Depends how you look at it. There's as much point as there would be with any gods about as well.

What meaning is there to life in a world with no salvation or redemption?

What meaning is there with those things?

Nothing. I don't think it's possible to live as an atheist.

I am living atheist proof that this statement is incorrect.

Show me any atheist philosopher who hasn't killed themselves or died young. Oh wait you can't, lol. Atheism is death.

Can't we? Define died young?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2013 1:21:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I cared about what made me feel good, I would be a theist. I only care about what's true. Atheism may be a philosophy of despair, but so what? It's true. I want my beliefs to be true, I don't want my beliefs to be based on emotional reasons. No sh*t Theism is a more hopeful picture than Atheism; its still false.

If you cared about what made you feel good then you probably wouldn't follow any of the world's major religions, if any religion. Most mythology is kind of sad, scary and destructive, but some of them can be beneficial for happiness and health (a little bit), or so I believe. I still don't know if I'd be a theist, though.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 10:22:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Humans being "as healthy as we are" has in reality nothing to do with medicine. It has everything to do with what we eat and have eaten, and the changes of diet throughout history.
The decline of health began when humans began cooking food. Honestly, for millions of years they had fed on raw foods, mostly meats, their bodies had evolved to use that food efficiently. And then came cooking, I'll just assume you are aware enough to know what cooking does to nutrients in food, and all else.

Give up some nutrients to keep yourself from dying of Salmonella.
Dying of salmonella is total BS.
I've been eating raw eggs for months, on average 2-3 eggs a day. If eggs give salmonella then where the fvck is it??? I got personal proof, on myself, that it is total BS.

Anyhow, on what do you base the salmonella thing on? You got any evidence? Any at all? What are the conditions of getting the infection? Or you simply repeat what you've heard, what has been brainwashed to people for a long time through commercials, media, etc., without any real evidence behind any of it?

Then at one point they began consuming grains - another blow to health. I'm sure you've seen very fat people, that's grains for you.

Let me guess, more lies from the health department, seeing as all I've every been told is that grains are good for you?

Next time someone says grains are good why not ask for evidence instead of blindly believing what you're told?
And also why not research people who stopped consuming grains, and why, and find out how their life and health changed?
And if you research then be wary because, as you say, "lies from the health department", that's right - lies from the health department.

Then came milk and dairy, although not as bad when consumed raw, still some people were and still are allergic. Then there's the pasteurized variants... as a result severe lactose-intolerance was created, aside the common effects of cooked food.

"Not as bad"? When is drinking milk (aside from when it's moldy) a bad idea?
Milk has never been a grown-up food anyway, not to mention the only milk for meant for humans is that from a human mother's breast. So, yeah...
Milk can and does cause pimples, acne, can and does contribute to other illnesses. But not always, in some cases it can have the opposite effect, that instead it helps heal a problem. But there is no room for milk as a staple food when going for optimal health.

Those "fatal" diseases are fatal because those diseases are sustained by wrong diets. Diabetes is curable, again, with switching to the right diet.
Not type I. That's genetic, and is known to be basically incurable.
It's not genetic. From genetics comes a quality that under wrong conditions, like wrong diet, contributes to the occurrence of the illness. The illness itself is not genetic in any way.

The body needs undamaged nutrients, without unnecessary toxins, to heal. But sure, once damage is done while eating wrong it might not always be 100% cured. Either way, first step must always, in case of every single illness, be switching to the right diet. If diet alone does not cure completely, then should look for more solutions.
Okay, when I get a brain tumor, I'll just switch over to some veggies and see what happens.
Veggies? That proves how much you know about diet and what's good for health - as good as nothing.

What do most "doctors" suggest to their patients? Pills and medicines without a word about diet. Modern "medicine" deals with symptoms only, it doesn't care about the actual cause, nor does it care to treat the cause. There are some exceptions, some doctors who do care and actually do their best to help people, but very little.
It's not that it "doesn't care" it's that it we don't know how to cure the cause.
Of course we do, in most cases, but it would be monetarily suicidal for medical community to admit it, as medicine is business first. Obtaining actual food is much cheaper than drugs.
Just start eating right and the body will fix the problem for you, many examples of people with severe health issues getting healed or to a much better condition through diet only. Most health problems are caused by a wrong diet, the cure for most of those problems is switching to the right diet.

Viral infections, at the moment, can't be cured.
Viral infections are not something to be cured. Those "infections" themselves are a natural cleaning process of the body. And again the body needs necessary nutrients to survive the process, and as well the flow of toxic substances to the body in such massive amounts must cease. There might be some exceptions, some exotic viruses, but the most common ones are not.
In fact, if a person is eating right, as a result the body is working as it should without deficiencies, then getting infected is extremely unlikely.

All doctors care about their patients, and saying otherwise is just silly.
Saying otherwise is fact of reality. I can bring numerous examples from people around me to prove this. Not to mention specific "doctors", by name.

You don't spend years and years in medical school just to be apathetically not curing someone of a disease to be rich, you do it because you like to help people get better, and be cured.
Wrong. Most those who study don't even know what they really want to do with their life, neither will they ever find out. They simply follow examples, unthinking about anything that really matters. They simply follow rules because they've been taught to do that their entire life.
There was a graduate from medical school in my country who said to media that he/she was there to learn how to help people. What he/she found out, while studying, was that the medical community cares nothing for the actual cause of illnesses, that they only deal with the symptoms. He/she was very disappointed.
In medical community only some individuals actually care about helping people, others simply do their "job".

It is also a fact that there are billions upon billions upon billions in money moving in medical world. And it is a fact that people keep consuming drugs without ever really being cured, there are so many examples to give here. If the goal of the medical community was to cure people then why are so many, after years and decades, still in the same condition, still consuming drugs? Shouldn't all those people already be cured? Most all of those people eat the shjtty diet that is considered "normal", and that diet is in most of those cases the cause they are not healing.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 10:27:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You are what you eat. If you eat food that is partially disintegrated and destroyed by heat then you will be the same in comparison - partially damaged and not working right. Got personal experience with this.
I got personal experience that says otherwise, and all the science to tell you that it's a good thing to eat cooked meat. Are you going to start saying that what science says is a lie too?
For you to have personal experience in this you must have been on both diets. Have you? I can say without knowing for sure that you have not. You do not have personal experience in this.

Science that says eating cooked foods is good? Does that science as well have raw dieting in comparison? No, it does not. What it does is claim without any proof at all, because if they actually began searching evidence, they would have to make experiments of both diets, for long periods, and would be obligated to publish the results saying that eating only raw is better in every way. I have personal experience with eating the "normal" diet and raw, guess which one is better for health.

Something to read and think over:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
Suggests drinking hydrogen peroxide, which according to the American Cancer Association, has no scientific evidence to support it as a cure for cancer. Not to mention that it's a bit poisonous.
Not to mention you did not read all of it nor consider really anything... You did notice it is a forum? Like this one, but more specific? Which means there are people with different opinions, however right or wrong. But that you can't find truthful comments from something so simple...

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
Only half of them have sources, and those are from more-or-less the same source, which is a blog for one thing. For another, there are no credible sources, like major news medias, or science journals. Lastly, there are only about a dozen or two stories on there. That's hardly strong evidence towards the alleged "cures".
And the "credible" sources to your "wisdom"? There's none.
What I referred to was personal experience of people who had major, even considered fatal, health problems, and they got cured of them with very easy methods. This was my point, and you oppose and deny the validity of it? Or you think those are lies? Why would simple people who got rid of severe problems with seasy methods lie?

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
One story, therefore possibly an exception. Will probably die of uncooked meat related disease in the end.
You mean die of uncooked meat related diseases like the ones who haven't died over decades of consuming uncooked meats, and are in fact in much better health than any other person with a "normal" diet? Get your facts straight, you're talking from complete credulity and ignorance here.

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com...
Obviously a diet helps with type II diabetes. This is well-known science fact.
You're suggesting it wouldn't help with type one?

Somethings also make machines work better. A new program, like a new chemical (drug) can both harm and help something,
Those things, are they added when the machine is contaminated, or when it is clean?
For a chemical drug to actually help, the person must already be on the right diet. This is not the case with majority of humans.

It would be malfunctioning if the body was not permeated constantly with crap from "food". That crap is what causes that "malfunctioning". True food, real food, would not cause the body to fail like that; food - something absolutely essential to life - should not cause someone to malfunction the way people do now.
Well of course, but that doesn't mean you have to give up thousands of years of development to get it. Just stop eating McDonalds, and you will live much healthier just by doing that.
You're suggesting that eating part raw and part cooked diet for thousands of years removes the body's ability to consume only raw, and instead only cooked? That's not how it works. Our bodies still have the ability to use raw foods, especially meats, far more efficiently than cooked, this is a fact. If you want proof try it on yourself, as I have. Or do some research and think objectively.

In old age a person should still be fit and full of energy. Bodily functions would and do slow down, become less efficient, but nothing as what is now in general with old people where they are literally too sick.
Yet I still know of seniors who run the Boston Marathon. When people get old, it's just natural that they are less and less able to do things. Muscles deteriorate, bones weaken. This isn't what food you put in, this is just nature.
Do you also know that metabolism from person to person differs? If one diet works for one person, it does not mean it will without a doubt work for another. As well, people eat different things, they have different lifestyles, etc. That some run marathons in old age is of no indication that modern "safe" food is actually safe or good for one's health. To know why they can do it would require investigation into their lives, to their ways of living.
Saying it is nature is like saying it is genetic. Well, it is not genetic to the extent people are sick.

I have personal experience how much diet affects an individual. I know what I am talking about while you do not know one bit. You have no personal experience, you just believe what you've been told by the "authorities" and others like you who just believe what they're told, without really thinking objectively about any of it.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 3:44:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The point of life is not to survive. I'd say that is a gross misdirection, and it leads you nowhere. The point of life is to experience life. To know yourself. And with this knowledge and experience, to enrich the lives of others.

You are not the same person you were before reading this text. We are continually evolving and changing. When we die what we are - what comprises of our physical bodies - becomes something else. Matter is not created or destroyed. So, while I am an atheist, my views on life and philosophy are ever changing. I may not even apply that label to myself anymore.

Do I need theology and religion to find meaning in my life? I'd say that being religious is a terrible way to be. Because your mind is never quite free. You will forever be in subjugation of another. Your belief will always taint your perception. There is no happiness or freedom to be had with religion, other than the delusion of it. To believe in god is replacing the role of your parents, and you will never grow beyond that. Religion is death.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:28:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 10:22:07 PM, nummi wrote:
Humans being "as healthy as we are" has in reality nothing to do with medicine. It has everything to do with what we eat and have eaten, and the changes of diet throughout history.
The decline of health began when humans began cooking food. Honestly, for millions of years they had fed on raw foods, mostly meats, their bodies had evolved to use that food efficiently. And then came cooking, I'll just assume you are aware enough to know what cooking does to nutrients in food, and all else.

Give up some nutrients to keep yourself from dying of Salmonella.
Dying of salmonella is total BS.
I've been eating raw eggs for months, on average 2-3 eggs a day. If eggs give salmonella then where the fvck is it??? I got personal proof, on myself, that it is total BS.

One person is an exception. I too have had personal experience that says otherwise. My mother, myself, and my whole ASL team have gotten ill before, and much of it could be traced back to food poisoning as the likely cause.

Anyhow, on what do you base the salmonella thing on? You got any evidence? Any at all? What are the conditions of getting the infection? Or you simply repeat what you've heard, what has been brainwashed to people for a long time through commercials, media, etc., without any real evidence behind any of it?

Brainwashed? Please. I do some research before believing in things.

http://www.mayoclinic.com...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Then at one point they began consuming grains - another blow to health. I'm sure you've seen very fat people, that's grains for you.

Let me guess, more lies from the health department, seeing as all I've every been told is that grains are good for you?

Next time someone says grains are good why not ask for evidence instead of blindly believing what you're told?

I do some research, see that it isn't the most healthiest solution, note that humans have lived on grains in the form of bread for thousands of years, and therefore conclude that raw, unprocessed grains appear to be the cause of the issue.
And also why not research people who stopped consuming grains, and why, and find out how their life and health changed?

Personal anecdotes aren't solid evidence.
And if you research then be wary because, as you say, "lies from the health department", that's right - lies from the health department.

They never lied to me with regards to grains, so sorry. No lies there.

Then came milk and dairy, although not as bad when consumed raw, still some people were and still are allergic. Then there's the pasteurized variants... as a result severe lactose-intolerance was created, aside the common effects of cooked food.

"Not as bad"? When is drinking milk (aside from when it's moldy) a bad idea?
Milk has never been a grown-up food anyway, not to mention the only milk for meant for humans is that from a human mother's breast. So, yeah...

Milk can and does cause pimples, acne, can and does contribute to other illnesses. But not always, in some cases it can have the opposite effect, that instead it helps heal a problem. But there is no room for milk as a staple food when going for optimal health.

Vitamin D and calcium supplement. You yourself admit it has benefits.

Those "fatal" diseases are fatal because those diseases are sustained by wrong diets. Diabetes is curable, again, with switching to the right diet.
Not type I. That's genetic, and is known to be basically incurable.
It's not genetic. From genetics comes a quality that under wrong conditions, like wrong diet, contributes to the occurrence of the illness. The illness itself is not genetic in any way.

I meant type II. My point remains.

Okay, when I get a brain tumor, I'll just switch over to some veggies and see what happens.
Veggies? That proves how much you know about diet and what's good for health - as good as nothing.

What, are veggies bad too?

It's not that it "doesn't care" it's that it we don't know how to cure the cause.
Of course we do, in most cases, but it would be monetarily suicidal for medical community to admit it, as medicine is business first. Obtaining actual food is much cheaper than drugs.
Just start eating right and the body will fix the problem for you, many examples of people with severe health issues getting healed or to a much better condition through diet only. Most health problems are caused by a wrong diet, the cure for most of those problems is switching to the right diet.

Well obviously, I'm not denying that, and never did.

Viral infections, at the moment, can't be cured.
Viral infections are not something to be cured. Those "infections" themselves are a natural cleaning process of the body. And again the body needs necessary nutrients to survive the process, and as well the flow of toxic substances to the body in such massive amounts must cease. There might be some exceptions, some exotic viruses, but the most common ones are not.
In fact, if a person is eating right, as a result the body is working as it should without deficiencies, then getting infected is extremely unlikely.

Technically speaking it's all natural, since it's all from Mother Nature. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop it from killing us.

All doctors care about their patients, and saying otherwise is just silly.
Saying otherwise is fact of reality. I can bring numerous examples from people around me to prove this. Not to mention specific "doctors", by name.

By 'all' I should mean to say 'for all intents and purposes all', as minus a few hundred doctors that just hand out oxycotin to anyone that asks. There isn't a significant amount of 'bad' doctors to make your point.

You don't spend years and years in medical school just to be apathetically not curing someone of a disease to be rich, you do it because you like to help people get better, and be cured.
Wrong. Most those who study don't even know what they really want to do with their life, neither will they ever find out. They simply follow examples, unthinking about anything that really matters. They simply follow rules because they've been taught to do that their entire life.
There was a graduate from medical school in my country who said to media that he/she was there to learn how to help people. What he/she found out, while studying, was that the medical community cares nothing for the actual cause of illnesses, that they only deal with the symptoms. He/she was very disappointed.
In medical community only some individuals actually care about helping people, others simply do their "job".

It is also a fact that there are billions upon billions upon billions in money moving in medical world. And it is a fact that people keep consuming drugs without ever really being cured, there are so many examples to give here. If the goal of the medical community was to cure people then why are so many, after years and decades, still in the same condition, still consuming drugs? Shouldn't all those people already be cured? Most all of those people eat the shjtty diet that is considered "normal", and that diet is in most of those cases the cause they are not healing.

You know, if I can't eat anything but raw food (which doesn't taste good, or is good for you by FACT of disease), and you are just going to tarnish all those who try and help us, I see no point in continuing to speak with you. I opened my mind to the possibilities but I found that it just opened me to how anti-everything people can be in this world.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 7:55:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One person is an exception. I too have had personal experience that says otherwise. My mother, myself, and my whole ASL team have gotten ill before, and much of it could be traced back to food poisoning as the likely cause.
One person? There isn't just one person, there are very many.
You can get "food poisoning" if you already eat the "normal" diet and then try something raw/new. "Food poisoning" occurs when something new is introduced to your metabolism, something the body doesn't yet know how to manage, and/or the body's immune system is lacking in efficiency as a result of long-lasting wrong diet, or both.
In most cases food poisoning can be traced back to eating the wrong diet in the first place. If you eat right then getting hit by a car is more probable than getting food poisoning.

Brainwashed? Please. I do some research before believing in things.
Maybe that's the problem - you "believe".
I say what I say because I know it is true. Because I can see it, have seen it, have concluded objectively. And if I don't know I don't claim to know. If you said the same about yourself you'd be lying.

http://www.mayoclinic.com...
"Salmonella bacteria live in the intestines of people, animals and birds." You do realize what that means? It means that bacteria lives in us already. If it is already in us, at this moment, and the bacteria is considered harmful, then why are we not dead, as you say "one might die of salmonella". Seriously...

It says everywhere "may" get onto food.
It is a fact that grains contribute to mental illnesses, to obesity, to many other problems. It is a fact that sugar contributes to heart problems, mental problems, etc. And then they say food "may" have salmonella in it that lives in our gut all the time anyway? For fvck's sake! How brainwashed are you to actually believe such BS??

You only "may" get problems from salmonella if your diet is wrong. Can as well depend on the quality of the food the animals were on.

Stomach acid... You can get strong enough stomach acid to kill the bad kind by eating raw, as cooked foods don't require that strong acid. Eating cooked results the body to produce weaker acid, transition to stronger acid takes a little while, up to months. Cooked foods take longer to digest as well.

All this aside, that page only states and claims this and that, there's no actual evidence provided, not to mention it doesn't cover everything essential to the subject. While in contrast it's easy to get proof to all that being BS, simply get to know what those have to say who've been eating raw for years.
http://www.cdc.gov...
Just as the previous, claims with absolutely no evidence. There is plenty of evidence to prove the salmonella myth wrong, and as has been done by very many raw dieters by them simply being alive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
What was the chickens' diet? It is extremely common to feed them wrong, as a result the birds are weak, easily susceptible to diseases and such, and if you eat that poorly kept animals raw, or their eggs, then there's a good chance of getting something nasty in turn. This is as well where "you are what you eat" comes in. You eat sick you are sick.
What diet were the victims on? The "normal" diet?

I do some research, see that it isn't the most healthiest solution, note that humans have lived on grains in the form of bread for thousands of years, and therefore conclude that raw, unprocessed grains appear to be the cause of the issue.

Thousands of years. All the while health has been plummeting.

In the form of bread because they concluded that raw, unprocessed grains appear to be the cause of the issue? Wow, epic conclusion... doesn't even deserve including the fact that grains are extremely tough, almost like small stones, when raw. Ever tried grinding a stone with teeth?

I have no idea why people began consuming grains, as using them as food makes no sense. They are small, they need large areas to grow, they are hard, have to be processed, then have to be processed even more to be consumed. They require so much effort, while there are simpler ways of acquiring food, herding for one, other plants, vegetables, fruits, berries, etc. And then they are not as nutritious and they cause health problems, even very severe health problems.

You do know the more humans have processed foods the more health has worsened?

Personal anecdotes aren't solid evidence.
So instead you go for "scientific" claims that have no evidence whatsoever and in fact omit relevant points?
You can't get more solid evidence than personal. Our science is not that advanced yet.
Right now, to get your "scientific" evidence, you first need personal accounts. So... it's as solid as it gets.

They never lied to me with regards to grains, so sorry. No lies there.
Just as a religious person clinging to his/her beliefs in the total lack of evidence, and in fact in the presence of enough evidence and as well simple logic indicating the contrary, so do you.
They say grains are good, and you believe them. Well, they are not.

Vitamin D and calcium supplement. You yourself admit it has benefits.
"But there is no room for milk as a staple food when going for optimal health." Something I said as well.
If you ate right and added milk you would notice downsides.

Calcium... too much is bad. Can and does result in weak bones and contributes to heart disease.
Vitamin D... you lack that you need sunny days.
I meant type II. My point remains.
Your point is that the "illness" is genetic and largely or completely incurable. No, your point does not remain.

Veggies? That proves how much you know about diet and what's good for health - as good as nothing.
What, are veggies bad too?
What, you ran out of "smart" things to say?

Technically speaking it's all natural, since it's all from Mother Nature. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop it from killing us.
First we should realize that it doesn't want to kill us. That the reason it is, as if killing us, is because we eat wrong.

By 'all' I should mean to say 'for all intents and purposes all', as minus a few hundred doctors that just hand out oxycotin to anyone that asks. There isn't a significant amount of 'bad' doctors to make your point.
All means all, there is no minus anything.
There is a significant amount of doctors to make my point, otherwise I wouldn't had said any of it.

You know, if I can't eat anything but raw food (which doesn't taste good, or is good for you by FACT of disease), and you are just going to tarnish all those who try and help us, I see no point in continuing to speak with you. I opened my mind to the possibilities but I found that it just opened me to how anti-everything people can be in this world.

If animals are raised well, on the right diet, then they will taste good. Raw does taste good, very good, better than anything I've ever had in fact. I'm not the only one with this knowledge obtained from personal experience, there are many others. You should really get facts straight before saying something.

I'm not tarnishing, simply saying how things are.

You opened your mind? Lying so blatantly. You have not opened your mind, you were and still are closed minded and narrow minded.
No wonder you spew such incongruous babble, your brain lacks nutrients and has an overdose of toxins. The best part is you don't realize it, you can't, because you don't have anything in comparison via personal experience. Nor have you had any bad enough experiences to doubt the lies you've been told your entire life. Not to mention you know as good as nothing about any of this.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:52:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 3:44:15 AM, InvictusManeo wrote:
The point of life is not to survive. I'd say that is a gross misdirection, and it leads you nowhere. The point of life is to experience life. To know yourself. And with this knowledge and experience, to enrich the lives of others.
The point of life is to survive, to keep on going. It's what all life around us has been doing for so long, still is, and will for a long time.
Wild animals, bugs, plants, etc., are not simply experiencing life. Their lives consist of day to day survival.

Experiencing life is something someone with intelligence can think of and assume as a personal purpose.
Enriching the lives of others is as well something a person can choose as a personal purpose.

You are not the same person you were before reading this text.
I am the same person. For a person to truly change, that person must acquire something new in the form of previously not encountered. An open mind is required as well, as there are so many examples of people adamantly sticking to one mentality, one way of thinking, ignoring everything that contradicts those, and in essence don't change for years and even decades.
Reading what you wrote did that to me not, as thinking about this now is not the first time.
If I compare my present self with the one three years ago... the difference is cataclysmic.
We are continually evolving and changing. When we die what we are - what comprises of our physical bodies - becomes something else. Matter is not created or destroyed. So, while I am an atheist, my views on life and philosophy are ever changing. I may not even apply that label to myself anymore.
I've never labeled myself, years ago it didn't even occur to me, once it did I noticed it's not accurate enough. For the obvious reason that nothing is as black and white as "this or that". Reality is from black to white, and colors beyond.

Matter, not created or destroyed... Someone should make an animation depicting the journey of once dung ending up in the composition of a human's brain. A twist on "sh!thead".
Do I need theology and religion to find meaning in my life? I'd say that being religious is a terrible way to be. Because your mind is never quite free. You will forever be in subjugation of another. Your belief will always taint your perception. There is no happiness or freedom to be had with religion, other than the delusion of it. To believe in god is replacing the role of your parents, and you will never grow beyond that. Religion is death.
If only the religious could realize this.