The Birth of God and the Beginning of the New Dawn

a reply to: Ghost147

Ya didn't correct anything, simple observation, atheists are organizing. What are you bleeding about?

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Ghost147

Ya didn't correct anything, simple observation, atheists are organizing. What are you bleeding about?

Your statement wasn't simply that some atheists are organizing, but that organization leads to religion, or at the very least mimics religion.

You've also stated that:

~ There is a typical way of thinking that Atheists have
~ There is a standard belief among atheists (you wrote this in as a supposition)
~ Atheists believe the world came into existence without an intelligent being
~ There is an Atheist Doctrine (asked in a question, with prior text suggestion you believed there was)
~ Atheists believe the universe created itself

So far I have answered all those questions, suppositions, and misunderstandings

a reply to: Ghost147

But do we, agree? I mean how else such stories of wrought and pity would be spread, or experienced, if it weren't put in a book and forcing ones eye upon it? Education is much in the same way these day, if one doesn't go through the rites and tribulations, they are better off as good as dead, are they not?

And yet, alot of what they teach is quite useless, and would have any application in the real world?

Also, how did a pen, written by hermits do more damage then a bunch of clans using swords ready to die?

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Ghost147
...how else such stories of wrought and pity would be spread, or experienced, if it weren't put in a book and forcing ones eye upon it?

You're forgetting that when these older religions were written, most people were illiterate and couldn't read at all. In fact, the churches of christianity used to forbid the public from reading the bible all together, and I believe it was punishable by death.

So the way these stories and mythology spread was through the word of each religions priests, and then simply passed down through the generations.

It most certainly, however, was not actually through reading the holy books themselves.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Ghost147
Education is much in the same way these day, if one doesn't go through the rites and tribulations, they are better off as good as dead, are they not?

Not necessarily, no. There are plenty of people who drop out of school at an early age. Statistically their income is less than those who completed school, of course. but 'as good as dead' is a bit extreme.

Also, one does not need to go to school to survive. To succeed in society? it's definitely an asset. But, to survive? no.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Ghost147
And yet, alot of what they teach is quite useless, and would have any application in the real world?

That would depend on a lot of factors and variables, not to mention subjectivity through individuality and wherever those individuals end up working.

Again, though, it is not an absolute requirement in order to survive, but is definitely an asset in accordance to society.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Ghost147
Also, how did a pen, written by hermits do more damage then a bunch of clans using swords ready to die?

Because the damaging of a generations mind can be far more destructive then killing a few people here and there.

a reply to: Ghost147

Except that I was never assuming anything and you don't want to shut up about it. I don't care about your opinion because you're a pest. How about this. All atheists believe in God they just wont admit it.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Ghost147
Except that I was never assuming anything and you don't want to shut up about it. I don't care about your opinion because you're a pest. How about this. All atheists believe in God they just wont admit it.

If you like I could directly quote all of the comments you've made that are referenced within the list in the comment you're responding to where you stated exactly those things.

If I'm such a pest, why are you still here responding to me? I'm not forcing you to stay here. If I make you so uncomfortable, you're within your right to stop responding.

a reply to: Ghost147

If anything the older, polytheist religions would have at least had been much more literate then when monotheism came into play. The Illiad by Homer or the Mahabharata, or even the some of thr mono themed books like job or dead sea scrolls would have probably had been easily common. I mean some of these book are still read today although not institutional requirement.

As for the priests being the only one to read at the time, I have heard before. Maybe out of fear having it being used against them...much like law.

China had a ruler that destroyed all books or forms of art I'm correct, much like how the churches destroyed any book that wasn't the bible.

True, education isn't need to survive an succeed sincr some of the richest and most successful people took that gamble. But it amazing how much supersition goes behind the fact that if you didn't get one would wish they were dead.

And what factor would those be...the fact that kids have to much energy and won't pay attention, when saying they grow up they will be dead beats would of worked instead of special education tht needed not be applied to just kids?

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Ghost147
it amazing how much supersition goes behind the fact that if you didn't get one would wish they were dead.

Absolutely. The fear-mongering is rife within North American society. It's quite disturbing, actually.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Ghost147
And what factor would those be...the fact that kids have to much energy and won't pay attention, when saying they grow up they will be dead beats would of worked instead of special education tht needed not be applied to just kids?

I was more referring to when you mentioned the application of subjects in school. The factors and variables I was implying was that of the future of those children. Specific fields of science may never apply to some students when they grow up, and to others it may be an absolute requirement.

The school system is inherently flawed regardless, and is in a great need to be re-envisioned and rebuilt.

So this post has become a conspiracy post after all - I started hypothesizing a god concept for my futurist way of thinking
- the only conspiracy part was the observation that Man often uses the God concept to satisfy the Devil's agenda [whatever
that is].

And then what happens? they [the responders] turn it into a rhetorical debate on Atheism - Sometimes this is interesting,
but has little to do with what I was trying to convey. Is this par for the course when Humans get into debates on god
concepts? Do we always have to end up saying "I see said the blind man to his deaf wife"? - Don't misunderstand me
[though most every human does] I don't mind some rhetoric if it is interesting, but knit picking each other can rapidly get
boring.

So here is the conspiracy as I see it now:

"In the beginnning was the word and the word was with God"...................ALL THE REST IS CONSPIRACY !?!?!

originally posted by: AlienView
And then what happens? they [the responders] turn it into a rhetorical debate on Atheism

The first few words of your OP are "Are the Atheists right Humans?"

Why would the thread not go into conversation about atheism?

originally posted by: AlienView
Don't misunderstand me [though most every human does] I don't mind some rhetoric if it is interesting

It's easy to misunderstand someone whom doesn't use proper grammar and punctuation. We are left trying to figure out what you mean, instead of clearly understanding the points you're attempting to bring up.

For instance:

originally posted by: AlienView
So here is the conspiracy as I see it now:
"In the beginnning was the word and the word was with God"...................ALL THE REST IS CONSPIRACY !?!?!

Which part of this conclusion is the conspiracy you're talking about? It seems as though you're expressing this with sarcasm, and the part you're claiming is the conspiracy is pummeled with question marks.

So again, I don't understand the point you're trying to convey.

originally posted by: [post=20265811]Ghost147

.........Which part of this conclusion is the conspiracy you're talking about? It seems as though you're expressing this with sarcasm, and the part you're claiming is the conspiracy is pummeled with question marks.

So again, I don't understand the point you're trying to convey.

"As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: "I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise." In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would have at once become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth."
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: [post=20265811]Ghost147

.........Which part of this conclusion is the conspiracy you're talking about? It seems as though you're expressing this with sarcasm, and the part you're claiming is the conspiracy is pummeled with question marks.

So again, I don't understand the point you're trying to convey.

"As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: "I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise." In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would have at once become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth."
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

You've now posted a quote and gave us no context as to what your thoughts are, concerning it. Please elaborate.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: [post=20265811]Ghost147

.........Which part of this conclusion is the conspiracy you're talking about? It seems as though you're expressing this with sarcasm, and the part you're claiming is the conspiracy is pummeled with question marks.

So again, I don't understand the point you're trying to convey.

"As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: "I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise." In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would have at once become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth."
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

You've now posted a quote and gave us no context as to what your thoughts are, concerning it. Please elaborate.

I just became aware of this quote recently and it seems to have relevance - But I must give it some thought
and will; and will give you my thoughts on it later.

But in the meantime Ghost147, I would be curious on your thoughts on this quote by Dostoyevsky ?

originally posted by: AlienView
But in the meantime Ghost147, I would be curious on your thoughts on this quote by Dostoyevsky ?

Firstly, it seems very out of context, so all I can conclude is on the very quote itself, which may not directly represent the meaning behind what it truly is describing.

Something to take into consideration.

As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality

Reflected on what, exactly? Did 'he' just sit down and start thinking about things and then concluded there is a god and immortality? This seems to be a very poor example of critical thinking and analysis skills.

In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would have at once become an atheist and a socialist.

Why can't atheists believe immortality exists? Atheism applies only to the lack of belief in a god, nothing else.

For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth."

I have no idea what this is talking about.

a reply to: windword

You make an accurate point.

Kev

God is a word that puts "God" in a box so to speak. What most believe God to be is not true. It is those who are in charge that has binded the truth and made the world the way it is, it isn't religion that's the problem. It's those made it seem like it is the problem to divide and conquer humanity. There is a universal intelligence that is beyond comprehension and just because someone can't comprehend the nature of the universe doesn't mean there is no universal intelligence. All the religions explain "God" through incarnations, past times, stories, and experiences of each living being that has been incarnated on earth. Those that are keeping us in the dark which is causing Ignorance, everyday normal ignorance, ego, and lack of love is what empowers human beings to destroy one another.

I really dislike the word agnostic. For example no one can absolutely know for sure there aren't aliens out there, so its pointless to label yourself agnostic. Instead, talk about what you believe is true. If you believe there was a creator you are a deist, if you don't believe you are an atheist.

One can be an agnostic deist or an agnostic atheist. One defines what you know (agnostic) one defines what you believe (atheism). Personally, i don't care what you think you may know, just tell me what you believe may be true. You can say, I KNOW god has revealed itself to me, but i don't or do believe it was really a god.

originally posted by: vjr1113
I really dislike the word agnostic. For example no one can absolutely know for sure there aren't aliens out there, so its pointless to label yourself agnostic. Instead, talk about what you believe is true. If you believe there was a creator you are a deist, if you don't believe you are an atheist.

One can be an agnostic deist or an agnostic atheist. One defines what you know (agnostic) one defines what you believe (atheism). Personally, i don't care what you think you may know, just tell me what you believe may be true. You can say, I KNOW god has revealed itself to me, but i don't or do believe it was really a god.

I like the word Agnostic - In my use of he word I accept anything as possible until proven otherwise - But only that
whidh is proven is accepted as trutth.

And while you are talking about Aliens they have indicated that in spite of the belief that Human intelligence is
nothing more than myth - Some still search for it - They are always looking for other intelligent species in the
universe.

"I believe alien life is quite common in the universe, although intelligent life is less so. Some say it has yet to appear on planet Earth. "
-Stephen Hawking

originally posted by: AlienView
I like the word Agnostic - In my use of he word I accept anything as possible until proven otherwise - But only that
whidh is proven is accepted as trutth.

'Your use of the word' is not what the definition of Agnosticism is. The definition of an Agnostic position is that it is impossible to know, not that "anything is possible".

What you're failing to realize is that as an Atheist, I too can claim that "anything is possible" and still lack a belief in god. Because a lack of belief isn't a definitive claim that something doesn't exist.

There most certainly are some atheists that make this came. However, it is apparent that the majority of atheists simply lack a belief without a direct claim. Just ask the fine atheists here on ATS and you'll see that population difference.

So, sorry, but 'your use of agnosticism' isn't what the definition of agnosticism actually is. You're simply placing your own description on a word that your description has no relevance to.

a reply to: AlienView

God is mans dream of omnipotence and immortality - And what weak meaningless species we would be if we were to accept that we were nothing more than a meaningless animal, part of a meaningless evolution without direction of purpose

your acceptance is irrelevant. ponder, if you will, the trillions of people whom no one remembers or even cares about not remembering. even their graves have been erased by time. in 500 years, nothing you said, did, loved, hated, wished for, feared, or predicted will matter. and none of the people you shared such things with will matter either. or, if you like, ponder this: earth is to the universe as that spider under your porch is to the rest of the world.

but dont let it get you down. we are all insignificant, inconsequential, and meaningless together. you still have your life, so why not enjoy it. its the only one you have. there is no better reason to get out there and surprise yourself before the reaper surprises you.



i love this video. so charmingly irreverent, yet utterly inarguable. and they say cartoons are for kids. pfft.