Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 11. (Read 38470 times)

Yeah, but the kind of liberal thinking people make at the very best 5% of the population.
And i was dipped and grew up in an extremely catholic environment, but that hasnt restricted me from using my tiny brain and imagination.

That's true, but when I was asking questions about government I came to forums to see what people had to say.   The same is true for religion.   People want to find out if there is another side to the arguments the religious put forth.   Forums can educate and change people's minds by giving people access to the thoughts of others.  That's one of the reasons I for one participate in them.  I both gather information I don't have and provide information to others.  When you debate someone it is not to change that person's mind, that is folly for the most part, it is to give information to others.

There is no problem with Atheism, just like there is no with Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.
One will certainly not change another persons firm conviction on a forum.

   We are all connected, but our identity and perception is only possible by the division of phenomena into categories. Because these categories always change, some people say that there is no absolute truth. This is true- as long as you are talking about something that can be referred to in the plural, you are not talking about the truth. If I say I am alive, this is not true, because I am constantly in the process of dying. The truth is eternal, or it is not the truth. There are no truths- only Truth. In other words, there are no truths- only Truth, or there are no gods but God. La ilahah ilallah.

      I also have the "know a tree by its fruit" firmly rooted in my mind. However, I see the God is Love thinking as a form of idolatry. By trying to deal with the paradox of suffering, which is easily solved by firm belief in continuing consciousness after death, qualities like hatred and anger are given agency, therefore lifting them to the status of a partner in divine agency, a violation of the first commandment given to Moses, peace be on him.

    Turn the other cheek and peace and love were convenient doctrines for the version of the bible endorsed by Constantine at Nicea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

  Other evidence in the same selection of texts suggests that wrath is definitely part of divine will- for example

 2 Kings 2:23-25 23

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.  

or when Jesus, peace be with him, flipped the money changers tables- Mark 11:15-19

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’[a]? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’

  Or when Jesus, peace be on him, told his followers that he wished to kill anyone who would not accept the truth of his message

Luke 19:27

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.


  Jesus, may he be blessed, did not only want his enemies killed- he wants to watch.

  I'm just saying that hatred does not necessarily mean someone is misguided- I think it is right to hate injustice, because hatred gives one the motivation to fight injustice. Joy and peace are not necessarily the marks of someone who is rightly guided- there are some child molestors who are very joyful and peaceful about what they are doing, and I hope that I will never react to such actions with joyful, peaceful, and loving responses. Right is to say when something is right, and say when something is wrong, and to do something about it with the strength you have been given.


  It's hard to accept the enormity of the lie that the whole western world has been fed for centuries- the holy Prophet of God, Jesus, was neither the son of God, nor God himself. It is not difficult to verify this- documentation abounds. Old habits are hard to break- just ask any alcoholic.

It was actually quite a bit simpler and more sinister than that. And also the way Sovier Union came into power. Basically, you convince only enough people that there is some absolute truth (God is real and says so-and-so, or State and Motherland are so-and-so), and convince them that those who disagree with or question these absolutes (which are designed to be unquestionable, like god is) are enemies of the state/religion, who will try to convert, subvert, and destroy you. You don't even need to convince everyone of this. Just enough so that if someone does start to question, everyone else, whether they actually believe your BS or not, will report on them, kill them, or burn them at the stake, just out of fear of being found out to be such outsider themselves. Eventually, you can even end up with no one really believing any of that BS, but still towing the line, and even being overzealous about it, just so they don't get caught.
And this is why internet, global unrestricted communication, and anonymity are so important, and have contributed so much to the fall of dictatorships and theocracies.

That's not an opinion. Especially with respect to Christianity. We actually have historical records to support this.

Right.  That there would be no reason to follow them otherwise.  Those of us who have thought about government know that there is no justification for it.  There is no reason for them to have the authority they have, that it is all based on lies.

But this was back when governments were first getting started.  Back when there was no reason to follow someone else.   But like has been said, the people were superstitious and so if their priests declared the leader to be ordained by God, then they would have to follow them or risk ending up in Hell.  It's also why Jesus is referred to as the King of Kings.  The priests in return get many benefits from the leader.  It;s a nice little scam that has worked well for a long time, but started to break down in the scientific revolution and so new stories were required.  Like "all men were created equal and the government is there to serve man and we have freedom if the government remains in the constitution".  lol

I think first came religion then kings, pharoahs etc which eventually morphed into government.  But all major governments have had a state religion until the last few centuries.  The relationship between governments and religions has been very incestuous throughout history.

To the first question, I guess you are asking if the people that wrote the Bible were wrong?  God proved in the Bible he could use a donkey to serve a purpose if necessary.  Also, just because someone says that they are one does not mean they are one. The Bible makes this clear and even warns people about that in this verse "Many will say that I did all these things in your name but I will say depart from me you evil doers.  I never knew you!"  That said, we never fully know what is in a man's heart.  Only God knows that for sure.  But the Bible does say that you will know a "tree by it's fruit."  The fruit you need to look for to determine if someone is "Christ like" are these things:  Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control.  If someone does not display these things then I would question their fruit and what kind of "tree" they are.  Granted, I have not always displayed these things but I pray that I will have this fruit daily in my life and not be filled with the opposite, which is hate, anger, impatience, lack of self-control and so on.

I guess my answer for the last thing was not that "you don't believe or were sincere enough."  I thought my answer was more along the lines that perhaps God was whispering an answer and the person did not listen.  That is different than not believing or being sincere.  I am guilty of not taking time to listen to what God is trying to tell me so no judgement here. I have to really quiet myself and take the time to listen to Him. And I also have had times where He did not answer me like I expected Him and I did not like what He was telling me. That was all I was saying. 

Yep. In my opinion, this was the sole reason for organized religion to come into existence.

That would explain why so many rulers claimed to either be Gods or were blessed by God to rule; once you train a people to believe self-governance is a ticket to Hell, you make yourself (assuming yourself is a king) not only wanted, but impossible to live without.

Probably. The Hebrews were an offshoot of Babylon, the first known empire. But whether the largely unknown authors were statists or not, the bible has been used to justify the depredations of the state for all of it's existence, even in it's primitive forms.

"God says so" is a powerful argument to the superstitious. And not subject to falsification.

Ethics a sin?  Who wrote this book, a statist?

This is a common misperception. Christianity has so many truly egregious things in it that this should be corrected just to clear the slate for the real stuff.

In fact, it's far worse.

According to the Genesis account, the original sin was seeking "the knowledge of good and evil" which was forbidden to them. In short, the Edenites were supposed to be brutish and stupid.

Yes but the conscious spirit left the body of that shit long before it came to be.

I'm pretty sure the only thing that happens is shit. There may be other life that feeds on your shit, but otherwise you just make shit. Butt-babies are a myth.

And they will converge.  When I fly.

Although we have our own realities we share this universe, we are this universe and we are all one.

I am pretty sure you got that backwards. It's: Your world can be full of meaning, limiteless, and with god, but it doesn't make it apply to any reality other than yourself. The rest of us have out own realities, meanings, and gods.

As was mentioned, the question isn't whether the universe is meaningless, but to whom is it meaningless. It has a lot of meaning to those people with the pleasure and pain centers who are following the actions they were wired for, but it's pretty much meaningless to the rest of it's planets, stars, and existence in general.



I guess in this case it depends on your definition of meaningful. Plus, fluke implies that it could/should have happened one way, but turned out to happen another way. With the universe, it just happened. If there are other universes, things likely happened differently there. So, it's not so much a fluke as just inevitability. I'm not sure that mathematical laws are meaningful, either. Again, to whom? We think they are meaningful, because they help us understand the universe and create awesome tech gadgets. The universe doesn't really care. And if the laws were diffferent, some other inteligent creatures would have likely found them meaningful in some other way, while the rest of the universe would just continue to exist.
So, maybe you're ascribint some definition of meaningful to mean "it isn't just random, it's specific, has meaning, can be used to exchange information," and I'm not sure what the goal of that is (for a creationist, that would be proof of inteligent design), but I don't think they are meaningful, or even significant, beyond our own personal interests.

Not being negative, it simply is.  What happens when you eat something?  Chemical reactions, change, destruction, creation of new life.

This negative attitude towards humanity is just a reflection of how you feel about yourself. If you try to be a better person you may find that you are once again able to cope with reality.