Atheism is a fraud.

reply to post by _SilentAssassin_


BTW...do try not to quote anything from Freud the Fraud!

"Freud was deeply and weirdly influenced by Fleiss’s theories. Fliess had developed a theory that associated the genitals with the nose, in such a way that disorders of the nose could cause psychosexual problems –nasal reflex neurosis” –which had to be treated by cauterizing and applying coc aine to the spongy bones of the nasal passages. Freud send Emma to Fliess who operated on her removing some bone. When Emma returned to Vienna, she developed a grave infection and a near-fatal hemorrhage. Freud diagnosed the cause: Emma was “bleeding for love” of him. Her life was saved when it was found that during surgery Fliess had left behind half a metre of gauze. She was permanently disfigured as a result of surgery. Next was the famous case of Dora, the hysterical young woman-which was the classical analysis of the structure and genesis of hysteria–so described by Erik Erkson, an eminent psychoanalytic practitioner and theorist. We now understand “Dora” as the classic case of gross malpractice!� For more details of bizarre logic of psychoanalysis–see page 87 of the book."

cgi.stanford.edu...


a fank ewe![atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a10377b05838.gif[/atsimg]

Wiki:

"Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth".[1] Natura was a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.[2][3] The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage was confirmed during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries"

You want to assign a god/deity to Nature, that's your business. Nature stands on her own and needs no delineation from you!

what you believe is...what you believe. to me...i don't really care what you believe. it's when you affect my life with your belief...I.E. deny me a job, publicly condemn me or my family members as somehow being bad, physical harm, convincing others i am somehow bad, convincing others to harm me or my family...that's where my patience ends, and YOUR religous beliefs need to be dealt with in a severe manner.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]

Originally posted by adjensen

I am in general agreement with a statement that I read somewhere about most religions having some truth in them, but Christianity is the most correct of them all.

Well, if you believe that demons cause disease, rainbows are a covenant, that people can become resurrected, that ghosts impregnate people, that bushes and snakes can talk - then yes, it would be correct.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

I am in general agreement with a statement that I read somewhere about most religions having some truth in them, but Christianity is the most correct of them all.

Well, if you believe that demons cause disease, rainbows are a covenant, that people can become resurrected, that ghosts impregnate people, that bushes and snakes can talk - then yes, it would be correct.

Your logic never fails to amaze, TD :-)

Saying that most religions have some truth in them, and Christianity is the most correct is NOT equivalent to saying "all aspects of any given religion are correct." Not even close.

If I make up a religion that has a hundred patently false things as doctrine, with the 101st doctrine being "2 + 2 = 4", then my made up religion has "some truth" in it, despite the fallacies. If I make up a second religion with the same 101 doctrines as the first, but a 102nd, which is "2 + 3 = 5", then that religion is the "most correct" of the two.

Note that this exercise is to point out your logical failing, not to say that any religion is "made up" and "filled with lies and the occasional truth."

Originally posted by adjensen
Note that this exercise is to point out your logical failing, not to say that any religion is "made up" and "filled with lies and the occasional truth."

Admittedly I was diverging from the nature of your post. To address your point above, all religions are indeed made up and sadly not one of them carries a 100% accuracy rate with any of its claims. This seems self-evident and to segue back into the thread topic, recognition of such a quality should not be regarded as "a fraud".

all religions are indeed made up...

OK. So, "all" means "only Abrahamic," right? (Based on your recent statement in another thread.) I'll only ask about an Abrahamic religion.

Your evidence that Mohammed "made up" the Koran is... what?

If not evidence, then do you have any basis for your saying that he made it up, except that's how it seems to you?

... and sadly not one of them carries a 100% accuracy rate with any of its claims.

Not one, so you've tested all of them...

Just out of curiosity, then, which claims of the Anglican Communion have you tested, or even just how many will do, and what was their accuracy rate in your tests?

(Edited to reduce the number of questions, and tighten them, in hopes of improving the chances that you will answer...)




[edit on 28-7-2010 by eight bits]

Last time I check there were no perfect humans. All humans are flawed and make mistakes. Thereby, everything they interpret (including religions) are flawed to some extent. There is no perfect religion that has it all correct and I would say the closest religions (which aren't even that close) are Eastern based.

Logic alone would tell you that for a soul to exist, must mean it's pure energy. Since energy can't be create or destroyed (per physics laws) then each soul has always been and will always be.....so, reincarnation would logically be part of the whole equation. It wouldn't make sense to have energy that incarnated once into 3D form over billions of years. However, since time is an illusion (time doesn't move) then really thinking of a beginning or an end to energy is really a moot point.

Originally posted by ptmckiou

There is no perfect religion that has it all correct and I would say the closest religions (which aren't even that close) are Eastern based.

Good post. It includes a paradox however..

If all humans are flawed (which they are), how can you set the reference point? That would mean that you know what it is?

But I agree with you almost 100%. Tibetan Buddhism always shocks me with it's accuracy about the Bardos etc. The truth may also lie in some forms of shamanism, Christian myths etc.

The term "truth seeking" always alienated me. Truth about what? There are many "truths" to many things. It's be completely subjective how we, as humans, see the world.

Originally posted by ptmckiou
Logic alone would tell you that for a soul to exist, must mean it's pure energy. Since energy can't be create or destroyed (per physics laws) then each soul has always been and will always be.....so, reincarnation would logically be part of the whole equation.

I suspect that even atheists would agree that, if there really is such a thing as a soul, it would be a supernatural thing, meaning that our known physical laws (including those of thermodynamics) may or, most likely, may not, apply to it.

However, even if we were to say that energy can't be created or destroyed, it doesn't necessarily follow that reincarnation is involved. There are faiths that believe we used to be in heaven, and elected to come to Earth to have a human experience, and we'll simply go back to heaven when we're done. That makes little sense to me, but it makes more than reincarnation which, once again, seems fruitless without retained knowledge.

reply to post by adjensen


Actually, you may have heard about the 21 gram theory.. that would suggest that the soul is actually material. What is "supernatural"? If it occurs in the nature, it's an observable phenomenon, the it's natural. That actually means that there is no such thing as "supernatural".

Originally posted by Tryptych
reply to post by adjensen

 

Actually, you may have heard about the 21 gram theory.. that would suggest that the soul is actually material. What is "supernatural"? If it occurs in the nature, it's an observable phenomenon, the it's natural. That actually means that there is no such thing as "supernatural".

I have heard of that, but the last time I encountered it, it was in reference to it being disproven. I'm not of the mind that energy has weight, and it doesn't seem like anyone has seen material leaving a person who dies. That may be wrong, I don't know. It doesn't really make a big difference to me.

Supernatural simply refers to something that doesn't "work" with known laws of nature. ESP, for example -- there's nothing known that would account for it, so if it exists, it is supernatural. If it exists, and we figure out some process by which it works within known laws, or new laws are discovered, then it is no longer supernatural.

reply to post by adjensen


But if it exists, it cannot be "supernatural" right? To me, that points to the fact that we don't completely understand how the universe works. I have said this many times, but these things just may be aspects of nature we don't yet understand.

I recently saw a documentary about the victims of torture, a Chile woman who had been electrocuted 'till the brink of death said that she felt her "soul" exiting her body several times. There are several stories like that.

I would guess that the whole phenomenon is completely psychological and material.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by ptmckiou
Logic alone would tell you that for a soul to exist, must mean it's pure energy. Since energy can't be create or destroyed (per physics laws) then each soul has always been and will always be.....so, reincarnation would logically be part of the whole equation.

I suspect that even atheists would agree that, if there really is such a thing as a soul, it would be a supernatural thing, meaning that our known physical laws (including those of thermodynamics) may or, most likely, may not, apply to it.

However, even if we were to say that energy can't be created or destroyed, it doesn't necessarily follow that reincarnation is involved. There are faiths that believe we used to be in heaven, and elected to come to Earth to have a human experience, and we'll simply go back to heaven when we're done. That makes little sense to me, but it makes more than reincarnation which, once again, seems fruitless without retained knowledge.

Reincarnation is not done to gain knowledge while in 3D form, but to learn from different experiences in 3D to gain experience of that which you already know once you go back home to the other side. To have all the knowledge in the universe about being an astronaut, is different from actually being in 3D form experiencing being an astronaut. Experience allows an infinite amount of variables to be involved--of which to enhance that which you already know (your true higher Self's soul knowledge....not your human limited mind knowledge.)

Originally posted by Tryptych
reply to post by adjensen

 

But if it exists, it cannot be "supernatural" right? To me, that points to the fact that we don't completely understand how the universe works. I have said this many times, but these things just may be aspects of nature we don't yet understand.

Well, I agree 100% with that -- there are lots of things going on that we don't have a clue about. And I believe in the existence of a soul, I just question whether it has a material component (and, thus, weight.)

No. People not agreeing with your own personal theological idea as to what God represents does not constitute 'fraud'.

Second line.

Originally posted by eight bits

all religions are indeed made up...

OK. So, "all" means "only Abrahamic," right? (Based on your recent statement in another thread.) I'll only ask about an Abrahamic religion.

Your evidence that Mohammed "made up" the Koran is... what?

If not evidence, then do you have any basis for your saying that he made it up, except that's how it seems to you?

... and sadly not one of them carries a 100% accuracy rate with any of its claims.

Not one, so you've tested all of them...

Just out of curiosity, then, which claims of the Anglican Communion have you tested, or even just how many will do, and what was their accuracy rate in your tests?

(Edited to reduce the number of questions, and tighten them, in hopes of improving the chances that you will answer...)

Religions are the collections of stories. Such stories, tales and fables are "made up" by men. This is self-evident. Should you have evidence to the contrary I'm willing to observe it.

I suspect your following "question" deals with the fact that I have to test each and every conceived religion, test each claim and issue you a report to back up my statement? Did you have a pertinent question?

This is self-evident.

No, it's not in the least self-evident.

IMO, Mohammed either hallucianted his relationship with Gabriel, or else he made it up out of whole cloth. Maybe both, sometimes one thing, sometimes the other.

There are, however, about a billion living people who disagree with me about that.

So, while those billion people furnish no reason at all for me to change my mind, they do put paid to any claim that the truth of my opinion is self-eivdent. Else, they would share my opinion, that being what "self-evident" means.

I suspect your following "question" deals with the fact that I have to test each and every conceived religion, test each claim and issue you a report to back up my statement? Did you have a pertinent question?

No, actually, it was you who said that not one religion has such-and-such track record. So, as with Mohammed, there are only two possibilities: you already did investigate every religion's claims and "kept score," or you made up your statement out of whole cloth.

Now, also as with Mohammed, I have a personal opinion about which one you did. I have formed that opinion because you throw around "all," "none," "100%," and so on, quite often. And you have yet to back up a single usage that I've called you on, never mind the rest of them that I've let slide.

So, I've already asked you a pertinent question. Tell me about your investigation of the Anglican Communion's claims. Please. What claims did you invetsigate? How did they do?

You didn't make any investigation, did you? That's why instead of answering my question, you sing a little song, you do a little dance, and then you tell me to ask it again.

But why should I? You're not going to answer it then, either. Because you can't. You haven't done the work to back up what you say.

Originally posted by eight bits
So, while those billion people furnish no reason at all for me to change my mind, they do put paid to any claim that the truth of my opinion is self-eivdent.

I'm sorry to hear you let the opinions of others so affect your own ability to think.

No, actually, it was you who said that not one religion has such-and-such track record. So, as with Mohammed, there are only two possibilities: you already did investigate every religion's claims and "kept score," or you made up your statement out of whole cloth.

That is exactly what I said about your "question". Again, did you have a pertinent question? Or do you simply want to stamp your feet about how I may not have investigated each and every splinter cult of christianity?

Do you suppose you could let us have a discussion without your incessant nitpicking please? Thanks in advance.