SMG.

From someone knowing verry little to nothing about music. I quite enjoyed it.

Hey I am so sorry to hear what happened to you, I cannot imagine such a life. I hope my response doesn't seem unempathetic its just that a troubled as my life is it has not compared to yours. Well done on your courage to take action, heering how you were able to do it gives hope to me as well.

Hello Everyone! So glad to be here. My name is Scott and I have a passion for defining and fighting evil! Just last year I would have defined myself, and virtue itself by Christianity. I thought this way because I didn't think morality could exist secularly and I didn't want to live in a world with no true principles. I had heard different moral theories that attempted to show how morality "could" exist separately from the religious. These theories from atheists from Sam Harris and others who proposed theories that I believed to be invalid. I had previously and regularly taught bible studies and remembered thinking if ever a secular theory could be put forward that could be shown to be logically true then religion would be meaningless and what I believed would be in trouble. My comfort came from thinking this could never happen. I stumbled on to FDR through a Youtube link and heard Stef give his comments about the economy that seemed clear and poignant. I didn't know what philosophy was at the time but thought of what it revealed as "nuggets of truth". It was on this path that I came upon "UPB: A Defence of Secular Ethics" and it felt like a knife in the gut. It felt that way because it was valid, and more so explained why university professors and other "empiricists" who did not recognize any ethical responsibilities did not wish to recognize its validity. Since then all my relationships have changed and I have no real friends, more so aquanitnces. I do not hang out or really converse with the same people, accept for a few that I am now in heavy discussions with UPB. Anyway, now that a huge paradigm shift has happened in my life I am looking forward to getting to know people here and base my interactions and relationships on rational level where I can have real conversations.

Welcome Adam, My name is Scott, and I am just a few hours south of you in Calgary. I feel like I could of wrote this paragraph word for word. It shakes you up, but I'm really glad I re-discovered FDR. I don't think I would ever be truly happy or satisfied with life if I continued down the path I was on. I'm lucky in that my true self has stayed strong enough through all my experiences so far that I've never been able to feel comfortable conforming and letting the truth slide when it's convenient. I certainly have not always acted in accordance with the truth, but always have felt the hypocrisy when doing so. I want to live a life of principles and actually connect with some people instead of going along to get along and continuing relationships to which there really isn't any actual substance. Perhaps the next time I am in Edmonton i'll see if any meetups are comming up a join the group. I think you have a bit larger group anyway.

Interesting I think I understand. This would only be the case though in a universe that is infinently expanding is that correct?

Hi aro, I complety agree with you. I am just saying without a word that talks about the irrational as being rational we wouldn't need a word that is the opoosite of what we pretend to be rational. It is the reason why I do not say atheism.

I do not disagree with the word atheism, and I would consider myself to be one. I did not make up the argument I am just rebutting it. It is the argument that assumes the diety's existence and then shows how those traits are contradictory. I am saying assuming such a being those traits are not contridictory. I would agree that I have a negative emotional reaction to the word Atheist because of my past and growing up, but the word itself seems to focus on only one aspect. As I stated previously, would you consider yourself to be an agopherist (someone who believes in a giant invisible gopher in the sky) or an aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky). I would hope you would just consider yourself to be just a rational empiricist. Those two words should be enough to combat all mysticism. Atheism may get to the point sooner but in a world without Theists the word would not exist. I agree it is a conclusion, but I am not about conclusions I am about the process that gets to conclusions. If there is no way rational empiricism proves theism, which I would agree with, then having it as an answer to all mystism makes more sence to me. I understand the cricket analogy. I can not imagine that to happen. I can not imagine a square circle either. I may be missing something here, but I can I at least imagine such a non existent being to exist? As I agree such a being does not exist, the only limits someone could have would be to the extent they can imagine such a creature. When Donald Rumsfeld proposed the unkown unkown category for example is he talking about the limits of human knowledge. I just do not understand where the contradiction is in the same way I can see where it is in a square circle. I am not saying you are wrong, am just say I don't see it.

I don't disagree on this point as I don't think their is a being with this ability. We assume here that the being knows what we call all the unknown unknowns or the things we can not know, so the unknown unkowns wouldn't even be a category for such a being.

Yes, I do have a religious background so I guess it would be possible that there were past influences on my life for me taking that stand but I do not believe that to be the case. Perhaps though this makes me more attune to arguments that are invalid. Imagine a world where no one were theists and everyone were rational empiricists. Would the word atheist even be necessary? In my original post I did say I was an atheist but I believe it confuses the issues. If someone believed that 2+2=5 for example would we need a word defining ourselves as those that did not believe in that particular falsehood? I think not, for both questions. If a religious person asks you if you believe in god or are religious I believe the best answer is to answer no, I am a rational empiricist. If you said atheist instead or rational empiricist such a person may write you off on picking it for a great number of emotional reasons. Not all atheists are necessarily rational in all aspects of their lives and someone may be atheist without knowing any of the arguments for it. I am not holding out for evidence of anything. I am not holding on to evidence for atheism or for the lack of evidence for theism. Instead I will follow the evidence where it leads, if more evidence comes in I will compare it against other evidence. I do not care what the conclusion is. By saying you are a rational empiricist, you are telling them that their beliefs are not rational and can not be verified empirically. If it turns out that they can think, really think, you have undoubtedly touched a nerve and started a conversation that may make them re consider there view. The word atheist doesn't do that it is a conclusion, where rational empiricism is not. If you agree that Stefan’s argument is completely unnecessary why should anyone bring it up being there exists a mountain of evidence for atheism as you say. My last objection in the article states that. If you believe my reasoning to be flawed please tell me and I will correct my error, if there is not however, let us not try to convince others using flawed reasoning and not pretend that the argument works. I wouldn't want to convince someone else on flawed reasoning. Getting to atheism as a conclusion is not as important as being able to think rationally and be able to check ones bias? I understand from what you said, your girlfriend was supposedly convinced by this argument. Are you fine with people getting to the conclusion of atheism with arguments that are not valid? If they did get there with arguments that are not valid did they really think about reasons why, or does part of them just want to conform to your views or others? If that is the case there is no difference between any deist and atheist if the only factor brining one to a certain view is that of emotion.

That's my bad, you can tell I am more of a listener than a reader...

Hey everyone, I have read Stefan's book against the God's on three different occassions. I accept the arguments but I do have a problem with this argument as I do not believe it to be valid: Omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow. I consdier myself to be a rational empiricist and I am not an athiest anymore than I am an agopherist(someone who believes in an invisable gopher in the sky with no mass) or aunicornist (someone who believes in an invisable unicorn in the sky with no mass). I am an athiest but I do not think the word is nessisarry as a word isn't needed for the acknoledgement of not believing in the non existent as being rational and empirical fits the bill. Your just not dillusional. If I have missed something in my critque or made an error please let me know and I would love to be corrected. If however you believe my critique to be rational and on point please let me know. I have attached it in the file: Omnipotent vs. Omniscience Rebutal.pdf

Hey Travoli, I agree with some what to what you said. I grew up my whole life in the church as well, I even taught a bible study for two years. Although my background is Evangelical. I thought morality could only be defined with reference to God, and so when I read UPB it litterly killed who I was, not physically of course, but it was a total paradigm shift. I do not remember being bullied as indocrination does not allways feel like being bullied especially when the community around you isn't mean, just perhaps distant. My recolection as a child was not the fear of hell so much as fear of nihilism. However if you do accept religous values and you are to willingly take abuse, you end up being the perfect target for sociopaths and bullies. I may be projecting but indoctrination does not necissarily feel like bulling.

I agree with you. If someone did not apolagise for bumping you and you didn't say anything they might think it was on purpose. It needs to be said otherwise the wrong meaning might be construed. There is always a better understanding that comes with regret. You may look for different situations in the future to try to make up for your regret. The important thing is not to let the regret define you, just like apolagizing or being sorry shouldn't define you. I would just have to add that I do understand when talking about regrett that they acknowledge your regrett. Saying what can you do doesn't help.