Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by eight bits
That is no loger the Anglican position.

Indeed, sometimes religions do, will and/or are forced to change.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the more liberal branch of the Society of Friends is a "non-credal" faith. So, too, are the Unitarian Universlists,

Indeed, not all religions are dogmatic, which is why whenever necessary I qualified my statements as referring to Abrahamic religions (which is also what the poster consistently refers to). Excluding my qualification and thereby altering the context likely lead to your issue. I think we have discussed this habit of yours, have we not?

[edit on 22-7-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by mhorndisk
How does your evolutionary link provide an explanation for how the pyramids were built?

Evolution in no way presumes to provide explanations for the construction of structures. Are you aware of what evolutionary theory is?

Science wants to turn man into superman (Lucifer). The goal of science is to become God.

We already are gods. Science wants to turn us into SuperGod. Which I don't have a problem with, but who's going to get there first?

You see, I'm not talking about a supernatural deity poofing everything into existence, just because I'm referring to the Bible. That's not what God is.

The scientists behind the verichip logo chose the eye at the top of the pyramid as their logo. Nothing supernatural. They will see everything and everyone with science. It's a metaphor for the eyes and ears of the emperor and they are going to become supergods.

I am a Luciferian (spiritual not religious) because I believe in my own divinity and purpose in this place. I do not believe that as science explains with the big bang, that NOTHING poofed everything into existence. That is much more ridiculous to believe.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
I am a Luciferian (spiritual not religious) because I believe in my own divinity and purpose in this place. I do not believe that as science explains with the big bang, that NOTHING poofed everything into existence. That is much more ridiculous to believe.

You're entitled to believe what you wish. However, I find that explanations based upon observations and repeatable experimentation to be far more accurate and awe-inspiring than a merely egocentric supposition that I am "divine". To each his own though, but I choose not to remain ignorant of the world around me.

As I said before you'd benefit greatly from acquiring a degree of scientific literacy, at very least to avoid things such as believing we instantly went from Lucy to modern man and that evolutionary theory was supposed to explain the pyramids.

Well go ahead and pick your side then. Play the little game. Nothing poofed everything into existence, or a supernatural deity did. I believe both assertions are completey ridiculous and a scientific degree therefor would mean absolutetly nothing to me. It is a purposeless cause, which will provide a purposeless effect. It doesn't matter because no one will ever discover the answer to the beginning of the universe, ever. But God IS coming on the Earth. He's not going to be this supernatural deity, but a physical man just like you and me. That is what the all seeing eye represents. He will be able to see you whenever he wants to. He will be God.

All seeing, as in omnipresent.

And my divinity is based on the observations of what is within me. It isn't ignorant to look inward rather than simply outward like yourself.

Call me ignorant if it makes you feel better. But you've been brainwashed into assuming and believing that God is a supernatural deity and that divinity is something other than love, and that the soul is just a bunch of chemicals when it's a metaphor for your feelings.

It was all set up this way so the regular folks like you would OBSERVE while a few ACTED and BECAME. One has a purpose, the other does not.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
It doesn't matter because no one will ever discover the answer to the beginning of the universe, ever. But God IS coming on the Earth. He's not going to be this supernatural deity, but a physical man just like you and me. That is what the all seeing eye represents. He will be able to see you whenever he wants to. He will be God.

Sez U.

What makes your inventions about the nature of god any more valid than anyone elses?

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Call me ignorant if it makes you feel better. But you've been brainwashed into assuming and believing that God is a supernatural deity and that divinity is something other than love, and that the soul is just a bunch of chemicals when it's a metaphor for your feelings.

Well, I'm not calling you ignorant out of derision, I mean it in the truest sense of the definition. You are ignoring much of the knowledge available to us.

I am far from brainwashed about metaphysical claims. I tend to reject them whereas you tend to redefine them.

Invention? The Bible says the Lord is a MAN. The Lord says, man is a god. Sez the Bible. The Verichip logo (all seeing eye) means God (a Man) will see you (omnipresence) at all times. It's not some invisible guy floating around in the sky. That's brainwashing.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
It was all set up this way so the regular folks like you would OBSERVE while a few ACTED and BECAME. One has a purpose, the other does not.

Both of those actions you described are purposeful.

It appears that not only are you an ancient alien enthusiast but also an Illuminati/NWO enthusiast. So far your notions appear to be a confluence of these ideas, although a notion without an overall unifying theory. Perhaps it's the old one of man trying to become god through the Big Brother methodology. Fair enough. I've heard that one before. Still though, every point you've brought forth has either been refuted or unsupported. At what point can you back your notions with evidence?

Prophecy is not prediction, it's a plan. The Vatican published the Bible, and said the Harlot wears purple and scarlet (their bishops and cardinals wear purple and scarlet). They said, we ARE the whore, and you WILL see. It's all part of the plan.

And what do you know about the Illuminati? Can you prove they even exist?

I qualified my statements as referring to Abrahamic religions

What you said in the post I quoted was

No, as I've already explained to you many religions have precise moral and ethical instructions which therefore makes religion inherently dogmatic.

and then, after quoting the other poster

I agree: everyone creates gods in their image. I did not claim all religious people are dogmatic; they're not, but their religion most likely is (particularly the Abrahamic religions). Those who aren't dogmatic have picked and chosen which religious mandates to follow and which to ignore.

So, your alleged "qualification" was "particularly." That's not a restriction on a universal quanitifier.

The only actual qualification was

"Those who aren't dogmatic have picked and chosen which religious mandates to follow and which to ignore."

The UU's haven't "picked and chosen." They have no mandates. I gave you their website.

They fall within the scope of the claim you made.

Now, all you needed to do was say "I meant exclusively instead of particularly." But no, you stonewall and man up. You say I misrepresented you, when all you had to say was that you misspoke.

Excluding my qualification and thereby altering the context likely lead to your issue. I think we have discussed this habit of yours, have we not?

Of all your little time wasters and excuses for not admitting lapses, this "context" BS is the most laughable. Our whole conversation is recorded here verbatim. It isn't even possible for a poster to misrepresent the context.

The instructions to posters and general netiquette ask me to quote only as much as necessary to disambiguate what part of your post I am talking about. Since the whole post is there for everybody to see, including us, there is no danger of your words being misrepresented.

None.




[edit on 22-7-2010 by eight bits]