Ais4Atheist's Comments (12)

“that is a huge plastic bag”

“I thought McCain's responses sounded like pandering at times. Always making sure to say what evangelicals wanted to here. One msnbc commentator said McCain's answers were more black and white then Obama whos answers were more vague, and they acted like that was a win for McCain. I somewhat disagree with that. For one because when McCain makes it black and white it comes off as pandering and because these issues aren't black and white. Obama, who did not treat the questions that way gave more thought provoking answers i felt, which i feel is more important in political discourse.

Overall i think it was basically a push, but on the other hand any evangelical voters that voted repub and will vote dem next election is a win for obama. And i dont think there are many evangelicals that are switching the other way.”

“Seems like my screen name is accurate, and i am the typical huffpo reader...
"1. Secular Humanism (100%)"

and for the rest of the top 5...
"2. Unitarian Universalism (99%)
3. Liberal Quakers (96%)
4. Neo-Pagan (88%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (80%)"

and i found this stat funny...
"26. Roman Catholic (10%)"
...since I was baptized Roman Catholic, went through first communion, and was even confirmed.

All that was mainly because it was decided by my mom to go through it, and kind of a family tradition. All that was what I was "suppose" to do. I never truly believed everything from the bible. But once i started freely thinking for myself I denounced the religion, and all other organized religions.”

“Now you're bring up the science vs religion debate. Which is important, but separate from what i was really referring to.

With science vs religion i agree with you. When people reject science because of religion they are hurting their religion more than anything, religion should not be separate of science, it should include science. There will always be things science cannot explain, like existence, why we are, why there is a universe, after life, and religion can certainly stick around for a say about all those things. But for when science rejects religions, i think Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best...

"The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide."”

“You bring up an interesting point, its easy to understand and perspective that can be difficult for an atheist not to take.

There's fine line between expressing beliefs and trying to "convert" people. That is one of the things i hate about religion, is how sometimes they actively "recruit".

I don't go around spreading the word of atheism. But if someone asks about my beliefs i'll tell them, and try not to do so suggestively, which can be hard.

I agree that hitchens and other posters can seem to be trying to convince people to denounce religion and become an atheist. And i agree this is the wrong approach.

If you've read my posts, you'll see i don't follow that approach. Religion should be personal, if you need it to find meaning and reason and guidance, fine. But some people use religion for beliefs and actions that hurt society as a collective. So as i say, religious ppl don't need to denounce it, but just refine it, or update it to modern society. Stop using religion as a reason for war, rejecting gay rights, etc.

Its not the fact that religious people have a religion that i don't like, but certain things they believe because of it, and the ways many people think we ALL should adhere to it, not just their religious group, that i think is wrong.”

“I just made one post but just had another thought. I know people talk about contacting their "spirit guide" through meditation or lucid dreaming, and some of them they see this guide as an entity separate from themselves. Once in a lucid dream i contacted my spirit guide (she looked like the oracle from the matrix movies, weird huh) but i can't truly accept that this person/thing/entity is separate from myself. I can't help but look at it as a creation of my unconscious mind, that only seems to be an outside entity, that is really just a creation of my unconscious as a means of communicating unconscious thoughts and beliefs to me that are not readily accessible by my conscious mind.

Whether it's seperate entities or selfs, its hard to say, kinda impossible to say. Its a paradox really.”

“Absolutely, on pretty much everything, i do see myself as a spiritual person, but of course that kind of depends on how you define spiritual, and what you define as spiritual. So i don't really like to outright say "i am spiritual" because people will interpret that differently.

I really agree with your last statement. And saying my subconscious is "more than (myself)". Well, kinda. In the realm of the self being conscious thought and experiences in the material world, then yes. But i still consider my subconscious (and unconscious) as part of my "self". Its just that they, my conscious and unconscious, operate independently, but of course they do influence each other.

My beliefs weren't always like this, until i read books like "synaptic self" and "blink" and having done meditation like introspection, and noticed things I do, and reasons for decisions, that I'm not totally consciously aware of.”

“I think Hitchens wrote a great book, it is very witty and fun to read, and very applicable to everyday life (and its spelled 'god is not Great' not 'God is not Great'). As my girlfriend said "I don't think I've ever read anything that will effect my everyday life like that book. Ironically, probably what most people say about the bible."

But i feel Hitchens is a little too aggressive, and attacks religions too much, certainly some aspects need to be attacked, but not all of it. Some people need it to find meaning to live their life, and i don't think we should necessarily criticize and ridicule them for that. But when people try to force their religious views on other people, it should be ridiculed. Religion should be personal, not something you try to recruit people for. We don't need to rid the world of religions (which i think will never happen), but certain ones definitely need to be refined, especially in how they're used.

And I was also raised catholic like hitchens, so i certainly understand his anger.”

“as you can probably tell by my user name, i am an atheist. Though i prefer to use the term "agnostic atheist", meaning "you can't prove there is or isn't a god, so it doesn't matter, but i don't think there is".

But your comment "Atheistic Liberalism is a religion", i don't really disagree with that. Because there are things i do in the way i live my life that parallel to the most basic aspects of religion. Here's some religious terms and how they apply to me.

God - my subconscious, the part of me i have no direct control over and guides me.
Prayer - meditation, lucid dreaming, introspection, ways to contact my subconscious to live my life better and gain lucidity in life.
Heaven - Enlightenment, lucidity, consciousness, being one with my subconscious.

And i believe just about everyone has parts of their life that follows this framework.”

“I thought the questions CNN picked were terrible. So obviously picked to make the debate as easy as possible for the candidates. And the candidates answers were even worse. Like the way they danced around the fact republicans have been causing this grotesque national debt because of the war, and how the blame it on earmarks. Earmarks? Really? That's the problem? Not a trillion dollar war? And of course avoiding how many of those earmarks came from bush. So let's see, with "fiscal" conservatives we get largest debt ever, and with the last spending "like a teen with a new credit card" democrats we had a surplus... interesting.

And i find it kinda ironic how from what i think was the best question, "How would you repair the image of America?", we got the worst answer. People of the middle east don't like America because of our presence there, and to fix that, according to rudy, MAKE SURE WE'RE THERE TO GET ALL THE TERRORISTS!!! WTF!!! did you even LISTEN to the question??? Way to repeat exactly what she said was wrong. AND THE APPLAUSE!!! I guess a republicans mind just goes "question blah blah about middles east hates us blah blah, wait rudy says kill terrorists?? YAY CHEER!!!!!!"

Republicans make me sick.

And i don't even really feel like commenting on that b.s. bible question, but can't help myself. The fact that CNN picked that is disgraceful. The bible has no place in a political debate.

I could go on and on forever. Debate basically was this following format...

1. Predictable question
2. Answering how they'd achieve by saying they've done it before.
3. Someone else saying they didnt. and repeat.

Other pet peeves of the debate, no environment questions, gay questions weren't tough (like the one from the first debate), and too much Jesus.

Few things i liked, Ron Paul on foreign policy, and... and... ok maybe one thing.”

“i see these concerns as greatly exaggerated. I haven't seen strong evidence of it, if you can recommend something that says otherwise, i will read it. Also, my dad has worked on nuclear plants, and also sees these claims as exaggerated. I agree that nuclear is not the best solution with regards to radioactive waste and initial cost, but I do not think it should be taken off the table, because of its output and zero carbon emissions. I think engineers can find viable solutions to the waste problems.

I don't like the cost argument against nuclear, because to me no price should be considered "too high" for saving our planet. I think most people could agree with that.

As i said before, i agree its not perfect. So sometimes i see it as a transition energy source. But then i realize how pretty stupid that sounds. Spend millions and millions on plants that will eventually be replaced? Also, I don't know enough on costs of other options (like wind and solar), and their implementation times compared to nuclear.

The more i'm writing the more i'm convincing myself away from nuclear... damn. Anyway, i think its good to keep the nuclear debate open, and we certain shouldn't close the plants that are open.”

“so we shouldn't be willing to sacrifice more money for a powerful zero CO2 emission technology?”