Atheists Needed as Human Sacrifices

[SnakeLord]

You are implying that the american justice system keeps criminals off the street, and this is not true. You don't live here in the US.

Do you have a readily available set of statistics concerning this? It's one thing to live in the US, and another thing to state that they don't lock up criminals.

Close to 90% of all criminals continue in the criminal lifestyle.

But of course they do. What do you expect, that they go work in Mcdonalds?

If the liberals had their way, the whole prison population would be turned loose.

That sounds like a serious exaggeration.

It's a fact that most ex-cons vote the liberal ticket.

Where can I read up on this 'fact'?

Sorry but I don't follow you on this one. My new nature fulfills the ten commandments. Is there something wrong with that? You do not understand the motivation for obeying the law. You say it is fear, I say it is a new nature.

You've missed the point. On the other thread you spent some time telling me that these old laws are meaningless. You stated that old jews can obey these laws but all you have to do is love your neighbour and god. You go on to repeat this here. So why do you obey the ten commandments? Isn't it apparent to state that if you disobeyed them - and went and killed someone for example, that you end up failing in the law of love? It is unlikely you love your neighbour if you kill him, and unlikely that you love god if you disobey his laws. As a result, you show that same lack of love by eating pork, not being circumcised and not stoning witches.

You can certainly try and justify it as for old jews only, but it doesn't change anything. The fact of the matter is that you're disobeying god, and in doing so, do not show love for him.

Note that in your own jesus quote it says "new". It doesn't say "replacement" - but in either case, love encompasses all the laws - because to fail in obeying them, you fail in showing love.

You can go on to say every little thing in the law should be done, but this is the law that judges non-believers.

This is clearly ridiculous. So, you're telling me god's law of being circumcised is for non-believers? Uhh but if they don't believe then the law is meaningless. It could only serve a purpose for someone who believes.

"Here are the rules for those who don't believe in me..."

That's daft.

As you will observe, Jesus didn't go around punishing people and giving them lots of rules.

He didn't need to. His father had already given the lots of rules. He just gave them a new one. god is allowed to hand out new laws if he feels like it, yes? But do note that "new" does not mean "replacement". As jesus informed you, but you seem happy to dismiss, all the laws are just as important and are to be obeyed.

That's really all God ever wanted anyway.

That's somewhat rude. Now you're speaking on god's behalf and lumping all his rules in the trashcan. You're implying that for thousands of years god was just messing around - unsure of what he actually wanted, and that now finally he's smart enough to work it out, that all his laws become null and void.

W: I heard you say God is an asshole on another post. You think the God of the bible is an asshole whether you believe he exists or not.

Right, it's like this: I do not believe in a god or gods. I could spend my time in this forum simply saying: "there is no god", anytime anyone makes a statement concerning one of them. Alas I personally feel there is no merit in discussion if it comes down to that alone. As a result, I will generally argue a case from the other side, (so arguing biblical matters means arguing from a basis of what it says as being true). As part of that, one would generally conclude that the biblical god is an asshole - if not for anything other than the annihilation of every single human and animal on the planet.

However: As an atheist I don't believe in any god or gods, and as such do not consider them as assholes or anything else for that matter other than non-existant. So from a biblical standpoint, yes.. From a reality standpoint, no.

W: I made this suggestion as a simple illustration. The Jews believe in the law as you preach, but why aren't they living up to it? The law is the Jewish holy grail. Why did they stop sacrificing? Surely they don't believe Jesus put an end to the need for sacrifices. That is why I suggested talking to a jew, since it is so inportant to them to keep every dot and tittle of the law. Even they are failing.

Sure, so they're all doomed to hell. You knew that already. But I personally don't see the merit in using their failures to listen to god as a justification for you to do the same.

In a way though you have to admire jews. They have been through the shit time and time again, and yet still come out smiling. Well, as the bible says, they are gods people. At the end of the day you're worshipping their god - and even your mini-god was a jew.

W: I asked pointed questions and you flip flop from talking like a theist to talking like an atheist. I find it frustrating to talk with someone that feigns certain characteristics, and then dismisses them when it is convenient to do so. I am trying to understand when you are presenting a hypothetical as opposed to an actual personal belief and this gets confusing. That is why I suggested the walls be dropped. You know my true intentions, but I don't know yours.

It's explained above. If you prefer I could just sit here saying "no such thing" whenever you make a post. You'll know quite distinctly when I'm talking 'like an atheist' because I will just say "no such thing". In general though, you wont often find me do it in debate - unless people start questioning 'how I feel' about a specific being, in which case I can't honestly say anything other than: "It's non existant" because it is non existant.

However, I asked you why you don't obey the majority of god's laws. So far your excuse list has been rather weak. You stated that:

A) gods laws are for old jews

B) jesus gave a new law, (which you seem to mistake as meaning replacement law)

C) I should just argue with jews because they don't obey him either

Now C is just passing the buck, B is a mistake on your part, (attested to by jesus statement saying all the laws are just as important), and A is of no merit whatsoever - but if you regard it as valid then the ten commandments don't mean anything either. Indeed those rules would be more 'for old jews' than some of the rules you do disobey that came later.

By the way I explained our situation to Ken, and he said it's like trying to lead a dead horse. There really is no point in giving you details about the ouija board.

Just the name of an airport and a date. It really isn't asking for too much.

You aren't going to believe it anyway.

Know how easy it is to change that?

You can call him a story teller if you want

I'd be more inclined to call you the story teller. I have reason to believe this 'Ken' is just another fictional being.

 

[spidergoat]

There you go Woody, the Christians (OK catholics) practice a symbolic cannibalism in their communion. They eat Christ's body, and drink his blood. So, the only difference between this and followers of the occult is that one is formal, and the other is freelance.

 

[water]

Sorry, I'm just laughing at the thought of you jumping on a dog and strangling it, not because it is funny, but just because it is hard to imagine.

Desperation leads to desperate measures ...

I wasn't talking about patterns of sacrifice, but rather patterns of stupidity, weakness, evil, domination, etc.

And once one realises one's own stupidity, weakness, evil, domination, etc. -- with many people, the first reaction is that of a martyr. "Oh, I am so bad! I will devote my life to mending this mistake that I have made! I am oh so sorry!"

It's exaggeration, testifying that the person is not able to understand forgiveness.
When you think: It is the one asking for forgiveness that has more to comprehend, a greater leap to make. People are usually willing to forgive, they only need to be asked. But the mistake the asker often makes, after being forgiven, is that he takes on a role of crawling before that person -- "If I ask for forgiveness and am forgiven, I will forever owe this person". Which is wrong.

Others make "inverted martyrs", and are violent in pursuing their cause.

I guess eventually I will give up on trying to tell people how silly it is to think that religion is at fault for humanity's mistakes and evils, but I think anyone who has really taken the time to observe will eventually see that people just need an excuse for their behaviors, if they can get past their bias.

Yes, we want meaning in everyhting we do, purpose. And we conceptualize it thus that it puts us in a good light, or so it seems.

RE: sacrifice for love - I stumble, you fall.

How do you mean -- "I stumble, you fall"?

Love is weird. Even starting to think about it gives me brain-fade. There are better ways to prove love but they require a lot of commitment from both sides, I think. That is an interesting solution you came up with, though.

If you examine it, it has pretty much the same structure as Jesus', sans the divine part.

1. A loves B.
2. B doubts it; or B doesn't love A.
3. A must prove it.
4. Only a final sacrifice is a valid unilateral proof of love.

But only God can afford to do 4 and still keep 1 true.
Only God is obliged, by 1, to do 3.

 

[Woody]

Snakelord said: However, I asked you why you don't obey the majority of god's laws. So far your excuse list has been rather weak.

Woody: You have no explanation whatsoever for God's grace or for the reason behind Christ's death.

I have a real good reason to believe standard fundamental christianity:

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

If you are right about the law, then there really is no purpose in the New Testament of the Bible, and there is no purpose in Jesus Christ.

Like I said before this is standard, basic christianity. Christians are no longer under the law, but under grace, which you can not understand. This subject is one of the oldest ones in christianity. Do you think you bring it up for the first time? The entire book of Galatians is dedicated to this one subject alone, just to make it absolutely clear to Christians concerning this issue.

The legalism argument does not work. Believers are no longer under the law but under grace. Isn't it OK for God to give us a gift? Apparantly not according to you. You have explained the law, now let's hear you explain grace.

 

[cole grey]

If you are right about the law, then there really is no purpose in the New Testament of the Bible, and there is no purpose in Jesus Christ...
... You have explained the law, now let's hear you explain grace.

Can't wait to hear you expound on this one SL, because you are so "informed" about the bible.


Water,
I meant that love creates a (hopefully "symbiotic") relationship where each person is affected by the other in strange ways. My comments on that probably weren't especially enlightening, but I must have been losing oxygen to the brain thinking about love, I'm sure.

 

[LadyHydralisk]

The results -to me- were undeniable and fantastic, and also unrecordable

How convenient...

We occultists are people too, and some of us are very intelligent

Theists are people too, yet they also live a fantasy.

And that's intelligent?

Well it is convenient, now that you mention it. After all, what a perfect way to get whatever you want, from having the garbage taken out to having enough food. I certainly lack for nothing. :>

As you can see I have very little need or desire for anyone's approval. My ventures on occult forums are purely for research amongst others who have taken the initiative to experiment and not waver.

On the other hand, if I live in fantasy...someday I'll be shown the error of my thinking and go live in a cubicle. Until then, I'm happy just enjoying how 'lucky' I am.

Lady,

So real occultists don't have the same abilities as say "the Charmed Ones" right?

And would you see the occult as essentially good or evil, or is it more about how it is used - e.g. like nuclear power can be used for good and bad.

What are Charmed Ones? Is the the TV show I saw on a billboard? I don't get TV or any entertainment news venues so I'm a bit out of touch. If you mean like Harry Potter, no. (I really love Harry Potter though, I have kids!)

Occult is hidden knowledge, so yes. Anything undiscovered could be used for good or evil once it is discovered, it depends on the explorer.

What you do, however, is not a "sister art" to science. Either you test everything rigourously and strictly examine all alternative (ie naturalistic) causes for what you determine as a "manifestation", in which case you are doing science itself, or you are simply participating in a pastime which has no true repeatability and through which you are truly unable to learn anything useful and new - in the scientific sense.

I said sister art, not science itself. Occultists utilize observation of the natural world, experimentation and elimination to discover truth, but to do this they first use giant leaps of faith to get results. For instance, any normal scientist isn't going to just suddenly go around seeing if he can control human behavior by using ancient and mysterious methodology found in some obscure text, or some random technique he read off the internet forums. He's going to dismiss it because it's just way out there. That's a scientist for you. The occultist...the alchemist, will take that concept backwards, find something impossible and make it possible. I have observed for myself the way you can control humans by using "unknown" powers. Science will eventually catch up, trust me. We're just taking a shortcut by leapfrogging over the normal process. Why do most of you believe black holes exist...because someone told you in a book or a magazine? Or because you observed it using a telescope and math with long hours of work? I'm asking you to trust my own observations. Or just argue with me, it's not like I'm going to be aggrieved.

Chaos theory is the science of extracting some kind of order from the completely unpredictable. I'm gobsmacked that this has somehow inspired you to delve back into utter nonsense. However, Diff'rent Strokes, as they say. I will probably register on Occult and have a browse around.

Please define "utter nonsense" you're not just bordering on offensive, this is, I believe, considered flaming on other boards at least. Suffice it to say the correlation between Gleick's book and my discarding mundane process had alot to do with pink jelly vibes.

 

[Hapsburg]

SS,

Wow, atheists don't believe the occult exists! They find new ways to be in denial so they can continue believing their viewpoint.

Praise Atheism!

not all athiests believe that the occult doesn't exist.
i think it exists, ghosts and such. i just dont believe in angels or god or whatnot like that.

 

[(Q)]

On the other hand, if I live in fantasy...someday I'll be shown the error of my thinking and go live in a cubicle.

Living in a cubicle is your only alternative to fantasy? No other reality exists for you?

 

[Silas]

I said sister art, not science itself. Occultists utilize observation of the natural world, experimentation and elimination to discover truth, but to do this they first use giant leaps of faith to get results. For instance, any normal scientist isn't going to just suddenly go around seeing if he can control human behavior by using ancient and mysterious methodology found in some obscure text, or some random technique he read off the internet forums. He's going to dismiss it because it's just way out there. That's a scientist for you.

Please don't disappoint me by using caricatures of scientists as straw men! "Any normal scientist" is probably employed in some particular area of science - physics, biology, chemistry - in which area they are getting funding to do their work. These areas get funding because they get results. "Retrying systems of magic written about in ancient texts" is not something that a professional scientist is very likely to get funding in order to investigate. But you absolutely misunderstand most scientists if you believe that they automatically dismiss such esoterica. Many have run carefully controlled experiments which have unfortunately yielded nothing useful.

The occultist...the alchemist, will take that concept backwards, find something impossible and make it possible. I have observed for myself the way you can control humans by using "unknown" powers.

It is my opinion that you must have been fooling yourself. Because if people really could control humans solely by mind power, the world would look very, very different.

Science will eventually catch up, trust me. We're just taking a shortcut by leapfrogging over the normal process.

Science is at a point so far beyond your comprehension - or indeed my comprehension - that it is hubris of the highest order to claim some specious superiority for your worldview.

To explore the real world, science has developed microscopes that look at individual cells, electron microscopes which will magnify 1/10,000th part of a human hair, and X-Ray diffraction which will delineate the helix of DNA. Telescopes which first saw the moons of Jupiter can now see and spread out into a spectrum the light from quasars 2 billion light years away (I saw this on TV being done in a Sussex garden by an amateur astronomer just last night). To try to determine the ultimate form of primitive objects underlying all matter, accelerators a mile in diameter have been built at a cost of billions, and hadrons and leptons have been accelerated to enormous velocities to be smashed into each other so that physicists could examine the detritus.

And you claim that by sitting in a room with incense candles, closing your eyes, and crying "I summon the spirits!", you are somehow "leapfrogging" science? You and scientists have the same goal. You both wish to discover the secrets of the Universe. The difference is that you are evidently not willing to undergo the hard work which is involved, work of the brain to understand difficult concepts or remember a myriad of related facts, work of precision to ensure a valid uncontaminated result, before the Universe really lets on to its secrets.

Why do most of you believe black holes exist...because someone told you in a book or a magazine? Or because you observed it using a telescope and math with long hours of work? I'm asking you to trust my own observations.

But the scientists who have described black holes actually did the long hours of work. And they have built upon the results of previous scientists who similarly worked hard, and all of these people have substantial bodies of verifiable work which confirms their credibility to state that there is such a thing as a black hole. You, however, do not have any such credibility, I'm afraid. You close your eyes and concentrate hard, and you can 'feel' stuff going on. You think you are channelling some kind of mystical energy. But I think you're squeezing the blood flow around your face in a way that makes you "feel funny". I can't be responsible for your interpretation.

I personally believe in black holes because I understand through personal experience what gravity is and what it can do, and I read a description that convincingly and rationally took me through the consequences of an ever-increasing gravitational field. Try reading The Collapsing Universe by Isaac Asimov - he always tells the story "from egg to apple".

Or just argue with me, it's not like I'm going to be aggrieved.

Well, apparently you are:

Please define "utter nonsense" you're not just bordering on offensive, this is, I believe, considered flaming on other boards at least. Suffice it to say the correlation between Gleick's book and my discarding mundane process had alot to do with pink jelly vibes.

Well, this ain't the Occult Forums, Lady! This is the sciforums, and the presence here of people who consider such mumbo jumbo to be "utter nonsense", not to say dangerous nonsense and who express their opinions, is not necessarily considered as flaming here.

Some of the things I've said have undoubtedly hurt your feelings. But I have no desire to insult you in any way.

 

[(Q)]

Occultists utilize observation of the natural world, experimentation and elimination to discover truth, but to do this they first use giant leaps of faith to get results.

That is a contradiction.

For instance, any normal scientist isn't going to just suddenly go around seeing if he can control human behavior by using ancient and mysterious methodology found in some obscure text, or some random technique he read off the internet forums. He's going to dismiss it because it's just way out there. That's a scientist for you.

Its 'just way out there' because its complete nonsense.

the alchemist, will take that concept backwards, find something impossible and make it possible.

Please provide something, anything at all, in which an alchemist HAS successfully made something possible from something impossible?

The alchemist, like most pseudoscientists, will come up with a so-called theory and will attempt to find observational evidence to support it. They never do find anything, of course.

I have observed for myself the way you can control humans by using "unknown" powers.

Yeah, sure you have.

Science will eventually catch up, trust me.

Science will ignore it, trust me.

We're just taking a shortcut by leapfrogging over the normal process.

... and getting zero results.

I'm asking you to trust my own observations. Or just argue with me, it's not like I'm going to be aggrieved.

But we don't trust your observations, as they are most likely fantasies. And it's not like anyone here supplants reality with their fantasies. Oh no.