Atheism Discussion from LDS Thread

[k-os]

Everybody here is pitching something. Are you surprised that someone who believes in a particular religious concept is trying to find willing adherents? We have a fair number of atheists here who are trying to teach us the benefits of denying there is a God and that the only moral principle is what is commonly accepted today. We have gold sellers, silver sellers, end of the world sellers, anti-jew sellers, pro-Russian sellers, muslim sellers, new age religion sellers, prepper sellers, etc. I am in a few of those. So what?


Spectrism, I don't mean to pick on you, I swear. It just turns out that your posts are the ones I want to respond to, so far (I am catching up in this thread).

I just had to say that I really don't ever see/feel/hear/read Athiests trying to convert people with their beliefs, in real life, or on GSUS.

[Spectrism]

Spectrism, I don't mean to pick on you, I swear. It just turns out that your posts are the ones I want to respond to, so far (I am catching up in this thread).

I just had to say that I really don't ever see/feel/hear/read Athiests trying to convert people with their beliefs, in real life, or on GSUS.

If I were an atheist, I wouldn't try to convert anyone either. Convert to what? They have nothing to sell. There is no value in being an atheist. Consider what it means that there is no God. All is random chance and survival of the fittest is the number one principle. What you can take and keep is rightfully yours. Big dogs eat little dogs and any brutal government is just doing its part to survive.

An atheist is a very sorry individual. They have no hope for anything beyond what they can grab today. They pass on no legacy of life and no chance of reunion. This is why they tend to flock into new age religions which really are old age demonic lies repackaged for this age. There is no right or wrong with an atheist. No firm anchor in a sea of change. No guiding direction when darkness and confusion surround. They think they are free from religious bondage but they are enslaved in their self-imposed tombs.

I have something to sell as a child of the King.... but the sale cost is already paid! It is very costly and none of us could afford it. So the King provided His only-begotten Son to cover our costs. Those who would buy this deal gain entry into the family of God and become inheritors of the universe. How do we buy it? We surrender our souls to the only one who really loves us and cares about us. The Messiah is faithful to keep his promises.

[Gaillo]

If I were an atheist, I wouldn't try to convert anyone either. Convert to what? They have nothing to sell. There is no value in being an atheist. Consider what it means that there is no God. All is random chance and survival of the fittest is the number one principle. What you can take and keep is rightfully yours. Big dogs eat little dogs and any brutal government is just doing its part to survive.

An atheist is a very sorry individual. They have no hope for anything beyond what they can grab today. They pass on no legacy of life and no chance of reunion. This is why they tend to flock into new age religions which really are old age demonic lies repackaged for this age. There is no right or wrong with an atheist. No firm anchor in a sea of change. No guiding direction when darkness and confusion surround. They think they are free from religious bondage but they are enslaved in their self-imposed tombs.

I have something to sell as a child of the King.... but the sale cost is already paid! It is very costly and none of us could afford it. So the King provided His only-begotten Son to cover our costs. Those who would buy this deal gain entry into the family of God and become inheritors of the universe. How do we buy it? We surrender our souls to the only one who really loves us and cares about us. The Messiah is faithful to keep his promises.

That is undoubtably the most laughable display of sheer ignorance and self-righteous judgement I've ever read on this forum! No, really!

I'm not really sure where to start in tearing that "argument" to shreds... there are so many factual errors and biases in there... so I'll just start at he beginning and ramble a bit instead.

Atheists do not typically go out trying to "convert" people to Atheism because it's a "Zero Sum" endeavor to us. The only reason we really CARE what nonsensical superstitious crap others believe is when it begins to affect our person, as in the case of "holy war" or faith based legislation. We are not going to lose our "souls" by not spreading our "Gospel", we are not going to find favor with our non-existent imaginary friend if we "gain converts" through "preaching", etc. To us, it just DOESN'T MATTER what complete nonsense and irrationality others choose to clog up their minds with, above all we are typically "live and let live" type people.

"No value as an atheist"? I laughed out loud when I read this! The "value" you gain from an Atheistic world view is FREEDOM. Freedom from superstition, and enslavement to the whims of imaginary beings and their irrational demands. Atheists are free to adopt a value system and moral code that is based on our NATURE AS BEINGS, our relationship to the universe and its REAL demands, and our relationship to other people and their varied actions. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and other Theists do NOT have a monopoly on ethical and moral behavior... literally MILLIONS of Atheists in this country live perfectly moral and decent lives among society, doing no harm, and upbuilding their respective communities through neighborly behavior and non-coercive non-judgemental action.

As for Atheists being "sorry individuals", you could not possibly be more wrong. Every Atheist I've ever met has been a happy, productive, exuberant individual. We are unencumbered by moralistic religious chains, heavy burdons of "Sin" (Self-Imposed-Nonsense), or constant fear of divine retribution. We see things as they ARE and we're not afraid to LIVE. We know that life is a chance, that we won't be here forever, and that we need to make the MOST of life. We do not sacrifice our hopes and dreams in this life for the false hope of some heaven or nirvana tomorrow... we are too busy trying to construct our idea of heaven HERE AND NOW. The fact that this is an imperfect world does not stop us from making an attempt at our dreams, at least we don't have the boogyman of a jealous wrathful God to plan for along with all the other naturally occuring setbacks we deal with!

Spectrism, here is a thought for you about Atheists and what they believe. Please consider this somewhat seriously: Atheists, in general, believe that there is nothing "after" this life. We (in general) believe that experience, sensation, memory, and ultimately consciousness itself are by-products of a very sophisticated chemical machine called the brain. What this means, succinctly put, is that ALL WE WILL EVER KNOW IS LIFE. Life is ALL we will ever experience, and since death implies that the chemical machine is no longer processing/sensing/conscious, we are EFFECTIVELY IMMORTAL in every way that matters... subjectively we will NEVER know death.

Now, my friend who has many imaginary friends, just suppose I'm right here for a second. Do YOU want to live YOUR eternal life filled with delusions about some life in the herefter that you will never experience, giving up true opportunities to LIVE and experience JOY in the HERE AND NOW? Giving up your birthright (as the very special kind of being you are) of FREEDOM and SELF DETERMINATION in favor of the chains and restrictions that religion offers?

A very high price your sales goods demand... I think I will pass. ;)

[singular_me]

Right Gaillo, I concur. I always get along a lot more with atheists/agnostics.

The Burden of Sin is what repels me the most - being born impure and one must seek redemption or ELSE ... something we find in most religions. More guilt, more inner fears, hence more evil.... yeah, the devil is lurking.

[Janadele]

The age of accountability is eight years old. From then we are judged on our choices and actions.

Judgement is fair... circumstances and knowledge are taken into account, as is genuine repentence. Even after mortal death we have the chance to repent and progress, but it is more difficult then than while in mortality.

There are three levels of salvation, and within each, other levels. Even the lowest is superior to mortality.

Lucifer and his like, such as Stalin and Hitler will be cast to outer darkness where they regress back to the intelligence from which they began.

The rest of our Heavenly Father's Spirit children progress further in the eternities at the different levels to which they have been assigned as a consequence of their choices and actions.


...The Burden of Sin is what repels me the most - being born impure and one must seek redemption or ELSE ... something we find in most religions. More guilt, more inner fears...

[Horn]

I think most atheists are not believing in the "God in the likeness of man" theorem. and or "destined fate".

Moral values of atheists IMO reflect humanist ideals.

Original sin, or forgivers of all sins mummers of Deity collective belief systems are the anti-thesis to their reality.

Individual morality has little to do with either, or just a little.

edit add>

Collectivist religion is on the rise (along with the state) across the globe, they feed with each other much the same way the "Democratic" quote from Ben Franklin stated.

Two wolves & a lamb.

[Gaillo]

I think most atheists are not believing in the "God in the likeness of man" theorem. and or "destined fate".

Moral values of atheists IMO reflect humanist ideas.

Original sin, or forgivers of all sins mummers of Deity collective belief systems are the anti-thesis to their reality.

Individual morality has little to do with either, or just a little.

This varies from Atheist to Atheist.

Personally, I choose Objectivism as the philosophical framework within which I construct my ethical system. Objectivism is the philosophy created by Ayn Rand, and explicitly framed by Leonard Piekoff in the book "Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand". Objectivism's central thesis is that the only workable and moral philosophy for mankind must be based on the actual nature of physical reality, as discovered and interpreted through the means of science and the rational mental faculty.

It is a very "humanistic" philosophy... Ayn Rand called it "a philosophy for living on earth". Its central ethical teaching is non-coercion, non-fraud - a variant of the "Golden Rule" that most religions teach.

[Horn]

This varies from Atheist to Atheist.

Personally, I choose Objectivism as the philosophical framework within which I construct my ethical system. Objectivism is the philosophy created by Ayn Rand, and explicitly framed by Leonard Piekoff in the book "Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand". Objectivism's central thesis is that the only workable and moral philosophy for mankind must be based on the actual nature of physical reality, as discovered and interpreted through the means of science and the rational mental faculty.

It is a very "humanistic" philosophy... Ayn Rand called it "a philosophy for living on earth". Its central ethical teaching is non-coercion, non-fraud - a variant of the "Golden Rule" that most religions teach.



How does James Brown & the dinosaurs fit in to that anti-septic outlook? :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DAfBZbz3tI

[Gaillo]

How does James Brown & the dinosaurs fit in to that anti-septic outlook? :)

Anti-Septic indeed! ;D

[Horn]

Anti-Septic indeed! ;D

But you're a moderator on a "SHTF" website? I think it was singular_me brought up something about polarities in the last thread.

The main concern of those with "God" about those without God is that they might have to become accustomed to a world were shit is a permanent fixture.

As you said the world is full of it.

Not that any amount of scrubbing, clean thoughts, or "magic underwear" will make it all vanish into cleanliness.

[Gaillo]

But you're a moderator on a "SHTF" website? I think it was singular_me brought up something about polarities in the last thread.

The main concern of those with "God" about those without God is that they might have to become accustomed to a world were shit is a permanent fixture.

As you said the world is full of it.

Not that any amount of scrubbing, clean thoughts, or "magic underwear" will make it all vanish into cleanliness.

I don't see a conflict. We're all here to learn and share information about dealing with the shit, whether or not it ever completely goes away. In my view of the world, I'm not as free as my parents were, and they're not as free as their grandparents were. The shit seems to get deeper... which does NOT mean we should bury our heads in the sand, pretend that it doen't exist, or wait for some magical fairy-tale being to come down from he clouds and clean it all up for us. In my mind, there's probably more of a conflict for Christians to be participating on this forum than for Atheists... Atheists are naturally inclined to want to find real, practical, down to earth solutions to the problems, or at least gain knowledge of what the problems ARE so we might better stay out of the way! ;)

[singular_me]

The age of accountability is eight years old. From then we are judged on our choices and actions.

Guilt is good but not when pushed to its extreme. It takes a lot of courage to confront what needs to change within. No kid in the world deserves to be told that s/he was born an untouchable, infidel or a sinner, etc. This is the reason why people give their power of consent away so easily, want to be governed as they fear one another.

I dont agree with the age of accountability - a 8 year old knows nothing about life (economics/sexuality/society). I'd raise it to 16 or 18 if not 21. I even think it would be fair to allow young adults to choose their own belief system.

It is the custom that Buddhist families send one of their children to the monastery, to become a monk, I call this brainwashing. When I watch those Kids Jihad carrying weapons and yell chants against the infidels, I want to scream myself... when I see a bombay kid beg for money because his social cast wont allow him to study, I want to cry... when I was told that Christ died for my sins, the burden of guilt made me feel completely unworthy.... and I could go on and on... a child deserves to be offered "self-discovery" The age of 8 rather defines the easiness of indoctrination because there is no critical thinking at that age. IMO.

Now this said, there are beautiful things said in every scripture/faith and which are will eternally remain true.

[Horn]

And to whom/what do you thank, when there is nobody specifically to address?

Afterall it is our gratitude that keeps us in balance with each other.

For instance a potato you find under your good foot.

[LuckyStrike]

Spectrism, I don't mean to pick on you, I swear. It just turns out that your posts are the ones I want to respond to, so far (I am catching up in this thread).

I just had to say that I really don't ever see/feel/hear/read Athiests trying to convert people with their beliefs, in real life, or on GSUS.

They don't "convert" because they preach nothing. The atheists I know just hold themselves to be so pious that they have risen above mere Christian fables.

Being an atheist is nothing but intellectual shallowness masquerading as enlightened genius, practiced by people who do not want to live by a set moral code. Ironically enough this bullshit belief is most often practiced by people who, had their ancestors believed in "atheism" would be most likely riding the back of a camel scream "allah akbar" (or some other non White invader of Europe)

[Gaillo]

And to whom/what do you thank, when there is nobody in specific to address?

I am thankful every day for my existence. I thank the universe in all its infinite and eternal majesty!

I thank myself for the fruits of my own efforts... as is normal and proper.

[LuckyStrike]

Personally, I choose Objectivism as the philosophical framework within which I construct my ethical system.

LOL, well at least you admit you practice the religion of a jew.

[Gaillo]

LOL, well at least you admit you practice the religion of a jew.


They don't "convert" because they preach nothing. The atheists I know just hold themselves to be so pious that they have risen above mere Christian fables.

Being an atheist is nothing but intellectual shallowness masquerading as enlightened genius, practiced by people who do not want to live by a set moral code. Ironically enough this bullshit belief is most often practiced by people who, had their ancestors believed in "atheism" would be most likely riding the back of a camel scream "allah akbar" (or some other non White invader of Europe)

Wow, dude. I didn't realize you were such an ill-informed bigotted dick until now! :o


Ayn Rand was NOT a jew, she left her homeland, her jewish roots, and changed her name so as to no longer be associated with them. She was Atheist, like myself, and hated religion. Objectivism is a scientific philosophy, not a religion. It asks that you believe NOTHING - it holds that belief is the ENEMY of knowledge.

As for the "allah akbar" part... you have Atheism confused with Theism... those are the guys who ride camels and blather on about how great God is! Those are the guys in YOUR camp, not mine.

[Horn]

I thank the universe in all its infinite and eternal majesty!

Ahh but then, is this not your "God"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaO0b-DvJU8

[singular_me]

This varies from Atheist to Atheist.

Personally, I choose Objectivism as the philosophical framework within which I construct my ethical system. Objectivism is the philosophy created by Ayn Rand, and explicitly framed by Leonard Piekoff in the book "Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand". Objectivism's central thesis is that the only workable and moral philosophy for mankind must be based on the actual nature of physical reality, as discovered and interpreted through the means of science and the rational mental faculty.

It is a very "humanistic" philosophy... Ayn Rand called it "a philosophy for living on earth". Its central ethical teaching is non-coercion, non-fraud - a variant of the "Golden Rule" that most religions teach.

that is annoying: 15 years or so ago, I read that Peikoff endorsed Isreal's right to live and self-defense. www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html ... Israel should be dismantled as there never was anything genuine behind her "resurrection" after 2000 years or so.

Dont take me wrong, I think obectivism still has a lot to offer, even if Rand was a controlled opposition and never really said anything against Israel. I have been blown away by the virtues of selfishness at the time. Non-coercion principles merge with altruism.

Peikoff doesnt deserve to be Rand's intellectual heir. IMO

[Gaillo]

Ahh but then, is this not your "God"?

Nope. The concept of "God" carries with it the idea of a supernatural (outside of nature) being who CREATES nature. If anything, I "worship" (give credit to) nature itself, with no "creator" in the picture. I personally believe that nature is infinite and eternal, had no creator, and will continue to exist forever. This belief system does not require a "God" of any kind.

[Gaillo]

that is annoying: 15 years or so ago, I read that Peikoff endorsed Isreal's right to live and self-defense. www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html ... Israel should be dismantled as there never was anything genuine behind her "resurrection" after 2000 years or so.

Dont take me wrong, I think obectivism still has a lot to offer, even if Rand was a controlled opposition and never really said anything against Israel. I have been blown away by the virtues of selfishness at the time.

Peikoff doesnt deserve to be Rand's intellectual heir. IMO

Rand did defend Israhell's existence, and (rightly) gets a lot of flack for that. In her defense, however, I don't think she was fully aware of what they were doing to the palestinians, as the bulk of that horrific activity happened after her time... I think she would have been SICKENED at the Israhell/Palestine situation of today, and most likely would have outright and vocally condemned it! As for Khazarist Zionism, I never read or heard her speak in support of either factor, I'm not sure she was even aware of it.

As for Piekoff, I have no "dog in the fight" when it comes to him, I know very little about the man or his views. My only interest in Piekoff is that I'm grateful to him for consolidating the elements of Rand's philosophy into a coherent whole (the book "Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand").

[LuckyStrike]

Wow, dude. I didn't realize you were such an ill-informed bigotted dick until now! :o


Ayn Rand was NOT a jew,

Well that last line alone pretty much does all my work for me.

Let's recap, someone calls me uninformed, then they say Ayn Rand wasn't a jew. Riiiight.


Don't even hold on to the notion for a second that I wouldn't bend you over in a debate.

[Gaillo]

Well that last line alone pretty much does all my work for me.

Let's recap, someone calls me uninformed, then they say Ayn Rand wasn't a jew. Riiiight.

Don't even hold on to the notion for a second that I wouldn't bend you over in a debate.

A Jew by blood? Yes. Philosophically and practically? Absolutely not. The only debate here is in your own mind, I choose to judge people by their ACTIONS, not their genetic lineage.

[Janadele]

Singular me, It seems you did not realise that my response was to assure you that your concerns regarding children are unfounded.

We are not held accountable until the age of eight. Our Heavenly Father has decreed this eternal law so such is not negotiable.


... No kid in the world deserves to be told that s/he was born an untouchable, infidel or a sinner, etc. I dont agree with the age of accountability -

[Horn]

Nope. The concept of "God" carries with it the idea of a supernatural (outside of nature) being who CREATES nature.

To certain extent the concept of "God" carries with it the idea of a separate purposeful intellect(s) with intent.

Separate intent intellect being the effect cause of an initial feeling.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6lLM92BkCI

[Gaillo]

To certain extent the concept of "God" carries with it the idea of a separate purposeful intellect(s) with intent.

Separate intellect being the effect cause of an initial feeling.

By some definitions, absolutely.

However, when talking to most people about God, I am mainly concerned with the majority popular view of what "God" is, which almost invariably carries with it the concepts of "supernatural" and "creator".

The main problem with the concept of "God" is that it is such an ill-defined idea, with so many different meanings to different people and groups.

[LuckyStrike]

A Jew by blood? Yes. Philosophically and practically? Absolutely not.


A jews goal on earth is one thing, to destroy Christ and his followers. Rand worked diligently to destroy everything he stood for. You have bought into it hook line and sinker, which may be ok, I do not know your racial history, perhaps Christianity is not for you. In which case, carry on.

This is a good article

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/04/selfish-bastards-a-review-of-%E2%80%9Catlas-shrugged-part-i%E2%80%9D/

[Horn]

The main problem with the concept of "God" is that it is such an ill-defined idea, with so many different meanings to different people and groups.

What if I shined this video into your eyeball, Mr. Objectivity?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNNJv_U45-g

[Gaillo]

What if I shined this video into your eyeball, Mr. Objectivity?

A mishmash of truth and metaphysical gobledigook. I'd probably enjoy going out to coffee with that guy and discussing conceptual definitions! ;D

P.S. A room is a room, regardless of how we perceive it! ;)

[Gaillo]

A jews goal on earth is one thing, to destroy Christ and his followers. Rand worked diligently to destroy everything he stood for. You have bought into it hook line and sinker, which may be ok, I do not know your racial history, perhaps Christianity is not for you. In which case, carry on.

I agree. Ayn Rand worked her entire life diligently to destroy ALL forms of communism, collectivism, religious superstition, and stateism. In short, all forms and flavors of irrationality and anti-individualism. Oh... yes, as a side note, I have "bought into it" 100%! ;)

I know for a FACT that Christianity is not for me, I spent a good part of my life (that I wish I had back, incidentally) worshipping that worthless "savior" and his sky bully dad... I read the scriptures diligently and exerted every fiber of my being to live up to the ideal and be "worthy". No more... it's a ball and chain that I'm overjoyed to be rid of! ;D

As for my "racial history", as if it's any of your business, I'm about 60% Geman and 40% Norman through Welsh relatives... tall, white, and proud of it... long dark-blond hair and bearded with blue-green eyes and a 'tude to match. No Khazar hooked nose either! ;D

If you met me on the street, you'd mistake me for a bearded good 'ol country boy redneck hick... provided you didn't know anything about me that REALLY counts - what's between my ears.

[7th trump]

Right Gaillo, I concur. I always get along a lot more with atheists/agnostics.

The Burden of Sin is what repels me the most - being born impure and one must seek redemption or ELSE ... something we find in most religions. More guilt, more inner fears, hence more evil.... yeah, the devil is lurking.
Being born impure huh......?
Right off the bat you demonstrate inner fear.

Where did you hear that load of crap to beleive it?

[Gaillo]

Being born impure huh......?
Right off the bat you demonstrate inner fear.

Where did you hear that load of crap to beleive it?

She probably got it the same place you got yours... the "good" book that says we're all born into sin, and sinful by nature.



Psalms 51:5

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.



Romans 3:23

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God



Ephesians 2:3

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

[zap]

Being born inpure makes me think of the Catholics.

From what I understand if you are not Baptized asap when you are a baby and you die .... you will go to limbo, neither hell or heaven just stuck there I guess.

Feel free to correct me, as this is what I was told by a Catholic.

[Horn]

P.S. A room is a room, regardless of how we perceive it! ;)

Maybe for you!

What's with this "we" business? "We" don't perceive anything the same.

You have your p.o.v., I mine.

[Skirnir_]

Maybe this sub-forum needs to be changed from "Religion and Philosophy" to "Retardation and More Retardation"

[Gaillo]

Maybe for you!

What's with this "we" business? "We" don't perceive anything the same.

You have your p.o.v., I mine.

Yes... but the room is still a room, perceptions aside.

[Horn]

Yes... but the room is still a room, perceptions aside.

And God is god, perceptions aside.

Now as for objectivity...

[Skirnir_]

And God is god, perceptions aside.

Now as for objectivity...

That presupposes that the deity in question exists. Not all fall for such poorly-executed fallacy.

[LuckyStrike]

I agree. Ayn Rand worked her entire life diligently to destroy ALL forms of communism, collectivism, religious superstition, and stateism. In short, all forms and flavors of irrationality and anti-individualism. Oh... yes, as a side note, I have "bought into it" 100%! ;)

I know for a FACT that Christianity is not for me, I spent a good part of my life (that I wish I had back, incidentally) worshipping that worthless "savior" and his sky bully dad... I read the scriptures diligently and exerted every fiber of my being to live up to the ideal and be "worthy". No more... it's a ball and chain that I'm overjoyed to be rid of! ;D

As for my "racial history", as if it's any of your business, I'm about 60% Geman and 40% Norman through Welsh relatives... tall, white, and proud of it... long dark-blond hair and bearded with blue-green eyes and a 'tude to match. No Khazar hooked nose either! ;D

If you met me on the street, you'd mistake me for a bearded good 'ol country boy redneck hick... provided you didn't know anything about me that REALLY counts - what's between my ears.

I wasn't doubting your ancestry, but merely don't want to waste my time casting pearls before swine.

It's one of those things, he chooses you, you don't choose him so if that's the way the cookie crumbles far be it from me to interfere. However I sincerely hope you don't take this as a sign of intellectual weakness but rather what it is, not wanting to waste either of our time.

[Gaillo]

I wasn't doubting your ancestry, but merely don't want to waste my time casting pearls before swine.

It's one of those things, he chooses you, you don't choose him so if that's the way the cookie crumbles far be it from me to interfere. However I sincerely hope you don't take this as a sign of intellectual weakness but rather what it is, not wanting to waste either of our time.

No worries... you go your way, I'll go mine.

[Gaillo]

And God is god, perceptions aside.

Now as for objectivity...

Would it logically follow to say that Athena is Athena, whether or not she actually exists?

Saying something is itself says NOTHING about the reality of that thing, outside of its existence as an abstract concept.

[singular_me]

Singular me, It seems you did not realise that my response was to assure you that your concerns regarding children are unfounded.

We are not held accountable until the age of eight. Our Heavenly Father has decreed this eternal law so such is not negotiable.

I meant that after 8 years of age, they are according to what you say. I disrespectfully disagree. at that age (and younger ) it is impossible to have an opinion about the Universe/society/economics/sexuality. I am in the opinion to teach kids the advantages of non-coercion and let them decide which faith they wish to follow when they are mature enough to make a decision.

[singular_me]

Being born impure huh......?
Right off the bat you demonstrate inner fear.

Where did you hear that load of crap to beleive it?

born in sin, born impure, born infidel, born goy, born untouchable etc... what is thematic of all belief systems is "redemption" for being born and deserving after life. I am not making that up.

Id like to hear of a religion that doesnt take such a stance, is there one? However, my belief system regards all humans as potential geniuses and is definitely pro-life and antiwar. I dont think I can go wrong, can I?

[Horn]

Would it logically follow to say that Athena is Athena, whether or not she actually exists?

Saying something is itself says NOTHING about the reality of that thing, outside of its existence as an abstract concept.

You cannot deny that God exists.

[Gaillo]

You cannot deny that God exists.

I can deny anything. The burden of proof is on YOUR side, for asserting that such a being exists!

If I told you that there were giant green elephants on Pluto, it would be MY responsibility to provide you with proof of that assertion, NOT your responsibility to "prove" that they don't exist. You cannot prove a negative anyway.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_osrVjnPbdEM/SMpfeWkPzkI/AAAAAAAAEQ4/9qjwWIzbM0w/s1600/Real_Logic_vs_Religious_Logic.bmp

[Rubberchicken]

http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3686&d=1347416968

[singular_me]

Would it logically follow to say that Athena is Athena, whether or not she actually exists?

Saying something is itself says NOTHING about the reality of that thing, outside of its existence as an abstract concept.

well in my view the concept of God comprises all his creation. I think Horn means this too, Gaillo. God isnt separated from his creation. This is a pantheistic concept and monotheists radically disagree with, I know.

[Horn]

Prove to me that the room or baseball exists only as you see it.

[Gaillo]

well in my view the concept of God comprises all his creation. I think Horn means this too, Gaillo.

That assumes that the universe has a creator to begin with. I do not subscribe to that theory.

I see the universe as eternal - no need for creation, no eventual destruction.

I do, however, support you 100% in your view that God is inseperable from nature, if you drop the "supernatural" and "creator" concepts typically associated with God.

[Gaillo]

Prove to me that the room or baseball exists only as you see it.

I have no need to prove such an outlandish and illogical proposition. The room and the baseball exist, regardless of how you or I "see" them. To tie the perception of a thing into the nature of the existence of a thing is folly... our perceptions are limited by the limitations of our senses... there is FAR more to a room or a baseball than we can "see" or touch.

[singular_me]

That assumes that existence has a creator to begin with. I do not subscribe to that theory.

I do, however, support you 100% in your view that God is inseperable from nature, if you drop the "supernatural" and "creator" concepts typically associated with God.

Id call supernatural, everything we can't understand and/or have no explanation for. So I drop supernatural.

considering that everything must spin to stay alive... this motion must come from somewhere, we may never find out but it is out there. It doesnt cause me any frustration to leave it with no explanation. I can accept this.

[Horn]

there is FAR more to a room or a baseball than we can "see" or touch.

A god thing, or something?

What is this "further" thing?

It musn't be real if I can't see, or touch it.

[Gaillo]

there is FAR more to a room or a baseball than we can "see" or touch.


A god thing, or something?

What is this "further" thing?

It musn't be real if I can't see, or touch it.

Molecules. Quarks. Electromagnetic reflections and emissions in wavelengths invisible to human eyes. Crystaline structures and imperfections too small to be felt by our sense of touch. Varying densities, conductivities, heat transfers, and tensile strengths of material that are imperceptible by any human sense, yet can be measured with equipment devised by the mind of man. Internal structures and materials that cannot be sensed until the object is cut open.

All of it real, despite the fact you cannot see or touch it.

[singular_me]

edit: To prove vs disprove God is a dead end debate. IMO. No winners nor losers. Everybody goes back to square one of his own point of view.

My belief in God resides in the observation of Nature, which recycles everything. No energy is lost but transformed. I have read many possibilities about the nature of God, that It could be massive conglomerate of Souls, one sole Super Mind out of which everything comes alive, God IS the entire Universe Itself and thus perpetually reinventing Itself with no preconceived notions of good and bad, that we are the ones left with the duty to sort that out as we are conscious beings. I find pondering all this very fascinating, so I remain very open to any assumptions.

The way I see it, God is neutral, possess both masculine/positive and feminine/negative energies. Both need to evolve in sync to be able to create and sustain life. The problem I have with religions as a whole is that they all were written by masculine hands and generally represent the feminine with often a submissive role. Feminine repression throughout history proves this.

This whole life vs death approach is kinda futile as at the moment of our birth, we start dying... but then all spiritual train of thoughts assert that dying is being reborn. That one believes in reincarnation or not, the rebirth is a recurrent theme. However, while the promise of an after-life maybe reassuring, it also encourages many to die for a belief system. The problem here is that if it helped Christ get his message out (whether the crucifixion is allegoric or not, it doesnt matter) , extremely seldom are those who live according to such a high state of Awareness or Consciousness. I prefer Buddha because He did achieve the same objectives without being killed for his ideal. I feel sorry that so many buddhist monks cant follow their own teachings.


According to traditional Buddhism, the foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is The Five Precepts: no killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, or intoxicants.

I wonder why in most religious textbooks one finds the order to kill/harm people from another faith. This paranoia, doesnt make me want to follow A-N-Y.

[sirgonzo420]

So from this thread I gather that Gaillo likes to call that which men have called God "Nature". There is nothing wrong with that. God is not some character from a book or some big sky-bully.

Does "Reality" exist, Gaillo?

God is Absolute Reality.

If you could "zoom out all the way", then God is what you'd be seeing.

God is Isness.

The Devil is what men call God when they don't like Him.

The fact that you deem Nature to be infinite and eternal shows that you should not have a problem grasping the essential nature of that which men have come to call God.

God is what keeps the planets in orbit, and causes water to spin in the bottom of a toilet bowl.

I see your main issue as one springing from a semantic disagreement.

What sustains Nature? Nature? Whatever it is, it's God.

[Dogman]

So from this thread I gather that Gaillo likes to call that which men have called God "Nature". There is nothing wrong with that. God is not some character from a book or some big sky-bully.

Does "Reality" exist, Gaillo?

God is Absolute Reality.

If you could "zoom out all the way", then God is what you'd be seeing.

God is Isness.

The Devil is what men call God when they don't like Him.

The fact that you deem Nature to be infinite and eternal shows that you should not have a problem grasping the essential nature of that which men have come to call God.

God is what keeps the planets in orbit, and causes water to spin in the bottom of a toilet bowl.

I see your main issue as one springing from a semantic disagreement.

What sustains Nature? Nature? Whatever it is, it's God. Nice!

[Santa]

Exactly. Semantics. Good and evil. God and Devil. "A room is a room, regardless of how we perceive it!" What if the room is so vast that no individual self can perceive it? What if its walls are made of some substance that self perceptions can't experience? What if we're just an infinitesimally minute part of that room? What is consciousness? Self awareness? What if by experiencing self, we lose the ability to experience the room? We turn our consciousness inward toward self and become blind to the room. And consequently, in our self absorption, we perceive that we're alone and isolated. It recently occurred to me that logic itself is predicated and based on interpretation. Even mathematical logic. Interpretation... a process of interpretation of the measurement of the room that we cannot perceive. Interpretation requires language. WORD! Atheists worship logic. Logic is a tool invented by Man to measure a room that he can only imagine. How logical is that? It's theo-logical.

[Santa]

"And yet the room is a room, regardless of how we perceive it."

[sirgonzo420]

Exactly. Semantics. Good and evil. God and Devil. "A room is a room, regardless of how we perceive it!" What if the room is so vast that no individual self can perceive it? What if its walls are made of some substance that self perceptions can't experience? What if we're just an infinitesimally minute part of that room? What is consciousness? Self awareness? What if by experiencing self, we lose the ability to experience the room? We turn our consciousness inward toward self and become blind to the room. And consequently, in our self absorption, we perceive that we're alone and isolated. It recently occurred to me that logic itself is predicated and based on interpretation. Even mathematical logic. Interpretation... a process of interpretation of the measurement of the room that we cannot perceive. Interpretation requires language. WORD! Atheists worship logic. Logic is a tool invented by Man to measure a room that he can only imagine. How logical is that? It's theo-logical.


This post reminds me of an acid trip (e pluribus unum, lol) I had as a teenager.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Regarding God, the Universe, and Everything: Res ipsa loquitur.

The thing speaks for itself.... as a matter of fact, it never shuts up.

EDIT: it's pretty much impossible to honestly discuss "God" using English words.

In a way, "God" as a concept is a man-made contrivance that is used as an attempt to grasp and explain/name the awesomeness and ineffability of Ultimate, Absolute Reality.

GASP! Bear with me guys, I'm gonna use a hebrew phrase:

אהיה אשר אהיה "ehyeh asher ehyeh" - "I am that I am." Exodus 3:14 (http://bible.cc/exodus/3-14.htm)

तत् त्वम् असि "tat tvam asi" - "That Thou Art." Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 (http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/upanishads/chandogya.asp#Pra6)

[singular_me]

Not willing to play the devil advocate here: Ayan Rand's aristotelian metaphysics of existence acknowledges Nature/God, but she also understood that religions make most men irrational in the sense that experiencing Reality is essentially empirical. Not two experiences are alike. So it is very difficult to convert anyone to his own point of view when it comes down to spirituality. Thats why I think she discarded/banned religions, hence preached in favor of atheism.

I definitely agree with you that existence "is"... God is ISness

Here is Aristotle's argument for the existence of God.
In chapter 6, Aristotle argues that there must be some eternal and imperishable substance, otherwise all substance would be perishable, and then everything in the world would be perishable. But the world and time are not perishable, therefore &c. In chapter 7 he argues that this eternal actual substance must be a single prime mover, which, while the source of all process and change, is not itself subject to process or change. This substance does what is the highest form of life ought to do, namely to think. The God of the philosophers, perhaps. http://www.logicmuseum.com/ontological/aristotleontological.htm





So from this thread I gather that Gaillo likes to call that which men have called God "Nature". There is nothing wrong with that. God is not some character from a book or some big sky-bully.

Does "Reality" exist, Gaillo?

God is Absolute Reality.

If you could "zoom out all the way", then God is what you'd be seeing.

God is Isness.

The Devil is what men call God when they don't like Him.

The fact that you deem Nature to be infinite and eternal shows that you should not have a problem grasping the essential nature of that which men have come to call God.

God is what keeps the planets in orbit, and causes water to spin in the bottom of a toilet bowl.

I see your main issue as one springing from a semantic disagreement.

What sustains Nature? Nature? Whatever it is, it's God.

[Horn]

"And yet the room is a room, regardless of how we perceive it."

That's the basis of the illogical.

"We" don't perceive the room as it really is, "we" can't.

[singular_me]

I found this interesting... cant we get along - ever?


A schism (play /ˈskɪzəm/ or /ˈsɪzəm/; Greek: σχίσμα, skhísma, from σχίζω, skhízō, "to tear, to split") is a division between people, usually belonging to an organization or movement religious denomination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_schisms (didnt see the Talmud, nor Zionism in this list)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schisms_in_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schisms_in_Islam

Hinduism Schisms
http://www.patheos.com/Library/Hinduism/Historical-Development/Schisms-Sects.html

Buddhism Schisms
http://www.patheos.com/Library/Buddhism/Historical-Development/Schisms-Sects.html

[Gaillo]

Some really excellent posts in this thread today, folks! Thank you all, and keep 'em coming! ;)

[Skirnir_]

...

[Dogman]

... http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/25/ockham_2.jpg

[Horn]

This substance does what is the highest form of life ought to do, namely to think. The God of the philosophers, perhaps. http://www.logicmuseum.com/ontological/aristotleontological.htm

Think with intent, thought is an effect of the cause of feeling.

Its not vise verse, & the only case where the egg comes before the chicken.

Sounds like Aristotle was forming theoretical electron eggs.

What is the theoretical cause of feeling/sensing?

[singular_me]

Think with intent, thought is an effect of the cause of feeling.

OK...


Its not vise verse, & the only case where the egg comes before the chicken.

dont you have better than a egg-chicken dilemma to offer? :) Id say that the environment causes thoughts as we are complete ignorant at birth... we are completely subject to it.


Sounds like Aristotle was forming theoretical electron eggs.

in fact i was hesitating to copy and past this line...


What is the theoretical cause of feeling/sensing?

listening, dear...

[Gaillo]

Think with intent, thought is an effect of the cause of feeling.

A nutritionally empty word salad. A request, Horn... could you at least TRY to be a little less unclear and mystical sounding... and attempt communication about the topic at hand in clear, precise language? If trolling and endless diversionary nonsense is your goal (like last night when close to 20 of your posts were removed from this thread), then kindly STOP.



Sounds like Aristotle was forming theoretical electron eggs.

Huh? Are we going to have a repeat of last night? ???

The essential core of Aristotle's metaphysics is that the universe exists, is knowable, and that IT IS WHAT IT IS regardless of how anybody "feels" about it or thinks it should be. Contrast that with Plato's metaphysics of an unknowable, shifting universe of shadows and illusion. Modern western philosophy is based on Plato's model, which goes a long way toward explaining why philosophy has reached the low of disrespect and scorn that it currently enjoys.



What is the theoretical cause of feeling/sensing?

Destructive interference. Our eyes "stop" the travel of light. Our ears convert the wave motion of sound in the air into mechanical energy that stimulates nerve endings. Our skin senses heat by absorbing it. All of our senses alter the thing that they sense... destroying it's original form and converting it to something else.

[Santa]

"Destructive interference. Our eyes "stop" the travel of light." Ha! Your eyes may stop the travel of light, but my eyes split light into a rainbow of little ponies.

[Gaillo]

"Destructive interference. Our eyes "stop" the travel of light." Ha! Your eyes may stop the travel of light, but my eyes split light into a rainbow of little ponies.

.;D.

[singular_me]

Id say the brain stops the travel of light, synapses absorb light... sun gazing practice is very ancient :) check out youtube vids. interesting

[Gaillo]

Id say the brain stops the travel of light, synapses absorbs light... sun gazing practice is very ancient :) checkout youtube vids. interesting

Correct. Technically, the sensory ends of the optic nerve are brain tissue... the only part of the brain that can be seen without surgically opening the skull.

[sirgonzo420]

As Above, So Below!

As Within, So Without!




http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/14/science/0815-sci-webSCIILLO.jpg




When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, there is only one Ultimate Mover & Shaker.

[Santa]

Yes, well... while you guys' universe may look like mouse brains or a bowl of fungus, God has assured me that my universe looks more like this. http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac358/jackconrad/junk/file-54.jpg

[Dogman]

Yes, well... while you guys' universe may look like mouse brains or a bowl of fungus, God has assured me that my universe looks more like this. http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac358/jackconrad/junk/file-54.jpg Hope you are not dissing one of our member of good standing?

3700

[singular_me]

Santa, you have ruined this thread - but you are forgiven :)

[Gaillo]

Santa, you have ruined this thread - but you are forgiven :)

Tainted a bit... but hardly ruined! ;D

[Neuro]

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/25/ockham_2.jpg
Nice one I suggest we call it Dogman's razor!

[Dogman]

Nice one I suggest we call it Dogman's razor! Na!
I was just helping skinir out by posting a bigger picture that can be read.

And at this time I mostly have my razor retired...for now....;D

[Neuro]

Na!
I was just helping skinir out by posting a bigger picture that can be read.

And at this time I mostly have my razor retired...for now....;D
Skirnirs razor doesn't have quite the same ring to it though... ;D

[Spectrism]

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/25/ockham_2.jpg

This pic is stupid. It is made to appease those who want to mock christianity. You could just as easily draw a parallel line at the bottom under atheism..... and label it moronism. Morons have not changed through history either. So, what is the wonderful message?

As for branches or divides in doctrines, there should be a central line in christianity and it is held throughout history straighter than any arrow. It would read: Yashuah is the only-begotten son of God (YHWH) who took on human flesh, was murdered and rose again to life an authority over all.

Doctrinal divides concern many silly things. Stay with the core items and nothing changes.

If you people want to hold onto your ignorance and stupidity, you are most welcome to do so. But your lies or reproduction of lies is intolerable.


Also, if someone wanted to counterfeit money, would they take Monopoly money as the standard to copy? Maybe some morons on this forum would think that smart.... but the real thing is what is attacked and copied. The devil seeks to confuse and deceive. Some here are great examples of that truth.

[singular_me]

This pic is stupid. It is made to appease those who want to mock christianity. You could just as easily draw a parallel line at the bottom under atheism..... and label it moronism. Morons have not changed through history either. So, what is the wonderful message?

As for branches or divides in doctrines, there should be a central line in christianity and it is held throughout history straighter than any arrow. It would read: Yashuah is the only-begotten son of God (YHWH) who took on human flesh, was murdered and rose again to life an authority over all.

Doctrinal divides concern many silly things. Stay with the core items and nothing changes.

If you people want to hold onto your ignorance and stupidity, you are most welcome to do so. But your lies or reproduction of lies is intolerable.


Also, if someone wanted to counterfeit money, would they take Monopoly money as the standard to copy? Maybe some morons on this forum would think that smart.... but the real thing is what is attacked and copied. The devil seeks to confuse and deceive. Some here are great examples of that truth.
what lies? Difference are real, take Protestantism vs Catholicism, and the ensuing war they both wages on each other. We are going to have this Muslim war vs Christianity... Even between Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism, it cannot be ignored. Look at the bloodshed religions and myths have left in their wakes... Doctrinal divides concern many silly things?

I believe in God, but killing is the name of God is completely stupid. IMHO... and it starts with the feeling of being threatened with another belief system. Paranoia... fear becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.