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.

 

The Believer's Declaration of Dependence

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



I admit, that it will take some time, before real knowledge will be universal. But I count on the small (imo rather harmless) greed in mankind.


Indeed
it seems it's always been an ongoing fight against this greed; and the amalgamation of what we might call "evil"; the essense of evil....The sado-masochism, the manipulative lying; the killing of people for "fun".


We always want to better our situation, and as education and knowledge = better life-conditions, theism will eventually be restricted to the group of those making an active and informed choice about it.


Definetly. It's very easy to apply ethics in a scientific logical way....especially if you have a passion for life and your species.

Take lying; The purpose of communication is to transfer information; if the majority preferred lying in a given community it would render communication pointless and farcical.

The fact that we formed language shows we are a trusting species; a co-operative species; we must support this trust if we do not wish to be a suicidal species.

(Perhaps conjecture but..) i can imagine SuperiorEd thinking this is a rather cold, spiritless way to look at things; but don't fool yourself into thinking Atheists or the non-believer are without "soul", without a compassion for love; for life, for art etc. etc. etc.

Peace.
edit on 3-7-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   


(Perhaps conjecture but..) i can imagine SuperiorEd thinking this is a rather cold, spiritless way to look at things; but don't fool yourself into thinking Atheists or the non-believer are without "soul", without a compassion for love; for life, for art etc. etc. etc.


There is a great quote from PtahHotep, 5th Dynasty Egypt. PtahHotep was likely Joseph from the Bible.

"Be not arrogant because of that which you know; deal with the ignorant as with the learned; for the barriers of art are not closed, no artist being in possession of the perfection to which he should aspire. But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite."



Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil
 



edit on 3-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

I am still waiting on your links to back your claim that I am cutting and pasting from other websites.


Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil
 



I don't worry so much about these supernatural threats one way or another.


Neither do i, but many take it very seriously.

Especially when knowledge infrastructure is sparse, and in communities where churches and priests have the ultimate authority.


I admit, that it will take some time, before real knowledge will be universal. But I count on the small (imo rather harmless) greed in mankind. We always want to better our situation, and as education and knowledge = better life-conditions, theism will eventually be restricted to the group of those making an active and informed choice about it.


I have already twice given my reasons for questioning your scientific competence.

And as to the strange question of WHERE you possibly borrow your material, I also have answered that:

Quote: ["Quote: [" If you please provide a link to where you say I copied my information, I would appreciate it."]

How should I know, where you fetch your material. What a strange request."]

What about relating direct to the claims of standard science, instead of this diverting maneuver. What does it matter in that context, from where the material originates (as I have not denied the authenticity of the basic and simple part of it, only your personal conclusions).

Are you unwilling to go to the core of this, so now it's 'tactics'?
edit on 4-7-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

I read from this that you prefer America not be a marketplace of ideas. Am I correct? We should allow the strong to rule the weak and how they think? Since Christians will turn the other cheek, it will be easy to shut them up. Is this your view? Restrict some groups thinking and freedom of expression while we allow others freedom? Aren't we all free and equal in the eyes of the law?


Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil
 



I don't worry so much about these supernatural threats one way or another.


Neither do i, but many take it very seriously.

Especially when knowledge infrastructure is sparse, and in communities where churches and priests have the ultimate authority.


I admit, that it will take some time, before real knowledge will be universal. But I count on the small (imo rather harmless) greed in mankind. We always want to better our situation, and as education and knowledge = better life-conditions, theism will eventually be restricted to the group of those making an active and informed choice about it.


Your knowledge of political philosophy and ideology appears to be on par with your knowledge of science/logic. Practically non-existing or twisted. The model of liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy answers all of your questions above.

You're trying to use the 'persecuted christians' argument, while the reality is, that christians often just complain, because they don't have any privileges any more.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil
 


It generally comes down to this statement from Atheists. I have been doing this for a long time and have seen this answer often. Simply saying that I do not know my science does not provide content to you claim. Show examples. Quote my science and then correct it. Provide context.



I have already answered that once, but I can take it again. You appear to have next to no knowledge about standard science (which is no shame, unless you make unjustified claims about your competence. I don't play violin or neither can I run a nuclear power-plant. No-one can know everything). But you engage in a scientific argumentation from almost extreme polarities of knowledge. One where you are almost completely ignorant, and one which actually was rather informed (to a certain point). Doesn't fit together.


Stating that the earth and cosmos originates from hydrogen AND oxygen atoms is enough to alienate you from any standard science. The generous sprinklings of 'god' etc. in between this pseudo-science is similarly totally outside science/logic.

As to quote: ["Quote my science and then correct it. Provide context."], this is impossible, as you haven't presented it (in spite of my suggestion). I can only say, that you are NOT using standard science. Whatever you have cooked up instead is an enigma, until you present it.

edit on 4-7-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I can keep doing your research for you all day. Hydrogen is the element that matters most. Oxygen is what matters most to us for life. Both make up water, another item that we cannot live without. You mislead in your answer and put counterfeit meaning in what I said.


When the Universe was formed in the Big Bang, the resulting elemental matter was about three quarters hydrogen, one quarter helium, and a few parts-per-billion of lithium (by weight). imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...



Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil
 


It generally comes down to this statement from Atheists. I have been doing this for a long time and have seen this answer often. Simply saying that I do not know my science does not provide content to you claim. Show examples. Quote my science and then correct it. Provide context.



I have already answered that once, but I can take it again. You appear to have next to no knowledge about standard science (which is no shame, unless you make unjustified claims about your competence. I don't play violin or neither can I run a nuclear power-plant. No-one can know everything). But you engage in a scientific argumentation from almost extreme polarities of knowledge. One where you are almost completely ignorant, and one which actually was rather informed (to a certain point). Doesn't fit together.


Stating that the earth and cosmos originates from hydrogen AND oxygen atoms is enough to alienate you from any standard science. The generous sprinklings of 'god' etc. in between this pseudo-science is similarly totally outside science/logic.

As to quote: ["Quote my science and then correct it. Provide context."], this is impossible, as you haven't presented it (in spite of my suggestion). I can only say, that you are NOT using standard science. Whatever you have cooked up instead is an enigma, until you present it.

edit on 4-7-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Name-calling does not provide content or context for your shaky platform. America was founded on these ideas as reflected in what I said. Here is an article I wrote a year or so ago on the subject. LINK Here is another article I wrote on the subject. LINK Here is my Sister-in-law demonstrating this before Congress. LINK

Your words about me are as follows: "Your knowledge of political philosophy and ideology appears to be on par with your knowledge of science/logic." Yes. They are both spot on. I agree with your statement but not with you intent to deceive.

Deceit will not win your argument against God. You will only deceive yourself.


"An important part of our democracy includes the concepts of free discourse and freedom of expression. These two ideas are inexorably tied to our framework of what it means to be an educated citizen. Free access to thought is what defines us as individuals living in a free land. Limiting this access can only weaken our educational institutions."



Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

I read from this that you prefer America not be a marketplace of ideas. Am I correct? We should allow the strong to rule the weak and how they think? Since Christians will turn the other cheek, it will be easy to shut them up. Is this your view? Restrict some groups thinking and freedom of expression while we allow others freedom? Aren't we all free and equal in the eyes of the law?


Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil
 



I don't worry so much about these supernatural threats one way or another.


Neither do i, but many take it very seriously.

Especially when knowledge infrastructure is sparse, and in communities where churches and priests have the ultimate authority.


I admit, that it will take some time, before real knowledge will be universal. But I count on the small (imo rather harmless) greed in mankind. We always want to better our situation, and as education and knowledge = better life-conditions, theism will eventually be restricted to the group of those making an active and informed choice about it.


Your knowledge of political philosophy and ideology appears to be on par with your knowledge of science/logic. Practically non-existing or twisted. The model of liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy answers all of your questions above.

You're trying to use the 'persecuted christians' argument, while the reality is, that christians often just complain, because they don't have any privileges any more.

edit on 8-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

I read from this that you prefer America not be a marketplace of ideas. Am I correct? We should allow the strong to rule the weak and how they think? Since Christians will turn the other cheek, it will be easy to shut them up. Is this your view? Restrict some groups thinking and freedom of expression while we allow others freedom? Aren't we all free and equal in the eyes of the law?


Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by bogomil
 



I don't worry so much about these supernatural threats one way or another.


Neither do i, but many take it very seriously.

Especially when knowledge infrastructure is sparse, and in communities where churches and priests have the ultimate authority.


I admit, that it will take some time, before real knowledge will be universal. But I count on the small (imo rather harmless) greed in mankind. We always want to better our situation, and as education and knowledge = better life-conditions, theism will eventually be restricted to the group of those making an active and informed choice about it.


Your knowledge of political philosophy and ideology appears to be on par with your knowledge of science/logic. Practically non-existing or twisted. The model of liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy answers all of your questions above.

You're trying to use the 'persecuted christians' argument, while the reality is, that christians often just complain, because they don't have any privileges any more.


With this said, let me enlighten myself and others to your favored model of Government:

Liberal = Objectivism. Everyone for themselves and the strongest man with the most money wins. The rest will pay the way for those who do not work; for those who are not just unemployed, but unemployable by their own lack of virtue in life.

Egalitarian = The French form of Government. That's working out real good for them isn't it?

Secular = Take God out of Government. This is taking wisdom out of Government. We did this to the schools and look what we got in return. I know. I've been in school for the last 20 years and my father was a school teacher. Since WWI, our schools have gone from providing an amazing basic education and moral foundation to providing a bankrupt system of control. Teachers have no autonomy. The government is dictating what they can and can't teach. Because of this, literacy rates in the country dropped form a pre WWI 93% to a low of 60% by the Korean War. Take wisdom away from knowledge and you get an empty shell of a person. Your idea is to take religion and wisdom form the entire country. No thanks. This is not freedom. It is control and chaos.

You and the rest of the Atheist world will be responsible for bringing the deception that is coming to the world. Read Revelation and the description of one world government and you see your plan in action. God will not have it. Be warned, you will reap what you sow.

Altruism requires no law.

Objectivism cannot contain the chaos and will pass law after law to control men.

God's law allows a man the FREEDOM to control Himself. God is GOOD!!

Feel free to fill us in on your liberal, egalitarian, humanist view of the world and Government. We are all interested.


edit on 8-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join