Ever notice how every single culture that has ever been deemed semi advanced for it's era has had some sort of religious figurehead? The mayans and the aztecs both had multiple gods, a god for pretty much anything you can think of. European and North American religions (catholocism, prodestant, moron, amish, menoknight, etc.) all pray to one single god, who is the supposed creator of everything. So here you are, a religious person, your view of god contradicts that of most other religions, that's why it's a different religion. Somehow, in some way, at this moment in history, is your faith the correct one? Have all the previous religions now nonexistant been wrong, only yours now is right? Are all the other religions around today, wrong, and only yours is right? Chances are, a number of you from different religions will say "yes". hmm

Ever notice how the rules of every god of every culture (up until the seperation of church and state) came from the mouths of the ruling class? Ever notice how the rules of god always seemed to benefit the ruling class in one way or another. "Do what we say, follow our rules, or the almighty god, who is not us but some entity who only we have a connection to, will strike you down". Funny little coincidence. The irish catholic religion has the poor prolitariat working in almost slave conditions, but they are all supposed to "be happy with what they've got"; essentially don't fight the powers that control you, work harder for them. Then there's confession, another brilliant idea which allows people to not feel bad about breaking the occasional rule of god, which in other religions is unacceptable. This keeps the people happy, and therefore ever productive for the ruling class. No one is being torn apart inside for going against their religion, distracting them from their work. Then there's heaven and hell, some non existant future that keeps you in line in the present. Work hard and be good, and you will be rewarded in the afterlife - translation: be a slave for your entire life producing the most for your ruling class, thinking you'll go somewhere fantastic that cannot be proved to exist or not exist. Keep slaving away, one day you'll be rewarded i bet.

Ever notice how in primitive times where science was not able to explain anything, God was always the answer? Some higher being did it all, and they only did it since humans were around, the earth wasn't old and didn't have other species before man, we didn't evolve, we're not animals we're special. So all these people whom god spoke to, god was just lying to them for kicks? There was adam and eve, the earth was young, oh wait all our genetics can be traced back to one mother in africa and the earth is billions of years old. shit. There's those easy answers that kept people from questioning anything gone; with science it's no wonder that atheism is running more and more rampant, it simply proves that religion was out and out lying to people for thousands of years. If the prolitariate is kept in order through these lies, there is less revolt against the rulers, who can manipulate and control their slaves much easier.

Now here's where my God steps in, i call him logic. Each human is born with a genetic coding, DNA. this determines how things taste, feel, look, sound, and smell to the person. When you are just created you have no experiences, so it is up to all these genetic filters to determine what you "like" (which tastes, touches, smells, etc. agree with your DNA) and what you don't like (what doesn't agree). All your decisions from then on are determined now by your genetics, but also your past experiences which you remember (essentially how it reacted with your genetics before). This is why animals with memory can be operatively conditioned, they will remember how their genetics associate with a certain experience, and be draw towards or away from that experience based upon the previous reactions. So every decision you make is essentially the decision that agrees with your genetic coding, like a complex calculator. Every event is weighed against the rules or coding of your body, and then governed by the laws of physics, something your "free will" can't chose to ignore. Essentially free will is non existant, you're just one big chemical reaction playing itself out. So you posses the illusion of free will, maybe a calculator thinks it's willfully making 2 and 2 = 4, because that's what agrees with it's programming. You're going to make all your actions no matter what, because it would go against yourself to make a decision the opposite way. Free will would be contradicting your own wants and needs, which no one does. So you say, hey, what about when i sacrafice my wants and needs for someone else, isn't that free will? No, your wants and needs become what you think someone else wants. Your want is for the other person to get what they want, you DON'T want them to not get their way, or you wouldn't let them get their way in the first place. Free Will, nonexistant. Therefore, how can god pass judgement when our morals don't agree with the ones he set out, and send us to hell. If he created people, he created DNA, the specific rules that govern all your decisions, and he created the laws of physics, which lay out the limitations of what we can and can't do. So if he didn't give us free will, why would he expect us to try to get to heaven or stay away from hell when it's already predetermined how morally bankrupt (or morally rich) each one of us is? Hey, maybe it's other people programming our minds through experience to think that we should act in such a way to be more productive for those people who told us to act that way in the first place. Go figure.



Religion a control method, what?



Edit: Needless to say, religion has it's place. Some people can't face up to the fact that they're just another animal, of no importance to anything in the long run, spinning around in a huge area called the universe, something which we onlt understand the smallest fraction of. Sometimes it keeps people who would have bad morals good, by programming them to think that they need to be good. In today's age though, you shouldn't need some fake preacher whos taking your money to tell you to not be a bad person, you should just not be a bad person.

I feel badly for all the children who are programmed at such an early age that they cannot escape their religion once they are old enough to logically determine god's nonexistance. Hook them early, own them forever, and the ruling class does a damn good job of it. But then again, "I have found you can find happiness in slavery", a truer statement has never been made.

[This message has been edited by d4v3 (edited 08-12-2003).]

biblethumpers, unite and attempt to prove this wrong somehow, i'm interested to here how deep the brainwashing can run.

I really enjoyed reading your post. Good Work.

If all you are talking about is just the fact that science out rules any form of how they said the world and life came to be then it sure took you a while. In short, don't bother trying to change their beliefs, that is an endless battle. Trust me I have tried, no matter what logic, science, even if you have pure straight evidence sitting in your hands they wont even turn their noses to it. Just...take it from me and give up on it buddy.

but in the end, I give you a thumbs up, and appluse. I'll enjoy watching what some of them say

-Miakia

[This message has been edited by Me Miakia (edited 08-13-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

biblethumpers, unite and attempt to prove this wrong somehow, i'm interested to here how deep the brainwashing can run.

Moses and the Hebrew slaves were not the ruling class.

BA. DA. BING.

So you're addressing this to believers of God and not just religeous people eh?

Do you think it's foolish to believe in a God that is the consciousness of nature. We are the consciousnous that controls our human nature, just as God is the consciousness that controls universal nature?

Why would a lifeform care about survival since it know it's gonna die itself? Where did the want of survival come from? If there is no conscious thought after death then logically a lifeform shouldn't care what happened afterwards. Why would we care what the state of affairs are to be when we aren't around to experience them? Could it be that at a deep level lifeforms know that they are a part of a universe that 'goes on'?

When did lifeforms begin? By an accident of nature, or a reaction that had never happened before. Either way lifeforms are a product of nature. Lifeforms are nature. But why would we feel a need to survive? Because even if we die, nature still carries on.

If a boulder can fall without fear of splitting in two, why can't a man live without fear of death? I mean we are only products of nature aren't we? Our death won't stop nature so why fear it? Nature will still go on no matter which form it takes.

We are the same as nature. But if we are the same as nature, then that must mean that 'nature' wants to survive. But how could nature want to survive if it didn't have a consciousness?

Lifeform cannot suddenly appear into existence unless it's a part of nature already. So the only way we can be different

to nature is if lifeform began as soon as time began. But we all know that our entire bodies are made from natural elements, so

if we are different from nature the only possible difference is consciousness (which controls the area of nature that is our bodies). But then that begs the question "Where did consciousness come from if it isn't a part of nature?".

Consciousness also cannot suddenly spring into existence so it must always have existed.



If consciousness is a product of nature, then nature must have a will to survive, therefore nature has a consciousness (God) and we are part of it.

If consciousness is seperate from nature, then since consciousness cannot suddenly "spring from nothing" then it must

have always existed and since it isn't the same as nature, why should the laws of nature apply? including rules of time and space and death.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 08-13-2003).]

how can i argue for the existence of god using any religion for my basis, especially christianity.

can't.

i don't pray to my god, and he's not so vain as to demand worship.

my god could probably give two shits about whether you believe in him or not, realizing your belief has no basis in any reality but your own, and those you can convince.

Religion is a lie, and it is nothing more than a method of keeping people dumb.

quote:Originally posted by DarkFire47:

Religion is a lie, and it is nothing more than a method of keeping people dumb.

What a unique viewpoint.

quote:Originally posted by Kikey_Kikeowitz:

What a unique viewpoint.

As true as your statement is, Kikey, a viewpoint's uniqueness doesn't matter if it's wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Kikey_Kikeowitz:

Moses and the Hebrew slaves were not the ruling class.

BA. DA. BING.

oh yeah, that's right. the jews didn't break away from their religious opressors and become religious oppressors of their own people. in fact, i don't think the jews run anything now, not the media or anything especially. now where's that sarcasm tag

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

So you're addressing this to believers of God and not just religeous people eh?

Do you think it's foolish to believe in a God that is the consciousness of nature. We are the consciousnous that controls our human nature, just as God is the consciousness that controls universal nature?

Why would a lifeform care about survival since it know it's gonna die itself? Where did the want of survival come from? If there is no conscious thought after death then logically a lifeform shouldn't care what happened afterwards. Why would we care what the state of affairs are to be when we aren't around to experience them? Could it be that at a deep level lifeforms know that they are a part of a universe that 'goes on'?

When did lifeforms begin? By an accident of nature, or a reaction that had never happened before. Either way lifeforms are a product of nature. Lifeforms are nature. But why would we feel a need to survive? Because even if we die, nature still carries on.

If a boulder can fall without fear of splitting in two, why can't a man live without fear of death? I mean we are only products of nature aren't we? Our death won't stop nature so why fear it? Nature will still go on no matter which form it takes.

We are the same as nature. But if we are the same as nature, then that must mean that 'nature' wants to survive. But how could nature want to survive if it didn't have a consciousness?

Lifeform cannot suddenly appear into existence unless it's a part of nature already. So the only way we can be different

to nature is if lifeform began as soon as time began. But we all know that our entire bodies are made from natural elements, so

if we are different from nature the only possible difference is consciousness (which controls the area of nature that is our bodies). But then that begs the question "Where did consciousness come from if it isn't a part of nature?".

Consciousness also cannot suddenly spring into existence so it must always have existed.



If consciousness is a product of nature, then nature must have a will to survive, therefore nature has a consciousness (God) and we are part of it.

If consciousness is seperate from nature, then since consciousness cannot suddenly "spring from nothing" then it must

have always existed and since it isn't the same as nature, why should the laws of nature apply? including rules of time and space and death.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 08-13-2003).]

bravo, you've used god as an easy answer and made logical assumptions that cannot be proved one way or another, sounds like another religion to me. how can you assume that conciousness has always existed? for all you know everything has some level of consciousness, depending on it's complexity. a rock is not complex, it's interactions with nature on a chemical level are limited. It seems the more organized and complex the matter, the higher the consciousness. maybe we're part of a universal consciousness in the same way that our cells are parts of our consciousness. either way, these are questions that can't be answered and are therefore as stupid as saying god created everything, it's a leap of unproven faith. i tried to bring some "fact" to the table, consider doing the same mr consciousness has always existed - were you there at the begining of this infinite existence to see how it was always there? are you just daft? No one knows why life has a will to survive, it's instinctual to want to survive, but at a high consciousness one doesn't fear death, i sure don't. so there's your arguement down the tubes again, because the greater the consciousness, the smaller the irrational fear of dying. it's in our genetic coding to wish to survive, that's why slaves living in the worst conditions don't just all commit suicide. get some facts before you try to piece together bs.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

As true as your statement is, Kikey, a viewpoint's uniqueness doesn't matter if it's wrong.



sadly, the viewpoint is correct, it's sure worked on you buddy. Work hard all your life for the powers that control you, don't question them, and after death you'll go to some unproven wonderland, i swear. hell, come be my personal slave and the heaven you go to will be better than god's heaven; just "trust in me and don't you judge or question, you are broken now but faith can heal you, just do everything i tell you to do"

you're "deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow"

Oh, I'm sorry I thought you wanted a discussion.

I didn't realise you wanted to be a rude cocky twat.

^ Bravo on that btw.

Also you misunderstood/misread my post to the extent that most of your reply isn't worth correcting.

don't mind him that much beany, remember he has "the facts".

ok, so how i about i break it down section by section. my replies come after the --

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

[B]So you're addressing this to believers of God and not just religeous people eh?

Do you think it's foolish to believe in a God that is the consciousness of nature. We are the consciousnous that controls our human nature, just as God is the consciousness that controls universal nature?

--What are we controlling? free will doesn't exist, we're just peices of the universal chemical reaction.

Why would a lifeform care about survival since it know it's gonna die itself? Where did the want of survival come from? If there is no conscious thought after death then logically a lifeform shouldn't care what happened afterwards. Why would we care what the state of affairs are to be when we aren't around to experience them? Could it be that at a deep level lifeforms know that they are a part of a universe that 'goes on'?

-- or maybe naive children are told that they're living for a life after death, so they don't concern themselves with their personal well being in life. work hard, question nothing.

When did lifeforms begin? By an accident of nature, or a reaction that had never happened before. Either way lifeforms are a product of nature. Lifeforms are nature. But why would we feel a need to survive? Because even if we die, nature still carries on.

If a boulder can fall without fear of splitting in two, why can't a man live without fear of death? I mean we are only products of nature aren't we? Our death won't stop nature so why fear it? Nature will still go on no matter which form it takes.

--maybe you fear death, but i find there to be no reason for it, other than you lose your life which is all you have. If anything, innate fear of death contradicts the idea of something after death, so you've contradicted yourself, bravo.

We are the same as nature. But if we are the same as nature, then that must mean that 'nature' wants to survive. But how could nature want to survive if it didn't have a consciousness?

--does a rock want to survive? it just is, as we just are. the survival instinct exists in all species so they don't simply die off, if animals weren't concerned with their survival then their species would become extinct. maybe the difference between living and non living is the will to carry on. nature carries on in any form seeing as nature is simply the interactions of matter. one big chemical reaction.

Lifeform cannot suddenly appear into existence unless it's a part of nature already. So the only way we can be different

to nature is if lifeform began as soon as time began. But we all know that our entire bodies are made from natural elements, so

if we are different from nature the only possible difference is consciousness (which controls the area of nature that is our bodies). But then that begs the question "Where did consciousness come from if it isn't a part of nature?".

Consciousness also cannot suddenly spring into existence so it must always have existed.

--yes, nothing that's not there can just come into existence, it's built of everything around it, and turns back into everything around it. it's called life cycles, sort of how rocks recycle back to sand then compress back into giant boulders. wow, that must mean that rocks always existed. Ever heard of a thing called evolution? no conciousness as "intelligent" as ours existed until apes evolved, the brain development is believed to have stemmed from the need to move around through trees at high speeds, forcing us to be able to take in and process information of our surroundings faster. are you trying to say that lifeforms have existed since the begining of time? what about when all the planets in the universe were just gasses being draw together in solids by the attractive force named gravity. lots of human consciousnesses around then? also, how can you claim that something just can't spring into existence. a chemical reaction occurs, and a new substance is created, thats sort of like springing. Obviously all matter existed at the begining of time, conciousness seems to have stemmed from complex arrangements of that matter. Maybe consciousness is an illusion of the complexity of the arrangement of the matter.

If consciousness is a product of nature, then nature must have a will to survive, therefore nature has a consciousness (God) and we are part of it.

--nature doesn't survive, it's all the non living things around us. nature exists on pluto, it's called ice. sort of how the antartic is a setting in nature, look at it's great will to survive. better stay away from the crackpipe buddy.

If consciousness is seperate from nature, then since consciousness cannot suddenly "spring from nothing" then it must

have always existed and since it isn't the same as nature, why should the laws of nature apply? including rules of time and space and death.

--ok, so rules don't apply to consciouness, that means that when you die your soul will go to heaven. because, you know, you're a phd in the nature of the universe and your ideas aren't just poorly reguritated ideas of someone else. try working in some logic instead of backwards logic, an example being "big fires need lots of firetrucks, so only send one firetruck to my fire and it will be small." this is pretty much all you've done, backwards and therefore incorrect logic.

B]

That specific enough for you?

By the way, whoever replied after you sarcastically mocking "my facts" prove me wrong buddy, i took the bare basic facts of nature as best understood by humanity, what do you have other than the programming you were subject to as a child "god exists, there's something more".

You appear (to me) to be stuck on your idea of reality that has been programed into you. The type to get lost in the language, it's not bad I've been there.

You actually remind me of me slightly less then a year ago keep searching. "let he who seeks continue to seek until he finds. When he finds he will become troubled, once troubled he will become astonished, and then he will rule over the all"

Consider that this is the "something more" you assumed was programmed into me. Consider the fact that energy and force can't be destroyed only changed (that's why we use pulleys and levarage and the like instead of magic). So why should your conscious life and death be different? So dependent on how you live your life your already in heaven/hell/limbo/whatever you like. I don't mean good/bad or any of that judgemental crap either, I mean using the energy of life that already exists and make the momentum swing with your heart's desire.

Remember you can do anything, it's just the consequences thing that bothers some people.

some people.

Dude, you seem pretty concrete with your answers. So if your not afraid of dying, why don't you tie them to your feet and jump off a bridge?

traffic, about 6 months ago i just "let go". now the only moral that i posses is the will to not do harm to other living beings when unecessary.

we may be stuck on the idea of being programmed, but it's true. look into neurolinguistics and then see how easy manipluation through language is. if you haven't yet, check the post in the other thread, you may get a kick out of it.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Dude, you seem pretty concrete with your answers. So if your not afraid of dying, why don't you tie them to your feet and jump off a bridge?

i don't fear death, but why would i give up all that i have? the only certain in this world is this moment right now, to give up the moment would be to give up the only thing you truly have. only an idiot would say "i don't fear dying, so i'll do it" that's like saying i don't fear shark attacks, so i'll go out of my way to get attacked. you, beany, are a fool; plain and simple

Lol

Man you are one offensive guy.

Please go into why that is, and why you can't kindly accept ignorance or a difference of opinion.

Did I miss something? Did things disapear or is my minds playing tricks on me?

quote:Originally posted by I_Like_Traffic_Lights:

Did I miss something? Did things disapear or is my minds playing tricks on me?

Well I deleted my other thread. There was no way an interesting discussion was gonna form after d4v3's replies. He takes all the fun out of philosophising. He's too serious.

have you heard of orwells phrase ignorance is strength? keep your oppressors strong buddy.

If you take an attack stance in a discussion, it provokes a defensive position, meaning the person has to defend their arguement rather than attacking yours. this allows me to see the opinions of others, if they are more intelligent or add to mine, i can synthesize a new opinion out of them, or simply dismiss the other person as a fool, such as the case with you. essentially i don't not tolerate the opinions of others, i'm just trying to be efficient in extracting those opinions of value to me. i don't profess to be omnipotent, i simply have my own ideas, but i treat them as facts like everyone else treats their ideas as fact. I was nihilistic for a while, but that's just a path of self destruction, however valid the idea of nothing being true is. to quote pink floyd, "don't be afraid to care." it's kept me sane.

ahhh, I see. You always need an opposition though. Remember, Jesus was killed by the police.

Good point on the seriousness though, life isn't something that should be taken seriously you'll never get out of it alive anyway.

shit traffic, did you miss my apology and another reading of "to be"?

i apologized for dismissing you as an idiot after your first reply mocking "my facts", without any opinion given by you i had no way of knowing whether you were intelligent or not. being that you seem to claim to understand what i'm saying, your words have merit in my eyes.

i also asked for some criticism of my initial posting in this thread, what do you find non factual about it.

beany, sorry if the philosophy is taken beyond your level of comprehension, i can't help the genetics i was given.

as far as seriousness, those who know me in real life think i am one of the least serious people they know, it's all a balance between seriousness/non-seriousness and caring/nihilism. no one's position is static along either of those axii. here, i was just attempting to seriously discredit believers in god to free themselves of the constraints the idea puts on them, well still attempting to leave the moral of honoring other life forms, human animal or plant

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

i can't help the genetics i was given.

I'm sorry to hear that. Chin up eh.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

I'm sorry to hear that. Chin up eh.

yes beany, ignorance is a bliss that short of chemical drugs i'll never know. but to me, intelligence is living.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

yes beany, ignorance is a bliss that short of chemical drugs i'll never know. but to me, intelligence is living.

Wisdom is living. It's wisdom that gives 'intelligence' a direction to go in.

well then, you're shit out of luck in all fields huh? chin up eh

Haha, meow.

It turns out that it's you whose the bitch, hehe

if life is a bitch and i'm living i guess your above statement must be true. thanks for continuing to be a mindless idiot, but sadly i'm done replying to your irrelivant idiocy, thanks for flying fucktard air.

Haha, I enjoyed that.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

oh yeah, that's right. the jews didn't break away from their religious opressors and become religious oppressors of their own people. in fact, i don't think the jews run anything now, not the media or anything especially. now where's that sarcasm tag

You skipped about 5000 years of history there, pal.

quote:Originally posted by Kikey_Kikeowitz:

You skipped about 5000 years of history there, pal.



blink of an eye in terms of the age of the universe, and regardless how does this prove that god exists? try going against my original post, prove somehow that "the chosen" aren't just another religion based on bullshit.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

blink of an eye in terms of the age of the universe, and regardless how does this prove that god exists? try going against my original post, prove somehow that "the chosen" aren't just another religion based on bullshit.

A very skilled dancing around of the question, but you won't slip past me, pal.

Yeah, sure, the jews became religious oppressors. That rare kind of religious oppressors that not only doesn't force their religion on anyone else, but the kind of oppressor that actually DISCOURAGES people from joining!

Next you'll try to tell me that Islam is a religion of peace.

quote:Originally posted by Kikey_Kikeowitz:

A very skilled dancing around of the question, but you won't slip past me, pal.

Yeah, sure, the jews became religious oppressors. That rare kind of religious oppressors that not only doesn't force their religion on anyone else, but the kind of oppressor that actually DISCOURAGES people from joining!

Next you'll try to tell me that Islam is a religion of peace.

"the chosen" feel that they're some form of elite, hence discouraging people from joining. this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that god doesn't exist and all religions are just a means of controlling large populations, the jews are all controlled by their beliefs, they're the same as christians except for the disbelief in jesus as the son of god, the breakoff point between them. really what you say has nothing to do with what i originally posted, you're just a stupid jew.

Edit:and when i say stupid jew i mean you're a fucking moron, and also probably jewish because you're defending (imo) the worst religion in existence today. they opress their own people by forcing them to believe the lie that is god, and they opress everyone else, and not in a religious manner, but more in a ruling class economical manner; fucking dumbass.



[This message has been edited by d4v3 (edited 08-14-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

"the chosen" feel that they're some form of elite, hence discouraging people from joining.

No, they don't fell themselves to be some form of elite.

They hold themselves up to a rediculously higher standard than everyone else, but it's not like Christians, where only *THEY* can be 'saved.'

One doesn't need to be jewish to be righteous in God's eyes, according to the jews.

quote:this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that god doesn't exist

So you say.

Prove it.

quote: and all religions are just a means of controlling large populations,

Ah, yes, all religions. Especially those really small ones that hardly anybody follows. Especially those unknown ones that you have no fucking clue about.

In fact, you have no fucking clue on anything.

quote: the jews are all controlled by their beliefs,

Yep. This is true.

All the better reason not to be a jew then, isn't it?

Might explain why they don't encourage anybody to join.

quote: they're the same as christians except for the disbelief in jesus as the son of god, the breakoff point between them.

Yeah, sure.

Do you know ANYTHING about Judaism or Christianity?

Can you tell the difference between the Kaddish and the Kiddish? Do you know what the purpose of Yom Kippur is?

Do you know the purpose behind Easter? Do you even know the story behind Easter? Do you know that Jesus' real name wasn't Jesus?

Do you know that Jesus spoke Aramaic? That he was a jew himself? That, even though he was not the messiah, most jews consider him to be a very enlightened prophet?

No, I'd wager you don't. You really don't know a damn thing. You only THINK you know, because all trendy athiests do.

quote: really what you say has nothing to do with what i originally posted, you're just a stupid jew.

No, it has everything to do with what you originally posted?

You stated, IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST, that religion was simply a tool for the ruling class. In another post, you taunted all the dumb theists to prove you wrong.

I did, and you just couldn't handle it. I knocked you flat on your fucking ass, and you reply back with more 'ZOG conpsiracy, jews running the media' bullshit.

quote:Edit:and when i say stupid jew i mean you're a fucking moron, and also probably jewish because you're defending (imo) the worst religion in existence today.

Worse than Christianity?

quote: they opress their own people by forcing them to believe the lie that is god,

It's not a lie to us, pal.

Let's see you prove that it is.

quote: and they opress everyone else, and not in a religious manner, but more in a ruling class economical manner;

Ah, yes, the stereotypical anti-semite bullshit. Sure, they oppress everyone.

How DARE they make money? WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DARE TO TRY TO MAKE MONEY?! THAT'S JUST FUCKING DESPICABLE!



quote:fucking dumbass.

I disagree.

buddy, you never proved me wrong. you mentioned the jews, who were a group of people who believed in god, therefore they were subject to the brainwashing of the god idea, what does it matter if they branched out and thought they were actually holy? they ended up becoming opressors of the media, which is a true fact, the jews run the media. you didn't knock shit flat on anyone's ass, you just skirted the fact that through simple logic i proved god to be non existant in my very first post plain and simple. you may be too stupid to realize that you don't have free will, but that's not my problem.

as for those religions that no one knows about, or all religion, i could care less about the details, it's all bullshit. there's no god weighing right and wrong, why would i want a "fucking clue on anything" to do with this bullshit. religion is bullshit. try replying to the original post, break it down section by section like you did on my reply about hte jews, whom i don't want to or profess to know anything about. i'm not even an atheist dumbass, if you'd read what i put in the atheist thread. there's nothing trendy about atheism, it's just a whole population of people finally seeing beyond the easy bullshit answers that "god" provided, go figure that would happen as our intelligence evolved.

"You stated, IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST, that religion was simply a tool for the ruling class. In another post, you taunted all the dumb theists to prove you wrong.

I did, and you just couldn't handle it. I knocked you flat on your fucking ass, and you reply back with more 'ZOG conpsiracy, jews running the media' bullshit."

jews do own the media, i don't even know zog, i jsut got on these boards yesterday, maybe intelligent people share intelligent opinions, not idiocy like you. there is something bad about making money, it's called raping the planet and making slaves of the prolitariat for personal gain, but being in your north american society you're too stupid to realize that there aren't enough raw materials on the planet for everyone to have a big house and a car and a wardrobe full of clothes, thats why slaves in third world countries have to make that shit for you.

how did you prove me wrong? you didn't mention or break down anything i said about religion as a whole, take the first post and reply to it piece by piece like you did with the shit about judism that i don't give a flying fuck about. just try and take it apart, you'll only come across looking like a bigger idiot that you already are.

I give up. Your ignorance has progressed too far.

You give the halfway intelligent athiests a bad name. I'm not going to devote any more time to restating what I've already said.

I'm leaving this thread with this:

If religion is simply a tool of the ruling class, used to exert power over the people it controls, how does one explain the Hebrew slaves of Egypt?

There is the one simple question which voided any and all credibility that your argument had.

you refuse to go against what i said because you cannot, and you know it chump.

as far as the slaves, you think some guy actually parted water? are you so stupid that you believe every story you're told? the fact that slaves ran away from their master doesn't prove that god doesn't exist, it just proves that you're a moron because you think it's relivant.

and once again, i'm not atheist, you must be a real idiot.

Just out of curiousity what is this ruling class that controls my mind through christianity. Personally i Go to church every sunday and many wednesdays. I never have given any offering or money. If your talking about my boss, he goes to church, his boss goes to church, his boss's boss goes to church... wtf? Who is this ruling class that profits by controlling me through religion? You can't say that religions make you happy, which makes you a better worker, which makes the "ruling class" happy. So what the "ruling class" has nothing to do with the religion. Thats like saying that if your really hungry, so hungry you can hardly move, and you go to McDonald's and eat something, that when you use your knew found energy at work, then McDonald's is in control of your life. btw d4v3, you missed a spot on my table last week and it was still dirty, bastard.

you think the middle management of some company rule the world? you're another daft one. You confess your sins, you feel happy, you don't get all bent out of shape over some sin causing you to be less productive. You go to a church where they tell you your actions will dictate what happens to you after you die, so you act how they tell you to act. They tell you to be happy with what you've got, you don't question why some other human has 10x more shit than you do. the ruling class is a very select group of individuals, the ones who make all the decisions from behind the scenes, the ones who are puppeting people like george bush. 99% of the population slaves away 40 hours a week or more generating technology and revenue for the 1% who do nothing but live a life of luxury. Your idea of the ruling class (middle management) are the direct puppets of the ruling class, the Dogs of Orwell's Animal Farm.

i'm glad you don't feel manipulated, if everyone who was part of a religion felt manipulated the religion would lose it's foothold of power.

needless to say, this manipulation was all much more predominant before the seperation of church and state, now all we really have is an echo of a dying breed, religion is headed the way of the dinosaur.

Wow d4v3, you make perfect sense. Can I join you? Do I pay by postal order?

Yet again, I find myself having to explain things to a moron.

Pay very close attention: You. Are. An. Idiot.

I do not need to justify myself, because your arguements are so obviously flawed. Idiot!

*yawn*

d4v3 I agree with some of what you said about interpretations of God being wrong.

However as for the existance of God, I'd argue, but you need to do more research, because you sound like every ignorant atheist out there.

Try astral projection, it's fun.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

Wow d4v3, you make perfect sense. Can I join you? Do I pay by postal order?

Yet again, I find myself having to explain things to a moron.

Pay very close attention: You. Are. An. Idiot.

I do not need to justify myself, because your arguements are so obviously flawed. Idiot!

if they're obviously flawed, you'd be able to point the flaws out jesus boy. i'm glad you could flame me without stating your own opinion, it makes your point more valid. oh wait, no it doesn't.



as for you mr. Fuck, thanks for your validation, but what you don't know about me is that i'm not an arrogant atheist, i'm an agnostic, which means that i believe the idea of a creator cannot be proved one way or another. I was simply trying to prove that the earthly renditions of god as preached by sanctioned religions are just carefully calculated lies. maybe you'll find you agree with me more now.

[This message has been edited by d4v3 (edited 08-14-2003).]

I wonder why topics with heated and sometimes furious arguments and sometimes name calling and otherwise signs of hate and detest are BY FAR more popular then ones of peaceful discussion and maybe even a little agreeing.

I suppose it's all just a case of transference.

"I don't understand SHIT so I'm gonna use every word I can to make me satisfied about how fucking STUPID you are" Who then does it in turn, if not to the originator to someone else making him the originator, so on and so forth until.....what?

What exactly is trying to get accomplished here, for all I see is people walking 1 step forward and 5 steps backward. People no longer trying to proove their point, but rather proove other's wrong. After so much of that nonsense there's no point left.

That's the point, that's the lesson.

now die.

very true, but as i said it kills time.

The original purpose of this post was to potentially open the eyes of maybe just one sheep of religion, to cause them to break away from their sheperd and think for themselves, live for today not for a nonexistant tomorrow after death.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

if they're obviously flawed, you'd be able to point the flaws out jesus boy. i'm glad you could flame me without stating your own opinion, it makes your point more valid. oh wait, no it doesn't.

[This message has been edited by d4v3 (edited 08-14-2003).]

Here are some of the flaws in your arguement:

Every culture has some sort of religious figurehead.

You are telling others what they think, and then vigourously opposing them. eg. your view of god contradicts that of most other religions

Have all the previous religions now nonexistant been wrong, only yours now is right?

None of us said that, so stop taking the stereotypical view of a theist.

"Ever notice how the rules of every god of every culture (up until the seperation of church and state) came from the mouths of the ruling class?"

I can think of one off the top of my head that proves you wrong, it's a little, unheard of religion CALLED ISLAM YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT!

"Ever notice how the rules of god always seemed to benefit the ruling class in one way or another."

Nope, never. For example: Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

"Then there's heaven and hell, some non existant future that keeps you in line in the present."

You cannot put forth your opinion as fact.

"Work hard and be good, and you will be rewarded in the afterlife"

That is not the correct way of looking at it.

You should be good for the sake of being good.

"god was just lying to them for kicks?"

Stop changing your mind, does God exist or not?

"There was adam and eve, the earth was young, oh wait all our genetics can be traced back to one mother in africa and the earth is billions of years old."

1.) Dont take Genesis 1:1 literally, it is explaining evolution.

2.) You are focusing on two religions, give me other examples, of eastern religions for example

AND PLEASE DON'T SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE BY CALLING A JEW JESUS BOY, THAT IS ABOUT THE STUPIDEST THING YOU HAVE DONE YET.

And as a preemptive strike, being a Jew does not negate my right of an opinion, so either find a flaw or STFU.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

you refuse to go against what i said because you cannot, and you know it chump.

Yeah, sure. That's what I figured you'd say.

quote:as far as the slaves, you think some guy actually parted water? are you so stupid that you believe every story you're told? the fact that slaves ran away from their master doesn't prove that god doesn't exist, it just proves that you're a moron because you think it's relivant.

You fucking moron.

The Exodus is not even an issue in my question.

In Egypt, the RULING CLASS worshipped Ra and all sorts of gods. The slaves did not. If your theory was true, the ruling class would have pushed their religion upon the slaves, and the slaves would have worhsipped Ra and all that shit.

But, you know what? They didn't. Even if they tried, they couldn't. The Egyptian ruling class used a whip to control it's subordinants, not religion.

BOOM, YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT. Theory disproven.

i keep forgetting about how what you've been told about the past is all true. sorry about that, for a second i didn't realize that whatever history you've been told is fact. dumbasses

Sad to see this initially fascinating post degenerate into insults.

In an attempt to bridge the gap, I will say this: I agree with most of what d4v3 says. However, I reject the religion and control issue as irrelevant. Perhaps today it is true that many religions have been exploited by innately corrupt human nature and transformed into an instrument of control. But that merely detracts from the core of the argument: that is, the judgement one must make regarding the (non-)existence of God as a manifestation of an "ultimate" truth.

For clarification, I refer you to a post I made earlier today: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/001570.html.

Life, our point therefor, and our will to survive boils down to this: humanity, and every other living thing, is merely one part of a chain; if we accept Darwin's theory of evolution, only those who are most able to procreate can continue their section of the chain. It is therefore logical to conclude that over time, we have become better and better at procreation as and that, as this is our sole cause, procreation is

As those whose genes predispose them to be better at procreation expand proportionately, humanity as a whole progresses in that respect. Survival, and indeed every unconscious action we take are related, at the most profound level, to our sole cause, procreation. As Freud states, every irrational decision we take has a root cause in our desire to procreate. I'm getting bored now, but feel free to respond with any constructive objections to the above.

[This message has been edited by serum (edited 08-15-2003).]

alright here is my two-bit.....

D4v3 or what ever you call yourself. You have extremely generalized religion. Although some of you points on polytheistic and monotheistic cultures are true, you apply your opinion on there religion as fact. For example, you mention heaven and hell as places where you go when you die...I hope you were not as ignorant to take the bible as complete fact and that actually most of it is sayings and figurative speech. Another example would be that you speak of Adam and Eve. Who could have been those creatures in africa. It does suggest in the bible that human's came from the ground, therefore nature.

I really don't know where you got your idea of God being non-existent or the non-existence of free will, but I can tell you that is was an interesting theory. Unfortunately DNA does not have anything to do with what you decide in life, it is not a calculator. If any, the only calculator would be the enviroment you lived in. That is the only way you could get a slight idea of what some being might attempt to do. The fact that people act differently and have different responses based on there enviroment indirectly suggests free will. Of course that will maybe a little biased because of the enviroment but still.

The bible is a figurative book, that's my opinion because I will never be sure, but think of God not as a person, as you suggest and imply, but God as Nature... Therefore God could have spoken to people, and God could have created the world and people. God gave people free will. God made people to have choices and to be able to react based on there enviroment, unlike bacteria and viruses, whose soul purpose is to survive. Therefore God could exist but not if you personify it or him or she.

religion is just arguing over who has the better imaginary friend

Speaking of Exodus, the Exodus story is almost certainly a fabrication or at least extremely exaggerated.

The bible says 600,000 men (hopefully accompanied by an equal number of women), children, and a "mixed" crowd supposedly left Egypt.

(Exo 12:37-38) The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about *six hundred thousand men* on foot, besides children. A mixed crowd also went...

This is somewhere around 1.5 million people (more than live in the city of Dallas).

It is very unlikely that the Egyptians kept 1.5 million people enslaved, controlled, and fed.

It is also very unlikely that hundreds of thousands of Israelites wandered around on foot in a desert region with little food or water for 40 years after they left.

There is no record anywhere of Egypt ever enslaving the Israelites. There is no archaeological evidence to support the Israelites being in Egypt.

It is well established that the Egyptians themselves built all their cities and monuments during the off season (farming).

There is no record in Egypt of 1.5 million people suddenly getting up and leaving (The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers).

There is no archaeological evidence of anything more than a few scattered encampments in the wilderness where supposedly at least hundreds of thousands wandered and died in the bible.

And how could you enslave 1.5 million people? I mean, people could just start walking right the fuck off and there's nothing you could do about it. They would be like that guy on Demolition Man:

"Didn't you hear me correctly, John Sparton? You are under arrest! Do you understand what this means? This concept negates the possibility of you leaving!"

Allthewhile he's just taking off.

If it is a fabrication, why make it up?

For that matter, how do you get 1.5 million+ people to go along with such a story?

What, the priests just suddenly say, "alright, fron now on, you guys were enslaved by the Egyptians. What's more, you escape by one guy parting a sea in half, and then afterwards you wandered the desert for 40 years. You're going to tell this to your children, who will tell this to their children, all with the goal of really tripping people out 5700-some odd years from now."

The story's so fucking insane it seems impossible for it to not be true.

You don't need 1.5 million people to start it initially, you just need someone to start spreading it and next thing you know it catches on and multiplies like wildfire, changing often through the telephone game effect.

Hell, it could have originally been a story about a hundred slaves.

"it's so insane that it must be true"

haha.



thanks by the way for the feedback, good to have some people not convinced that what their religion has told them is the god honest truth (pun intended).

and yes, of course what i said is generalized and simplified, it's 3 paragraphs attempting to cover a topic that could be debated for years. i was simply stating some insights that may give people a reason to stand back and reevaluate their beliefs for a second. As i said the main messages of religion are simple and good, be a good person; but why not be a good person living for this life and not accept everything the religious and political authorities tell you; it's usually far from the truth of any matter. i think leary said something to that extent once before...

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

You don't need 1.5 million people to start it initially, you just need someone to start spreading it and next thing you know it catches on and multiplies like wildfire, changing often through the telephone game effect.

Hell, it could have originally been a story about a hundred slaves.



That's rediculous, plausable as it may seem.

Let's assume that's it true, for the sake of my argument. Now, the Hebrews freed through the exodus aren't just going to let such a tale disappear or be altered. They're going to tell their children the story based on exactly how they experienced it, who will pass it down to their children, and so on. Obviously, there is to possibility of it being changed over the years, but here's where the torah comes in. That's a record, though you may consider it merely a storybook.

Consider the book of Numbers. I love and hate Numbers simultaneously. It's so bloody boring, but so fascinating at the same time. Numbers is just record upon record upon record of every fact imaginable relating to those Hebrew tribes. How many men, how many sheep each tribe had, so many statistics that it's gets pretty tedious.

Why would they bother to create all those stats? Why even create a book of them in the first place? It's not a big jewish consipiracy. It actually happened. Yes, there's little to no proof. No Egyptian proof of Hebrew slaves, for certain.

But consider this: if it's possible for an entire culture to fabricate a story and hold fast in belief of it for 5000+ years, how implausible is it to assume that the Egyptians could have destoyed records?

If Exodus is true, that'd be pretty damn shameful to them. I mean, a bunch of slaves wrestle free of Egyptian enslavement through divine intervention. Divine intervention from the Hebrew God. Where were their gods? Why didn't Ra come from out of the sky and show the Hebrews their place? It'd be a huge blow to their religion, and who controlled Egypt, besides the Pharaoh?

I truly believe that the Egyptians did enslave Hebrews, and they were set free by Moses. The parting of the Red Sea, I doubt. I'm not sure how that could happen. Perhaps science could prove or disprove it. But why do I believe this? Because the converse is just too unbelievable. Why would they make up a story like that?

why would anyone make up a story ever? control of a large populace maybe... oh wait, religion isn't a control method, all these stories you hear 5000 years later are word for word passed down through the generations... yeah right kikey

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

why would anyone make up a story ever? control of a large populace maybe... oh wait, religion isn't a control method, all these stories you hear 5000 years later are word for word passed down through the generations... yeah right kikey

The exodus is no basis for control.

As far as the old testament is concerned, if you pissed off God, he just straight up smote you. Just like that, BAM! Dead. Done.

They wouldn't need to make up a grandiose story of persecution and eventual freedom, God did the enforcing himself back in those days. Even if he didn't, they all believed that he did.

are you trying to prove my point for me? "they didn't need to make up a story, if you went against god he just smote you". Sounds like a story to me. So here's this large populace of Jews in Jerusalim, and they're told to be proud because they struggled for 40 years in the desert, and are now god's chosen people. Sounds like orwellian "War is Peace" uniting the people against a common enemy, the egyptians, and everyone not a "chosen". Then they're told if they step out of "god's" line (the rules put forth by the now ruling jews), they'd be smote. sounds a lot like a control regime to me.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

are you trying to prove my point for me?

Doubtful.

quote: Sounds like a story to me. So here's this large populace of Jews in Jerusalim, and they're told to be proud because they struggled for 40 years in the desert, and are now god's chosen people.

I don't think you understand. That would not and could not happen.

But let's assume that it did. Now, when the Hebrews took Israel, they massacred the Canaans. God told them to do it(though I doubt this is so, this is how the story goes). This is after generations of fighting throughout the Sinai peninsula. The story of the Exodus has already been well-entrenched. The Hebrews started spreading that tale right after the Exodus. It was already documented(albeit, in a religious book).

It would have been impossible, going by historical dates alone, for them to have concocted such a story after Israel was already formed.

quote:Sounds like orwellian "War is Peace" uniting the people against a common enemy, the egyptians, and everyone not a "chosen".

Did the Israelites retaliate against Egypt after they were freed? Did they all unite and destroy the Egyptian empire?

Doubtful. The Egyptians did that well enough on their own.

quote:Then they're told if they step out of "god's" line (the rules put forth by the now ruling jews), they'd be smote. sounds a lot like a control regime to me.

Yes, to an extent, it is a control regime. Of course, any rational person can see that God's not going to 'smote thee.' BTW, the 'now ruling jews' are really only exerting major control over other jews.

So yes, it's a method of control. Not a very strict one for gentiles(you need only follow the seven Noahide commandments, which are all quite good ideas in their own right), mind you. But the Exodus is not the basis for it.

i didn't say they retaliated, just united themselves against a common enemy. If you've read 1984 you'd know they were never really at war, they were just kept together by putting the focus on something else. Bush did a similar thing, War on Drugs, Terrorism, Iraq, etc. It's a method of control.

Religions aren't big on controlling people outside the religion, they have no foothold of power over people who don't believe what they're saying, so thanks for pointing out the obvious.

at least you're now agreeing that religions are a method of controlling large populaces.

also, keep in mind that "documented" history is never what happened, it's one persons distorted perspective occasionally doctored even further from reality.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

also, keep in mind that "documented" history is never what happened, it's one persons distorted perspective occasionally doctored even further from reality.

If documented history doesn't mean anything, then why make such a big deal about there being no ducmented history on an event?

that wasn't me with that arguement, i never have and never will trust "historical facts", the older they get the more distorted they become. try to keep who you're arguing with about what straight.

so do you think religion is a control method yet?

quote:for a second i didn't realize that whatever history you've been told is fact.

HISTORY:

"The mayans and the aztecs both had multiple gods, a god for pretty much anything you can think of. European and North American religions (catholocism, prodestant, moron, amish, menoknight, etc.) all pray to one single god, who is the supposed creator of everything."

"Ever notice how in primitive times where science was not able to explain anything, God was always the answer?"

quote:biblethumpers, unite and attempt to prove this wrong somehow, i'm interested to here how deep the brainwashing can run.

How can we prove or disprove something that is based and supported by a " distorted perspective" as you said?

bare bones framework of historical facts is generally correct, like the fact that the aztecs had multiple gods. it's when you try and bring in specific minute details which supposedly occured 5000 years ago where things get quite iffy. don't be such a stupid literalist, use your brain for a second fuckwad.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

so do you think religion is a control method yet?

If it is, it's a very shitty one and not intentionally designed as such.

i can agree to the latter statement, i would like to think religion was created out of benevolance before it corrupted.

quote: don't be such a stupid literalist, use your brain for a second fuckwad.



Don't get angry because I so easily disproved you. Either learn to write what you mean or even better yet, don't make arguments that acutally disprove themselves as you say them.

You wanted someone to disprove you; well you got what you asked for.

OGLLY posted by Dark Maggor: quote:"And how could you enslave 1.5 million people? I mean, people could just start walking right the fuck off and there's nothing you could do about it. They would be like that guy on Demolition Man:

"Didn't you hear me correctly, John Sparton? You are under arrest! Do you understand what this means? This concept negates the possibility of you leaving!"

Hey, can you imagine a people so dumb anyone can tell them: "you saw mount sinai burning under God's word" and they believe it? Probably they think "well who knows maybe I saw it but I was stoned so I can't remember, OK" http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Or stupid enough to follow a law that tells you the sixth year will provide for two, so you are not allowed to work the earth on the seventh year. On that one, you can't even be fooled even once: as soon you see the sixth year did not provide double, you turn away and get these swindlers burned.

Well? Whoever thinks the Jews are famous for their naive character? So how could they follow that law for generations until the exile?

*Dark Maggor yells: NO! I can't stand it!!!

This guy has The force with him! AAARGH!*

End of episode

[This message has been edited by UrbnTbone (edited 08-21-2003).]

dear sirs !!!!!!!!!!!! u very stupid people answer me this !!!!!!!!!!! would u rather moses never said the 10 commendants and we lived in a world with no basic laws ( are present law is close to moses's ) well would u??????????????

Would you rather there had been no Code of Hammurabi?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Don't get angry because I so easily disproved you. Either learn to write what you mean or even better yet, don't make arguments that acutally disprove themselves as you say them.

You wanted someone to disprove you; well you got what you asked for.

are you stupid? if you take the wrong literal meaning of something you just argue against something i've never said, creating confusion. fucktard

quote:if you take the wrong literal meaning of something you just argue against something i've never said, creating confusion

"i never have and never will trust "historical facts", the older they get the more distorted they become"

HISTORY:"Ever notice how the rules of every god of every culture (up until the seperation of church and state) came from the mouths of the ruling class? Ever notice how the rules of god always seemed to benefit the ruling class in one way or another"

You are "trusting" historical facts to make your point, but then state you do not trust them.

Again, please refrain from making arguments that automatically disprove themselves. You are making it too easy.

genious, pure genious... i couldn't have said it any better myself

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:



Why would a lifeform care about survival since it know it's gonna die itself? Where did the want of survival come from? If there is no conscious thought after death then logically a lifeform shouldn't care what happened afterwards. Why would we care what the state of affairs are to be when we aren't around to experience them? Could it be that at a deep level lifeforms know that they are a part of a universe that 'goes on'?

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 08-13-2003).]



If there was nothing after death, wouldn't you want to hold onto life as long as possible? The want of survival comes along with the basic genetic code of all animals. All animals are more or less "programmed" to reproduce and keep their species alive and thriving. The longer you live, the more offspring you can produce, and the more you can do for your species. I'm sure your parents have said to you at some point "I only want the best for you" (or if not something similar), and the same is true for all other animals (for we as humans are but animals too). That natural instinct to protect your offspring spurns from the desire to protect your species. And yes, the universe does 'go on', just not with you or me or any other lifeform that has a life expectancy. Thank you and good day.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

"i never have and never will trust "historical facts", the older they get the more distorted they become"

HISTORY:"Ever notice how the rules of every god of every culture (up until the seperation of church and state) came from the mouths of the ruling class? Ever notice how the rules of god always seemed to benefit the ruling class in one way or another"

You are "trusting" historical facts to make your point, but then state you do not trust them.

Again, please refrain from making arguments that automatically disprove themselves. You are making it too easy.

well sir, if you weren't a fool you'd realize that no one can be truly nihilistic, because if i believed that absolutely nothing was true i couldn't have made any original point about religion, which you can't talk about except through it's history. You have to have opinions about what you believe, but that doens't mean you think thats what happened exactly in history.

Just wanted to add a thing or two to the Exodus-as-history-or-myth discussion. The general consensus of most modern scholars is that the astonishing and impressive Exodus narrative coalesced amid a climate of increasing conflict with Egypt in the 7th century BCE. There are striking similarities between the mythic confrontation between Moses and pharaoh and the historically documented 7th century confrontation between King Josiah and Pharaoh Necho. Those trying to "prove" YHWH's existence by finding archaeological evidence of the historicity of Exodus are missing the point (and have not been successful). Also misdirected are continuous efforts to assert that the Exodus story is a work of fiction based on no historical facts. To quote the noted archaeologist and historian Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman, "The saga of Israel's Exodus from Egypt is neither historical truth nor literary fiction ... To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story's deepest meaning. Passover proves to be not a single event but a continuing experience of national resistance against the powers that be."

To the guy who started this thread: the history (yes, history) of ancient Judaism is not where you should be looking for examples to prove your Liberation Theology point about the ways in which religion can be/has been used as a form of control and a tool to enforce the subjugation of a poor majority. Look to modern Latin/South American Christianity for that. Or, better yet, don't spoil a point that would have been valid by attempting to universalize it. As a form of disclaimer to any I have offended, I am neither a Jew or a Christian. I do have a degree in history and religion, and personally believe what Ghandi said. That, on the most basic of levels, "All Religions Are True". I take this to mean, of course, not that the dogma of every religion is ethical, not that the myths of all religions are historical fact, simply that humanity's experience of the numinous (from which all religions arise as an attempt at explanation) is real.

quote:well sir, if you weren't a fool you'd realize that no one can be truly nihilistic, because if i believed that absolutely nothing was true i couldn't have made any original point about religion, which you can't talk about except through it's history. You have to have opinions about what you believe, but that doens't mean you think thats what happened exactly in history.

Thanks for that useless tidbit of information.

The point still stands, you proved yourself wrong.

quote:Originally posted by d4v3:

European and North American religions (catholocism, prodestant, moron, amish, menoknight, etc.) all pray to one single god, who is the supposed creator of everything.

[This message has been edited by d4v3 (edited 08-12-2003).]

Don't go bashing the morons now.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thanks for that useless tidbit of information.

The point still stands, you proved yourself wrong.



if, in your mind one slight contradiction bred from miscommunication means that you've won an arguement and the other person is totally wrong, you play by some bizarre rules

quote:if, in your mind one slight contradiction bred from miscommunication means that you've won an arguement and the other person is totally wrong, you play by some bizarre rules

I wouldn't call a statement that contradicts your whole argument a slight contradiction.

You chose to "disprove" Kikey with your statement, but in doing so, disproved yourself. You had a choice, you chose Kikey.

P.S. You should give it a rest. You're only making yourself look worse.

no, your stupidity clouds your perception. As i already said to totally disbelieve all fact would be ridiculous nihilism and would thus prevent me from posting in the first place. I disbelieve specific "facts" stated from history, but trust general concensus. It's like people who read all the newspapers to find out what's really going on. There is a general structure of truth, finished with bullshit details here and there. Like the fact that the aztecs prayed to multiple gods, general fact. To claim exactly which gods they prayed to regarding what would be bullshit, like claiming to know exact details of history 5000 years ago based on what some book said. barebones framework is usually based on some truth, and what you believe and disbelieve is our own opinion. If you think that because i disbelieve specific facts from religious writings, i therefore cannot use any history to back my points, then you're a complete idiot.

quote:no, your stupidity clouds your perception. As i already said to totally disbelieve all fact would be ridiculous nihilism

Again, either learn to write what you mean, or don't make ilogical arguments that disprove themselves.

quote:would thus prevent me from posting in the first place.

It would not "prevent" you; it would make your post look very stupid and amusing. Guess what? You succeded.

quote: If you think that because i disbelieve specific facts from religious writings, i therefore cannot use any history to back my points, then you're a complete idiot.

Add "learn to read" to the list. You said you didn't believe in ANY historical facts. That includes religious and scientific ones. Again, either learn to write (and read in this case) or don't make ilogical arguments that disprove themselves as you say them.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-29-2003).]

wow-eee, you continue to get caught up on the literal semantics of utter nonsense (1 word in 1 sentence of thousands). You've taken the wrong literal meaning of a phrase, bent of course towards your own opinion, and you continue to restate it. yes, if i truly disbelieved all facts, then i couldn't ever say anything. But considering that i've already clarified the oversimplification of my statement, you just continue to flap your mouth about something idiotic.

How about instead of attempting to disprove my arguement (which, let me point out in black and white that you HAVE NOT. you HAVE simply found one, a singlular, uno, contradiction, which i clarified through further explanation), why don't you try stating your own opinions? Or are you fearful that actually stating what you believe will expose you for the moron you are, because thus far here's all your argument has been, even after i clarified.

"oh my god, he's contradicted himself by saying he doesn't believe any historical facts rather than to say he doesn't believe any specific historical facts as only the generalized framing of history is correct and the filler is bullshit, everything he's said must be wrong"

See what happens when you can't use violence.

quote:if i truly disbelieved all facts, then i couldn't ever say anything.

Did you even try to read my post?

quote: How about instead of attempting to disprove my arguement (which, let me point out in black and white that you HAVE NOT. you HAVE simply found one,

A contradiction that makes you come out as a total ignorant fool. And it's "una" not "uno" in this case http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote: because thus far here's all your argument has been, even after i clarified:

I said and I quote:

"How can we prove or disprove something that is based and supported by a " distorted perspective" as you said?"

The rest of my posts have been replies to your stupidity like:

quote:if you take the wrong literal meaning of something you just argue against something i've never said, creating confusion. fucktard

Which is wrong. I did in fact take the correct literal meaning of what you said.

quote:if you weren't a fool you'd realize that no one can be truly nihilistic, because if i believed that absolutely nothing was true i couldn't have made any original point about religion,

Which again is wrong. You could in fact state what you said. It would make you look like a stupid moron (which it did), but you could still do it.

quote:if, in your mind one slight contradiction bred from miscommunication means that you've won an arguement and the other person is totally wrong, you play by some bizarre rules

Again wrong. I never said that I won and I would't call it a "slight" contradiction.

Ahh so easy...

it is the wrong literal meaning because it's not what i meant. Communication is about meaning, words have different meanings, if you take the literal meaning that i'm not using, it's the wrong literal meaning.

Now all you do is continue to quote old posts. I've already explained multiple times now that what the generalization of "i don't believe any historical facts" means in reality that i don't trust specifics from anything. Are you too stupid to pick up on this? any generalization can be proved wrong, it's called something that's generally true, which would of course have inconsistancies when it comes to specifics.

I'm glad you think it's too easy to requote what you've already quoted and re-say what you've already said. Bravo for pointing out a contradiction in my text which i clarified. here's your medal for not even attempting to stay on topic. dumbass. arguements where you simply attack what the other person says stem from complete lack of anything substantial to say for yourself, which is clearly the case.

you make this too easy moron.

quote: it is the wrong literal meaning because it's not what i meant

You have no idea what literal means, right?

"Literal: Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation."

It's tottaly irelevant, what you meant. It's what you said.

"i never have and never will trust "historical facts", the older they get the more distorted they become"

quote: Bravo for pointing out a contradiction in my text which i clarified.

Aww thanks!

quote:where you simply attack what the other person says stem from complete lack of anything substantial to say for yourself, which is clearly the case.

Exactly! You Replying to Kikey: "i keep forgetting about how what you've been told about the past is all true. sorry about that, for a second i didn't realize that whatever history you've been told is fact. dumbasses"

How amusing. All the "historical facts" you used to try and support your argument are can be trusted but Kikey's can't? Great way of arguing.

P.S. Why not reply to Aphelion Corona?

you must be a daft daft kid. Words have literal meanings, but multiple literal meanings. The word orange for example, a color and a fruit. If i mean to say you're a fruit, and you interpret it as the color, you've taken the wrong literal meaning. bravo fruit.

Once again, this will be the last time i clarify this, just incase you were too dense to get it before. Historical facts contradict eachother in many places, but only when talking details. The exact historical details, which kikey tried to quote, most likely contradict the exact details found in another place. This is because the filler of "history" is made up, twisted, distorted, and becomes worse the older the "fact" gets. When you have lots of recorded facts, the things that don't contradict eachother are generally true. Like the fact that the aztecs worship multiple gods. Now, which gods and for what will be contradictory in different places, but the fact that they worship multiple gods is true, the filler is just made up. Kind of like specific details in religous writings, made up. The general structure of history is for the most part correct, but those are only the general facts. The romans had an empire, the chinese had an empire, there was an industrial revolution, shit like that, true. Specific details regarding things like these, not so true.

how hard is this to grasp, or are you going to go quote soemthing i said a while ago and reply to it for the 3rd time? shit you must be stupid.

quote: you must be a daft daft kid. Words have literal meanings, but multiple literal meanings. The word orange for example, a color and a fruit. If i mean to say you're a fruit, and you interpret it as the color, you've taken the wrong literal meaning. bravo fruit.

Hurray! Another useless bit of information. The thing is I never said otherwise.

You see the key words here are: "Historical" and "Facts".

Aztecs worshiping gods is a "historical fact". If you meant something else, then that's your problem. Again, learn how to write.

quote:Once again, this will be the last time i clarify this, just incase you were too dense to get it before.

Again, I never said otherwise. From the beginning I've said that you either disproved yourself or that you didn't know how to write what you meant. You’re a moron either way. You on the other hand have taken it upon yourself to post useless information, like this last one, not relevant to the argument.

P.S. No reply to Aphelion Corona? No reply to Kikey? I take it you lost then.

You two are stirring up the best pot of idiot soup I ever tasted.

By your own admission, using the concept that genetics and experience compile everything that we are, your logic is faulty. This is true because, if your statements are true, then your logic is solely based on your personnel genetics and experience, and cannot be relevent to any one else, on any subject. The use of the premise of logic, in its self atones to a "force" that created "logic", since the second law of thermaldynamics clearly states that logic cannot form from illogic( this a broad paraphrase).

This is besides the fact that another hole in "your God logic" exist. If every advanced civilization has a religious figurehead, then logicly speaking this is a prerequist for an advanced civilization to have one, since no advanced civilization can be documented with out a figurehead.

Now I ralize that throughout history, people have used various tools to suppress other people, religion, military power, finacial power, sex, drugs... you name it, but to says religion is false because it has been used as a tool of suppression leads to "your Gods logic" to logically conclude that all the other suppression tools are also false. Now I have never had military power, or finicial power, but I have sex and I know its real,almost religious.

Through history, man has had the answers to everything and through each age he has known the "truth" , and every time man has been proven in error, if this were not a true statement, then "logically" there would be no scientific advancement, since we have the answers and all research should stop. Logically, since this is not true, and we have always been wrong, what be believe now, scientifically is also wrong, logically applied.

I could spend hours one the illogic of your "god logic" but let me end this by saying, logically it is smarter to belive in a God, for a simple reason....if you belive in God and he does not exist, then no big lose, if you dont believe in God and he does exist, your screwed.

quote:Originally posted by jester461:

if you belive in God and he does not exist, then no big lose, if you dont believe in God and he does exist, your screwed.

It was a nice post until this point. Who ever said that god will punish you for not believing in him? God doesn't have foolish qualities suich as these.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

It was a nice post until this point. Who ever said that god will punish you for not believing in him? God doesn't have foolish qualities suich as these.

Sorry, a bit of personnel bias mixed in with logic, if I was a supreme diety and I put so much thought and care into designed a place like this earth, and then some ungrateful, self important was walking around it, enjoying it and was trying to, not only convince every one it was a accident, but also convincing others that I didn't exist, I would be major pissed when they finally came before me, but then again, that's why I am not God.

that's the key point there though,

i don't see god going out of his to prove himself.

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

that's the key point there though,

i don't see god going out of his to prove himself.

I thik proof will always be subjective to the medium that accepts the proof.I am am Electronic Engineer, with a BSEE, so I work in logic every day, and I have been through the normal college system that pushes evolution and "no God" down your gullet. I also hold a degree in Theology so i have had God pushed down the same hole,( dont ask about it, I had a strange childhood and the two college degrees are actually a logical combination if you knew me), but the proof is there if you look for it, but it will not be what you look for.

Ask yourself a very good question, why did Darwin interpret the things he saw the why he did?

All proof depends on what you are looking for. Think about it.

I ralize this might upset both sides of the agruements here at first, but really think about that.

god is a state of mind, my furry little friends. jesus and muhhamud were probably total trippers with a whole lot of vunerable people surrounding them.

quote:Originally posted by asherules:

god is a state of mind, my furry little friends. jesus and muhhamud were probably total trippers with a whole lot of vunerable people surrounding them.

but where and how did the state of mind come into being, and dont equate jesus and "muhhamud" as the same thing, jesus had a following of choice, the other, mohammed, had a following of cutthroats, he murderd his own brother so he could marry his wife, and they invaded cities that didn't want him, and he butchered the people that wouldn't follow him. I think, again if you actually read about things before you post, you might have a informed comment. And before any one else starts, sure a lot of people died in the name of Christ, but he never killed anyone, Mohhamed butchered thousands and had even more killed by his order.

^ That's cool to here. I haven't learned much about Muhammed but I suspected that he wasn't an enlightened being.

yeah, I never read the koran, but I suspected that the muhammed had some issues...It really reflects in his followers.