Category Archives: Debates

Is Atheism Simply a Statement of “Disbelief,” or Can It Be Religiously Adhered To?

By | |
Leave a comment

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall…

"Atheism: It has it's own symbol. It's own Evangelists. It's won fundraisers and weekly gatherings. And there's no way to prove a [Creator] doesn't exist but they believe it strongly."

“Atheism: It has it’s own symbol. It’s own Evangelists. It’s won fundraisers and weekly gatherings. And there’s no way to prove a [Creator] doesn’t exist but they believe it strongly.”

Brian J.: Hey Rayn. After some further research, I’ve realized that atheism is not a religion. You’re just talking about fundamentalists and behavior patterns that make it look like a religion, but it’s not a religion. If you look up the definition of religion, it always involves something spiritual. And that’s why communism was a religion, that used atheism to not believe in other gods, but to worship the state. Which had nothing to do with atheism. Atheism simply means, “a lack of belief in god or gods.” Which is why I don’t believe in any gods, or creators. Now whatever a person does after that, has nothing to do with atheism. Being an atheist activists, doesn’t really have anything to do with the definition of atheism. Which is why atheism turns into an ideology, in spite of itself.

It’s not suppose to be an ideology, or a religion. But because of religious people, it gets turned into that, while having nothing to do with the definition of atheism. Atheism is just a statement. It’s an unbelief. I require no faith to have an unbelief in god or gods. It doesn’t take faith to believe in a time n chance universe. Especially since scientists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are starting to realize that there was something, before something else got created. And that everything didn’t happen by chance or randomly. Evolution and the big bang had a random component, but it wasn’t all random. So as an atheist, I don’t have to believe in a time n chance universe. Because not all of it happened by time n chance.

But as an atheist, I do have faith. I have faith in the natural world, and in things that I can see. I have the hope that a more secular world, can create a better world. But I have no evidence for this, so I rely on faith. 🙂

Rayn:  I did not say that atheism  in itself, is a religion. I said that atheism can be religiously adhered to, and that there are, in fact, a few religions of atheism in existence. With this in mind, being an atheist does not automatically make you a member of these religions of atheism, of course, nor does it mean that you religiously adhere to atheism.

According to you, “if you look up the definition of religion, it always involves something spiritual.” While I must emphasize dictionaries DO NOT create words, but only record their historical, popular usage, let’s still do exactly what you suggest, to see what we find:

RELIGION:
1a : the state of a religious* <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious* faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious* attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 (archaic): scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

RELIGIOUS:
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : fervent, zealous
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

(Click Here to Continue Reading This Post) →

Discussing the Merits of Individual Awakening Through Truth

By | |
Leave a comment

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I posted artwork being shared by an acquaintance from here…

Rayn: 

"We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy." - Chris Hedges

“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” – Chris Hedges

Rayn: Indeed! 🙂

Raheem G.: Now? Hahaha does this guy not know history. The world has always been corrupt. Read the Prince, that book wasn’t written anytime recently, and yet the lesson that a ruler must be corrupt if necessary has always been. Man has an agenda. Some men are just less selfish than others.

Raheem G.: And religion doesn’t destroy morals. That would mean every atheist is the most moral person walking on earth. Sorta like guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Rayn: Though I understand your sentiment, Raheem, Hedges said “we now live in a nation,” not “we now live in a world.” He apparently believes that America was not always in such a terrible state as today… I shared the picture because I ALWAYS appreciate a good story of individual awakening through Truth! 🙂

Rayn: As for the religion comment, I go by the following philosophy: “Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.”

The problem with your atheist analogy is that most so-called Atheists worship the religion of government, the pagan deity, “Fortune,” or even most frequently, their own selves. Therefore, they are FAR from “religion-free.” In fact, most of them are so deceived, that they believe they are taking the “reasonable” approach in their Atheistic views, yet their viewpoint is just as faith-based and not provable as belief in the existence of a Universal Creator. The only true “reasonable” position on the issue would be the “agnostic” one, incidentally…

Rayn: And, since it is not scientifically sound to accept skepticism, nor lack of knowledge, as a final position, as they are transitional states, an agnostic should always be working towards a goal of better understanding, and not becoming intellectually lazy or complacent behind their label…. (Click Here to Continue Reading This Post) →

Continue the Oppressive Cycle of Violence, or Embrace the Non-Aggression Principle?

By | |
1 Comment

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Violence is the Language of the Oppressor!“…

Rayn: The Non-Aggression Principle is the foundation of True Peace! Violence is the language of the Oppressor, and “the last refuge of the incompetent.” Those who follow after Cain will indeed find themselves among their brethren… in the Pit!

Oh, you believe in violent revolution? Tell me about how your use of violence is different than the State's use of violence?

Oh, you believe in violent revolution? Tell me about how your use of violence is different than the State’s use of violence?

Adam G.: My violence is different from the state’s because I am protecting myself. If you can’t see the difference, then you either have a metric fucktonne of privielge or don’t pay attention.

Rayn: Hmmm… To begin, Adam, if you can’t see the difference between physical self-defense and violent revolution… please let me know, and I will be more than happy to explain! I would never deny another the right to physical self-defense in the event of an immediate threat of violence. That is a personal CHOICE, to be made with respect to each situation, even. 🙂

Second, you have committed three logical fallacies in your conclusion. (1) The False Dichotomy: There are many more reasons than the two you have presented to explain why I would be unable to see difference between “[your] violence” versus the State’s use of it. (2) An Ad Hominem Attack: Claiming me to have either a “metric fucktonne of privilege  or to be “not paying attention” are unsubstantiated personal jabs at me, and do nothing to further an explanation of your position, and really only support your last error, (3) An Appeal to Ridicule: Mocking what you believe is my position does nothing to explain your position. This is true, regardless of what form of mockery you engage in, really.

I will be happy to continue this discussion with you, but you must stay on track. Let’s share ideas. I enjoy it. Also, be sure to let me know if you are referring to physical self-defense, or violent revolution, when you mention “[your] violence,” as I am not sure, since your wording leaves much room to interpret “protecting [your]self” as self-defense, especially since you did not elaborate on your position whatsoever, and presented an Appeal to Ridicule. To me, this means that we might just be dealing with a matter of semantics, here. 🙂

Police: De Facto Tax Revenue Collectors for the State, or Simply “Doing Their Job”?

By | |
Leave a comment

The following debate originally took place upon the Facebook wall of family…

"I know you were only doing 2 mph over, but if I don't write 100 of these tickets a month, I will be fired."

“I know you were only doing 2 mph over, but if I don’t write 100 of these tickets a month, I will be fired.”

Genaire: Must be quota time in NJ. The highway state pigs – oops, I mean “troopers” – are out in force fucking with people.

Terrence B.: Oh stop it! They got too work too. Smh! If not idiots would be dropping the needle then what? Lol

Rayn: They’re “just following orders,” right? SMH! During the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis attempted that EXACT defense strategy, yet the international community staunchly REJECTED it as PURE FALLACY! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense

QUOTAS were already established as UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the American court system. Therefore, if an officer is given “orders” to engage in such criminal activity, it is his DUTY as a CITIZEN FIRST, to REFUSE, and then FILE A COMPLAINT against his superior! Attempting to claim job security as an excuse for violating our civil rights is just a pathologically pathetic EXCUSE for TYRANNY!!!

(Click Here to Continue Reading This Post) →

Democracy, or a Constitutional Republic?

By | |
1 Comment

The following debate originally took place here, on the Facebook page, “Thomas Paine“…

(replies from all third parties have been omitted for clarity) 

Thomas Paine’s FB Page: The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth

"Democracy... a challenge"

“Democracy… a challenge”

Jan Paulson: That’s funny??? Neither my copy of the Declaration of Independence nor my copy of the Constitution mentions anything about a Democracy… they keep refering to A REPUBLIC!!!!!

Jason Gade: There is no significant difference between a democracy and a republic, unless you are being a nitpicking asshole.

Rayn: Good point, Jan! I was thinking that very same thing! To America’s Founders, pure “Democracy” was the dangerous legalization of 51% mob rule, while a “Constitutional Republic” sought to protect the Inalienable Rights of the Citizenry, as established by the Constitution, regardless of the will of the majority.

So, rest assured that making such a distinction is a far cry from being a “nitpicking asshole.” 🙂

“Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.” – Marvin Simkin

(Click Here to Continue Reading This Post) →