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.

 

B-theism

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Some of you might remember me from some months ago. I've been busy beyond imagination and frankly put off by some things that go on on this board.

I had written a paper back in July regarding what I consider to be the fate of the New Atheist movement, and I was planning on writing a book or collection of essays on where this is all going. I'm uncertain how much time I will have over the coming months. Really I'm only here now because my company is closed for the holidays and I want to put some of my time to good use here.

1. We are not defined by the fact that we don't believe in Bible God. There are a lot of things we don't believe in besides gods, and we aren't defined by those disbeliefs either.

2. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett et al (aka The Four Horsemen of the New Atheist movement), none of these men were ever Saved/Born-Again. They speak with second-hand knowledge of the primarily American-based Protestant/Southern Baptist Christian movement.

3. Aside from the above figureheads of this movement, most (but not all) New Atheists are in fact the same "rebels"/neo-hippies that have been before and are just as ignorant as Christians. I speak particularly of the Rational Response Squad gang. There is no acknowledgement of the rich history and wealth of mistakes we should have already learned from since the Renaissance. Just because it's obviious that Christians are just as much intolerant bigots capable of mass murdering civilians as Muslims doesn't mean you know squat about what's really going on.

4. Organizing Atheists is like herding cats! What do we do? We're doomed! The last thing we need is some kind of substitute Marxism to foster Atheism as a movement again. Once all the religions are gone, there will be no need for this anymore, so also said the Communists.

5. Although if all religion were gone, there would no longer be a need for this, neither will all religion ever be gone, nor will we ever be so certain it will never return.

6. Sick I am of Spagetti.

Any more?

C




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Columbus,


4. Organizing Atheists is like herding cats! What do we do? We're doomed! The last thing we need is some kind of substitute Marxism to foster Atheism as a movement again. Once all the religions are gone, there will be no need for this anymore, so also said the Communists.



Very good. So you too seem to realize it. The very best government that man on his own logic and reason....his own merits/demerits... can do or create is tyranny.
It is obvious to me that many Athiests in thier devout religious zeal do not recognize this. Ironically..Christians, too, dont seem to get it.

Dawkins is the only person in your list of Horsemen upon whom I have seen or read. I've watched a video of him speaking to an audience in a college auditorium. I found him egotistical and self promoting. In short I found it to be disgusting and self promoting flatulence.
Goodness me...Columbus..if I want to be jerked around by such nonsense..I turn on the television and watch the news...or a sitcom.

I cannot speak for the others as the names are new to me.

My compliments.

Orangetom



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

The very best government that man on his own logic and reason....his own merits/demerits... can do or create is tyranny.

That's an exaggeration. What you mean to say is that the free market is tyranny because everything that I can buy is not completely unique and exactly tailored in every way to my exact specifications and therefore my choices are restricted to an unacceptable degree.

Dawkins is by my experience irrelevant. I referenced this book titled "Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think." It is not Dawkins who promotes himself, rather he has become a figurehead of the movement, a big name on tap whenever the subject of atheism comes up. The thing is, he himself has no personal experience of what we're up against. He's just a typically skeptical scientist.

If you want to know who's really full of flatulence, that would be Hitchens. Sometimes I can't stand to listen to him, even though he's supposedly on my side! Again, he has no personal experience of what we're up against.

Both Dawkins and Hitchens are British, and the accent leads people to think they're full of it. And it's also the reason why they could have no experience of the Southern Baptist variety. There simply is no fundamentalist Christianity like that over there.

C



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColumbusThat's an exaggeration. What you mean to say is that the free market is tyranny because everything that I can buy is not completely unique and exactly tailored in every way to my exact specifications and therefore my choices are restricted to an unacceptable degree.


No, I am not saying that at all. I am not real impressed with the free market. I know enough to understand that the free market is not free. It is rigged. Whether it tailors what exactly I want is not material to me. If I cannot get what I want I make do..modify it to my specifications..or go without. No problem with this. I do not expect the free market to satisfy all my wants and needs. I am not the kind of person who believes I deserve this or deserve that. Anyone who does this will be disappointed.
I know this because socialist markets cannot do this either. It is not a matter of the markets.
I dont know where you got the impression I was talking about markets.
I was refering to governments. The market is merely an extension or reflection of what happens as a result of the type of government one has.


Dawkins is by my experience irrelevant.


I agree...I still think he is self promoting and pandernig to a audience which is over emotional and easily led. This was obvious in the videos. Such a thing goes over well in young empty minds but full of emotions.

As to Hitchens..I shall keep that name in mind when reading such materials. Never heard of him but the name is duely noted.

I dont care that Dawkins and Hitchens are British. I am not a Anglophile. British means nothing to me.
However...there is fundamentalist Christianity over there but it is such a small group as to be noticed very little. Most Brits are to be found any day of the week at the Pub...not in church. LOL LOL ...worshiping at the Pub. Much higher attendence is to be found at the pub than at church.
But that is their buisness...I dont care..and dont plan to ever go there again.

Natural men..of reason and logic....by their own merits or demerits..on thier own initiative will eventually corrupt anything and everything...resulting in tyranny. The best they can do is tyranny.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am not real impressed with the free market. I know enough to understand that the free market is not free. It is rigged. Whether it tailors what exactly I want is not material to me. If I cannot get what I want I make do..modify it to my specifications..or go without. No problem with this. I do not expect the free market to satisfy all my wants and needs. I am not the kind of person who believes I deserve this or deserve that. Anyone who does this will be disappointed.

I know this because socialist markets cannot do this either. It is not a matter of the markets.
I dont know where you got the impression I was talking about markets.
I was refering to governments. The market is merely an extension or reflection of what happens as a result of the type of government one has.

Your statement is about tyranny, which is simply restriction of freedom and threat of life and property. The free market (ideally) is an attempt to reduce tyranny as much as possible, maximize freedom (choice), and guarantee property. As you say in reality it doesn't work the way it should ideally. The ideal economic-conservative government's purpose is to maximize the free market and minimize government interference in it, to minimize tyranny. But left to its own, the market will form monopolies and become tyrannical independent of the government, so so we need economic-liberal government to restrain the market.


As to Hitchens..I shall keep that name in mind when reading such materials. Never heard of him but the name is duely noted.

I find it hard to believe you've never heard of him. He's been on CNN many times. He supported the War in Iraq.


Natural men..of reason and logic....by their own merits or demerits..on thier own initiative will eventually corrupt anything and everything...resulting in tyranny. The best they can do is tyranny.

If this were true, it would already be the state of affairs, and for a long time. Even as things are, they're pretty far from tyrannical and despite a recent hiccup, getting further along.

It is fairly clear to most that it is inevitable that Communism will end in China soon. That is a reduction of tyranny that according to your view should be impossible.

C



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
OrangeTom, are you atheist? The purpose of this thread is to explore an alternative to New Atheism engendered by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. Look at my points. Do you see a pattern here?

C



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Columbus,

No I dont think Communism per se will end in China. I think they will just replace one tyranny with another one. One much more subtle and smooth than the Communists ever envisioned. Simalar to what is happening here.

The best way to limit government intrusion into ones life is to limit government fiscally/financially. Impossible in a phoney fiat money system as the Government soon finds itself under the contol of the money powers assuring them unlimited lines of credit. Like a drunken whore....they spend spend spend...thus interfering with your privacy. This is the history of the world from Roman times and before.

No I have never heard of Hitchens. I very seldom watch Chicken Noodle News.

As to tyranny...it will happen eventually..just not yet...but eventually. This tyranny will be under the guise of a benevolent government looking out for our welfare....like in New Orleans.

No I am not an Athiest. I do find some of thier positons to have merit. Others are totally useless to me. I find the same among my fellow Christians. They can be a rather uneducated lot even in Bible doctrine. Amazing to me but true.

I think that Athiesm like Christianity is in danger of being Hijacked.
I think much of Christianity was hijacked long ago for lucre and power.
How long untill they do the same with Athiesm as a Hegelian Dialectic?

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 25-12-2007 by orangetom1999]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   

No I dont think Communism per se will end in China.

Actually it's inevitable. Chinese people are by nature interested in profit. Communism doesn't really make sense. There are Special Economic Zones of capitalism that are being expanded. The Communist leadership wants to end Communism, they just don't want it to happen chaotically, but in a controlled fashion.


Simalar to what is happening here.

What's happening here?


As to tyranny...it will happen eventually..just not yet...but eventually. This tyranny will be under the guise of a benevolent government looking out for our welfare....like in New Orleans.

This is pessimistic not realistic. Such things have always been cyclical. Orwell's 1984 could never be a reality because of Orwell's 1984, but some people need to touch the fire to know it can burn.

What you say, hijacking, doesn't fit reality. Some people follow ideals, others follow the delusions of leaders. Leaders eventually die. Lenin died, we got Stalin. Eventually we got Gorbachev.

By your account, Gorbachev could not have existed or did what he did. You are not being realistic.

C



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Atheist movement? HA! that's as funny as this so called "right wing" movement. Al it is is more people with mouths able to talk. I don't see any signs that this so called movement is going any further then all the other movements. don't get ahead of yourself.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Columbus,


This is pessimistic not realistic. Such things have always been cyclical. Orwell's 1984 could never be a reality because of Orwell's 1984, but some people need to touch the fire to know it can burn.


Concerning the phoney fiat money system. It is cyclical but only because there is something else working behind the scenes..not seen by those it effects. Historically when ever a money system becomes worthless the government collapses. Very seldom in history has a money system and government collapsed and a better system replace it. It is usually another phoney system replacing it with the same or similar events taking place..usually worse. A continuation of the same thing but tending twords tyranny. Misuse of the money power always tends twords tyranny.

As to the Communist Chinese wanting communism to end....this may be true but I dont think they are in charge of this. I say this because if they knew what they were doing they wouldnt be beholden to the western money lenders for technology transfer and know how. They would have done all this on thier own.
The same group of lenders who rebuilt China ...rebuilt Korea, and Japan complete with money transfer. When they are done with China they will abandon her...just like they abandoned Japan and Korea.
This is the cycle..when costs rise they reinvest where profits are higher and competant labor is cheaper.
This is real....all I have to do is go to the local stores to see the effects of this realism.

The term for this kind of thing..is occult..and it is a religion. It can be seen in its hand back in history of many nations.

As to Gorbachev...the money powers could no longer hide the truth of what Communism was ..economically. Same or similar banking system originally set up by John Maynard Keynes. They could no longer hide the fruit.
Communism began to collapse in the 1980s when it was determined that 5,000 plus Americans could not run around Russia during the Olympics and see how unsuperpower Russia actually was.... then return home to tell others. The Olympics were boycotted. to prevent this.
Communism collapsed as a tool in the Hegelian Dialectic by the late 1980s. Time for it to be replaced by another tyranny. Another Dialectic by which to be frightened.

Communism makes perfect sense...in the form of a Dialectic tool...until it is time to replace it with another tool. This is the 1984 cycle...and it is man made. This is logic and reason. Demigods here on earth.

Thanks,
Orangetom




[edit on 25-12-2007 by orangetom1999]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
It is cyclical but only because there is something else working behind the scenes..not seen by those it effects.

It's cyclical because it is a dynamic linear system. People rush into rising markets because of the potential to get rich quick or at least to get their fair share, then they react out of fear when it stops rising, pulling out to protect themselves and causing to collapse. Then when it reaches a bottom, people start thinking it will go up again, remember how high it went last time and try to get in early to maximize their gain.


Historically when ever a money system becomes worthless the government collapses.

Government mismanagement drives down currency -- currency doesn't drive down governments. Governments set currency value with interest rates. This is today's failure of Bush.


Very seldom in history has a money system and government collapsed and a better system replace it.

Ha! In fact this is the only way things ever happen. How can you replace something with something worse and get everyone's buy-in? Name ONE currency that is valued lower than the one that preceded it? Do you have any idea what European currencies were worth before WWII?


Misuse of the money power always tends twords tyranny.

Governments control currency value with supply and interest rate. The market only adapts to this. If it costs a billion dollars to buy a loaf of bread this is clearly a result of oversupply of money and failure of government. A government doesn't need to be tyrannical to be a failure, just incompetent. Only then people like Hitler can have an opportunity.


...this may be true but I dont think they are in charge of this.

I know Chinese people. Communism was never in their nature as a collective people. It takes a strong dictatorship to hold Communism in place. That doesn't exist now. The people in charge don't even want Communism, they just know that if you just shut it off, there will be a coup like in Russia to fill the void of the Dictator they don't have.


I say this because if they knew what they were doing they wouldnt be beholden to the western money lenders for technology transfer and know how.

First off, Chinese people love money, especially the U.S. Dollar. (This is why Communism makes no sense!) The U.S. Dollar is collapsing because the Chinese can't buy anything with it, so they need to trade it for other money that has worth. China (as a people) don't respect IP, copyright or technology ownership, regardless of the laws the U.S. imposes on the government. China copies every technology for it's own use at costs far below ours.


They would have done all this on thier own.

Go to China. They have already done it.


The same group of lenders who rebuilt China ...rebuilt Korea, and Japan complete with money transfer. When they are done with China they will abandon her...just like they abandoned Japan and Korea.

China owns the U.S. China is the Lender now, along with Saudi Arabia. They have all the money. They control the value of the U.S. Dollar far more than Bush.


This is the cycle..when costs rise they reinvest where profits are higher and competant labor is cheaper.

They being corporations not governments. The cost of oil is far more restrictive of corporate activities.


As to Gorbachev...the money powers could no longer hide the truth of what Communism was ..economically.

Gorbachev did not do what he did because he could not hide the failure of Communism anymore, and you fail to prove that the current system is worse than the previous system.

There is nothing occult about any of this, go to school and take Economics 101.

C




top topics



 
0

log in

join