Total Biscuit's - Atheism does not make you clever

a reply to: AfterInfinity
Look pal, the mighty Hammer of Thor is comin' down!
Osirus will be squashed by the mighty hammer in the hand of the mighty arm, that which belongs to The Mighty Thor!

(Zeus assumes 'The Thinker' pose and wonders how he can get involved, then he has an idea and calls Bacchus)
Things got a bit rowdy.

a reply to: Toadmund

Thoth will just come in and screw them all up.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
Sorry if I missed any.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Uhmmmmm.
Ok.
1+1= fish
Gotcha.

This is where you excuse yourself right?
Nice example of inductive reasoning though.
Sorry I am being slightly abbraisve but I am excessively tired of strangers trying to tell me what my intentions are.

I just sit in the backyard minding my own barbeque (lurking in the background watching letters become words, words become sentences eventually becoming thought forms). Here is my problem, you posted Bisquits words without quoting him and inserted your own words here and there as your own. You didn't set it up for the understanding that the statement or crux of your OP was based on someone elses material (idea form premise/mantra/manifesto); this also could be construed as plagiarism. You could have at least changed the occupation; from lawyer to say astronaut, and said the fellow had a 148 and 1/4th IQ, had four legs and wore scuba diving rubber flipper fins when in training. That would have thrown me off. I am a stranger?; this is an open forum unless ATS has improved upon how one can post to threads, 'friends only need respond this thread App". I hope you can at least call me an acquaintance by now.

originally posted by: undo
i'll state for the record, that although he makes several good points, i happen to believe god can be proven, but it's not an easy case of 1+1=2, end of discussion. it's long intense study, crossing several boundaries of science, history, geography, archaeology, linguistics, etymology, and of course, scholarship. the question is not an easy answer, particular where the topic involves deep thought, and the opponent is not exactly wanting you to prove them wrong. lol

Here is one way to look at this; if one calls oneself an atheist it goes to follow they have a firm belief system in place; try arguing something other than God with them; (belief systems) they follow like a rabbit down the hole into the debate and will argue to the ends of the earth that they are not subject to dogmatic belief systems at all. The problem is if they are true Atheists they are virolently opposed to 'something tangible' that 'must exist '(therefore threatening as they cannot Grok it) and are in great need of denouncing; Why? The Agnostic is different, no inclination for argument; just doesn't know if God aspect exists or not, copacetic creatures such as they are.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Toadmund

originally posted by: undo

many christian women even avoid reading the old testament because to them, the old testament god sounds almost nothing like jesus. it's like night and day.

Yeah, let's face it, YAHWEH is a jerk.
One would almost think god was thunked up by men.

Choose Thor.

No, choose Osiris. Because my Egyptian god can beat up your Norse god. Just don't get the Hindu gods involved or the Greek pantheon will throw another raver and the Abrahamic family deities will crash the party. Again. And that's no fun.

ah i think osiris is much older than nimrod, but the post black sea flood pharaonic dynasty was started by nimrod's "osiris." this means the pre-nimrod osiris is probably the sumerian enki who is the biblical jehovah-jesus.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: undo

Actually, no my avatar isn't.
It's a generic fantasy guy in dark cloak avatar.

Oh, side note.
Thank you for the laugh at the absurdity of a person breaking the rules with off topic posts complaining about rules infractions.

it's not so much a rule to make your life more difficult as a poster, but to make your experience as a thread op, more pleasant. it also makes it more pleasant for those who choose to spend the precious moments of their lives, trying to wrap their heads around your topic

a reply to: vethumanbeing

well since i can't get the op to respond to my seemingly only on-topic post in the thread, i'll just tell you that i think your description of an agnostic is more applicable to the op than the description of atheist. what say you?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Toadmund

Thoth will just come in and screw them all up.

thoth, i haven't completely decided on his sumerian identity. but i will eventually.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: Toadmund
originally posted by: undo

[I]AfterInfinity[/I] No, choose Osiris. Because my Egyptian god can beat up your Norse god. Just don't get the Hindu gods involved or the Greek pantheon will throw another raver and the Abrahamic family deities will crash the party. Again. And that's no fun.

undo[/I] ah i think osiris is much older than nimrod, but the post black sea flood pharaonic dynasty was started by nimrod's "osiris." this means the pre-nimrod osiris is probably the sumerian enki who is the biblical Jesus.

If Jesus is EN.KI who was his brother EN.LIL? Judas? Cain and Abel references? Who was their father ANU, Osiris? Horus was the Jesus template and now you have me thinking about thoth, we know he was Hermes.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: Toadmund
originally posted by: undo

undo[/I] ah i think osiris is much older than nimrod, but the post black sea flood pharaonic dynasty was started by nimrod's "osiris." this means the pre-nimrod osiris is probably the sumerian enki who is the biblical Jesus.

If Jesus is EN.KI who was his brother EN.LIL? Judas? Cain and Abel references? Who was their father ANU, Osiris? Horus was the Jesus template.

anu was amen (also known as egyptian amun (not to be confused with amun-ra). heavenly father amen? that's anu.
enlil is the bad guy. ya know, the dude that hates humanity? he was also called god in some places in the old testament, and also called the god of this world, which is an epithet for the bad guy. in norse mythology, enki is loki but for some strange reason, that is an example of the norse absorbing the enlil version of the story instead of the enki version of the story. in other words, thor is enlil. and enki is loki. why they chose that path, i dunno, as that's like shooting yourself in the foot.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

well since i can't get the op to respond to my seemingly only on-topic post in the thread, i'll just tell you that i think your description of an agnostic is more applicable to the op than the description of atheist. what say you?

Probably; because there are too many questions that are couched or hidden as tap dance/soft shoe peddling "proclamities" (new made up word by me meaning calamity and proclamation had a new word childbirth). Something is just off; it seems like a cry for definition or a "can you please explain me to myself as an observer and why I introduced this thread". Does not like it if you are not perceived as a friend which is very telling. Agnostic on the fence? BUT OF COURSE; just never heard of it as being such a dire state of: doubt, no maybe, no, probably not, just maybe; the NEW AGNOSTIC has arrived, the one that HAS DOUBT not INDIFFERENCE. That fence sitting posture as the wind becomes more gusty is going to blow that belief off to one side or the other (cracks in the armor).

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: chr0naut

Even Stephen Hawking, eh? Or Carl Sagan? Shallow thinkers according to your experience. Or that's what I gather from your comment. That's a shame, electing a shallow thinker to assist in narrating one of the most popular, in-depth and widespread science programs since Bill Nye's show.

Stephen Hawking wrote a book called "God Created the Integers". But in views, he has stated that he does "not believe in a personal God" and "science can explain the universe, and we don't need God to explain why there is something". This does not equate to a belief that God is nonexistent. It is an agnostic belief.

Carl Sagan spent one whole episode of his TV series Cosmos (that widespread popular science show) explaining correlations between Hindu stories and the theories of cosmologists. He also said: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." The common assumption that he was an atheist is perhaps a consequence of the depth of thought he applied to the matter and his desire to be as accurate as possible in what he portrayed to the public. He definitely did not want to be classified as an atheist as his previous quote outlines. In an interview where Sagan was asked directly about his views on God, he said “My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it . . . An agnostic is somebody who doesn’t believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I’m agnostic.”

Neither are shallow thinkers, that much is obvious, but neither would be likely to call themselves atheist.

originally posted by: manitu69
a reply to: chr0naut

Then maybe you are not as smart as you would think. Smart people have a tendency to question everything and not letting fantasy get in the way. Even if you are raised by a fundamentalist extreme religious family eventually you will question the lack of proof provided by religion.

Smart people question everything, yes, that is true but I would point out that creativeness and fantasy are also a major part of who they are and how they explore things intellectually.

I doubt that you would define someone with no imagination as smart.

Even the cleverest of us are human beings and the motivations behind our beliefs are completely human. These 'smart' people aren't huge calculating automatons, they have feelings and history.

For example, if I were in Stephen Hawking's place, I would have questions about the undeserved and unfair affliction of ALS. In contrast to how I might have responded, Stephen himself has been a particularly stoic and sterling example of the triumph of the human spirit.

originally posted by: undo
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

[I]Veteranhumanbeing[/I] If Jesus is EN.KI who was his brother EN.LIL? Judas? Cain and Abel references? Who was their father ANU, Osiris? Horus was the Jesus template.

[I]undo[/I] anu was [amen (also known as egyptian amun (not to be confused with amun-ra). heavenly father amen? that's anu.

enlil is the bad guy. ya know, the dude that hates humanity? he was also called god in some places in the old testament, and also called the god of this world, which is an epithet for the bad guy. in norse mythology, enki is loki but for some strange reason, that is an example of the norse absorbing the enlil version of the story instead of the enki version of the story. in other words, thor is enlil. and enki is loki. why they chose that path, i dunno, as that's like shooting yourself in the foot.

So common threads of the same creation beings throughout history, different locals and time periods, civilizations...its all a big confab of the same Mother Goose tales that rings with truth in its deliberate fabrications (always the same story) told the same way just different names for the protagonists but by the same elusive AUTHOR. Lets play the name game and swicheroo them; they are the same. Poseidon (lets not forget Greek Mythology) is of the lower oceanic water depths,where Enlil was banished to rule below the equator; or oceanic depths as well. It depends upon what metaphor you entertain.

In reply to the OP (skimmed but haven't read the full thread): I agree completely. I think us nonbelievers have gotten so used to being looked down on in our own communities for, well, not believing, that many of us band together on the web and form our own little posse basically saying the same things we've heard most of our lives: we're right you're wrong, well, BECAUSE. I'm not saying there isn't logic behind atheism or agnosticism, there most definitely is, but to turn around and say that because of that logic and all the holes I can poke in yours I'm going to have a field day seems to me to be the whole problem that caused the horrors of the church in the middle ages in the first place- that attitude that I'm right you're wrong I know better is nothing but ARROGANCE, no matter what facts surround it. And while this might be seen as trying to convert my atheist brethren to agnosticism can it at least be said that to claim anything with absolute certainty, especially something like this is a wee bit foolish, mayhaps ignorant, the very type of blind faith so many of us are flamming! It gives us a bad name. If we're supposed to be better than that, prove it, dammit. That's why I don't want any part of it. I find myself playing for the other team in arguments because to me religion isn't the enemy, ignorance is. So to the OP.

a reply to: hk00107

i've been entertaining the notion that the field of is or isn't something real/true/etc, has been diluted to the point of incomprehension by the overabundance of critical errors at specific times in history. for example, the meanings of the words involved in a dialogue can change from generation to generation or from millenia to millenia. therefore, it is necessary to know what the original words were to even have a notion of what the authors of the original texts, meant. taking subsequent translations + interpretations of those subsequent translations, in some cases thousands of years later, as equivalent to the reality of the situation presented in the original texts, is dangerous scholarship at the very best. it proves nothing and frustrates everyone involved. for example:

the story of noah. this story, in its english translation and holy roman interpretation, is repeated continuously as evidence that the ancient deutorocanonical texts were rubbish. the problem is that people were taught to view the material in a translated state, much later in time than the events discussed, and based on the interpretation of people who lived thousands of years later. but careful analysis reveals that 2 of every animal on earth were NOT taken on the ark, but rather a grand total of 32 animals. that is not describing an evacuation of 2 of every lifeform from a planet about to be destroyed in a global flood. however, if you realize it's describing 2 events, one global and the other not global but still bad enough to require saving the barnyard animals, then there's no longer a serious reason to scoff at it. it isn't talking about all life on earth. there are not 2 of every animal brought on the ark. well, at least not in the black sea flood event.

the massive global event was no doubt the events that lead to the ice age. science and ancient history have the occasion to shake hands on these subjects, frequently. we've just gotten to the point where we refuse to look at each other's material.

My all time favorite taken out of context is that quote from jesus saying if someone insults (or is it slaps? I forget which) "turn the other cheek". Everybody assumes he's basically saying let someone walk all over you. What they don't realize is turning your cheek to someone back then is the modern day equivalent of giving somebody the finger. Seriously, it was a f*ck you. Taken out of context = completely different message. I have to say someone insults me I flip them off makes much more sense than 'please sir may I have another'.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Yes, you are a stranger.
You know nothing of me, my motivations, my intentions, my thoughts, my tendencies.
And you're completely out of context *as in lost in left field* with this line.

this is an open forum unless ATS has improved upon how one can post to threads, 'friends only need respond this thread App".

I made no such inference what-so-ever.

For the OP and others who may read this post,


Church of England...Wow!! No matter..most folks in any Church are not taught much History..even Church history much less any other history.

King James the First ...caused to be written a Bible in English which became the King James Bible of which is still available today.

However, There were already English Bibles in circulation. The Tynsdale, the Wycliff bibles, as well as The Great English Bible.
Remember..the Great English Bible was the Bible used here at Jamestown, Virginia about 30 miles northwest of me here on the coastline of this state.

At first the King James Version was just another Bible. But something interesting took place in England which took place no where else up to that time.

A people discovered that their King was in Heaven....not on the throne of England. They discovered that the king's power was limited..not absolute..not divine right power. This had never been done in any other kindgom or with any other Bible version.

When a later King...Charles 1st tried to levy a tax to support a foreign war...(Sound Familiar??) the parliment refused. The king tried to levy his own tax in violation of the Magna Carta which stated that only Parliment can levy a tax.
With this understanding that the king was not divine right..did not have absolute power as did the kings on the continent...the stage was now set for divison...and civil war.

It became the Roundheads verses the Cavaliers or the Parliment/Roundheads verses the Kings men/the Cavaliers.

By the time this violent bloody Civil War ended...the King was put on trial and beheaded. This marked the first time in the western world that a people had ever executed a King. Now kings had been killed in plots and intrigues but this was by other royalty..not by the ordinary people.

Had King James known what would come out of his publication of the King James Bible..he would not have had it commissioned to be written.

Much of this history is hidden and concealed from readers and individuals today.

Divine Right of Kings is absolute power..in the hands of men.



So when more and more of our own government tries to go towards more and more absolute power...we are seeing a return to Divine Right of Kings.

So when Senator John Mccain stated about our President...that he is not a King...I knew exactly about what John Mccain was speaking...absolute power..or Divine Right of Kings.


This is the point about religion and history for which most Atheists miss or do not teach or if you prefer...preach.
This is also a history missing from the educations of most of us today.

What is also very sad..is that our ministers fail to make this association with religious history and our Bibles...particularly the King James Bible and what happened as a result of this Bible being commissioned and written..made available to the masses.


For you see..the Execution of a King could not have happened in a Catholic nation before this time because the Crowns of the European Kings were put on their heads by the Pope...or religious authority to demonstrate that their authority was from God and therefore unlimited....absolute power.

It was only when this power was separated from the government that real progress began to take place in a nation and it wound up with the birth of this nation...America.


For you see....once King Charles had been executed.....and the precedent set...the question here in America became ..

When a king had broken the Law...do a people have a right and duty to turn on their king. Do a people have the precedent to carry on with this understanding that the Kings power is not absolute...that the King is limited in their power and authority.

Our founders here knew this history and the precedent was religious in nature.

This knowledge is also the knowledge of "Revolution." It is also a knowledge for which our educational system, paid for and financed by government, does not ever want us to know or have any idea, concept, or understanding of what happened historically.

That our own ministers keep us ignorant of this history ...is also a shame and a sham. They too are in on the deception...leaving their flocks awash in ignorance of history and who and what they are as Americans.

This is the very reason our Founders here created a government of Limits. The limits were to be on government ...not on the people.
And the authority to keep it so was religious ..not man made.

For man made history reads exactly the opposite..that governments always try to go back to "Absolue Power" or "Divine Right of Kings."

If you understand this history and what I am explaining ..you will begin to understand why religious history and knowledge is not desired anywhere in public life here in America today. For you might learn about absolute power and Divine Right of Kings and why our Founders created the system they did under the Constitution. Also you would discover why men want to break out of the Chains of the Constitution and return back to Absolute Power...Divine Right of Kings.



This knowledge is what is missing from the OP's posts as well as others. It is definitely missing from Atheist posts and never intended that people know this informations.

Here it is for the readers who can comprehend further than a sound bite. Free..no cover charge.

Hope this helps some of you understand when our own government goes to more and more power by restricting our liberties and the ability to enjoy and have discretion over what we produce with our labors.

Thanks,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

I'm sorry but this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
Might be a good topic for you to post a thread about if you wanted to discuss it though.