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.

 

Atheism is a paradox and it results in chaos and madness.

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



This isn't really about any of that. The issue is how huge the religious claims (namely dogmatic religions) are and how little evidence there is to justify a belief at all. Saying you can't prove it wrong is entirely separate from justifying the belief to begin with.

the use of faith, has Christian implications. If we are going to consider said God, we need to peripherally view all claims of God. If we do that, then we quickly find there is more than just "dogmatic fundamentalism." There is also very potent philosophical implications/arguments, NDE's, and also claims of the direct experience of said God and how to get there.

I think we would all agree that the direct experience of something trumps the faith in something. The question here is, wouldn't one at least need some faith in order to carry out the steps to see if one can experience this.



Of all things I hear from Christians, and the other dogmatic religious, this is absolutely the most offensive, immoral and heartless. You essentially just said atheists lives are pointless. Yes. You did just say that. Understand the implication of your words.

be mad all u want. I was an atheist and was thinking this way about myself. I never knew "christians" or any other groups argued this.


You essentially just said if you lack the belief in God you are immoral, incapable of love, any sense of ethics and are likely to commit murder and rape. Yes you did just say that. Understand the implication of your horrible thoughts.

Lack of belief in God does not make one Immoral or incapable of Love, ethics, or anything else and I never said that it does, so lets not put words in peoples mouths.

I concluded that there is no purpose in anything. That Love is just chemical signals in the brain, synapses, etc. What would have been the point of falling in Love if I would lose her to death anyway. Everything was pointless if at the end the body dies and we are no more. Understand that this was a personal conclusion made be me over 15 years ago as an atheist.


The belief in ANY GOD is NOT a requirement to be a good person, to be moral, to have an ethical code. That's the most absurd notion and it clearly demonstrates a lack of objectivity and perhaps even the chance you have live your entire life inside a church.

words in my mouth. assumptions. I never said that an atheist is incapable of any of that. I was an Atheist once and Loved.


Describing the compassionate life of my atheist mother and everything she has done for countless medically fragile children would it seems be futile. Or perhaps you would convince yourself the acts were secretly coming from the Bible somehow.

Hey good for her. However, in my old atheistic materialist view .....so what!!!! It would all be relatively irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because one day we all die never to be again, so who cares. All synapses, chemical signals, and relative acts based on her upbringing.

I don't kno why you had to bring the Bible up at the end there, because had I told you was a Zen Buddhist Nondualist, then your Biblical statement there would be all for nought. Which makes me wonder if your atheism is considerably motivated in large part to disagreements with the Bible or perhaps bad experiences with some fundamentalists. In alot of my statements here I'm playing devil's advocate or stating a views I had as an Atheist


There are countless sources for morality and ethics. From systems of thought, fields of study, to individuals like your friends and family. You can learn fantastic moral teachings from many philosophers, psychologists, intellectuals, spiritual sages, John Stewart. Whatever. Everything is a potential source. Morality evolves as humankind evolves. It's that simple. We shape it and mold it together through our growing understanding of what goodness and love and compassion is...

Thats all and good and everything. However morals and ethics seems to be slaves to the passions. Many a times I swore to myself and my mate I would not cheat. A opp presented itself, try as hard as I could, lust found a short circuit justification in order to cheat. There's the animal rearing its head. Now multiply this by 6.8 billion and add greed, jealousy, hatred, lust, etc etc ...... no were talkin. If I put the news on and look at the world in general it seems the animalism is defeating your moral and ethics systems. I see it everyday brother
edit on 18-8-2012 by dominicus because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


I don't think that is fair to sum up all of humanity in such definitive terms. I too lust after others, but I also know that if my partner was cheating on me it would hurt, and I do not want that to happen, so I do not cheat on them. That is the reciprocity that all voluntary relationships stand upon. Empathy is not a moral sanction. I can do whatever I want without feeling morally obligated. The question is, would I want someone else to do those things to me? If not, I choose not to do them to other people. The oldest wisdom in the book.

I'd say, if someone feels the urge to cheat on someone they truly love, then they have certain socially conditioned issues they need to work out with themselves. It is not a biological thing as you are claiming, in most circumstances anyway, it is a social thing, and that's coming from a neuropsychologist.
edit on 18-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


the use of faith, has Christian implications. If we are going to consider said God, we need to peripherally view all claims of God. If we do that, then we quickly find there is more than just "dogmatic fundamentalism." There is also very potent philosophical implications/arguments, NDE's, and also claims of the direct experience of said God and how to get there.

You think this is all new to me? It's not.

Present an argument. Not for the belief in God. But in Christian doctrine (or any religious doctrine). Do you understand the difference? Try this. Present an argument for the belief in God and then explain how that argument gives credence to why Catholicism is more correct than Mormonism. Monotheistic Hinduism over any Christian demonination. Giving a philisopphical argument for a prime mover doesn't extend the argument to say God said the things in the Bible.

I would love to hear a compelling argument from 'very potent philosophy' for that.


I think we would all agree that the direct experience of something trumps the belief in something.

My spiritual experience from meditation have contributed to my belief in a 'prime mover'. Never once did God appear to me and say Islam is the true religion.

In fact, almost every single time this is discussed on ATS the religious only provide an argument for a belief in God and not for the belief in specific dogma. If they do the 'argument' is "I have faith".


I never knew "christians" or any other groups argued this.

You just did


This was my conclusion for myself .....and when I concluded this for myself, I figured it could be said of others.

I am sorry your life was once madness and chaos and you were prone to murder. It was fallacious of you to extend that to others.


What would have been the point of falling in Love if I would lose her to death anyway. Everything was pointless if at the end the body dies and we are no more.

I can understand additonal meaning belief in God and an afterlife would have on us. Truly.

But to say there is none if you take that belief away is inhumane.

Look at is like this. If there was one life to live, if that was the belief, what better reason to fall in love than to have experienced it in your one life to live. A life well lived man, that's the explanation. Being moral makes the world better, and that makes the one life lived better (if that's the case).


words in my mouth. assumptions. I never said that an atheist is incapable of any of that.

Here is what you said (some of it anyways):


Chaotic Madness....

Continually, any meaning, morals, ethics, love, happiness, and so on is just a bunch of brain synapses and chemical exchanges that are relative and in the grand scheme of things really don't mean anything at all and therefore there really is no higher purpose


So love is not really love that doesn't mean anything at all since it doesn't have a real purpose. Sorry that's what you said. My bad



Which makes me wonder if your atheist is considerably motivated in large part to disagreements with the Bible or perhaps bad experiences with some fundamentalists.

That's absolutely a yes. A part of it.

However, truthfully I am a deist and very anti-theist. Atheism in many aspects of discussion would functionally represent my position.


If I put the news on and look at the world in general it seems the animalism is defeating your moral and ethics systems. I see it everyday brother

And I see it everyday with religious morals and ethics.

And it's not mine. It's OURS. Like I said. Morality evolves as humankind evolves. It is growing as we grow. It is collective wisdom from immreasuable sources.

Not eveyone is moral and ethical, that's all your example just showed. That doesn't at all show one needs religion to be moral.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Atheism is solely the belief that there is no creator. That's all there is to atheism.

That sounds so much more rational..



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You're right.

It would be more rational to believe there is a God and that God thinks this:



Deuteronomy 22:20-21 New International Version (NIV) 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

edit on 18-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



You think this is all new to me? It's not. Present an argument. Not for the belief in God. But in Christian doctrine (or any religious doctrine). Do you understand the difference? Try this. Present an argument for the belief in God and then explain how that argument gives credence to why Catholicism is more correct than Mormonism. Monotheistic Hinduism over any Christian demonination. Giving a philisopphical argument for a prime mover doesn't extend the argument to say God said the things in the Bible. I would love to hear a compelling argument from 'very potent philosophy' for that.

while I will not claim any religion for the sake of this discussion, I will just say that I am someone who looked for, and found the source of consciousness, as a direct observable experience, and then was able to pass on my blueprints to a handful of others who also came to the same conclusions (most of them former atheists.

So at this point, I could care less about any realm that has to do with belief or non-belief, as the experience of what I speak of has nothing at all to do with belief and is found to prior to all thought. However, a source of all consciousness gives credence to religions, although I'm not here to argue which one's right

The potent philosophy would have to be saved for another thread.


My spiritual experience from meditation have contributed to my belief in a 'prime mover'. Never once did God appear to me and say Islam is the true religion.

doesn't matter. If you found this prime mover to be true from a direct experience, and began to teach about it, eventually a community would form around your teaching and would incorporate all of that societies and culture influence. Hence "other religions."


In fact, almost every single time this is discussed on ATS the religious only provide an argument for a belief in God and not for the belief in specific dogma. If they do the 'argument' is "I have faith".

Well then I'm gald I posted here because I am arguing a direct experiencing of said God, beyond all faith, belief, dogma, religion.


This was my conclusion for myself .....and when I concluded this for myself, I figured it could be said of others. I am sorry your life was once madness and chaos and you were prone to murder. It was fallacious of you to extend that to others.

I think everyone is prone to murder. If someone is about to take you out or threaten your family, that killer instinct is there in all, usually regressed. I never said I was prone to it, but just that its a universal possibility. There is no need for me to extend it to to others, just put on the news and you'll see its already there.


I can understand additonal meaning belief in God and an afterlife would have on us. Truly. But to say there is none if you take that belief away is inhumane.

I never meant to say it that way, because as an atheist I had conscience, morals/ethics. But I saw that they were relative and made up, and put in some difficult situations, I would have to break those self imposed rules.


Look at is like this. If there was one life to live, if that was the belief, what better reason to fall in love than to have experienced it in your one life to live. A life well lived man, that's the explanation. Being moral makes the world better, and that makes the one life lived better (if that's the case).

If this was my one life, I'd spend a large portion of my money on life extension technology, fullerene c60 oils, telemeres extracts, and gene therapy and I'd do whatever it takes to make this most amount of money to finance the well being of my family, but on top of that I'd live life like a party with no consequences to be honest.

My experiences of the "Beingness" make that impossible. Now I'm prone to save as much time as possible to just be, to strip myself of all worldly relative programming, to go within, and to read the blueprints of others who have tasted the Absolute.


So love is not really love that doesn't mean anything at all since it doesn't have a real purpose. Sorry that's what you said. My bad

there's a difference between coming to this conclusion in myself, while as an atheist still retaining the ability to Love. I think somewhere there is a loss in translation .....if its on my part Im sure we can resolve.



Which makes me wonder if your atheist is considerably motivated in large part to disagreements with the Bible or perhaps bad experiences with some fundamentalists. That's absolutely a yes. A part of it. However, truthfully I am a deist and very anti-theist. Atheism in many aspects of discussion would functionally represent my position.

well then I'm glad were are discussing this without any particular religion or book in mind



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 



I don't think that is fair to sum up all of humanity in such definitive terms

starting with yourself, can you say you've never gone against your own set of morals and ethics due to some "black swan" such as lust, temptation, not pulling over to help someone w a flat tire cause you didnt feel like it (while your moral set told you that you should help) or other similar example.?


I too lust after others, but I also know that if my partner was cheating on me it would hurt, and I do not want that to happen, so I do not cheat on them

You not cheating on someone, because you don't want that to happen to you, is a whole entire psychological situation there and almost sounds like a subconscious belief in karma. I hope you do understand that given the right set of circumstances, even though you have never cheated, she has the possibility of still cheating on you and the possibility of that happening always remains.


That is the reciprocity that all voluntary relationships stand upon. Empathy is not a moral sanction. I can do whatever I want without feeling morally obligated. The question is, would I want someone else to do those things to me? If not, I choose not to do them to other people. The oldest wisdom in the book.

Doesn't matter. I have been in relationships were I have not cheated, but was cheated on. So in my view its reciprocity shmocity.


I'd say, if someone feels the urge to cheat on someone they truly love, then they have certain socially conditioned issues they need to work out with themselves.

Really? I've been madly in Love with someone, but found myself in a tempting situation and the lust (in retrospect) completely short circuited all my morals and ethics and resulted in a release in animal instinct mad wild sex. Is that a socially conditioned issue that needs to be worked out? ......the natural reaction of a male's physical body, adrenaline, trouble thinking straight, etc ...at the sight of a beautiful naked woman who presents herself to him ....is a social issue?


It is not a biological thing as you are claiming, in most circumstances anyway, it is a social thing, and that's coming from a neuropsychologist.

aren't all social things decided in the physical brain, which would ultimately make it biological? If I consume large amounts of alcohol, its a lot harder to make certain choices in certain circumstances. Add a naked women into the picture and that also makes choices difficult.

all of our rational/ethical/moral thought is bendable and relative. I've seen people do things that they said they would never do and saw many instances where, presented the proper circumstances, all past established morals/ethic/rationality has been thrown out the window.

Its not all black and white.

Furthermore it could be said, if there is no God then its all relatively bendable and open to circumstantial influence. The ideal becomes to do your best, although even that can be argued based on "circumstantial influence."

If there is a God, then there is an ideal to be reached (as in for example Buddhism has Enlightenment as its ideal, or Eastern Christian Orthodoxy has Union with God as its ideal, etc etc etc)


edit on 19-8-2012 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by jiggerj
Atheism is solely the belief that there is no creator. That's all there is to atheism.

That sounds so much more rational..


You're right.

It would be more rational to believe there is a God and that God thinks this:



Deuteronomy 22:20-21 New International Version (NIV) 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

edit on 18-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


That's not an effective counter argument for the reason for God as a first/last cause, what some prophet wrote and attributed to the God of the OT, as they may have projected, or even borrowed from another custom or deity.


edit on 19-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


I don't think this is true, a lot of atheists rely on reason and humanitarianism to justify their moral values while some religions do the opposite - they make things up out of nowhere, and kill or alienate / arrest those who don't believe their worldview when given too much power.

Atrocities have to be committed by religious states in many cases because the leaders know that if they allowed the truth to be spoken, it would become obvious that the values they present to the public are unhealthy. If they were healthy values rooted in fact and reason, then there would be no need to worry about free speech threatening them.

However, there could be some elements of spirituality that science has not discovered yet! I'm a big supporter of researching this unexplored territory.

I don't want to convey hostility towards religion, though. I'm just saying that it is possible to have healthy values without religion, in fact they are healthier, because they rely on reason and critical thinking.

Also, I think that some sort of spirituality or philosophy passed down from generation to generation could be important in order to preserve healthy values that have been learned throughout time so they don't have to be re-learned by every generation.
edit on 19-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I agree completely.

But since you are clearly a Christian it was an appropriate response to you...the person I was responding to


It's rational to believe in a 'prime mover' 'first cause' because there are rational philosophical arguments to support it. Not factually, but rationally. One has to leave the realm of rationality and enter faith to extend those arguments to God affirming holy scripture.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Communism is not atheism.
Atheism is solely the belief that there is no creator. That's all there is to atheism. No hidden agenda, no power struggle (except to be free of religious constraints).
Communism, on the other hand, is a way to control the masses, just like every religion.


I think you may have drank a little too much of that reincarnation juice JJ...


You are correct about one thing though: religion is one HUGE mind control tool

But so is atheism...

Atheism is a very well-financed Illuminati movement with a stealth agenda.

If not why is their goal to have a world without a god?

There is FAR too much evidence for this.

Atheism is an idiot's belief as much as any other religion is and it has the SAME exact agenda with the SAME goals.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 



while I will not claim any religion for the sake of this discussion,

For the sake of discussion it would be most relevant. Dogma espouses morality and this thread is about morality.


I will just say that I am someone who looked for, and found the source of consciousness, as a direct observable experience, and then was able to pass on my blueprints to a handful of others

I take no qualm with mystical experience. Or the idea that the experience is connected to divinity.

If part of your blueprint is to have faith in Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism, etc..... I will take issue on many fronts. Concerning the topic matter; morality.


doesn't matter. If you found this prime mover to be true from a direct experience, and began to teach about it, eventually a community would form around your teaching

But what is the experience exactly? And are the teachings truthful representations of the experience?

For instance if a community were built up around my mystical experience and I was honest about the extent then my teaching would be: meditate often, contemplate. It's possible to connect to a higher level of awareness in conscious experience that is connected to something greater

I wouldn't add to that by saying consciousness's name is Alex Chester and he created the Universe in 44 days and wants you to cut peices off your newborn daughters and pepperspray girls for being promiscuous. I wouldn't teach that because I had no direct experience from the 'prime mover' that sufficently affirmed that. If I had revelation is was the experience of higher consciousness (God?) in of itself.

Almost every time I hear argument from believers in religious dogma they don't describe revelation in that kind of affirmation, rather simply in there being a God.

More to the point even if they DID I would have an incredibly hard time believing the creator of all of existence was named Alex Chester and really dislikes parts of the female anatomy. It would defy everything I understand about life, human experience, my intelligence, my sense of goodness, and therefore its creator.


but on top of that I'd live life like a party with no consequences to be honest.

That's how you would react to the lack of belief in God but it's clearly the case that not all atheists have a 'madness and chaos' reaction to it.
edit on 19-8-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by smyleegrl
 




I believe I will wake up in the morning because that is the experience I've had so far. I also know, from a scientific standpoint, that my body is healthy and therefore can be relied upon to wake up.

You've had the experience in the past, but you have yet to have tomorrow's experience of waking up. Your assuming you will have tomorrow. What about the instances of a 1st job interview, first child birth, first kiss, etc ....all new experiences are one's you haven't had thus far, yet you go in them with belief/faith that you will somehow manage .......manage a future experience you have no proof will ever happen 100%


ok then, well that being said, how do you manage the possible future experience of not going to heaven? how will you manage that ay? and by the way how many days of your life have you not woken up the next morning? cos if you don't wake up the next morning, then YOU ARE DEAD! and life sceases, hence fowarth you will always wake up in the morning until the day you die



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Op, are you seriously so stupid that you cant live a moral life without a god? telling you so ? by the way, this is the biggest turnoff to religion. its a complete insult to my inteligrnce



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 




starting with yourself, can you say you've never gone against your own set of morals and ethics due to some "black swan" such as lust, temptation, not pulling over to help someone w a flat tire cause you didnt feel like it (while your moral set told you that you should help) or other similar example.?


Sure, but again it is not so black and white. I don't think not helping someone with a flat tire is the same as cheating on my partner.



You not cheating on someone, because you don't want that to happen to you, is a whole entire psychological situation there and almost sounds like a subconscious belief in karma. I hope you do understand that given the right set of circumstances, even though you have never cheated, she has the possibility of still cheating on you and the possibility of that happening always remains.


Sure, and she can cheat on me, and that is fine because I don't have to be with her. It is her prerogative to make that decision as it is mine to leave shall I choose.



Doesn't matter. I have been in relationships were I have not cheated, but was cheated on. So in my view its reciprocity shmocity.


I'm sorry but this is just not sound logic. I have been stabbed before, does that mean I should go around stabbing people now? If someone is molested as a child, should they go around molesting children when they get older? Just really bad logic here.



Really? I've been madly in Love with someone, but found myself in a tempting situation and the lust (in retrospect) completely short circuited all my morals and ethics and resulted in a release in animal instinct mad wild sex. Is that a socially conditioned issue that needs to be worked out? ......the natural reaction of a male's physical body, adrenaline, trouble thinking straight, etc ...at the sight of a beautiful naked woman who presents herself to him ....is a social issue?


Wow, you see if I am "madly in love with someone" I am not going to be placed in a situation were I would be alone with a naked woman like that. I just don't see how that could happen. Unless we are talking about teenage love, and I am at some party and really drunk, but we are not talking about that are we? We are both mature adults correct?



aren't all social things decided in the physical brain, which would ultimately make it biological? If I consume large amounts of alcohol, its a lot harder to make certain choices in certain circumstances. Add a naked women into the picture and that also makes choices difficult.


Sorry, but in that case there is no societal/environmental influences in life. Again, just bad logic. If someone says its biologically influenced behavior, as you were saying, it tends to mean genetics. Sure, genetics influences much of my behavior, as does neural structuring, however, environmental (societal) influences can alter both gene expression and neural structuring, its called epigenetics and neural plasticity.

As far as getting really wasted and using that as an excuse to do really dumb things, been there and done that. Learned my lessons and moved on. If you feel trapped in this behavior, to the point you consider it to be "biological" or genetically induced as you have been hinting at, I suggest you seeing an AODA counselor and getting some help. You're not along in that feeling.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by jiggerj
 


And yet, this consciousness (which must be of infinite knowledge) restricts five year olds from thinking and dreaming on the level of 20 year olds.

Now, now, jig. That phenomenon is due to the brain being slow to grow...
humans are one of the few species that are born very helpless and take decades to mature.

Still, I know plenty of 20 year olds who haven't a CLUE about good choices (I know I had few when I was that age....yet felt invincible). And "ya can't fix stupid." Ignorance can, however, be fixed, given there is some intelligence and willingness to learn.

Also, there are plenty of little kids who show innate wisdom and insight -- until the adult world tells them to "stop acting like you know anything."




LOL You argue against yourself here. If plenty of kids show innate wisdom it means that their brains are fully functional, yet MOST of them don't receive all the knowledge being sent by this infinite, impossible, consciousness.

If consciousness originates from outside the brain, how can one be unfixably stupid when the knowledge is out there and pouring into the mind. Is there a stupid ethereal consciousness? If a brain is fully functional, how does it refuse to accept this knowledge?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
this is all based on the assumption that we have a burden of proof somehow to prove
god does not exist, that is where things begins falling apart, the baseline is there is
no god, we are not born with the knowledge of a god, this has been proven time and
time again, its called brain washing and religion has been using it for years and years,
why would they want to teach it in school if it was part of us to begin with, there
would be no need for teachings, also look at all the argumentative religions out there.

1500 different sects of christianity and countless other faiths that exist, some have
one god some have many, some tell you that you yourself are your own god, they
all have one thing in common, they all require us to teach them to other humans.

the true baseline is you need evidence if you want to make a claim, especially one
so grandiose and ridiculous, the problem us science based thinkers have with
religion is that it makes claims it cannot, and not for lack of trying mind you,
back up, we gave prayer a chance, studied it, yet it has to connection to the
outcomes it is suppose to influence. if you make a claim and we test it and
find it to be a false claim then our part has been done, we go from there unless
there is new evidence to support said claims, and for that we are all still waiting.

and also people simply believing something does not make it true, every group
of humans on this planet is guilty of that one, we want to believe what we know is
true because of ego or fear but the truth is actually that we are so very far from
understanding everything it isnt even funny, i always remind people that way back
when we all thought the planet was flat, did that make it so? no not at all, hence
why we as thinking humans must admit that because half of us believe some fairy
tail is true will never make it so.

i honestly believe religion is a mental illness at this point, a crutch so very ingrained
in society that we are stuck with it, it makes me sad and i feel an honest touch
of pain when i see things done in the name of magic fairy people that hurt and
destroy the so very tenuous grasp we all have on life, oh and also on another note
who in the heck has you all convinced that there is order in the universe at all? there
is a basic underlying way some things work yet even that has been shown to break
down at many points, quantum physics and also astrophysics has shown us this,
what i see is us simply still too young in our understanding of what we see out there
and jumping the gun on our claim that we know for sure, some things are understood
hence why we have modern day society but others not so well.

also i would like that say that when religion ruled society things were just plain sick,
not to say the sick among us require religion to do the things they do but it opens
the door for them to use many many people in their plans, really read the bible one
day and honestly take those words to heart, it is not a book of peace like it
claims but a book of man, murder, rape, theft, slavery, patricide, the same as
many many of the religious books that came before and after it, oh and my personal
fav to always point out is, if what you say about people believing in god being
proof then you must also believe that scientology has merit because many fools
believe in that one as well, and the sickest part of that is we know for a fact that
it is fake and can prove that, yet it does not make people see the truth.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by jiggerj
Communism is not atheism.
Atheism is solely the belief that there is no creator. That's all there is to atheism. No hidden agenda, no power struggle (except to be free of religious constraints).
Communism, on the other hand, is a way to control the masses, just like every religion.


I think you may have drank a little too much of that reincarnation juice JJ...


You are correct about one thing though: religion is one HUGE mind control tool

But so is atheism...

Atheism is a very well-financed Illuminati movement with a stealth agenda.

If not why is their goal to have a world without a god?

There is FAR too much evidence for this.

Atheism is an idiot's belief as much as any other religion is and it has the SAME exact agenda with the SAME goals.


What you speak of is human greed. Human lust for power. Not atheism.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. That's all. If people want to add an agenda to it, then it is not atheism.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


LOL You argue against yourself here. If plenty of kids show innate wisdom it means that their brains are fully functional, yet MOST of them don't receive all the knowledge being sent by this infinite, impossible, consciousness.

Wait...what?
I said plenty of "little" kids....like, 3, 4, 5 year-olds.....

their brains are functional, yes, but not fully grown, just like their arms and legs and spines and organs.......

I'm not sure what you're meaning here.....
infinite, impossible consciousness, yes, that is "forgotten" as soon as the child is born (possibly while in utero)....
because we come here to learn. If we already know what the tests are, we can cheat....so, after we (in ethereal dimension) determine what lessons need to be repeated or presented, we are once more born on Earth, and go through the lessons as planned. Some people see that we are learning....others do not.....


Forgive me, it's way way way past my bedtime.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


So without religion, or believing in "god" everyone would be animistic killers with no concept of right or wrong?

What you are really saying here is that human kind are by their nature submissive. We can not survive without a master. Without being controlled by something stronger, we are doomed to start killing each other. I have major issue with that. We don't need a master, we don't need a God. Human kind survived for thousands of years before any current concept of god was imagined.

My reason for being Atheist is just that, reason. Advocates for religion always use the argument that everything couldn't have just happened randomly, there had to have been an intelligent design. If that is the case, then how did "God" get created? Was it just random? The universe spit out God one day and he started messing with stuff? Is God not intelligent? If so, then shouldn't there be more than just one? How could just one intelligent being exist? Is God really a race of hyper intelligent beings? If so, then who created them, and who created the creators? You cant have anything without a creator right?

Or, it could just be that over millions of years different elements combine to form more and more complex chemicals that eventually lead to some sort of basic life form. A life form that changes and grows over many more millions of years to become a walking talking person.



If that's the case, rob banks, preggo to all hot chicks, anyone in your way killed, conquer and be alpha of a big territory, and fight/kill of anyone who tries to take your position, as in nature.


I have never been religious and i can honestly say i have never robbed a bank. I have never impregnated a hot chick without a clear two sided decision being made before hand. I have never tried to conquer anyone, or try to become the "alpha of a big territory". I have been in a fight or two in my life, but only in self defense and my beliefs and the beliefs of the person i got in the scuffle with had nothing to do with the fight.

Can you honestly say that no religious person has ever committed any of the acts you claim atheists are prone to commit?

DC

edit on 8/19/2012 by xDeadcowx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join