The Nonsense of Atheists

[jpappl]

i would compare it to having to live every fucking day in a world in which 12 year olds are sold as sex slaves.




i think that change is going to come in a more abrupt form at some point, as it often has in the past, and i will be somewhere to see it. i would see it though.

But Lori, you are not the slave and you can do something about that if you wish. You are free to work to free them. We both are. Unfortunately, as you will find, it is very difficult to do much else in the way of helping others in such situations when you have a family to take care of. I have more pressing responsibilities and can only have the knowledge that such atrocities are still occuring.

Horrible things are done to people by greedy sob's but claiming that you and I are actually experiencing what they are is an insult to them.

This is all I am going to say on this subject, we are going to have to just agree to disagree.

 

[Lori_7]

what's the frigging nonsense is the constant charade that has to be put up with these theists. let's be real.

society is full of people who are theists or believe in a "god" and they are still crappy human beings. it makes no real difference even though they are thiests. believing in a god doesn't mean squat and doesn't make you better in the least or make any real difference! and if believing in god or being a theist somehow is enough of a qualification for this god, then it's laughable because it's got "lots" of shitty people. lol

there are atheists that are better people than a lot of theists!!!

i believe, because of what i've experienced, that people who get to know god are better off for doing so, and so are the people around them. i believe that 100%. i don't care where you start and where you end in this world, you'll always be better off knowing than not knowing.

so the bible says we all fall short of the grace of god, not one of us is worthy in a moral sense. judge ye not lest ye be judged, and get the plank out of thine's eye before looking at me.

my relationship with god has been very introspective. i understand god, and what is wrong with the world, by understanding myself.

it's amazing that someone would say that atheists denigrate theists. still, for most of society, it's not even acceptable to be an atheist in society even if the laws say otherwise. it's just something you did not share openly as you would be mowed over.

now these theists want to complain they are being discriminated against. atheists just don't like theism, religionists or religion and i can't blame them for the most part.

religionists have their organizations and freedom of religion and media and they expect non-theists to lay down the red carpet. they don't respect your beliefs, just your right to practice it amongst yourselves.

if you mention it and people disagree, it's not going to be ingratiating and positive. theists have strange expectations.

theists this and theists that. are you a theist? are you an expert on theists? are you kidding?

 

[Lori_7]

But Lori, you are not the slave and you can do something about that if you wish. You are free to work to free them. We both are. Unfortunately, as you will find, it is very difficult to do much else in the way of helping others in such situations when you have a family to take care of. I have more pressing responsibilities and can only have the knowledge that such atrocities are still occuring.

Horrible things are done to people by greedy sob's but claiming that you and I are actually experiencing what they are is an insult to them.

This is all I am going to say on this subject, we are going to have to just agree to disagree.

i'm not insulting anyone; i'm exalting everyone!

 

[NMSquirrel]

NM Squirrel,

Of course, would you expect us to just believe without something valid in it's definition to justify the belief ?

no..
i would expect if you were describing how/what you believe of god, i would expect that it doesn't line up with what/who i think god is..
this is not supposed to be an opportunity for conflict.
when ppl discuss something about god,it usually ends with 'your just full of it'
(no matter atheist/theist)

You can, if you only claim faith and not try to justify the belief with definitions then sure, why not. The reason I raise the question is really for you the believer. What god am I believing in ? is a good question.

then you make it about what someone else thinks of god..
when you ask 'what god' you are defining what is acceptable by others,
figure out what/where god is for you..
there are guides to let you know if it is god or not..

If you choose something that is essentially hidden away, something that has no definition, then nothing can be attached to it, no actions or responsibilites can be assigned to it. It's just there.

its not hidden..
if you see:

and you described it to me, it would not line up with what i see..

that does not mean what you see is not true..
most religions only focus on their piece of the picture and tell everyone else they are wrong when your picture doesn't line up with their picture..

i have told what i see in other posts/threads..if i could find them i would link them..but then i would just be accused of referencing my own opinions,and would be dismissed..

In which case then you should have no problem with someone who chooses not to believe in something that is supposedly just there.

i do not have a problem with ppl who do not believe in god..
i do have a problem with ppl who stereotype me, by trying to classify me with all those who i think are not true believers (they believe in religion more than they believe in god)..i believe that god does not like religion..('why doesn't god do something about it?' is not a valid question)..

My wife is very spiritual, she can't define it, she just believes there is something more to it. She makes no claims of knowledge and she also understands it's possibly just a side effect of our conciousness.

i am not trying to claim of knowledge, with the exception of what i know/believe to be true..
despite being harassed to the contrary..IE questions of 'Define'.. you are asking me to claim objective reasoning..(something that someone else can validate)

and im not opposed to the suggestion of god is in our collective conciousness..

Ok, but how do you see him ? That would be the start of defining it/him. At which point you start to create the religion, at least for yourself.

and ppl wonder why i get evasive when trying to define god..we don't need another religion..
i have bad attitude with 'religion'
i don't believe in religion..
i believe in god..
god is god..
religion is mans creation, and as such is susceptible to errors..

What's the point in a god if it doesn't do anything ?

um this question really asks 'what's the point if god doesn't do anything for me'..
i believe god is doing what god needs to do..sometimes i can sense him..most of those times i don't do what he wants..(hindsight works to see this)
i have seen others who have done what he wants, and sometimes they benefit..mostly they don't..
but were not supposed to be doing it because there is a payoff when we do it..

It must do something, so how do you see this entity interacting in our lives or our world ?

through others..
i have seen god work through other ppl..irrelevant to what that person believes..IOW god can utilize you whether you believe or not.

Again, don't answer it for me. I don't believe. It's a question that I would ask myself if I believed. Otherwise I don't know what I am believing in.

i believe i do not know all there is to god..i never will..i know i do not have to know all there is to god to recognize that he is not a bad thing.

5' 10" 170 lbs, brown hair, green eyes, like sports, backpacking, mountain climbing, kayaking, rafting, skiing, fishing, beer, women in hot outfits, women naked, love my wife and kids at least most of the time LOL. Do I need to continue ?

what measuring stick did you use..
what scale..was it calibrated?
brown? light or dark..
this does not define who you are...just what you look like..

BP,MC,K,R,S,Fishing..
these just define what you do..not who you are..

beer,women in hot outfits,woman naked,
its a guy thing...
but again this doesn't define you..it only says what you like..

wife and kids at least most of the time..
this kinda defines who you are..but not directly..

my point is that no matter how you would define yourself, it doesn't..
how you would define yourself and how your wife would define you would be two different opinions..which is true?

there is no fact in how one defines oneself..
how can we assign fact to god?

But with a definition comes scrutinization. When we scrutinize this definition we will find additional questions. Maybe some that you haven't thought of. See, this is why there are religions. The more the god is defined, the more questions raised and more definitions have to be added. Pretty soon, man is claiming to know exactly what god they are believing in. And unless this god spoke to man and the texts are truly the word of god, then man made it up.

man makes it up because too many men are asking to define god.
they wanna know exactly what/who god is before they make a decision as to believe or not..
when you do this,you try to define god according to what the religion dictates. not to what god is..everyone has the ability to see god..its not his fault ppl won't acknowledge it is him.

You created this god you believe in because you are not following a god of the bible or koran right ?

um i have not created him..i have seen him, not by his face but by what he has done in my life..
i am not following a god of the bible or of the koran..
i have found the bible does a better job of describing what/who god is better than i can..(i am interested in what is in the quran for the same reasons)
IOW i look at what i think god has done in my life and compare it to what the bible says,if they match then there is a real good chance that i was right when i thought i saw god..

At some point you should be able to define what kind of actions it takes etc

he works through others..he finds ways to motivate ppl to do what is best.

It could be. I guess I would know if/when I encountered it. But I would need to have enough of a signficant interaction that I could define it to some degree.

to prove it to someone else or to yourself?
IOW you do not need anyone to validate your beliefs for you..

maybe you have chosen to avoid a label because of all the bad in them.

It's fine to pick and choose what inspires you.

If you are not claiming to follow a religion, and use the texts to find inspiration then you are just finding ideas that correlate with who you are as a person.

You're finding that which supports your personal philosophy.

true,
true enough,
true enough,
personal philosophy that i believe has been influenced by god..


Birch
i am choosing to answer JP's posts cause i think he is asking the same questions you are (for the most part)..
he is asking with limited distractions..IE he boils out all the BS to ask what he is trying to ask..
IOW his questions seem more to the point, and not filled with personal opinion and insults..


with the exception of..

but don't say this other christian's opinions are my own

when did i say that?

 

[RenaissanceMan]

kind of like the argument that black people stand outside of human society proposed by the capitalists who had an interest in the salve trade of yesteryear

....

One should never trade in salve when you can buy it at the drug store.

Speaking of black people and their standing in human society, your beloved pal, Charles Darwin, propounded the idea that blacks were closer to apes than whites. He expressly in one of his books that blacks would, in the not too distant future, be exterminated by whites, who Darwin said were intellectually and socially superior. And since the godless left worships at the altar of Darwin...

Incidentally, in what century will Democrats stop playing the salve card?

 

[AlexG]

He expressly in one of his books that blacks would, in the not too distant future, be exterminated by whites, who Darwin said were intellectually and socially superior. And since the godless left worships at the altar of Darwin...

Please provide a reference.

 

[phlogistician]

what you have failed to do is explain why they are essentially different

I am under no pressure to do so. YOU should have established some equity before making your substitution. It was your analogy, not mine. You failed to do so, and failed in total.

hence your argument is circular at best and criminal at worst

My argument? My argument is simply that yours is flawed. And yours is.

 

[Bravowon]

the path to freedom is the path that begins with the ability to control one's senses.
For instance treating the other member of a relationship solely as an object for one's gratification is a good way to render it dysfunctional.

Usually such an outlook is empowered by a sense of nostalgia that doesn't exist (and it culminates in strengthening a sense of identification of the body with the self ... which, as we know, has a predictable course .....)

This is where I must slightly disagree; complete control of emotion is degrading of life. A sailor has no need to control the wind but an understanding of it can deliver him to his destination. To propose a steady wind and then retreat to the products of the mind is the very definition of masturbation.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is where I must slightly disagree; complete control of emotion is degrading of life. A sailor has no need to control the wind but an understanding of it can deliver him to his destination. To propose a steady wind and then retreat to the products of the mind is the very definition of masturbation.

I'm not talking about emotion.
I am talking about what one ultimately sees as one's relationship with this world and the other living entities within it.

 

[lightgigantic]

But it doesn't have to be one or the other.

one can vacillate between the two states ( in fact there are numerous scriptural commentaries on how the aspiring spiritualist does this) , but basically it boils down to either the senses being utilized by one's decision making, or the sensesI doing the decision making for one.

t seems you are saying if you like to indulge your senses, you can't also indulge the mind in it's intellectual pursuits. Aren't they both pleasures but of different kinds? Don't they inform and complement each other? My brain in a jar analogy is an interesting thought experiment. If you never had any input from the senses, would it be possible to have any knowledge at all?

Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully but you are a bit off the track.

Consider the value of scientific advancement if it serves no other function than animal pursuits.

If a dog does its business on four legs and a man does the same sort of stuff on four wheels, where is the advancement?

 

[lightgigantic]

I am under no pressure to do so. YOU should have established some equity before making your substitution. It was your analogy, not mine. You failed to do so, and failed in total.

its called an analogy
get over it

:shrug:

My argument? My argument is simply that yours is flawed. And yours is.

Your argument is that a child int he womb is somehow divorced from the rights usually afforded to people at large ... which bears a striking resemblance to the arguments of yesteryear from white industrialists that blacks somehow stand outside the rights usually afforded to people at large.

IOW in both cases one is applying an arbitrary designation to further a blatant ideological agenda.

Hence your argument is circular at best and criminal at worst.
Either way it serves as a good example of the nonsense of atheists.

 

[Bravowon]

I'm not talking about emotion.
I am talking about what one ultimately sees as one's relationship with this world and the other living entities within it.

I don't think this relationship can be defined by controlling ones senses. In this case you may end up with the monosensical relationship of gratification. It's rather born out of a reciprocation with others and consultation with your emotions. Complete control dictates rather than harmonises.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't think this relationship can be defined by controlling ones senses. In this case you may end up with the monosensical relationship of gratification. It's rather born out of a reciprocation with others and consultation with your emotions. Complete control dictates rather than harmonises.

If one ultimately sees this world's purpose as serving no greater principle than one's pleasure one simply doesn't have the hardware to enter in to any sort of reciprocation in the true sense of the word

 

[Bravowon]

If one ultimately sees this world's purpose as serving no greater principle than one's pleasure one simply doesn't have the hardware to enter in to any sort of reciprocation in the true sense of the word

If one dictates the world's purpose through control of ones senses one surly has no need of reciprocation. Pleasure can be defined as more than just selfishness, and understanding is a better tool than control.

 

[phlogistician]

its called an analogy
get over it

It wasn't an apt analogy. You get over yourself.

Your argument is that a child int he womb is somehow divorced from the rights usually afforded to people at large ...

Children exist outside the womb, but anyway, it is apparent that a foetus does not have the same rights as a 'person at large', so your comparison was incorrect.

which bears a striking resemblance to the arguments of yesteryear from white industrialists that blacks somehow stand outside the rights usually afforded to people at large.

Only in your head, dearie.

IOW in both cases one is applying an arbitrary designation to further a blatant ideological agenda.

You only see it that way, dearie.

Hence your argument is circular at best and criminal at worst.
Either way it serves as a good example of the nonsense of atheists.

What argument? My argument? My argument is simply that yours is flawed. And yours is.

 

[phlogistician]

If one ultimately sees this world's purpose as serving no greater principle than one's pleasure one simply doesn't have the hardware to enter in to any sort of reciprocation in the true sense of the word

Ah, and you don't even understand yourself, that is the problem.

There is no such thing as an unselfish act. Altruism serves the self, as much as it does those who you benefit. Denial can please the self more than indulgence in the case of the puritan. It's all about pleasuring yourself.

If you do not grasp this tenet, your philosophy will always be starting from a false premise.

 

[lightgigantic]

Children exist outside the womb, but anyway, it is apparent that a foetus does not have the same rights as a 'person at large', so your comparison was incorrect.

golly
kind of like the plight of Negroes a few hundred years ago ... but oh thats right, its different because a materialistic view doesn't grant it a status (aka classic circular argument)
:shrug:

What argument?

I must admit you certainly haven't fleshed it out
all you seem to offer are condescending quips

 

[lightgigantic]

Ah, and you don't even understand yourself, that is the problem.

actually it was a statement about the absence of hardware afforded by a materialistic outlook

There is no such thing as an unselfish act. Altruism serves the self, as much as it does those who you benefit. Denial can please the self more than indulgence in the case of the puritan. It's all about pleasuring yourself.

hence altruism and austerity are not celebrated as activities performed by a liberated person

If you do not grasp this tenet, your philosophy will always be starting from a false premise.

On the contrary, if you don't have a clue about the goal of religious principles beyond caricature, your critique of the philosophy will always be starting from a false premise

 

[lightgigantic]

If one dictates the world's purpose through control of ones senses one surly has no need of reciprocation.

what on earth makes you say that?
I don't even understand how one could dictate the world's purpose through control of one's senses, much less how that dissipates the need for reciprocation, or even how reciprocation could be classified as a need based response

Pleasure can be defined as more than just selfishness, and understanding is a better tool than control.

I agree.
the problem is however that selfishness provides a small aperture for understanding and hence a miserly quality of pleasure.

 

[spidergoat]

one can vacillate between the two states ( in fact there are numerous scriptural commentaries on how the aspiring spiritualist does this) , but basically it boils down to either the senses being utilized by one's decision making, or the sensesI doing the decision making for one.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully but you are a bit off the track.

Consider the value of scientific advancement if it serves no other function than animal pursuits.

If a dog does its business on four legs and a man does the same sort of stuff on four wheels, where is the advancement?

Sorry, I don't buy your point of view at all. It's basically just a false worldview that separates the material from the spiritual. I don't think there is any difference. We are our senses, we are our brains that manipulate and process sense data. The answers are right in front of our faces, but we look to abstractions. There is more truth in the senses than in a million sacred texts.