| 381 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
12/19/09 12:50:41 AM#361
Originally posted by Xirik I could not find the news story on google (it failed me for ones!) so here is a list of Secularists, and their organizations, identify themselves by a variety of terms, including agnostic, atheist, bright, freethinker, humanist, nontheist, naturalist, rationalist, or skeptic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations Calling me a Jihadist is extremely offensive.Since I am assuming you are implying that I am a suicide bomber who kills innocents? I suggest though that you should apologies or people should block you for saying such a offensive thing. They should block you since that is was they did when "Fishermage" said that they were Nazi's I believe GameLoading would side with me.
Just a minor point, I never said anyone was a nazi. I said their hateful bigotry was the same as the nazis, and I have no doubt that if they had the chance they would be marching people into death camps. I am sure they would. This is so far ONLY Imhotep and Sabian (maybe gameloading, I'm not sure about him -- his humorless hatred makes me feel he is the same way but he vehemently denies it so as an act of grace I will take him at his word - for now). As fo rthe other two, I am pretty sure that it is only cowardice and a lack of power that holds them back.
I understand that but I was just stating it that way to show that they should practice what they preach so to speak. Someone has to hold them accountable to what they say. :)
Sadly, irrational atheists (PLEASE NOTE NOT ALL ATHEISTS ARE IRRATIONAL how many times do I have to qualify thse things?)) do not have to accountable for anything. This is why they believe in what they believe. I believe in freedom from coercion -- they desire freedom from reality. |
|
|
12/19/09 6:12:30 AM#362
Originally posted by Xirik
That's my point. See how offensive it is when you're dumped into the "believer" category with no differention between your way of life and your core moral structure, purely because you believe in god? That's generally what's been happening on this forum with atheism, huge blanket statements.
As a sidenote, it's funny how you took such offence to being called a Jihadist but didnt bat an eyelid at being called a left footer. I'd suggest that you do some research on jihad. ...The spread of secondary and latterly of tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought. |
|
|
12/19/09 8:53:46 AM#363
Originally posted by Fishermage
God revealed Himself to people as they could understand him. Look at cave paintings; from those we have no idea whether man had religion or not, but we know people that have been found living in stone age conditions in later centuries DID exhobit religion, and have rather developed cosmologies. No people has ever discovered a people that did not have religion of some kind. religion has at times been an enemy of human rights, BUT it was religion that started the idea and brought it into existence. Prove that the scientific method came about without religion -- in history you are simply wrong. Look it up -- it was started by a Muslim who wanted to understand the workings of God. You are evidently the ignorant one here. There is plenty of proof there is a God, and plenty of proof that jesus rose from the dead 200 years ago -- at leats in as much as anything in history can be proven -- it is the most provable event in the ancient world. Just because you demand scientific proof for something that happened 2000 years ago -- something no historian ever demands of anything else -- doesn't mean there isn't extremely good hostorical evidence, by historical standards. Anyway you are obviously someone who has decided in a a priori manner that nothing can convince you -- which is irrational -- so take care. I would also like to know how many books you ahve read on apologetcs, which ones they were, and where you thinkthey are wrong.
The reason that we can't find a people without religion, is that man has a curiosity about the cosmos. When you try and explain our universe without understanding specific scientific laws, it does quite look like magic. So they'll say that there has to be magical bearded wizard in the sky who created this all in a short or long period of time. Religion is easy to come up with when you have no scientific knowledge. The only thing that could sell me on this point is if they had all, without contact between each other, been of the same religion. This is not so, therefore I believe religion to be a crock. Religion has, until the past 100 or so years, been an enemy of human rights. Female rights were kept down because religion helped bring the belief that men were superior up all the way, until finally, someone stood up. The only way that you could attribute human rights to religion is if you say, "people wanted human rights (women, gays, etc) because it was something religion wasn't giving them." If you didn't know, the Ancient Egyptians had the scientific method, as did the greeks. Long before Islam. Now, Ibn al-Haytham, the Islamic scientist you were talking about was a positivist. Meaning, he believed that knowledge is based off of what we can experience with our senses. While he did attribute the scientific method to his Islamic faith, he did it, not to understand god, but to understand the universe. Good, I'm glad they found the cross that Jesus was crucified on and the burial chamber they put him in. Oh, and that little inn that he was born in. If you don't mind, could you point me in their direction? And maybe, if we're lucky, you found his mother's grave? What proof (once again, i say, the bible doesn't count) have you found for his existence? The only person that has reference outside of the bible is Pontius Pilate. I suspect, because you didn't name any proofs, that there is none. I have recently stated in posts that I am willing to believe in god, however, I do find it highly illogical that it will be the god of Christianity or the god of Islam or a god of any religion today. Because, even if you are able to prove god's existence, you will not be able to attach him to any single religion without one of the others shouting in revolt, believing that this discovered god will be apart of their religion. |
|
|
Xirik
 Advanced Member
Joined: 6/13/06
What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets and lies! |
12/19/09 9:40:37 AM#364
Originally posted by efefia
That's my point. See how offensive it is when you're dumped into the "believer" category with no differention between your way of life and your core moral structure, purely because you believe in god? That's generally what's been happening on this forum with atheism, huge blanket statements.
As a sidenote, it's funny how you took such offence to being called a Jihadist but didnt bat an eyelid at being called a left footer. I'd suggest that you do some research on jihad. secularists people, identify themselves by a variety of terms, including agnostic, atheist, bright, freethinker, humanist, nontheist, naturalist, rationalist, or skeptic are also using blanket statements on religion. Don't think only one side does this. I believed that you meant the popular term of the word Jihadist which is the term I stated earlier. Unless you clarify what term of Jihadist you meant, I should think you most popular term of the word. Doesn't that sound logical?
"You have some serious mental issues you may need to seek some help for. There are others who post things, but do not post them in the way you do. Out of every person who posts crazy shit in this forum, you have some of the craziest and scariest" -FarReach |
|
12/19/09 10:18:29 AM#365
Originally posted by Fishermage
Aryanism and Master race theory come from Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's Theosophy. Hitler had Blavatsky's master book "the Secret Doctrine" on his bed table. Theosophy IS a religion, which can commonly be defined as Satanism or Luciferianim. Blavatsky openly promotes Satanism : "Satan is the one true god" and other Blavatsky quotes attest to that fact. Blavatsky was also a freemason. Claiming that the nazis were atheists springs as utmost ignorance AND deception. Ignorance for those who believe that line, deception for those who promote it yet know better. Typical freemasonic tactic : giving bullshit to the profane in order to keep them in ignorance, thus keeping the knowledge for the "initiated". Nazis were the most religious political leaders the world has seen in ages, IMHO. They were all about occultism, you cant start understanding anything about them (or their atttitude at Nuremberg) if you dont dive into the occult reality of their beliefs and actions. And please, I dont care which books you've read. What matters is how aligned, harmonized and functionning your brain hemispheres are. If you're dissociated up there, you're fodder.
|
|
|
12/19/09 10:20:21 AM#366
Originally posted by Xirik secularists people, identify themselves by a variety of terms, including agnostic, atheist, bright, freethinker, humanist, nontheist, naturalist, rationalist, or skeptic are also using blanket statements on religion. Don't think only one side does this. I believed that you meant the popular term of the word Jihadist which is the term I stated earlier. Unless you clarify what term of Jihadist you meant, I should think you most popular term of the word. Doesn't that sound logical?
No it's not logical, it's an uneducated assumption which is typical of someone from the North American continent (usually the states though)... Jihadist, a practitioner of Jihad, Jihad does not =/= innocent civilian killing suicide bomber. If that is the "popular term" where you come from then it only proves your own intollerence, which in the context of this thread is particularly amusing. But then I suppose if christians can't be tollerent of other faiths (even those with the same core beliefs) then there's no hope for any form of mutual respect with atheists. ...The spread of secondary and latterly of tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought. |
|
|
12/19/09 10:45:02 AM#367
Originally posted by PunisherX
God revealed Himself to people as they could understand him. Look at cave paintings; from those we have no idea whether man had religion or not, but we know people that have been found living in stone age conditions in later centuries DID exhobit religion, and have rather developed cosmologies. No people has ever discovered a people that did not have religion of some kind. religion has at times been an enemy of human rights, BUT it was religion that started the idea and brought it into existence. Prove that the scientific method came about without religion -- in history you are simply wrong. Look it up -- it was started by a Muslim who wanted to understand the workings of God. You are evidently the ignorant one here. There is plenty of proof there is a God, and plenty of proof that jesus rose from the dead 200 years ago -- at leats in as much as anything in history can be proven -- it is the most provable event in the ancient world. Just because you demand scientific proof for something that happened 2000 years ago -- something no historian ever demands of anything else -- doesn't mean there isn't extremely good hostorical evidence, by historical standards. Anyway you are obviously someone who has decided in a a priori manner that nothing can convince you -- which is irrational -- so take care. I would also like to know how many books you ahve read on apologetcs, which ones they were, and where you thinkthey are wrong.
The reason that we can't find a people without religion, is that man has a curiosity about the cosmos. When you try and explain our universe without understanding specific scientific laws, it does quite look like magic. So they'll say that there has to be magical bearded wizard in the sky who created this all in a short or long period of time. Religion is easy to come up with when you have no scientific knowledge. The only thing that could sell me on this point is if they had all, without contact between each other, been of the same religion. This is not so, therefore I believe religion to be a crock. Religion has, until the past 100 or so years, been an enemy of human rights. Female rights were kept down because religion helped bring the belief that men were superior up all the way, until finally, someone stood up. The only way that you could attribute human rights to religion is if you say, "people wanted human rights (women, gays, etc) because it was something religion wasn't giving them." If you didn't know, the Ancient Egyptians had the scientific method, as did the greeks. Long before Islam. Now, Ibn al-Haytham, the Islamic scientist you were talking about was a positivist. Meaning, he believed that knowledge is based off of what we can experience with our senses. While he did attribute the scientific method to his Islamic faith, he did it, not to understand god, but to understand the universe. Good, I'm glad they found the cross that Jesus was crucified on and the burial chamber they put him in. Oh, and that little inn that he was born in. If you don't mind, could you point me in their direction? And maybe, if we're lucky, you found his mother's grave? What proof (once again, i say, the bible doesn't count) have you found for his existence? The only person that has reference outside of the bible is Pontius Pilate. I suspect, because you didn't name any proofs, that there is none. I have recently stated in posts that I am willing to believe in god, however, I do find it highly illogical that it will be the god of Christianity or the god of Islam or a god of any religion today. Because, even if you are able to prove god's existence, you will not be able to attach him to any single religion without one of the others shouting in revolt, believing that this discovered god will be apart of their religion.
Well that's an intersting theory as to why al peoples have had religions, but it only serves to disprove what you first said. It could certainly be attributed to imagination, but it is equally likely that it is God. The fact that they do not have the same religion only proves God is not a dictator andlet's people respond to him uniquely. Again everything you are saying can go both ways, and your world view decides for you how YOU are going to interpret the evidence. Religion has been the enemy of human rights for the past 100 years? Bunk. Some religious people have been the enemy f religious rights, to be sure, but that only fits my view, not yours. Women's right to vote was a Christian movement -- the sufragteets were all religious women. The civil rights movement? A religious movement. MLK was a pastor, and pastors LED the civil rights movement. Union of South Africa ? BISHOP Desomd Tutu. Poland vs the atheist doviet union? Lech Walesa was part of a RELIGIOUS movement. At every big issue of civil rights, Christians have been at the forefront, all claiming they were doing God's will. meanwhile in the 20th century, what are the great triumphs of atheisM? The two biggest slave pens in history, the Soviet Union and China. To be sure, the ancient egyptians had SCIENCE, as did the Greeks, but what we call the scientific method was developed by a Musilm trying to see how God made the world. As far as the finding of the cross i Jesus' tomb, where does the bible ay they buried his cross with his tomb? Also the fact that we can't find his is corrobaratve evidence of the resurrection. If a guy rose from the dead, you wou;dn't care where he was buried. the fact is the evidence we HAVE shows he was resurrected, and all you have is speculation on your part. Again you seem to be pretty ignorant of Christian apologetics? How many books have you read? which ones? What flaws did you find? By the way I have read most of dawkins books and most of harris -- everything by hitchens and most of what Bertrand Russell wrote. I am VERY familiar with the arguments of the great atheists of history -- how familiar are you with Christianty? It doesn't seem you are terribly knowledgeable. All I see is you have a world view, and anything that disagrees with your worldview you simply throw out as being impossible, so you ignore all evidence. However I look forward to seeing your book list and seeing how well you have challenged your own view. By the way. I am not what you are calling a CHristian. I am a Christian in the Grand tradition of the founders of this nation -- a rational, enlightenment theist and a Christian Universalist -- so please don't paint us all the same (I'm not doing taht with your faith position). I believe ALL religions have truth in them, and I believe that Christ died on the cross and was resurrected -- this shows that God loves and will eventually 'save" ALL. I do not believe that any "religion" is the one true religion -- and only universalism holds to that position. I feel fundamentalism is not the proper interpretation of any religion, which is primarily what you are arguing against.Christianity is NOT organized religion -- in fact it is the most disorganized religion in history. 10,000 denominations or so and counting. Anyway I am waiting to see your reading list. thenw e will see if you are worth continuing this discussion with. If you have shown that you follow the path of an honest seeker we'll continue. So far I don't see it.
|
|
|
12/19/09 10:51:48 AM#368
Originally posted by totolerototo
Aryanism and Master race theory come from Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's Theosophy. Hitler had Blavatsky's master book "the Secret Doctrine" on his bed table. Theosophy IS a religion, which can commonly be defined as Satanism or Luciferianim. Blavatsky openly promotes Satanism : "Satan is the one true god" and other Blavatsky quotes attest to that fact. Blavatsky was also a freemason. Claiming that the nazis were atheists springs as utmost ignorance AND deception. Ignorance for those who believe that line, deception for those who promote it yet know better. Typical freemasonic tactic : giving bullshit to the profane in order to keep them in ignorance, thus keeping the knowledge for the "initiated". Nazis were the most religious political leaders the world has seen in ages, IMHO. They were all about occultism, you cant start understanding anything about them (or their atttitude at Nuremberg) if you dont dive into the occult reality of their beliefs and actions. And please, I dont care which books you've read. What matters is how aligned, harmonized and functionning your brain hemispheres are. If you're dissociated up there, you're fodder.
Wow someone who actually knows som eof the stuff I occasionally discuss here. Blavatsky also borrowed heavily from darwin, whichb is where the master race part of master race theory comes from -- survival of the fittest. Of course she and the nazis added mysticism -- people do that -- but it was still darwinism at its root. It was a scientific form of mysticism -- what we would call pseudoscience to be sure, but it was still protoscientism. I have read every book I can find about nazi occultism, studied much of the same things you have, but I feel what you are bringing up veers away from what we are talking about in this thread. However i DO find that topic extremely interesting -- why don't you start a thread about it :) I only care about what books people have read when we are discussing SUBJECTS. That helps me to know whether I am dealing with someone who is IGNORANT of the SUBJECT or not. I would love for people to be balanced between hemispheres as well -- however that isn't the subject of this thread. This thread is a hate thread about religion, and I was discussing that in context. If you want to talk about hemispheric balance, feel free to start a thread. thanks! I definitely think we have some nice overlaps in what we have studied -- start that thread.
|
|
|
12/19/09 6:10:09 PM#369
Originally posted by hoopty
Hoopty = Fishermage
Afterall you sound just like him. Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981 |
|
|
12/19/09 6:52:34 PM#370
Originally posted by Fishermage
Awright. First off I'm not well read at all. Blavatsky endorsed the evolution theory and I can accept your "she added mysticism to darwinism" assessment. But as for Blavatsky's doctrine being "darwinism at its root" I can't help but disagree. Darwin's view was materialistic, his aim was to oppose religions through denying the preeminence of spirit over matter. I apologize that my source on Darwin is in french, I've learned but recently of this ideological and not scientific basis of Darwin's effort. http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/article4244.html On the other hand Blavatsky's stance is opposed to Darwin's, to her matter is an illusion and spirit is the real reality : "This same idea of the reality of the subjective, and the unreality of the objective universes, is found at the bottom of the Pythagorean and Platonic teachings — limited to the Elect alone(...). This is a teaching which the Kabala has in common with Eastern Occultism" http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-3-15.htm (To people who dont give a damn about theosophy and Blavatsky, hear that our elites do give much of a damn about the doctrine she published and intend to make you swallow it hook line and sinker) Now the topic is, what of the nazis? Subjectivists or objectivists, religious or atheists? To the "uninitated" (people oblivious to the reality of occultism), naziism may look like a contradictory blend of religiousness and anti-religionism. I've written a long winded development to argue that nazis were in fact religious, of a peculiar religion : luciferianism. I thought you had said that they were materialists but then I've come back to reread your sentence and you had said the same thing as I'm saying... You wrote: "There can be no doubt it was not "religion" as we understand it that motivated Hitler. His was a religious darwinism mized with an odd pantheism (maybe, he was never honest) but it wasn't religion as people usually mean the term."
That's right, religious darwinism. Secular humanism. Luciferianism. Survival of the fittest because "our god has no mercy for the weak." Simple isnt it? And concernedly spreading nowadays. It's Conan the Barbarian's religion:) And he's the glamorized version of it. Thank you for the philosophico-metaphysical discussion. After all it's all good when your current MMO bores you. I would be well read if I didnt play video games ;-)
P.S. Your repeated asking "how many books have you read on this subject" came across as implying that educated people are more credible and have more right to talk about a subject than people who are less educated. I may have been wrong in interpreting your words in this way but that's why I started replying to you. The "educated fool" expression exists for good motives. Let no not-well-read person feel daunted about talking about what they feel they know. A video about brain hemispheres : www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
|
|
|
Plasuma!!!
 Novice Member
Joined: 9/19/05
There's a formula for everything, even famous quotes. |
12/19/09 8:17:39 PM#371
Originally posted by HYPERI0N
Hoopty = Fishermage
Afterall you sound just like him.
I wouldn't say that. Fishermage is open to challenges and willing to change philosophy, but will not change without a fight. It is a challenge, after all. Perhaps a good analogy would be a skyscraper that sways to the wind, but does not budge on the Earth. Hoopty, from my experience, quotes more than researches. A suitable analogy would be... ? Well I'm not exactly on the ball this evening, I can't think of an analogy that woudn't be somewhat insulting. |
|
12/19/09 9:58:01 PM#372
Originally posted by totolerototo
I ask what have people read to find out their sources. If I can understand their sources and influences, I can understand where they are coming from, and the context in which they write. As someone who is pretty much a magickal adept (now retired) and having spent many years studying ceremonial, qabbalistic, shamanistic, and a whole host of magickal traditions that one simply won't get out of books -- and someone who has also learned much from books, like blavastky's stuff, uncle Al's work, Israel regardie and the like, and combined the knowledge therein, I am always happy to share my influences and sources without reservation. Now, not what this tread is about -- bashing religions. i do not think the bigot Imhotep meant Luciferianism, Satanism, Occultism and the like when he was talking about religions that deserved to be bashed -- no, in fact he pointed out his two hatreds -- Islam and Christianity. That was the context I was posting in. Now, any student of the Nazis knows they had an occultist, luciferian side to the movement, but also a pseudoscience side as well, which they blended into their own stew of evil. We see the same thing with today's environmentalists -- mixing the pseudoscience of climate change and mother earth neo-pagan gaia type religions. However, are THOSE religions in the context of this thread's discussion? hardly. Either way, as I said, I can see we have a lot of overlaps in ideas and knowledge and I am sorry my pointed questions bugged you. i mean no offense and rest assured I have exercised my left brain and my right -- having cultivated a hummingbird intellect with many different practices specifically designed to do so. However, when discussing things with "the profane" I attempt to stay within their spheres of knowledge and not jump the tracks on people. Again if you wish to discuss the occult side of history, this Illuminati master will be happy tp chat with you sometime. It is not however the proper discussion in a hate thread started by a bigot. |
|
|
12/19/09 10:02:03 PM#373
Originally posted by Plasuma!!!
I wouldn't say that. Fishermage is open to challenges and willing to change philosophy, but will not change without a fight. It is a challenge, after all. Perhaps a good analogy would be a skyscraper that sways to the wind, but does not budge on the Earth. Hoopty, from my experience, quotes more than researches. A suitable analogy would be... ? Well I'm not exactly on the ball this evening, I can't think of an analogy that woudn't be somewhat insulting.
Skyscraper? I like that. Also, to anyone who actually understand what is being discussed here, they would know that hoopty and I have some serious theological differences -- I believe in the divinity of Christ Jesus, he does not. Also, I am a partial preterist in terms of eschatology -- and I believe he is a futurist (perhaps a historicist, not completely sure there). However since both of those debates are far beyond the understanding of Hyperion, to him we sound the same. Alas, just part and parcel of the illiteracy of our age. |
|
|
12/20/09 3:03:17 PM#374
oh hai!
i came for an intellectual conversation.... left dissapointed.... 2/10
|
|
|
Plasuma!!!
Novice Member
Joined: 9/19/05
There's a formula for everything, even famous quotes. |
12/20/09 3:15:40 PM#375
Originally posted by miagisan Who cares what you think if you're not willing to discuss it? Good riddance. |
|
12/20/09 5:58:26 PM#376
Originally posted by Plasuma!!! Who cares what you think if you're not willing to discuss it? Good riddance. wow who pissed in your cheerios?
|
|
|
12/21/09 5:45:39 AM#377
Originally posted by Plasuma!!!
I wouldn't say that. Fishermage is open to challenges and willing to change philosophy, but will not change without a fight. It is a challenge, after all. Perhaps a good analogy would be a skyscraper that sways to the wind, but does not budge on the Earth. Hoopty, from my experience, quotes more than researches. A suitable analogy would be... ? Well I'm not exactly on the ball this evening, I can't think of an analogy that woudn't be somewhat insulting.
I am more of a pessimist....
|
|
|
12/21/09 9:45:16 AM#378
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
That's because of where you live. In other places other religions get bashed the most. |
|
|
12/21/09 4:20:51 PM#379
Originally posted by baff
That's because of where you live. In other places other religions get bashed the most.
What is wrong with a creationist saying, "By faith, I believe that God created the universe" when an evolutionist says "By faith, I believe that the universe created itself"? |
|
|
Plasuma!!!
Novice Member
Joined: 9/19/05
There's a formula for everything, even famous quotes. |
12/21/09 4:54:37 PM#380
Originally posted by hoopty
What is wrong with a creationist saying, "By faith, I believe that God created the universe" when an evolutionist says "By faith, I believe that the universe created itself"? Most scientists believe evolution is more likely than being created by a supreme being, but to qualify as being a scientist, they must be ready to be proven wrong. They have no faith in the belief, only faith that the belief might be right. When there are zealots in any belief, they believe, by the faith they invest in that belief, that it is true and nothing else is.
The difference is dogma. Dogma is more common among the religious than the scientific, mostly because there are many religious folks out there who want to justify their base beliefs in order to say that they're infallibly correct. Zealots aren't driven to discover by the love of discovery, they are driven to justify by the love of their dogma. Scientists can have no such agenda - if they do possess one, they could not be considered scientists. |
