It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Atheists Just Don't Get IT.

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
If there is a god, I will walk through the fires of whatever hell it sends me to in order to personally punish it for its sins.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
In the above post, please read 'supernaturally' for 'almost supernaturally'.

Thank you.

After all, one doesn't want to be rude.


What is supernatural if it is naturally existing within itself and within the naturalness of the universe(s)/existence?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by dgoodpasture]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by Esoteric Teacher Why is it easy for atheists to justify their logic and pass judgment upon non atheists through opinionated prejudicial objectivity when they don’t have any personal experience to draw upon from within there own mind to know what the other half of the scales hold?


Most atheists i know dont pass judgement anywhere near as much as the 'Enlightened religious zealots' i have to deal with.



originally posted by Esoteric Teacher (i.e. Garth Brooks's album entitled "No More Fences"). An atheist may not see God in that album title, but an individual of faith may equate that title to something with a deeper meaning.


Quite right i dont see god in that title i see livestock running rampant across the land devouring every thing in sight and more than likely causing a few car accidents.


originally posted by Esoteric Teacher Explain how Atheists are justified in their even making an arguement when it is apparent Atheists never believed in a God, but those who do believe have an insight into what it was not to believe in God.


Actually i did believe in a god but during my journey and experience of my life i became a non-believer, i didnt even realise it was happening until my wife and i needed to make a decision on where we would send our kids to school. (my wife won the argument as she normally does and they are attending a catholic school because we decided that they would receive a better education, though i divorce myself from any proceedings that requires me to acknowledge their belief. My kids understand my position.)

Peace
M4S



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Who murdered more people in one century, 'spiritually religious', or 'atheist religious'? Did I confuse you? Well, atheism is a religious cult, as they trade in belief of God for a 'demon', namely the clouded human egoism becomes their 'God'. Were not Stalin and Lenin great atheists?

When you see another person as mere cattle, devoid of spirit and soul, its much easier to slaughter them by the tens of millions like Lenin and Stalin did, right?



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Well, atheism is a religious cult, as they trade in belief of God for a 'demon', namely the clouded human egoism becomes their 'God'. Were not Stalin and Lenin great atheists?


No its not, I'm atheist and I just don't believe in God, how am I now in a religious cult?



When you see another person as mere cattle, devoid of spirit and soul, its much easier to slaughter them by the tens of millions like Lenin and Stalin did, right?


Is it as easy to slaughter those who do not believe in the one true God (whichever one you chose). These non-believers not only reject your God, they also worship a false God. Infidels!



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

No its not, I'm atheist and I just don't believe in God, how am I now in a religious cult?


Atheism is a relativley new idea. Go ask Karl Marx! He just created materialism to destroy the morals of the new generation. You cannot be sure if their is a God, then you cannot be an atheist.


Is it as easy to slaughter those who do not believe in the one true God (whichever one you chose). These non-believers not only reject your God, they also worship a false God. Infidels!


Have the Jesuits or Islamic nations every murdered over 100 million people in but one century?

Look what happened when an atheist attcked the Buddhists in China? Mau killed, what, 40 million? Stalin and Lenin combined killed how many, 60-80 million? I don't know any religion that has starved to death, tortured and murdered this nany people in one century, do you? Not even the early church under Jesuit control (at the worst time) murdered this many!

At least with the religious, may be able to convert - or pretend to! With an atheist who wants your liver for breakfast because cow was not available this am, what can you say?

:bash:



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
You cannot be sure if their is a God, then you cannot be an atheist.



: one who believes that there is no deity
www.m-w.com...


I don't believe in God, therefore I am an atheist.




Have the Jesuits or Islamic nations every murdered over 100 million people in but one century?


Man, you really don't like Communists huh?
Also it is easier to kill a lot more people in this modern age, what with the automatic rifles and all.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   


: one who believes that there is no deity
www.m-w.com...



I don't believe in God, therefore I am an atheist.


What does belief have to do with actually 'knowing'? You can believe anything you like but you either have to know, or not know.

You cannot say " I am an atheist because I believe (or I assume) there is no deity"

To be an atheist, you must be able to say with certainty “I KNOW there is no deity" and no atheist can say this today and actually be sure, in so saying.

You are a typical 'agnostic' in denial, calling himself an 'atheist'.


Man, you really don't like Communists huh? Also it is easier to kill a lot more people in this modern age, what with the automatic rifles and all.


Why should anyone like Communism? It was a diabolic plan that came straight out of the Talmud and other texts to bring about materialism in a form which would manifest a social cataclysm.

The modern age makes no difference. Starvation of million was possible in the past but never brought to such a scale of evil until the likes of collectivism, communism, "nihilism”, socialism, etc.

These entire different 'ism' are one and the same. All of them of the LEFT and of the Left-handed path. How many Satanists are calling them "humanists"? You see, it's just another name for a cult that worships the human EGOISM. Thus many define Satanism as the true worship of materialism, devoid of spirituality.

Materialists are like atheists -for they see only illusions.
The religious fanatics see Hallucinations

The balance must be found somewhere and it cannot be achieved by saying “I believe"!

And Nietzsche said “god is dead”

And God said “Nietzsche is dead”



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgoodpasture

Originally posted by Astyanax
In the above post, please read 'supernaturally' for 'almost supernaturally'...

What is supernatural if it is naturally existing within itself and within the naturalness of the universe(s)/existence?

It was a joke, dgoodpasture. Unhelpfully oblique, I agree, but still a joke.

Now let's not derail this most illuminating* discussion.

---------------------------
*Lucent avatars and all.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cinosamitna


: one who believes that there is no deity
www.m-w.com...



I don't believe in God, therefore I am an atheist.


What does belief have to do with actually 'knowing'? You can believe anything you like but you either have to know, or not know.

You cannot say " I am an atheist because I believe (or I assume) there is no deity"

To be an atheist, you must be able to say with certainty “I KNOW there is no deity" and no atheist can say this today and actually be sure, in so saying.

You are a typical 'agnostic' in denial, calling himself an 'atheist'.

Well if thats the case then you cannot say for sure that your religion is true, you cannot state for certain that your god even exists - as you say you need to know.
But in saying that I KNOW that your god does not exist in this universe. The probability that your god exists in this universe is very very very very slim (in fact non existant). The way that most gods are described by their followers is wrong and illogical and usually contradictory.


G



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   


Well if thats the case then you cannot say for sure that your religion is true, you cannot state for certain that your god even exists - as you say you need to know.
But in saying that I KNOW that your god does not exist in this universe. The probability that your god exists in this universe is very very very very slim (in fact non existant). The way that most gods are described by their followers is wrong and illogical and usually contradictory.


I agree with you that no religion can claim to be correct. But what makes one think that God ‘exists’, or that to KNOW God we must be religious? Human beings exist relatively speaking, but God is "Absolute Reality" and "Absolute BE-NESS" and thus can not necessarily be defined as ‘existence' in material terms. God is Multiplicity, not multiple, but One. But we can KNOW GOD because we can see his reflection in “life” itself.

The further one travels out into space, the higher the probability of us coming into contact with some previously unknown phenomenon. Thus, the more we study all the things which we can presently see, the probability increases that the things which we do see now, are created by those things which we ‘cannot see’.

Thus, as we find more things which we cannot see, creating things things which we can see, we find out eventually that we can never catch up externally searching unless we discover that all the 'causes' are not outside us, but studying "life" is the cause and the answer to the riddle of man.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Look what happened when an atheist attcked the Buddhists in China? Mau killed, what, 40 million? Stalin and Lenin combined killed how many, 60-80 million? I don't know any religion that has starved to death, tortured and murdered this nany people in one century, do you? Not even the early church under Jesuit control (at the worst time) murdered this many!


Actually the early religious conflicts did much much worse than just kill. People were burnt alive, enslaved, raped, eaten, tortured, crucified and all manner of other nasty things.
As already stated, it is easier to kill people nowadays due to our advanced weapons.

Imagine if the earl Christians had access to nukes. Do you think they would have hesitated to 'purify with fire'?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Actually the early religious conflicts did much much worse than just kill. People were burnt alive, enslaved, raped, eaten, tortured, crucified and all manner of other nasty things. As already stated, it is easier to kill people nowadays due to our advanced weapons. Imagine if the earl Christians had access to nukes. Do you think they would have hesitated to 'purify with fire'?


Actually the early Christians were often murdered by the early church. The problem with athiests in general is that they always wound up running the churches and calling themself's Christians, or Muslims, or Jews but now we have them running everything else too.

Religion is the excuse, not the cause. Politicians use religion to justify their power and we have an athiets like G W Bush calling themselves Christians.

May be we'll get lucky and find out that he's a Satanist since most Satanists call themselves humanists, or athiests?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   
I never actually stated that I was referring to early Christians, I only spoke about them in the example.

Whether or not it is the cause or the excus, religion is still integral to the whole thing. If there was no religion, there would be no excuses for war. So we would still have conflicts, but at least they would be honest.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
I agree with you that no religion can claim to be correct. But what makes one think that God ‘exists’, or that to KNOW God we must be religious? Human beings exist relatively speaking, but God is "Absolute Reality" and "Absolute BE-NESS" and thus can not necessarily be defined as ‘existence' in material terms. God is Multiplicity, not multiple, but One. But we can KNOW GOD because we can see his reflection in “life” itself.

But you would have to define god, define what god can, cant do or what it actually does or has done. The definition of god is the crux of the argument.
I see no reflection of any god in life or the universe, I see no knowledge of any god except in the minds of believers.


The further one travels out into space, the higher the probability of us coming into contact with some previously unknown phenomenon. Thus, the more we study all the things which we can presently see, the probability increases that the things which we do see now, are created by those things which we ‘cannot see’. Thus, as we find more things which we cannot see, creating things things which we can see, we find out eventually that we can never catch up externally searching unless we discover that all the 'causes' are not outside us, but studying "life" is the cause and the answer to the riddle of man.


I agree but the probability for god does not increase. God is a faith based notion while most unknown phenomena are based on empirical data.
But as I said god needs to be defined, by all religious groups (whether he be entirely different) to allow any debate to flow.



Religion is the excuse, not the cause. Politicians use religion to justify their power and we have an athiets like G W Bush calling themselves Christians.

All believers use their religion as a scape goat, its called :
NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
If something good happens then its god that done it, same in reverse if any bad happens then its satans fault. Get a grip folks if you do good - you've done good, If you do bad - then you've done bad. Wheres the need for external mythical beings???????


G



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

But you would have to define god, define what god can, cant do or what it actually does or has done. The definition of god is the crux of the argument.
I see no reflection of any god in life or the universe, I see no knowledge of any god except in the minds of believers.


To define God is to search externally using physical methods which are bound by laws or restictions. Only those who travel inwardly can come closer to Knowing how to begin wit such a question. God cannot be defined using an archangelic intellect, let alone the human intellect.


I agree but the probability for god does not increase. God is a faith based notion while most unknown phenomena are based on empirical data.
But as I said god needs to be defined, by all religious groups (whether he be entirely different) to allow any debate to flow.


Faith is a Halucination, whereas materialism is an illusion. You must either KNow or not Know. If someone tells you that God is this or that, you Know that he doesn't Know much of anything no matter how much faith they have. If a man says God doesn't exist, he may also be correct as God is not bound to any idea of existance. We human Being s are Monads and as such we are God's trapped in ignorances. Self realization is the ability for a man to go inside himself and find out that he is not ONLY his personality. if you are not your personality, than what are you? Once we all know what we are, we can then begin to KNOW what is God.


All believers use their religion as a scape goat, its called :
NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
If something good happens then its god that done it, same in reverse if any bad happens then its satans fault. Get a grip folks if you do good - you've done good, If you do bad - then you've done bad. Wheres the need for external mythical beings???????


I agree with you. But here now we have to deal with our definitions of right and wrong, good and evil. Those who commit crimes can justifiably claim survival of the fittest as their mantra. They can claim that as animals they will do whatever because your definition of evil, or of doing wrong is, not their defintion. Thus we are in a paradox of not knowing how to proceed without a higher principle to ascribe to. So religion only came into Being after those people of the Mystery schools were infiltrated and the laws that were once known to have been inscribed directly into the hearts and minds of men, became laws for men, Written BY Men.

Religion is a construct of athiesm, for the inabilty to go deep within oneself to find the answers is reason why religion cam about to fill in the missing hole in man's heart. Scientists do something similar to this by studying only the caujses and effects but never finding out how the human being is related to those first 'causes'.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
But you would have to define god, define what god can, cant do or what it actually does or has done. The definition of god is the crux of the argument.
I see no reflection of any god in life or the universe, I see no knowledge of any god except in the minds of believers.


And your basis for comparison is dependent upon how far into your own mind you have gone. Can you prove to me that you are consciously aware of your own thoughts? Because science provides a means to prove otherwise. One can only find what one knows to look for, or how would they have capacity to incorporate such information with a mind that only operates under the "law of association"?


I agree but the probability for god does not increase. God is a faith based notion while most unknown phenomena are based on empirical data.


empirical data changes, and science has failed us many times. Take the below stated quote for example, which was the general concensus at the time, the world over:


"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
--William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899.



Religion is the excuse, not the cause.


Then it is apparent you do not know yourself. Humanity devoid of God does not eliminate the excuses. The excuses would remain a constant, without a percieved deity, no known internal mechanism allows for the opening of nueral pathways to gain access to the 99.999999997% of your own thoughts that remain unknown to your conscious mind, and your environmental experiences.



All believers use their religion as a scape goat, its called :
NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.


There is a difference between taking responsibility for your actions, and turning inwards to address and understand the motivations which provide intentions.

How can one understand fully one's self in a Godless universe, if not for using as a basis of comparison the opinions of others? What internal mechanism allows one to overcome all obsticles which result in humans being consciously aware of 2,000 thoughts per second, and unaware of 400,000,000,000 thoughts per second?

How do you purpose a person can open one's own mind with no tools other than their own faculties, when their own faculties are dependant soley upon their senses, and all sensory input is first introduced to the part of the brain you are not consciously aware of?


If something good happens then its god that done it, same in reverse if any bad happens then its satans fault. Get a grip folks if you do good - you've done good, If you do bad - then you've done bad. Wheres the need for external mythical beings???????


Has a person still done a good thing when the good thing is a result of the fear of the consequences? Were their intentions good in your opinion?

As for "Where's the need for external mythical beings"?

The answer is there is no need for external mythical beings, because God exists.

So, i ask you one more time:

What internal mechanism exists that permits for an individual to gain access to their own subconscious thoughts, and what will cause a person to be inclined to delve into their own psychi to evaluate their own intentions, and initiators for them?


[edit on 6-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by shihulud
But you would have to define god, define what god can, cant do or what it actually does or has done. The definition of god is the crux of the argument.
I see no reflection of any god in life or the universe, I see no knowledge of any god except in the minds of believers.


And your basis for comparison is dependent upon how far into your own mind you have gone. Can you prove to me that you are consciously aware of your own thoughts? Because science provides a means to prove otherwise. One can only find what one knows to look for, or how would they have capacity to incorporate such information with a mind that only operates under the "law of association"?


Well the way I see it every day when I wake up the reality of the world around me has been the same ever since I can remember. And from what I read, that reality has been unchanged for many thousands of years and also from what other people experience as reality is virtually the same as what I experience. So from that I take the basis that I and the world around me are 'real' and if I have concious awareness of my thoughts that are real to me then other people must also have concious awareness of their thoughts (as is confirmed by talking to other people).
Just where does it say that humans only gain knowledge by the "law of association"? What about perception, learning or experience?
And could you please answer my question and DEFINE what god your on about????



I agree but the probability for god does not increase. God is a faith based notion while most unknown phenomena are based on empirical data.


empirical data changes, and science has failed us many times. Take the below stated quote for example, which was the general concensus at the time, the world over:



"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
--William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899.


Of course empirical data changes that is the point - these things can be TESTED again and again and again. As for your quote, that is the OPINION of one man (who didn't obviously know about hot air balloons).



Has a person still done a good thing when the good thing is a result of the fear of the consequences? Were their intentions good in your opinion?

As for "Where's the need for external mythical beings"?

The answer is there is no need for external mythical beings, because God exists.

So, i ask you one more time:

What internal mechanism exists that permits for an individual to gain access to their own subconscious thoughts, and what will cause a person to be inclined to delve into their own psychi to evaluate their own intentions, and initiators for them?

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

First off you would really have to define good and evil but to hazard an answer - No their intentions were not good.
God IS a mythical being - check up the definition of myth, and NO god does not exist.
What about dreams as access to our subconcious or meditation or chemically induced access. As to why people would be inclined to delve into their psyche, isnt that obvious?

Edited to add:
While your on about science and empirical data sometimes being wrong. What about religions such as christianity and the conquest of the Americas?, the Spanish Inquisition?, the imprisonment of 'heretics' like Galileo?, the killing of more 'heretics' because of a difference of opinion. I could go on and on and not just about christianity, all religions have their dark sides.


G

[edit on 10-9-2006 by shihulud]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Why do people feel they are justified in judging the intentions and expectations of others, without even knowing the root cause for their own intentions and expectations?

Considering that people only have for a basis for comparison what they know of their own intentions, shouldn't people first acknowledge and recognize their own intentions, and the reasons their intentions are what they are before they cast judgment on others?

In some cases, it seems not.

In general it seems to be the norm for people to remain ignorant of the root causes for their own intentions, and motives for their actions and behaviors while judging others intentions, actions, and behaviors by automatically applying the same personality characteristics they have to others, without even knowing they are doing it.

Shouldn't people KNOW their own motivations for the way they act, and their intentions before presuming to know the intentions, and motives for others?

If you don't know your own intentions, it is inconceivable how you could believe anyone else would.

If you don't know your own intentions, how do you presume to know the intentions of others?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join