Answerer

Well, I got nothing to lose except a few seconds of my lifetime, haha. Anyway, I do have an urge to go 'one on one' with him.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</p>

Ryanfire

Rainbow walking,

An older article from 2000
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt_000222_regeneration_trans_west.html" target="_blank">Conquering Death</a>

<a href="http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com/" target="_blank">Stem cell Research</a>

The war against death is happening Rainbow Walking

queue

Hello David,

Those theories are not necessarily atheistic, but they are not theistic either. They are explanations that do not need a god.

I am now confused, since you were discussing "string theory and multi-verses" earlier which are natural explanations for the origin of the universe.

The pyramids have been forgotten? The philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others have been forgotten? The mathematics of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians have been forgotten? The discovery of the "New World" by Christopher Columbus (or Eric the Red) has been forgotten?

I do not believe that all human accomplishments are forgotten. Could you please specify what you mean when you said that?

The whole universe testifies of the universe. Humans (ie. theists) claim that it testifies to more than that without any evidence. If you have evidence proving otherwise, please share that information.

How does this prove that religion is not a narcotic and an intoxicant? It could be that there are approximately 4 billion "users."

Please remember that long ago everyone believed that the Sun circled the Earth and that the Earth was flat. The popularity of an idea does not make it right.

Many religions have made this claim. How is your claim more correct than the others?

John Page

Assuming you believe in the existence of god, I'm interested in what kind of morality your belief results in.

The death penalty is a very useful test case IMO and I've met believers who support it and believers who don't. My follow up question is dependent on your answer:

Yes - Then you're not a christian under the new testament which begs further questions about the god that you actually believe in.
No - You may qualify as a christian and we can proceed to discuss where your god's moral authority comes from.
Don't Know/Can't Tell - Again, you are not a christian under the new testament requirements.

As an atheist I'm really curious how come many Americans as a supposed christians support the death penalty. This seems contradictory.

Cheers, John

rainbow walking

Hello Rainbow Walking,

Hi David,

David: When you say "dialectical opposition to theism" I don't have the least idea what you are talking about. Could you elucidate?

Rw: Certainly. 4. dialectics. (used with a sing. verb). A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions. 5. The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.

In our case the opposing forces are the ideologies of theism and naturalism. Atheism embraces naturalism as its justification. Theism attempts to embrace naturalism but has no justification for doing so when it appeals to supernaturalism as the source. Naturalism is predicated on a methodology dedicated to observation, verification, falsification and application. Theism’s appeal to supernaturalism immediately negates its appeal to the methodologies incorporated in naturalism so the theist resorts to hijacking naturalism by engulfment which is a totally disingenuous argument with no basis in fact.


Rw: The advances I’ve alluded to historically, David, were primarily in the realm of science and philosophy and have of themselves led away from theism. Those advances are not a description of atheism but do, in some ways, represent the strengthening, positive characteristics of atheism. Men do not set out to disprove theism David, they simply follow the evidence of nature where ever it leads. So far it has not led us to your god.

David: I don't see these advances as "leading away from theism" because -- if you have noticed -- the present world is filled with billions of theists, decidedly more theists than atheists.

Rw: If billions of theists decided the moon was actually made of green cheese would the moon actually turn into green cheese to accommodate the wishes of theism just because they are commonly held by billions of people? This is just a warmed over version of the ad populum fallacy David.

David: When you say "Those advances are not a description of atheism but do, in some ways, represent the strengthening, positive characteristics of atheism" you seem to be speaking about atheism is some mystical manner. Atheism has not, and can not, do any of those things which you are attributing to it.

Rw: I have attributed nothing to atheism David except its exact definition. I have rightfully attributed those advances to science and methodological naturalism from which atheism derives its basis in fact. Until you make a genuine effort to understand the difference you will continue to stumble over this misconception and make the same faulty arguments.


David: In the final analysis string theory and multi-verses are speculative, yet not necessarily atheistic. Atheism offers nothing in response to the mystery of existence.

Rw: And no one has said that it did. Existence is far less of a mystery, than it was when men invented incomprehensible deities to account for it, thanks entirely to methodological naturalism whose inroads into the mystery were paved independently of theism and often against its loudest and fiercest objectors. I repeat, no evidence has been found thusfar to verify the claims and wholly contrived explanations offered by you in particular and theism in general. So your theistic attempts to account for the origins of life and the universe are nothing more than wishful speculations without any basis in fact. Even if billions of you make the same claim for thousands of years that doesn’t make it true.

rw: However, in spite of your claims here, I don’t see how you can find theism’s explanations any more appealing than natural ones since your basic view was, how did you put it, “words are just words.”

David: Theism's explanation is more appealing because in reality there are no natural explanations for the origin of the Universe.

Rw: Yes David, it is very appealing and accounts for the vast number of people willing to embrace it. But, I repeat, that doesn’t make it true. I can invent even more appealing fantasies like those offered by Muslims which promise obedient sheep 72 perpetual virgins to lustily ravage at will when they die. You Christians are going to have to pick up the pace a bit in keeping up with these Islamic fantasies because theirs are proving more powerfully seductive in persuading its flock to martyr itself as a ticket to its freak show in the sky.

rw: It is only humanity that requires purpose.

David: You are mistaken: Humans have no purpose. All human life is meaningless, all human accomplishments are forgotten.

Rw: What an intellectually bankrupt and morally degenerative opinion your fantasy generates towards humanity and all in the name of love. Have you forgotten that a nameless widow woman, for two mites in the temple treasury, had herself immortalized in your own book of myths? I suppose for a few drachma’s she could have had her initials carved in a verse or two.

The only human who has no purpose is the human who has no brains and even they can provide some insight into paths the rest of us can write off as fruitless wastes of time. These are they compelled to borrow one from beyond reality.
The only human life that is meaningless is the one frittered away under the mistaken belief that it is the chattel of an imaginary deity. I find it extremely insightful that your theistic mouthpieces find them a meaning to replace the one they were born with. It’s called intellectual slavery and sold as servitude to your imaginary god but exacted according to the dictates of his earthly representatives. It appeals to their emotions because it sooths their terror of death.
Genuine human accomplishments are never forgotten by genuine human beings…only by those who are looking for a way out of this world because they have surrendered the hope of ever contributing to the growth and progress of mankind. These are noted for their fear to compete in the human marketplace of ideas because they have not developed a capacity for a single original thought of their own; people who only cooperate with humanity because their fear of death is even greater than their loathing of life. These are the ones who graciously embrace the sedative of theism.

David: Your description of death appears -- how shall I say it? -- a bit mystical.

Rw: In what way?

David: As to the bet: I don't "believe" in death, I am acquianted with death.

Rw: You believe in its inevitability. That was your first step away from reason and rationality. The rest is, as they say, a matter of history. You chose the most popular sedative to sooth the unmerciful effects of your original belief.

David: "I will never die" appears like a fantasy on your own part.

Rw: I never said “I will never die” David. So it probably is one of your fantasies that you wish to put off on me. My ideas from which I derive my philosophy, if I dedicate myself to their development, articulation and communication, may live far longer than I, maybe even until man subdues death.


Rw: Yes David, I personally will most certainly die because the defeat of death is still a future phenomenon that will likely take longer than my meager lifespan to accomplish. But my voice, words and ideas will live on.

David: You are seriously mistaken: Not only are you going to die, but your "voice, words and ideas" are going to be neglected and forgotten. Nothing you are doing is going to mean anything at all to the people who live after you.

Rw: Spoken like a true theist. From the looks of your theism you apparently hold the Marcus Aurelius position that men are just souls walking about under the burden of a corpse. Theism’s desire to pull men down into its putrid shadowy grave is just one of the reasons humanity must reject it in all its shades and vices, once and for all.


rw: Afraid of death? Hell yes I fear it, and so does every other sane person honest enough to admit it.

David: I feel very sad for you if your fear of death dominates your life. You might as well live while you live and die when you die.

Rw: Spare me the stale bromides. You are already dead and feel nothing, say nothing and have nothing to offer but the mindless repetition of centuries old fantasies. I prefer to live by the sword of my word that is the word of life and die fighting against the ignorance of cowardly surrender. I will live and live well in that I fill my days with the acquisition of the knowledge I need to propel the human struggle towards the final defeat of death and all of its constituent philosophies. This is how a man addresses his fears. Make of that what you will but mark well your conversations with me because if I live long enough to reach my potential I intend to unleash upon this world a weapon capable of striking a deadly blow at the Achilles heel of all theism, exposing the true motives of your masters and robbing them of many victims.

rw: Men can’t fight what they can’t see and even less what doesn’t even exist. No one can deny the existence of death. Why they have not yet seen it as their greatest enemy I will address in the philosophy of life.

David: You do know that some religions embrace death?

Rw: All religions embrace death by promoting it as an inevitability not to be engaged.

rw: You can make the meaning of your own life durable and meaningful by contributing something towards the awakening of humanity to the battle against our common foe. Or you can bury your brain in the clouds beyond reality.

David: What have you contributed to this struggle against death?

Rw: Years of my life.

David: I would think that if you were really devoted to this struggle, you would make yourself into a medical research scientists rather than spending your time complaining about theism.

Rw: And you would think this because your mind has been twisted into the belief that death is inevitable with the resultant consequence of having lowered your vision. While there currently exists a need for scientists and medical researchers in every discipline, what doesn’t exist is a unifying philosophy that specifically addresses their purpose and empowers them with words that put a voice to all men’s common desire by exposing the true enemy and his allies. That will be my contribution. The founding fathers of our nation caught a glimpse of it and established a sound foundation in the pursuit of happiness with the prerequisite of LIFE and LIBERTY but they failed to carry it to its final solution. Their greatest contribution was to separate church and state. This, more than anything else, has preserved the integrity of life in America until an even more perfect union could be visualized. But politics and economics have arisen to challenge the integrity of LIFE and LIBERTY and threaten to de-rail that vision before it comes to fruition. THEISM is not the only enemy of life. I will address the diversions, sweeping them aside like so much flotsam, and show men, in common language, their destiny and greatest enemy. After that I can do no more.

My philosophy will appeal to the men and women who have not fallen asleep in the lord, or in the annals of authority or the boardrooms of the corporation. It will bestow upon the men of reason and science the duties of the priesthood and encourage education to equip our progeny for the struggles ahead. I propose to lift man’s vision a little higher to facilitate a glimpse beyond the wall of the inevitability of death; a glimpse of life without the strain of desperation. Philosophers have always been the true movers and shapers of our destiny as a species. I will nail my thesis on the gates of hell. Care to join me?

David: What is a humanist?

Rw: hu·man·ist (hy›“m…-n¹st) n. 1. A believer in the principles of humanism. 2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of human beings.


rw: Do you hold your material possessions in such disregard after you’ve labored to purchase them and have actually paid them off? If you labor 30 years to purchase a home does it then become dull and utterly valueless? Can you not see how you think death gives value to life? Death takes away life, devaluates it, renders it impotent and futile.

David: The majority of humans do not view death as devalueing life.

Rw: Then I must hasten to eradicate the obstructions and correct this view.

David: Death actually grants a little urgency to life as we struggle to accomplish whatever we want to accomplish within the little time we have.

Rw: A struggle that has produced the desperation of crime, addiction, and general devastation of the human population.

Rw: For a thousand years, commonly known as the dark ages, (and with good reason) the church blurred this distinction with a stranglehold on education and thus kept the masses of its laity in ignorance. It wasn’t until one of its own, Luther, nailed his thesis to the church doors and began the splintering that has developed into a thousand different sects, did the dispute over that distinction come into focus. I intend to finish what Luther started by nailing my thesis to its black heart. The advent of the printing press also contributed greatly to my arrival.

David: Associating your efforts with Martin Luther's seems odd because Luther was most decidedly a religious theist.

Rw: And a brave one at that, in spite of his many flaws, a man to be admired for his one accomplishment. He, more than anyone else, is responsible for weakening the choke hold of Catholicism on the minds of men.

Rw: Isn’t it strange that many of your deity’s constituents claim to see its handiwork in every blade of grass? Hallucination?

David: The whole universe testifies of God, though not in any empirical objective manner.

Rw: Then its testimony is inadmissible in the court of human reason.

David: If you want to look back that far in history, I think it important to note that those first scientists were theists.

Rw: All men were besieged with this particular virus. That is irrelevant to the history of science and even more damning to the diminishing history of theism.

David: Your description of religion as a narcotic and an intoxicant is not an accurate representation of what religion is or what religion does.

Rw: Prove it!

David: There are approximately 4 billion religious poeple on this globe.

Rw: And this proves what…? That man needs a very succinct alarm clock to carry over the noise of all that snoring.

Rw: No doubt and as long as they remained under the hypnotic spell of religious ether not one of them were about to rock the boat and make any profound declarations even if they happened to awaken from their comatose state long enough to think of one.

David: Do you know how many millions of pages religious people have written about these questions? You seem to have divorced yourself altogether from religious thought and then you pretend as if it doesn't exist.

Rw: And how many of these pages depict an objective examination of the presuppositions upon which theism is based? How many religious authors had the vision to see beyond the inevitability of death?

Rw: In other words you’ve already prepared yourself an alibi for the eventuality of a scientific resolution to the question of origins. Godunnit in such a way as to make it appear natural.

David; Yes.

Rw: And you will justify this metaphysical monstrosity …how?


rw: I have the psychological edge because I have no halo to balance, while yours incidentally, is beginning to slip precariously down around your neck. I have the emotional stability of complete sobriety, the moral high ground of expressly stating my motives and the intellectual integrity of supporting my every assertion. I also have the added advantage of having been a licensed minister for many years and therefore acutely familiar with all the biblical doctrines and precepts you so adeptly juggle in your efforts to evangelize yourself into heaven. Yes, I would say my position is quite progressive and bears upon me no dishonor.

David: Praise yourself, if you will. You must be someone great in your own mind.

Rw: I find it revealing that you view the above as an example of greatness misapplied. I have stated truth in as forthright and honest a way as I know how. If you can refute one sentence then, and only then, will you be justified in accusing me of egotism.


Rw: None of which have been substantiated as anything more than man’s wish fulfillment. Why would a just and loving deity heal a few and leave tens of thousands to perish?

David: Because God did not heal those people for the sake of healing. He healed them to reassure people of His existence and concern for humanity, or as a means of setting the prophet apart from the people.

Rw: And you know this …how?

David: If the Bible answered all of man's problems it would fill a million volumes.

Rw: But I thought it has been touted as the answer to all of man’s problems?

David: The Bible never makes that claim.

Rw: Then on what basis ought a man to subscribe to its precepts?

Rw: To be sure. Since man has the burden of solving his own problems without anticipating any help from your deity why does man need your deity?

David: Without my deity mankind would not exist.

Rw: Why does your deity require the existence of mankind? Could it be because your deity did not exist prior to mankind? Let’s test this, shall we?
Using the standard dictionary definition of god that you provided some pages back let’s apply these to a rational interview to see where it leads.

God is defined as a being that is PERFECT, OMNISCIENT, and attributed with the creation of the universe and man. These three will be sufficient to demonstrate the converse of your assertion.

1. Prior to the creation of man god could not have known himself as perfect. Perfection requires the existence of something less than perfect to be compared with to identify perfection. Nothing imperfect existed from which to arrive at such self-knowledge. Thus god could not have been omniscient. He required the creation of a man who, according to the myth, fell under the spell of imperfections from which god was then able to justify his attribute of perfection…or was he?.

2. There is one thing man is perfect at, the ability to find the imperfections in his universe, his community, himself and even god. Man is the perfect critic. Thus god required man’s imperfect existence and nature for his perfection only man, as perfect critic, has discovered god’s imperfections. How could he not? It is his nature as man to warily eye every aspect of his existence with a critical expertise born of centuries of struggling with his own identity. That is the foundation of his science and philosophy and his nature.

3. Thus god has displayed his imperfection in creating a perfect critic.

4. Conclusion: Man created god in the image of man as he imperfectly imagined perfection to be. Without mankind, the concept of your deity wouldn’t exist.

David Mathews

Hello Answerer,

David: I don't imagine that the traditional interpretation of the Adam & Eve account is legitimate. Life appears designed to die, mortality appears an intrinsic quality of life. Adam was cursed long before he died, therefore it seems that Adam's sin merely modified the meaning of life and death.

I can't imagine what the Earth would look like if nothing died. Some bacteria, fungi, plants and animals are entirely dependent upon death to supply their food. How could carnivorous life survive if they could not kill?

I also believe that the process of eating itself is a form of death for those parts of those plants which herbivores eat. Given that bugs might live on these plants, they probably would have died as well when ingested by Adam, Eve and the animals.

Therefore, I don't believe that mortality itself is a form of punishment. Adam's sin had spiritual consequences. Physical death itself was not a direct consequence of the sin.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

rainbow walking

Hi Ryanfire,
Excellent links. The war against death has been waged since the birth of life. But it needs a philosophial foundation to defend its warriors against the onslought of the gainsayers both religious and political. It also needs to be protected from corporate greed. Indefinite lifespan should not become a market item but a human right. Thanx for your support in this discussion.

David Mathews

Hello queue,

David: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Christopher Columbus, Eric the Red and many others are remembered impersonally. People who think of these people today don't think of them because of their accomplishments and nothing else. What these people did is remembered, who those people were as individuals has been forgotten.

David: For theists, the whole universe testifies of God's existence. You may interpret it differently for your own reasons.

David: Perhaps not, but you must realize that these people live and die just like atheists live and die.

David: I suspect that the many religions are actually speaking about the One God, though their terminology and understanding of that One God may differ dramatically there does seem a significant amount of agreement in the symbolism.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello John Page,

David: The death penalty is a subject of dispute among Christians just as it is among every other group in the United States. I am not interested in debating that issue on this thread.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Rainbow Walking,

David: I am a theist and I embrace naturalism. I have tremendous respect for science and scientific research, I read books written by scientists and read the magazines devoted to science, I watch the scientific programs on television and I even may read a scientific journal from time to time. I embrace naturalism, and I am a theist.

Before you complain about this situation, I must point out that there are many scientists who are also theists. Science and scientific research in reality do not exclude theism. Therefore I can embrace naturalism insofar as it is represented by science.

David: The exact definition of atheism is the rejection and denial of belief in God (gods). As such, atheism is not science, and science is not atheism.

David: They may be wishful speculation, but they do not exclude any & all scientific descriptions of the origin and development of the Universe. As such, theism is not necessarily incompatible with any origin theory which naturalism might speculate.

David: Do I really need to respond to this? If you want to criticize the Muslims, speak directly to them.

David: How many people who died in 1869 do you remember, no matter who they were and what they accomplished they are all nearly forgotten even by their descendants. If you look at the obituaries in the newspaper you will discover that about 99% of people who die every day are unknown to you, soon enough they will be unknown to everyone.

The people who live after us won't have any time to remember us because they will be too busy living to waste time on the dead. As Jesus said: "let the dead bury their own dead." You see, those who are alive can't become distracted on behalf of those who have already died.

David; That was just the impression that I got from reading it. I have read the writings of the mystics and therefore am somewhat familiar with that mindset.

David: If you are going to die, why should you care whether or not future generations of humans die? It seems a waste of time on your part as it promises no direct benefit to your own survival.

David: I have read Marcus Aurelius and must say that I am impressed with his wisdom.

David: Given that there are billions of theists, that weapon better be mighty powerful.

David: You are an idealist and a visionary. I must say that I like that.

David: I don't think that death is the motives of these crimes. Humans commit these acts of violence because they want something or they want to take something away from someone else.

David: It is great that you hold a theist in such esteem. I appreciate that very much.

David: A whole lot, which you would know if you devoted some time to examining the subject.

David: Because God refused to heal Paul's thorn the flesh and God allowed Stephen to die.

David: Your questions are not written correctly. The first question presupposes that God required the existence of mankind, the second question presupposes that God did not exist prior to humankind's existence. I do not accept either proposition: God does not need humankind, God existed before humankind.

David: Humans say "God is perfect." There is no evidence that God says such things about Himself, except in his communication with humans.

David: I don't regard humans as "perfect critics" of God, or even as qualified to criticize God in any way.

David: Of course. If mankind did not exist, I would not exist. How then could I have a concept of God?

Sincerely,

David Mathews