-Let It Be Known What Atheism Truly Is-

Your entire ideology on the matter, is about to be turned upside down. And it will happen before Jan 20th.

 

Oh, a prediction! Do tell, what is going to happen?

 

Obama is gog, does that give you any insight?

 

Ah, Revelations. So are you under the belief that Obama is going to refuse to step down?

 

There you go, you just proved why atheists just don't get it. They think God, the source of all creation, is a sky fairy.

Talk about clueless.

That's interesting, but everything you mentioned (from Harry Potter to Marvel) cannot be likened to God. You cannot possibly describe God because there is nothing like God. God is infinite, and cannot possibly be comprehended by the human mind. Atheists commit an inherent bias in asking for material evidence for God. They have a predisposition towards the idea that everything is "just atoms." This mental paradigm is a major handicap: It disqualifies them from perceiving creation above the cerebral level. Justice, Truth; Love and Mercy- these are not manifestation of God according to the atheist. No, these are totally random atoms operating in a totally random way.

You want material evidence for God, presuming that if He were to truly exist, He would exist in material form, and ergo be perceived solely through the material senses. Talk about creating your own reality. You have no proof that God has to exist in material form, or any form for that matter. Just because you have so far failed to open the inner faculties of yourself and experience the Presence of God does not mean that God doesn't exist. Atheism regards rationalism as absolute. This idea is not sustainable, as time and time again, things have happened that people just can't explain. It's not "just atoms."

 

Everything I have seen indicates to me that there is no real Justice Truth Love and mercy. Perhaps if the world seemed fairer to others I might be interested.

 

Yes, justified bias, since science the greatest hard tool of reason to explain the world around us has been tested and proven to work and in addition has yet to find proof of the supernatural in any way and again if your claim is we can't then it for effective consideration of reality doesn't exist. Now Truth isn't tied to us having evidence if there is a giant cow in the center of the universe eating stardust and his crap is the source of all creation we likely don't know its there so could be there but does that affect our lives here. So the proper default and rational position in my view as an Agnostic-Atheist is to deny that which we cannot study since then as a species we can best advance ourselves and not waste resources on things we cannot study in practice. Building a cathedral is a waste of money while building a hydroponic farm to grow food isn't. Now do you get it. I don't care if your god exists or not if he doesn't show himself or do things we can clearly say is not a natural event that helps us then what good is this god? I'll trust a scientist delving into the study of deadly pathogens to find cures as far more important to the human condition.

 

Goomba thinks he has special access to all sorts of imagined stuff and actually believes, or pretends to believe, that stuff is real. His neurons are, in some respects, wired differently than yours or mine. That probably happened during his childhood and was caused by indoctrination from trusted adults.

 

It isn't, but God is.

Then how do you know, when you encounter a facsimile of any of those, that it isn't the real deal?

 

Wrong you failed miserably

- - - Updated - - -

God is not required for morality

 

No, not justified at all, as science is a method that is inherently bounded to the material, and ergo cannot transcend the physical realm. Yes, it has proven to work, but only as far as determining how physical phenomona operate. Atheists want to extrapolate this to the unsubstantiated idea that everything that could possibly exist can be subdued by the reigns of science, and that includes God. They have no way of knowing this.

Wrong, my claim isn't that you can't, but that you are using the wrong tools to begin with.

But a giant star-dust eating cow isn't an eternal source of peace that allows man to rise above his ego. Yes, it's crucial to advance scientifically, but it's as important (if not more so) to liberate ourselves from our natural and physical chains, in the aim of allowing us to determine the direction of our destiny.

Deadly pathogens prove harmless to one who is acutely conscious of the divine. We live a a highly advanced world, and yet so many people are depressed, angry and miserable. What is science going of do about that? Where exactly is the end game here?

 

But of course.

You don't believe in God, and consequently, perceive a reality that is Godless. You're basically proving my point of atheism being a self-fulfilling belief system.

 

Deadly pathogens hurt those who are " conscious of the divine " as much as any one else. Such beliefs offer no immunity and never have.

Religion also fails to transcend the physical it merely dreams up the supernatural.

Science does not even TRY to subdue god it merely ignores such superstitions and attempts to learn more about reality.

People have always been depressed angry and miserable no more so now than ever before.

- - - Updated - - -

Your premise that it is a belief system of any kind has been proven false.

As has been proven it is not a belief at all but a conclusion and has no goal or point to fulfill at all.

 

You'd be surprised. I remember watching an Indian guru explain how he was asked by American doctors to meditate while they perform some experiments on him. At the end of the experiment, the scientists told him to step out of his meditation. They explained that according to their findings, he should be dead.

How do you explain that?

That's not religion's role, but the job of spirituality.

You missed the point entirely.

But the world has never been as wealthy and advanced as it is today. All that scientific progress was supposed to usher in some sort of utopia, but the result is a society of miserable ingrates who die without accomplishing anything worthwhile in their lives. We live in a sterilized society that is increasingly becoming colder and heedless to the deeper meanings of life.

 

Oh you remember it?

Yes that's totally credible ( sarcasm ) BTE it has nothing to do with pathogens which do not give a damn about meditation or spirituality.

Spirituality also fails to transcend the physical.

Wrong I got your point clearly you are simply wrong.

No one ever said science or technology would usher in a utopia

 

And what if it doesn't?

Theist "predictions" of the "end times" are notoriously wrong.

You have a way better chance of winning the lottery than you do believing that evidence of your deity is going to manifest itself in the next 5 days.

So what are you going to say when it doesn't happen?

Your imaginary deity had to reschedule because he had other urgent business to take care of on Omicron Persei 8 instead?

 

I have not failed.

 

'Do not think that I have come to change the Law or the profits; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them'

 

I'm not sure what Atheists you are talking to but, they are unlike any I have dealt with.....which is obviously more than you. By the way...is the world around you full of physically tangible items or is it a puffy spiritual computer you type on?

 

The only thing that in the end matters is the advancement of the human species, anything that detracts from the supremacy of our species is not useful, and since humans create our morals along evolutionary lines empathy, the need to procreate and survive in the end any god is irrelevant unless it helps our species. A being like that who if it existed and opted to not reveal itself in a sensible way doesn't then matter does it unless it proves it wants to help us as a species, interacts with us with clear communication and gives us better tools to progress. From what I can tell ,Goomba and others, this god is not doing this but is disruptive if possibly downright hostile so wouldn't it be our duty as a species to ignore this being if it exists and gain enough power to hold it off or if needed destroy it?

Fortunately it appears no such being or others exist, so its a fiction, and if we can cull the disruptive influences such as Goomba's kind of religious faith mumbo jumbo juju from the species through enlightenment and ostracizing it in time we can then focus on what I point out as what matters and its the advancement of the species scientifically, technologically, morally and in the creative arts etc. And since we are on the verge of even altering our own genetics we are in a position to jump start new human evolution by our own hand if religion and faith get out of the way and let us which they will oppose.

 

So...you think that humans should ignore "disruptive" "possibly downright hostile" things????????????????

Are you just kidding around...or are you just not thinking before posting?

There ARE people like you who blindly guess that no gods exist...just as there are people who blindly guess at least one does.

Of what use is that?

Yes, there are people like you who blindly guess that the existence of gods is "a fiction"...just as there are others who blindly guess in the other direction.

Of what use is that?

Interesting claptrap.

Rationalize your blind guesses much?

 

Nobody was executed or killed for helping slaves escape...not that it happened all that much to start with. Nor did anyone go "house to house" looking for them. Much like the imaginary Roman Lions, they are making up stories to make their conduct look better.

The reality- when the South made its argument to keep slavery, it found plenty of support in the bible. When the Baptist Church voted to exclude slaveholders from jobs as ministers, the Baptist Church in the South broke away from it.

Not sure what this has to do with the argument I was making, but let's roll with it. When did the Media dog on a "Christian" killer, other than ones who are clearly religious nuts like Andrea Yates?

 

I've been negatively commenting on the atheistic take here a lot...mostly because they normally get a relatively free ride in Internet discussions. But I have to call you on this comment of yours.

St. Paul...certainly was a Christian.

Here is what he had to say about slaves and slavery:

"All under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect...Those slaves whose masters are brothers in the faith must not take liberties with them on that account. they must perform their tasks even more faithfully, since those who will profit from their work are believers and beloved brothers."

1 Timothy 6:1ff


"To slaves I say, obey your human masters perfectly, not with the purpose of attracting attention and pleasing men, but in all sincerity and our of reverence for the Lord."

Colossians 3:22


"You slave owners, deal justly and fairly with your slaves..."

Colossians 4:1




"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters. They should try to please them in every way, not contradicting them nor stealing from them, but expressing a constant fidelity by their conduct, so as to adorn in every way possible the doctrine of God our Savior."

Titus 2:9



"The general rule is that each one should lead the life the Lord has assigned him, continuing as he was when the Lord called him...Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery...."

1 Corinthians 7:17ff


In the Epistle, Philemon, Paul returns a slave (Onesimus) to his master (Philemon) and tells Philemon that although he (Paul) feels he has the right to command Philemon to free Onesimus, he would not do that, but would instead appeal to Philemon to do it on his own.


St. Paul not only WAS a Christian...he was the first and foremost teacher of Christianity. He taught Christians that slavery was okay...which makes sense, because the god of the Bible tells us that slavery is okay.

Your comment is incorrect.

 

Can't say I've noticed this Frank?

 

Your question mark seems like inappropriate punctuation, William.