Atheists and Agnostics don't believe in God but want spread their nothing word

a reply to: MarkJS

There's some great, beautiful Christian artwork out there.

Is it possible for Atheists and Agnostics to paint masterpieces? ha ha ha

Culturally bankrupt.

What you mean the ones in Roman basilicas? Paid for by the blood and stolen gold of the conquered Americas. Or enjoyed exclusively by the pedophilia ridden Catholic church, you really want to open that can of worms?

haha do your own research
en.wikipedia.org... artists musicians etc.

As to masterpieces, like I said above if you can enjoy a masterpiece in the Sistine Chapel and not tear up for the misery caused by the Church then you're living in denial.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You don't appreciate irony?

originally posted by: Annee

How am I being evasive? By not providing you the answer YOU want?

I do believe there are off planet beings. I do believe there are multiple dimensions. I believe all are connected via energy.

Where is there a God in there?

I believe all those things too. We have much in common, and I like you very much.

But we have some differences, and I'm interested in knowing why. That's why I'm asking you questions. I'm interested in the differences between people who look at gods in terms of ET and people who look at ET in terms of gods.

I'm sorry if I put you on the defensive. It just that I don't think there is much difference between the two, deep down. Both kinds of people are projecting the same archetype, but in different symbolic forms. Whereas your atheist-on-the-street is much less... personally involved... with archetypes of the collective unconscious. Except perhaps that of the trickster.

So, I just wonder if you are more of an ET mystic than an atheist.

/shrug

Either way I like you.

👣

originally posted by: BlueMule
I think it is necessary, if you believe in god-like beings. I think it makes you an atypical atheist. But sometimes you come across as a typical one.

God-like beings that are not god, are not god.

Someone can believe in them and still be truthful when they say they don't believe in god.

Same goes for creators or designers. Ancient Aliens are not gods-in the religious sense.

As we can see with the progression of this thread, most of what we are discussing is actually composed of language itself.

I don't doubt that some of you have experiences that you can attribute to a "greater" or "more encompassing" reality.

That doesn't point to "god or Gods" that's just the nature of the human mind. When we are at this ... fundamental level of meaning, I am unable to challenge what any of you believe or not ... because that would be, to my way of thinking, doing nothing more than "trying to teach a pig to sing"... which as you know, "never works out and merely annoys the pig."

No I'm not calling any of you pigs. We can argue what "believe" means, for example, all night. Do I have belief or do I have knowledge?

At more concrete levels where we can establish given meaning, one-to-one relationships between words and the world, say, the every day world we live in with gravity and inertia and entropy and jobs, mortgages and so forth, we can argue and debate because words MEAN what they MEAN and individual belief is irrelevant.

That latter level is what most of us would refer to as "the real world" ... I see most of you wanting to descend to a level of meaning that is more ... fundamental or more primal. At that level, I can understand what you mean when you say "I believe in God."

originally posted by: daskakik

God-like beings that are not god, are not god.

Maybe god-like beings are really gods, but some people prefer to think of them as merely god-like because that is more compatible with their psychological type, or upbringing, or some other factor.

Someone can believe in them and still be truthful when they say they don't believe in god.

But can someone interact with them in the same manner as mystics have been interacting with gods for ages, and honestly say it's a totally different thing going on? A rose by any other name etc.

Same goes for creators or designers. Ancient Aliens are not gods-in the religious sense.

How would you know?

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

Thank you that was very nice.

But, I can't be responsible for someone else's concept of something. I also can not speak for any other athesist. Atheists are individuals. If I were to read a book by an atheist, it would be to understand his philosophy, not my own.

I do believe in ancient astronauts and that they were mistaken by early humans to be Gods. They were/are not Gods.

I don't even believe in the Deist concept of God. I believe in energy. I believe everything was created via energy.

And I'm not going to label energy God.

BTW -- I like your avatar.

a reply to: Annee

In my day-to-day language, I made the mental effort to replace those normal English references to "God" or "lord" or what-have-you with "Random Chance."

It's amazing how well that works out.

originally posted by: maxzen2004
I recently watched the CNN special on Atheists and I understand and respect their belief. But to stand in an airport and preach not to believe anything is weird. Are these people mentally ill? A former Pastor became a non-believer and lost everything, ok the point? I think Satanist use the Atheist veil to hide their real agenda.

If one of these bozos come up to me, I will tell them they are idiots.

There are hundreds of different faiths that believe in God. Among those there are millions of different denominations. Out of those there are as many unique personal interpretations as there are people who believe. Out of those 6? billion unique interpretations, can you honestly say that you or even your local church are the ones who got everything right?

If you can't say with absolute certainty that you are right on everything, then you must be open to the possibility that you are wrong on not just one thing but many things, statistically it's even possible that you are wrong on everything.

How can you go about proving that you are not wrong?

originally posted by: andy06shake
I challenge anyone to claim that they dont place there faith or offer up a little prayer to some form of deity before departing on any associated plane journey, even if its only to the machine god that is the aircraft. Especially so these days.

About 40% of people are afraid of flying, maybe you are one of them. I am not. I say no prayer to the aircraft, or even reassure myself and hope that nothing happens. It is one of the safest forms of travel, I am far more on edge when driving in my car than when on a plane.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

In my day-to-day language, I made the mental effort to replace those normal English references to "God" or "lord" or what-have-you with "Random Chance."

It's amazing how well that works out.

I might try that.

I stopped calling energy the force.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

withholding of medical care, and remove their children from them.

So you promote the State forcefully vaccinating children against the wishes of informed parents. But then you probably wouldnt believe that Bill Gates adheres to a depopulation agenda either.

before their child is released into their custody.

Are you gonna leave the room when you're child starts googling adverse reactions to vaccinations? Then again you can always let the state bring them up.

They need to be trained

Oh and here I thought that a good parent should allow the unfolding of the childs natural quest for knowledge and sense of wonder. Encouraged to ask questions to learn different viewpoints. Knowing how to ask questions even. But you would rather "train them" Sounds like you'd make a good Ringmaster in a Circus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
As we can see with the progression of this thread, most of what we are discussing is actually composed of language itself.

Yes, and the transformation of myth through time. A very interesting transformation occured in the space-age.

I don't doubt that some of you have experiences that you can attribute to a "greater" or "more encompassing" reality.

That doesn't point to "god or Gods" that's just the nature of the human mind.

It does point to the validation of many spiritual teachings and mystical methods. Which means that the atheist aversion to such things is not only unwarranted but bad for humanity.

"I have always seen parapsychology as the "earthing" of the spiritual. In our experiments we explore the psychic in a very logical, rational, exoteric manner. We assign clearly demonstrable proof ratings to the different variables. In such a manner we have inadvertently confirmed many spiritual teachings, for example that one's attitude or belief about something may actually affect the occurrence of that particular matter. Faith, it used to be called, although now it is "the sheep-goat effect," was said to be able to move mountains. Jesus spoke quite extensively on the incredible effect of faith, which has now become transmuted into attitude, and the Hindus have a spiritual path centered around faith called Bhakti Yoga. Our modern terms are more applicable to our present society, but underneath the change in terminology the concept lives on.

Another example of the "earthing of a religious concept" occurs when doing a ganzfeld or other free-response experiment. The first thing the participant is taught to do is to become aware of the content of their mind. This action is what the Christians call contemplation and the Buddhists call mindfulness, and it is the first step in meditation, the first step in learning how to develop one's mind. The state of consciousness that the ganzfeld induces is to be found in quite a number of different religions as well, albeit induced in radically different methods, such as getting up and chanting at 3 a.m. the point in common with all these methods is the aim to create a state of consciousness whereby the conscious mind is stopped, thus allowing one to access material from the collective unconscious."

-Serena Roney-Dougal

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

Thanks for your answers to my earlier question. When experience is our primary evidence, and that experience can't be necessarily replicated much less shared, it becomes a personal matter, which is where I'd argue almost all of this topic truly belongs.

I'm not sure if my babbling about fundamental levels of language meant much above, but at that level ... in Saussure's terms we are dancing across a microthin Schrodinger-esque borderland of infinity between the signified and signifiers.

At that level, Gods exist. And don't. Fairies exist. And don't. Yes and no, up and down ... I think of that as tao ... which is not a place nor a thing but is a state of mind/ no mind.

Thanks for your answer.

a reply to: butcherguy

Nor do i understand the need to the religious types to push their beliefs. It happens on both sides but moreso from the religious types

a reply to: BlueMule

Power of Positive Thought.

My mom was one of the original members of Norman Vincent Peale's -- Church of Religious Science (not Scientology or Christian Science).

a reply to: DeadSeraph

God in the purest sense of the word, can't be falsified, because it doesn't exist in the physical world. It can't be touched or seen with physical hands or eyes.

So you created an each way bet you couldnt lose, you created the Trinity and the god child jesus. And true to his jehovah/baal form he introduced cannibalism oops...the Eucharist.

Karl Popper said if a statement about a quantity/quality can't be falsified, it's not an appropriate object for scientific inquiry.

I'm good with that. I try to live within the boundaries that are available to science.

Personal choice, I wager.

originally posted by: BlueMule
Maybe god-like beings are really gods, but some people prefer to think of them as merely god-like because that is more compatible with their psychological type, or upbringing, or some other factor.

That is why I specifically said those that "are not god".

But can someone interact with them in the same manner as mystics have been interacting with gods for ages, and honestly say it's a totally different thing going on? A rose by any other name etc.

They might say it's the same thing but that the old mystics got it wrong and that these beings are not really gods. Who's to say which group got it right.

How would you know?

According to the AA theory, they are just aliens.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

There is even some freako church down in the south (Virginia?) that passed some moronic legislature that parents could not only beat their kids, but could refuse to teach them even how to read and write.

So a "freako church" passes legislation...Right.. but I know your "critical thinking" is not indicative of most atheists. You starting to sound dare I suggest hysterical?

Your link is dead. But I did find this..

www.washingtonpost.com... 556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html

When he looked into the law, Rust said, he was surprised that it was the only one in the country that doesn’t ask families to show they’re providing some kind of alternative schooling and that there seemed to be no consistency in the way school boards implemented the law.

A recent study of school superintendents by the University of Virginia School of Law found confusion about how to comply with the law, a lack of accounting of how many children are affected and that the exemption was often routinely granted.

What law says that husbands can beat their wives?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

First you despised parents who dont vaccinate their kids. Then you mentioned parents who dont treat their kids who have pneumonia. I love how you pick your moving targets.

Prove to me the courage of your convictions. Start buying up all tinned processed foods from supermarkets that contain corn-syrup. Do your bit for the protection of the children. Deny these neglectful parents their child-abusing food induced diabetes. Do it for the children and your totalitarian regime.