View Single Post
Old 05-16-2005, 09:55 AM   #42
Posts: n/a
kattrocks wrote
1.What is the nature of God?
What is God? We Atheists reject the notion of God as a fallacy based on evidence, or lack thereof. But at least we don't presume to know the inner workings of a supreme being based on a book.

2.What is the nature of man?
Procreation for the purposes of continuation of genes.

3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
Evil is nothing more than a concept within the minds of man. It is the polar opposite of the concept of good. There is no evil without good and no good without evil.

4.How do you fix evil?
Without good there is no evil. Therefore to eliminate evil we must first eliminate good. Which would you prefer?

5.What happens when you die?
The body begins to cool, then becomes pallid as blood ceases to be pumped. Sphincter muscles slacken and releases urine, feces, and stomach contents. Blood settles in the relatively lower parts of the body and begins to coagulate as body tempature drops. Rigor mortis sets in, peaks at approximately 12 hours and dissapears in 36 depending on conditions.

Within a day decomposition begins to occur as a result of autolytic changes and foreign catalytic organisms. Internal body structures will begin to rot. Noxious gases are released as a result of bacterial activity during the putrefication process, causing bloating as the gases accumulate within yet intact body structure. The skin begins to disintegrate along with internal muscle structures, cumulating in total collapse of external physical structures. Once muscle decomposition is complete only the skeletal structure will remain.

Does that answer your question?

6.What is your source for this information?
Logic. And an internship.

7.How reliable is your source?
Very, for I am my own source.

8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
As with all things, there is a probability, no matter how small, that Atheism is wrong. After all there is no conclusive evidence of the absence of God. We merely collated scientific and philosopical findings from other areas and juxtaposed them to the context of religion to conclude that there is no God.

But then again it's more reasonable to base one's views on concrete findings rather than on a collection of words that were dictated, written, and propagated by pre-scientific humans t arrive at a conclusion, is it not?
  Reply With Quote