Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by scmoG

 

You see, atheist's already harbor hate for God's people and God Himself,

Atheists harbor hate for a being they don't believe exists.

That's an impressive feat.

You all are too predictable. Tackle the rest.....go on. Answer away boy, answer away

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by scmoG

 

You see, atheist's already harbor hate for God's people and God Himself,

Atheists harbor hate for a being they don't believe exists.

That's an impressive feat.

lucid i like your glasses (if that's you).
he's doing the richard dawkins version. don't get upset. just remind him about gentle persuasion

Reply to post by scmoG

For a religious man your quite deceitful, and hilarious lol. atheist or not, I wouldn't aid in the murder of anyone. I wouldn't wish for the non-existence of people like you because reading that made my night.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by scmoG


Please illustrate what points you want us to address and I will try.

Honestly most of what I read from you either didn't make sense to me or just sounded a little too preachy.

But if you can be more clear about your argument. Especially on the topic "Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?" I am listening
reply to post by undo

lucid i like your glasses (if that's you).

Yeah that's me! One of God's children And thank you Although I have since gone through a green pair, and wear red ones now.

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by scmoG

 

For a religious man your quite deceitful, and hilarious lol. atheist or not, I wouldn't aid in the murder of anyone. I wouldn't wish for the non-existence of people like you because reading that made my night.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Watch.

reply to post by undo


Well in my opinion there is no excuse that in this day and age considering the resources and current technology that the Catholic Church hasn’t digitized and distributed every piece of ancient text they have at this point. There is no excuse and because I consider religion nothing more than a control mechanism it leads me to believe that they haven’t done so because they would then lose control meaning followers possibly destroying all religion based of Christianity.

reply to post by undo


Gotta love it when atheists are in denial. Kind of like a dog with its tail in between its legs. Cower away. I'm sorry, atheism is my playground and every single one of them do the EXACT SAME THINGS!

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by scmoG

 

Please illustrate what points you want us to address and I will try.

Honestly most of what I read from you either didn't make sense to me or just sounded a little too preachy.

But if you can be more clear about your argument. Especially on the topic "Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?" I am listening

reply to post by undo

 

lucid i like your glasses (if that's you).

Yeah that's me! One of God's children

And thank you

Although I have since gone through a green pair, and wear red ones now.

edit on 4-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

The whole thing. You say it doesn't make sense, in order to push yourself away from the actual topic at hand. Don't worry, it's normal.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo

 

Well in my opinion there is no excuse that in this day and age considering the resources and current technology that the Catholic Church hasn’t digitized and distributed every piece of ancient text they have at this point. There is no excuse and because I consider religion nothing more than a control mechanism it leads me to believe that they haven’t done so because they would then lose control meaning followers possibly destroying all religion based of Christianity.

their track record has been to ruin christianity, as a general rule (the inquistion didn't just kill other religions, they killed a huge amount of christians too so it's just not that easy to assume it's their job to make it look good. so far, that hasn't really been the case, although, many of their followers are awesome), so i think if they had anything of that nature, it would've been paraded around already lol unless they have some super secret something they think will do it, but i'm thinkin', no, cause even if they did, people would just blame it on them not on jesus. (i mean, as a general rule christians follow jesus not the vatican)

one thing entrenched beliefs have are roots that defy all other laws, natural or otherwise, to be uprooted. the job of society is to determine which root systems, in laws and whatnot, are beneficial, sustainable or endurable, and which are not. the original teachings of jesus said to follow the laws of the country where you live (provided they don't ask you to do something against your beliefs), be kind, give to charity, don't kill, etc. so when christians do follow the teachings, they are pretty sustainable and endurable in various kinds of societies, particularly since the rules are generally attractive in a social setting. who wouldn't rather have a guy that's helpful next door vs. a guy that wants to steal your car, rape your wife and raid your garden.

anywho, i think if they did reveal anything shocking, it would be that jesus was the last pharaoh of egypt. but that's for a different conversation.

reply to post by scmoG

"they" caught wind of the influence they could have via the schooling system, they took it over. Thus, Bibles were replaced with atheism books, most students were forced to pledge allegiance to the god of America

This has been the funniest thing all night but what makes me laugh the hardest is this part.

atheism books

When I try to envision the ideal of a person that thinks like this I can only picture an old rerun of little house on the prairie. Somehow I just think that is where zealots wanted us to stop progressing.

I don’t think I ever really watched that show because I can only remember the opening credits.

Thank you for your insight.

reply to post by undo


Catholicism is detrimental to itself regardless of the situation but it doesn’t stop an organization like that from trying to hold on to power. By power I mean influence.

Considering there are many older religions than Christianity most of which have died off I think the big reveal would be more in line with Jesus being fabricated using bits of the older pagan religions.

It has been my personal belief that if Jesus had ever really existed as he was portrayed he would have been schooled in Buddhism and a Jew only in name.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
yes a very professional response... that coming from this seemingly intelligent rock-man?

it was very rude actually, his face was beet red and being he is a zoologist I am sure he grasps the concept of "preservation of the favored races" Dawkins is a racist on top f it all and you can tell by his demeanor.

poor little man...

Again, depends on your perspective. I am not always a fan of Dawkins style. I was on this particular occasion. Quite a great rebuttal to a disingenuous remark, thinly veiled in a bit of pre emptive but-kissing. deGrasse Tyson got put in his place, it seems.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo

 

Catholicism is detrimental to itself regardless of the situation but it doesn’t stop an organization like that from trying to hold on to power. By power I mean influence.

Considering there are many older religions than Christianity most of which have died of I think the big reveal would be more in line with Jesus being fabricated using bits of the older pagan religions.

It has been my personal belief that if Jesus had ever really existed as he was portrayed he would have been schooled in Buddhism and a Jew only in name.

well the theory i'm currently trying to debunk but having very little success at because it keeps clarifying unanswered questions, is that jesus was the son of cleopatra, who sent him off on the silk route when julius caesar was killed (because that would make him next in line for the throne of rome and next in line to be assassinated). the theory goes that he travelled with two of cleo's servants or something. the silk route went to india and some monastery in tibet, i think it said. cleo had blood lines to king david via ptolemy making him of the house of david as well. so therefore he was heir to two different kingdoms. and when cleo passed, he would inherit the throne of egypt as well. so yeah, he was literally heir to the throne of every world power at the time.

the story goes that he learned the teachings of the buddha and the vedas. then as the caravan made its way back to egypt, he was deposited in israel along with his mom's servants she had sent to protect him. there's alot more but suffice it to say, that the only new thing i could add to the theory, if indeed it is true, is that cleo = mary, cause she claimed to be the virgin goddess isis. she faked her own death and moved to israel as well.

the virgin goddess tradition is very old. i think it relates to women who were artificially inseminated not necessarily untouched by man, but when they conceived via artificial insemination that meant something "super" natural was involved.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by undo

 

I understand what your saying about the Catholic Church and their hand in putting the bible together, but there is plenty of stuff in the Old Testament, that the church hasn't tampered with, that give atheists fuel for rejection.

Things like talking snakes,

in the text he's called a nachash (original language)
the derivation of the word is from sorcerer, that is to say, master of pharmaceuticals and (snake) medicine. et. al, the nachash was a doctor of genetics. he gave the eve, the ability to sexually reproduce. apparently it wasn't possible to reproduce in that manner before that. to have knowledge (Tree of the knowledge of good and evil) was to have sex with. adam knew his wife and she gave birth. so rather than saying he was a talking snake, it would be better to say that the geneticist (ever see the symbol for rna and dna? the cadeceus? the rod of asclepius?) talked to eve. not quite as dramatic is it?

Where in world do you get that Eve wasn't able to reproduce? Sex is the original sin, that got Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden?

In that case God is even more psychopathic than I thought.

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

How were they supposed to increase in number without sex?

Originally posted by delusion

Possibly, you could be right. Some might use the lack of a cohesive narrative for their life as an opportunity and reason to wreak havoc, very true.
But morality and meaning are not mutually inclusive, I can choose to have a strong ethical base without needing to justify it with a story of meaning - athough if I did it might make it easier to explain to others or convince them to adopt it too.

I think it's true that there is no real meaning, but maybe it's a necessary fiction?

edit on 4-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)

See, I do believe that there is a real meaning to life (just so's we're clear) but I like to look at life from other perspectives. The world is full of people that don't do that, and I find it sad sometimes

So, my question is, if life is without meaning, where did morality spring from?
This is good stuff we're discussing here! I'm a bit worried we're straying from the topic at hand, though, so feel free to U2U me if you want to continue this off the boards

reply to post by windword

How were they supposed to increase in number without sex?

Not that I am disagreeing with you but wasn't Lilith made before Eve?

Originally posted by windword

How were they supposed to increase in number without sex?

timeline.

two sets of adam (adam's a plural word). another one of those instances where not knowing the original language in the texts messes up the meaning.
the verse that says "And then God created man in his image, male and female created he them" or something like that. the word "man" there is actually adam. so the first adam was a race of males and females created in the image of elohim. how's that possible if eve was the first woman? easy. eve was the first wife (first female procreator) not the first woman.

there were two groups of adam. the first group were copies. i think it means clones. the second group were procreative. notice how it says there that after the elohim realized the adam had knowing (procreation), they realized they were gonna have to nerf our dna. the tree of life is that part of dna that regenerates all parts of our bodies. that's why it was blocked off in the text. we were nerfed. lol apparently, they didnt want a bunch of procreative clones running around multiplying out of control and living forever. it isn't so much that sex is the problem. it's what would happen to the rest of the universe. we'd over populate it in short order. that's my best guess based on my studies of the text there.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Lilith? Yeah. Adam was a divorcee! Lilith left Adam because he always wanted to be on top during sex. Lilith said "No man will rule over me!" or something to that effect and left. God sent an angel to talk her into going back, but she wasn't having it, so they struck a deal, God would kill a portion of her children and she would kill a portion of Adam's children. She is why Jewish baby boys are circumcised.

Adam complained to God: 'I have been deserted by my helpmeet' God at once sent the angels Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof to fetch Lilith back.
They found her beside the Red Sea, a region abounding in lascivious demons, to whom she bore lilim at the rate of more than one hundred a day. 'Return to Adam without delay,' the angels said, `or we will drown you!' Lilith asked: `How can I return to Adam and live like an honest housewife, after my stay beside the Red Sea?? 'It will be death to refuse!' they answered. `How can I die,' Lilith asked again, `when God has ordered me to take charge of all newborn children: boys up to the eighth day of life, that of circumcision; girls up to the twentieth day. None the less, if ever I see your three names or likenesses displayed in an amulet above a newborn child, I promise to spare it.'
To this they agreed; but God punished Lilith by making one hundred of her demon children perish daily; [5] and if she could not destroy a human infant, because of the angelic amulet, she would spitefully turn against her own. [6]
gnosis.org...

reply to post by undo


Actually, according the "The Book of Jubilees" from the Dead Sea Scrolls, "God" made more than two sets of Adams.

And after all this He created man, a man and a woman created He them, and gave him dominion over all that is upon the earth, and in the seas, and over everything that flies, and over beasts and over cattle, and over everything that moves on the earth, and over the whole earth, and over all this He gave him dominion.

And these four kinds He created on the sixth day. And there were altogether two and twenty kinds

www.pseudepigrapha.com...

lilith was named after sumerian enlil. how interesting is that.


i have this kinda floaty around in my head theory that adam was originally atum, the creator god of egypt. mose (moses) was raised in pharaoh ahmose' house. so he learned the story of the creation from the egyptian view via his egyptian upbringing and the mesopotamian/sumerian version, via his hebrew mother.

anyway, adam were named after their creators. in other words, the atum were named after the atum gods. i say gods cause elohim is plural. "m" denotes plurality. so adaM and atuM are likely both plural words, meaning the elohim=atum. this would be very confusing for translators and i imagine moses just decided to give the mesopotamian word for them. since EL was a later word in the god word etymology tree, we have to trace it back to someplace earlier. at least one example is hayah. that's pronounced AYAH. who i think was sumerian-akkadian EA, who is Enki.

so far we've accounted for 2 anunnaki (enlil and enki, where's anu? well he's amen.

see after the black sea flood, ham went to egypt. he took the mesopotamia history with him and when moses finally arrives on the scene, he gets to hear it from their version. with their cultural twists. their language variants. therefore, there must be a sumerian equivalent of elohim. i think it's the first name on the sumerian kings list= alulim.

i could be totally wrong, however but i think if moses was gonna tell this story and fill in the gaps of egyptian info with hebrew info and vice-a-versa, he could've very well considered how confusing it would be to identify both the gods name and the creation's name with the same word, et.al, atum and atum. so he opted for the mesopotamian word for the gods, alulim and the egyptian word for their creations, atum.

deeep breath. wow, my brain hurts.