atheists don't have the right to be atheists.
- Thread starter scifes
- Start date
Lori.
First of all I thought you didn't believe in coincedences.
Secondly, I had brought that very idea up based on what was the lead up to your experiences that could have very well been explained by more earthly origins. Never received a response to those in fact.
I never questioned your honesty about the experiences. Still don't.
But I am still in doubt of the origin of the commands.
Why would you think if you believe or don't believe that either state would be relevant?
Perhaps you should at least use a different word then.
Eventually we all realize that just thinking something doesn't make it so.
Are you admitting that you are ignorant about atheism, or trying to tell an atheist he is, Jan?
No it is not. Some communist leaders are also atheist. Some communist leaders had beards, but that doesn't mean everyone with a beard is a communist. Get the analogy?
It was about politics, not atheism. I'm an atheist but I don't go around doing those things. Atheism is simply not believing in God(s). It's not about smashing up places of worship. Those acts were performed to restrict the power of the Church, as there was to be one source of authority, the Party.
You denied there had been any. I pointed out that you were wrong, and listed some. Keep up.
So, a bunch of Catholics turn up, start accusing people of heresy, and burn them, and it's nothing to do with their fervent belief in God? Please Jan, tell us why they were torturing and burning people then?
They were political motives. Atheists do not have an agenda of church burning, there is no unifying credo for us atheists, just a lack of believing in God(s). It's that simple, there is nothing more.
Put the bible down, and pick up a dictionary.
Depend on the religion, doesn't it? It's not a simple bijection (look that up), Some religions do not have gods, and belief in God does not require the dogma and practises of a religion. But I specifically mentioned theist religions with regimes, so you can't cop out on that one.
I'm saying Chrsitianity in their early life perhaps has as much to blame for their actions as their later atheism.
we're on the path to "anyone with a stupid idea can just piss off".
??
then why was the concept of god invented? why did it ever exist?
now, regardless of how big the possibility is (if it can be called a possibility)..the need for god is something out of question..even for you atheists.
not at all..
(we need a smiley for hanging one's self)
1- worthy or not is not the point..if you mean worthy as in deserves it because he's good..then it makes no difference.
2-if worthy as in is he great enough than he has to, other wise he wouldn't be god..that's what the term "god" is all about..one who is great enough to deserve worshiping.
not if he sent a book saying "i created you all to worship me" ..which he did, which you ignored, then sat around in circles brainstorming the point out of life.
they both don't believe, but committing to an impossible to prove idea is logically unacceptable..it is stubborn..or what some call bigotry.
is it like: if you lie about knowing we lie about not knowing?
and agnostics?
ithink so too.
no because they all don't exist..only one god (MY god, also yours and everyone else's), exists.
not believing in something because you don't like it, because it doesn't suit you, is childish(?)
but, if you had the patience to sit through an extremely long lecture that includes a lengthy segment on Quran miracles, I could give you ample reason to believe that you are very stupid to believe that you don't have a "god."
on the other hand, you get mine for free, sometimes they even look for you..it's usually called preaching.
i gave up that thought a long time ago
but i DO believe in souls..i think they're important to believe in a supreme being.
god exists anyway anyhow, no souls, no US..
if you mean that we can't prove him without accepting souls, well maybe, didn't really think about it..
"head dunked in acid" lol i like that..they usually do it starting with the feet to do it slowly.. but head first sounds more macho..i'll keep a note of it.
mysteries usually come along with the word "solve"..you can only call a solution an "invented explanation" (which do exist btw), if you can prove it wrong.
EXACTLY!!
SO YOU SHOULD BE AGNOSTIC, NOT ATHEIST!!
??
NOW we're talking!!
(note that even once you do that all what you've did is prove others' clais of god to be wrong, but doesn't make the general statement of "god exists" wrong)
BUT HEY, do that and you've proven all religions wrong..so, how many did religions did you research, collect all claims, and proven false?
BIG WRONG..
i was joking, it was like saying (could go fu** themselves), will i then be wishing eternal suffering to others?
there's a BIIG gap between believe, and wish.
!!??
god is not an idea.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Maybe not to you, but to me he's little more than a concept.
iceaura;
Agreed.
jan.
Agreed.
jan.
Last edited:
You need to read some articles by Dr Susan Blackmore, a Psychologist who formerly wrote for 'Skeptic' magazine.
Using statistical analysis she demonstrated how people's perceptions of the likelihood of coincidences often mislead then to conclusions that were mystic, but in actual fact, to be expected as the numbers predicted them.
These are very relevant articles for you;
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/BJP 1997.htm
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si92.html
well...lol. what do you call it when what most people including myself would call it a bevy of coincedences that come together to provide meaning and accomplishment?
how about spatial manipulation in the absence of time? lol. i just made that shit up right thar.
when this happened to me (the xtra-weird stuff), it was like all of a sudden, after 37 years, everything that had transpired in my entire life made sense. and that was strange.
if something keeps being presented to you in your environment (like say, a record), and you become attracted to it.
you listen to it, and you are drawn in, with alarm. you get the impression that the artist in is some serious shit and needs help. the serious shit just happens to relate to spiritual matters that you've been given revelation about previously.
you hear a voice in your head say, "write him a letter".
you think that's a ridiculous notion and request. so you don't do it while you investigate this guy and his apparent problem, finding nothing in confirmation.
while investigating, you hear that he is physically ill.
you hear a voice in your head say, "send him flowers".
an even more ridiculous request...seemingly impossible. how do you send a rock star flowers? i didn't know.
driving to work one day you hear, "hobby lobby has silk flowers".
ah ha! the band has a po box! eureka! problem solved, you're off the hook.
so you sit down to write, "get well soon!", and seven paragraphs of the most beautiful poetry you've ever heard comes out of you, and YOU DON'T WRITE POETRY. you're a frickin' accountant who has always been completely confounded by poetry or anything creative or imaginative for that matter and have never done such a thing in your life. you are well aware that something just moved through you. so exciting!
it's a miracle! it's a miracle!
you're then given another message that is so profoundly bizarre and not understood, that it almost scares you, "_____ _____ (the artist) is joey spagota." joey spagota being your childhood imaginary friend when you were oh, about 2-3 years old, that you only even remember because your parents still bring it up occasionally at the dinner table to embarrass you.
freaks you out...not understood, or comprehendable. you say, "he wasn't even born then". which if you think about it, is a dumb question/statement. the answer you receive is, "there is no time here". which makes even less sense to me.
so you try to put all that out of your mind, but you keep thinking about joey.
your thoughts, about real events in your childhood, albeit with an imaginary friend, build an outline, that turns into a transcendental writing, during which you see actual physical manifestations of a spirit inhabiting your body (or at least that's the only thing i could logically come up with to explain what i felt, saw, and was doing).
in the middle of the writing, the voice..."stop writing, go get your bible, and read the book of revelations".
ok.
about half-way through, when you get to the story about the woman and the dragon, you are aware of a presence via a physical sensation. somehow you know that there are two beings standing in front of you. the physical sensation lasts for about 3 minutes. you then receive revelations prophecy like a whirlwind through your mind.
more spiritual interactions ensue (these being with live people mind you, that are projecting themselves on an astral plane). as there's no other explanation that i'm aware of that would explain what they're doing.
shit morphs around on your coffee table one afternoon. (stationery actually)
and a bevy of "coincedences" proceed to happen in your environment that just happen to explain in part, what the fuck is going on.
including an assload of song lyrics from many bands, that substantiate exactly what i was going through. even entertaining depictions in the form of music videos.
...movies, literature, conversations with innocent people that don't know what the fuck is going on with you.
now you look at the man, that you were supposed to help, and he is better. the change in him is like night to day.
and you are better too having gone through this experience. stronger, more capable, no fear...peace.
you explain it.
Last edited:
phlogistician,
You say there have beem regimes under theist rule and doctrine, in the form of religion (i'm assuming you are aware of the meaning of religion & theism).
By this logic, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other similar regimes were under atheist rule and doctrine.
Then by the same token not every theist is religious, and theism is not responsible for religious attrocities anymore than atheism is responsible for
the atrocities of Stalin, and other atheists who act in this way.
Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, 9-11/7-7 (if you believe the official version), were all about politics, not theism, or even religion for that matter.
I'm a theist and I don't go around doing these things.
Theism is simplY believing in God.
I denied no such thing, you keep up.
They acted from their authority, the Pope, not out of belief in God.
The atheists who murdered and tortured amongst others, people
of faith, did they act out of atheism, or did they follow the orders of their leader?
The same regarding theist.
I have done, the word doesn't appear to exist.
And I specifically mentioned athiest ideologies with regimes, so you can't cop out of that one.
Stalin was an atheist, as was Pol Pot, which became clear when they murdered and tortured the religious in an attempt to wipe out religion.
A position that is at the heart of modern atheism.
Now, I'm not saying every individual atheist would stoop to such vile acts, but nevertheless such vile acts have been committed by powerful atheists.
People who were in a position to impose their perverted ideals on whole nations.
So atheists who have links to Christianity, cannot control their genocidal tendencies? If that's the case we're in serious trouble.
jan.
Are you admitting that you are ignorant about atheism, or trying to tell an atheist he is, Jan?
You say there have beem regimes under theist rule and doctrine, in the form of religion (i'm assuming you are aware of the meaning of religion & theism).
By this logic, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other similar regimes were under atheist rule and doctrine.
Then by the same token not every theist is religious, and theism is not responsible for religious attrocities anymore than atheism is responsible for
the atrocities of Stalin, and other atheists who act in this way.
Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, 9-11/7-7 (if you believe the official version), were all about politics, not theism, or even religion for that matter.
I'm a theist and I don't go around doing these things.
Theism is simplY believing in God.
I denied no such thing, you keep up.
They acted from their authority, the Pope, not out of belief in God.
The atheists who murdered and tortured amongst others, people
of faith, did they act out of atheism, or did they follow the orders of their leader?
The same regarding theist.
I have done, the word doesn't appear to exist.
And I specifically mentioned athiest ideologies with regimes, so you can't cop out of that one.
Stalin was an atheist, as was Pol Pot, which became clear when they murdered and tortured the religious in an attempt to wipe out religion.
A position that is at the heart of modern atheism.
Now, I'm not saying every individual atheist would stoop to such vile acts, but nevertheless such vile acts have been committed by powerful atheists.
People who were in a position to impose their perverted ideals on whole nations.
So atheists who have links to Christianity, cannot control their genocidal tendencies? If that's the case we're in serious trouble.
jan.
There is no atheist doctrine. Really Jan, it's that simple, why can't you grasp it?
Oh yes it is if it inspires people to do evil in it's name.
Still don't get it do you? Stalin did what he did for political purposes. His atheism was as relevant as his facial hair.
Actually a mixture of Politics and Religion, but that's the whole point about religious regimes you don't seem to grasp, that religion and politics are intertwined!
swarm,
Religion is not theism.
Anti-religion, anti-theism, hatred...
Stalin was an atheist, Pol Pot was an atheist, they were in charge of something.
I'm okay with that.
And when atheists go on a killing spree such as under the regime of Stalin, or Pol Pot, then we can sure blame them.
jan.
Religion is not theism.
Anti-religion, anti-theism, hatred...
Stalin was an atheist, Pol Pot was an atheist, they were in charge of something.
I'm okay with that.
And when atheists go on a killing spree such as under the regime of Stalin, or Pol Pot, then we can sure blame them.
jan.
phlogistician,
Somehow I don't think the faithful who were under the rule of Stalin
saw it that way. I know I wouldn't, and I doubt you would either.
If wiping out religion, an atheist pursuit if Dawking in anything to
go by, inspires people to do evil in its name, then atheism is reponsible.
So you're saying that if a theist commits atrocities, and an atheist commits atrocities. The worldview of the theist plays an important factor in his/her behaviour, yet the worldview of the atheist is in no way a factor of his/her behaviour?
Is that what you are really saying?
We're not talking about "religious regimes", a religious regime is not necessarily theistic in its practice or outlook despite it underlying rhetoric.
We are discussing theists and atheists. If you are saying that theism and politics are intertwined, then it must follow that atheism and politics are intertwined. Otherwise you are saying that atheism has no relation to theism,
which would be rather odd.
jan
Somehow I don't think the faithful who were under the rule of Stalin
saw it that way. I know I wouldn't, and I doubt you would either.
If wiping out religion, an atheist pursuit if Dawking in anything to
go by, inspires people to do evil in its name, then atheism is reponsible.
So you're saying that if a theist commits atrocities, and an atheist commits atrocities. The worldview of the theist plays an important factor in his/her behaviour, yet the worldview of the atheist is in no way a factor of his/her behaviour?
Is that what you are really saying?
We're not talking about "religious regimes", a religious regime is not necessarily theistic in its practice or outlook despite it underlying rhetoric.
We are discussing theists and atheists. If you are saying that theism and politics are intertwined, then it must follow that atheism and politics are intertwined. Otherwise you are saying that atheism has no relation to theism,
which would be rather odd.
jan
'the faithful', that's a loaded term. Care to try and debate honestly?
Dawking? Do you mean Dawkins? Dawkins makes rational arguments as to why religion, and belief in God is flawed. If he's trying to wipe out religion, it's by using reason. I can't see anything 'evil' in that.
If a bunch of CATHOLICS turn up, accuse people of HERESY according to the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, and start torturing them, then yes, it's pretty obvious to anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse their world view is a factor.
If an atheist commits an atrocity, how can their atheism be to blame? It's simply a lack of belief in God. It's not a pro-position. How can a lack of something inspire somebody to do something? (unless it's a lack of inhibitions! ;-) )
OK, so you didn't pick up that dictionary and look up the word 'bijection', did you. And no, it doesn't follow, atheism and politics are as linked as people not being stamp collectors and politics are. Why can't you grasp this?