Ok, all this is assuming atheists are people of science.

Bible(s)= Many books written by random people, just thoughts jotted down, opinions, interpretations.

No real proof of their beliefs= Keep in mind that all sciences theories get blown out of the water in the future by other scientists. I mean, we have maths...but what if the scientist made a major mistake in their calculations? I highly doubt anyone else is going to go through again and check their calculations to make sure they are 100% correct. And even if they did, who says they didn't make a mistake?

Scientists have been sloppy before just to get the job done (can't remember who it was exactly, but it happened...quite a few times) and their work, which was believed by many people for a while, was proven wrong later on.

Requirement of "faith"= Yes, science requires faith...you have to have faith that the scientist who came up with the theory is right, got their calculations 100% correct and is interpreting the maths correctly as well.

Following of crazy people willing to take out the opposition= Seriously, how many "atheists", the people who are supposedly the intelligent ones, go around saying "All religious people should be shot, they are scum of the earth" (sound familiar?)


There you go, similar to religion, yes? I don't believe science is right but I still believe science is the way to go, I'm just sick of you "atheists" talking of modern science as if it has ALL the answers to EVERYTHING.

We still have a LONG way to go before we have the absolute answers to everything, in the future we might be able to disprove the existence of a higher being, shit, we might even be able to PROVE it's existence, but until then beliefs can only be debated, not told as truth. I dislike most atheists and most theists alike, you're both very arrogant.

I'm not calling science a religion, I'm calling atheism a religion based on the belief that science (at the moment) is all knowing and that just because you believe that science is right it somehow makes your opinions and beliefs better and more right *cough* the inquistion? *cough*

The bottom line is, atheists are becoming as bad as the people they fight.

Exactly. I don't know of a single atheist that says Science is "All knowing". Maybe that Science as a methodology has the potential to explain all natural phenomenons if given enough time and research, but that's something very different.

Hare! :mad:

I wouldn't call it a religion, but I do think you pointed out several cult-like aspects of a lot of atheists. I do not think it has anywhere as high a potential for negative impact on an individuals life as various religions or actual cults do, but I do think it creates some of the same negative social tendencies as religious groups do ("I am right, you are wrong"), just coming from an opposing view-point.

I think you are correct when you say some atheists are becoming just as bad as the people who support the beliefs which they are opposed to, and that its creating a sort of subculture, a kind of "Cult of Atheism" if you will, set apart by their collective lack of belief in any concept of God, their unrealized faith in science, and an unending hatred of religion (Christianity in particular, it seems, probably because most of the people I would categorize in this 'group' were raised in the West). I am not indicating all atheists are like the above group, and I don't think you are implying that either, but I do think it is obvious to anyone who lives in the West and participates in religious discussions that many young atheists fall under that category.

And about science, it does not need to have anything to do with atheism, although I doubt many atheists who would be described using the above characteristics would realize that. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God ... not believing in gravity, which is unscientific, would do nothing to change that. And theism does not need to reject science either, for any reason. But I would not hold my breath waiting for the atheists who are accurately described in the above paragraph to realize this.

This has been discussed before in other threads. Atheisim obviously is not a religion per se, but it is a religious viewpoint.

And the religion/science dichotomy is bogus. Both of them seek to explain the universe, only using different language. The seeming conflict arises when people erroneously take the Bible literally. It is mostly myth and metaphor, and Jesus himself often used parables to get his point across.

Atheism isn't a religion or a mindset similar to one. Its the lack of belief in a god or spirituality, and that could be extended to anything non-scientific.

And yes, OP, EVERY scientific study is extensively peer-reviewed before and after publishing, and while science doesn't have all of the answers, religion has none.

Already been said, but worth reiterating:

Atheism isn't a religion. It's a dissenting religious viewpoint.

Not approving of religion does not translate into HATING religion.

A cult could be loosely defined as group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. - although we don't call Anti-Smoking supporters a "cult" or Mothers Against Drunk Driving a "cult"... or the Drug-Free Supporters a "cult".

A cult gathering is typically known for having rites, ceremonies and a one-track mindset among all it's adherents. Atheists who group together to discuss anti-religious imperatives have no rites, no ceremonies, and their mindsets are usually very diverse.

I don't think a gaggle of angst-ridden, hate-spewing teenage atheists on a fringe website such as this can be a good indicator of the atheist mindset, as a collective whole. Obbe is right, most Western teenagers who latch onto atheism display a hateful attitude that I will venture to guess has to do with immaturity, rebellion and going against the grain of their parent's religion. They're the equivalent of the embarrassment that moderate Christians have to deal with in the literalist evangelicals who stand on the corner holding GOD HATES FAGS signs.

We're not proud of them, but hey - they're entitled to an opinion, and we can only hope that they mature someday to be able to articulate their ideals in a less abrasive fashion.

Atheism means without theism. It is not a religion. Is is choosing not to participate in theism. Not all atheists are atheists b/c they venerate science.

Science is not proven, types the person on his computer sending his ideas at the speed of light into a scientifically founded network, from the comfort of his artificially cooled and heated home.

Are you seriously comparing science to religion in that respect? First attributing atheists with loving science and then dismissing science as unproven?

Riddle me this.........what can religion do for you that science cannot? You say you are sick of atheist kidiots who hail science as this magical cure all. What does religion do that science cannot?

Riddle me this.........what can religion do for you that science cannot? You say you are sick of atheist kidiots who hail science as this magical cure all. What does religion do that science cannot?

I don't think that his point was to denounce science is the name of any religions, BrokeProphet. I think that he was just displaying his disapproval of the particularly angry group of atheists described by AngryFemme and myself. In fact, he compared the characteristics of these people which he disapproves of, to the characteristics of the religious while making his point, indicating to me a resentment towards religions as well. And he says this in his last sentence.

I don't think that his point was to denounce science is the name of any religions, BrokeProphet. I think that he was just displaying his disapproval of the particularly angry group of atheists described by AngryFemme and myself. In fact, he compared the characteristics of these people which he disapproves of, to the characteristics of the religious while making his point, indicating to me a resentment towards religions as well. And he says this in his last sentence.

His point seems to be to compare science with religion. The two cannot be compared. One is fiction and one is non-fiction. I realize his disapproval of angsty science toting atheists and did not address that. What I addressed was his FLAWED comparision of religion and science.

His point seems to be to compare science with religion.

Especially here:

Requirement of "faith"= Yes, science requires faith...you have to have faith that the scientist who came up with the theory is right, got their calculations 100% correct and is interpreting the maths correctly as well.

And here:



There you go, similar to religion, yes?

And then he goes on confuse things with:
"Btw, I don't believe in science...I take it with a grain of salt as I do every other "religion". But I still believe science is the way to go"

A train wreck.

Yeah, I just re-read my first post and there are things that came out wrong, such as what the above poster pointed out...what I meant was I don't "believe in" science like militant atheists do (which is now becoming remarkably similar to how christians believe in christ/god/whatever).

My whole point is trying to say that atheists supporting science are becoming like christians supporting god, they are acting like science is all knowing and is correct every single time. Yes, I know that they SAY they acknowledge that science doesn't have all the answers yet but they ACT like it does.

Atheism/Atheists are beginning to follow the mindset of religious people i.e. I'm right, you're wrong. You're an idiot and should be killed for thinking otherwise.

Oh, and BrokeProphet. Yes, there's a lot of science we do know to be true e.g. classical physics, beyond reasonable doubt (there may be another explanation, one which is more right) but there is A FUCK LOAD out there that we don't know yet, and actually the discovery or non-discovery of the God particle, which will hopefully be found or not found this year (very exciting!!!), will prove whether or not classical physics is right, if the God Particle isn't found, we may have to re-think EVERYTHING we know about this world!

As I've said before, I'm just getting sick of what seems to be the majority of atheists acting like science AT THE MOMENT has the answers to everything, while not nearly knowing enough about science themselves.

To open the eye of faith is to shut the eye of reason - Thomas Jefferson.

If atheism is a religion, then NOT playing tennis is a sport.

How the FUCK is a disbelief in something considered a belief by anyone on any level?

I'm not even an athiest, but this always pisses me off. Nobody just "believes" in science, it's just REAL. We can take what scientists have figured out and apply it to every day life situations to do things that were previously thought impossible or improbable.

The last time I saw a Christian read the bible and do something that was previously thought impossible that's described in their book...Oh wait, I've never seen that.

Oh my god! How many times do I have to explain this!?

I'm not saying Atheism is a religion...I'm saying it's becoming similar to religion as in more and more atheists are becoming arrogant bastards that ACT like MODERN science has ALL the answers!! And then go around saying anyone else who believes otherwise should be killed!

FUCK! Is it really that hard for you people to understand what I'm saying? I'm not bashing science, I'm bashing people who worship science like xians worship god. Yes, science is ever changing and will EVENTUALLY have all the answers but it doesn't AT THE MOMENT!

^ Says the guy that is assuming atheists say (or act like) Science has all the answers when nobody in this thread, or anybody else I know, has ever made that claim (or acted that way).

Next time, don't make ridiculous assumptions you can't back up and maybe the thread will turn out better than this disaster.

What are you talking about? Most of them act that way. Yes, they say otherwise but they do act like that. I'll find quotes when I could be bothered...but at the moment I have to go to work and I probably won't be on here for a few days seeing as I have uni stuff to do and more work.

What are you, talking about? I'm an atheist and I don't know of any atheist that belives or acts like Science knows absolutely everything.

Some atheist believe that the scientific method is a valid method for gaining knowledge and that so called divine revelation is not. Some are cynics that doubt that knowledge is even possible.

ATHEISM IS ONLY A BELIEF

in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

LoL I had actually written an article about where our values come from and I cover to sides. The Religious and Secular aspects of the world. Heres the Link, Dont worry all you materialist "fundagelicals" I pick on religion too... Your all probably going to flame me but here it is

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/544833/speaking_my_mind_part_3_the_individual.html

LoL I had actually written an article about where our values come from and I cover to sides. The Religious and Secular aspects of the world. Heres the Link, Dont worry all you materialist "fundagelicals" I pick on religion too... Your all probably going to flame me but here it is

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/544833/speaking_my_mind_part_3_the_individual.html

I haven't read that at the time of writing this, but there is no "atheist" value system. There is the lack of belief in god. Atheism is decentralized, its a basic abstract thought that has millions of different implementations. Theists commonly try to claim otherwise so they can say "atheists support abortion!" or "atheists are satans!" or "the atheist leader said the pope was a bad man!", but they're only using those terms to try to frame all of us in the same light.

Atheism, in another opposite to theism, is varied and different, not conformist and universally alike.

First, thank you for not flaming me... lol

Second, in critical thinking we learn that our beliefs effect our thoughts which effect the actions we do. So what say an atheist might do in relationship to there being no God is different to what a religious fundamentalist would do in the belief there is a God and its different for say a Gnostic who thinks God isn't here to be worshiped and feared due to some Judgment created by men who seek to control and manipulate society... So your right...

In my honest opinion, God is with everyone whether we believe or not, watching over you maturing you through life. If you look outside of yourself thinking the material realm is all there is than there is a reason for it, IMO.

"Atheism, a religion?"

Yes. It is the holding of one's self as the ultimate authority in life. In psychology, it is called narcissism.

Edit: Further, it is this pride in one's self that leads to almost every psychological disorder known: from drug abuse, to eating disorders, to gambling addictions, to nymphomania, to phobias, to loss of impulse control, borderline personalities, and so on.

Ahh, more unsubstantiated bullshit courtesy of Hexadecimal!

"Atheism, a religion?"

Yes. It is the holding of one's self as the ultimate authority in life. In psychology, it is called narcissism.

Edit: Further, it is this pride in one's self that leads to almost every psychological disorder known: from drug abuse, to eating disorders, to gambling addictions, to nymphomania, to phobias, to loss of impulse control, borderline personalities, and so on.

Sorry Hex, but at least part of that is a steaming pile of ... something.

The person is the ultimate authority over their own life, as they are the ones who make the conscious decision to believe in God, or not believe in God. To follow God's plan, or not follow God's plan. If being the conscious, free-will decision-maker makes one a narcissist, and you believe God is the creator who gave us that "option" ... then you're going to have to fault your Creator for giving us that capacity to begin with.

Of course from your perspective, to make the choice to NOT believe in God is narcissistic. But still - there is a decision-making process going on that your God doesn't control. That little free will clause, remember? That's the ultimate authority - our will. OUR will. Not God's will.

Actually, the fact is that no one really knows what is better for oneself than oneself--assuming one has a fully-functioning brain, which rules out teenagers. (No slam, just fact--the neo-cortex does not fully develop until sometime in the twenties.) No one knows better thn I what my soul's agenda is, or how best I should manifest it.

Jesus is said to have pointed out that the kingdom of God is within us--that is, the source of good things lies within. He also said "all threse things I have done, ye shall do also--all these and more." Which means that anyone has the potential for performing miracles. Then there is the "created in the image and likeness of God" thing. Anything God has done, we can do, because the spirit of God is within us.

This is neither pride nor narcissism, because another key issue here is the idea that we are All One, that no one is better or worse than anyone else.

We are all doing the best we can given our level of development, and we are all on the road to sainthood.

"Atheism, a religion?"

Yes. It is the holding of one's self as the ultimate authority in life. In psychology, it is called narcissism.

Edit: Further, it is this pride in one's self that leads to almost every psychological disorder known: from drug abuse, to eating disorders, to gambling addictions, to nymphomania, to phobias, to loss of impulse control, borderline personalities, and so on.

Ultimate authority is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. If something is not true, there is no reason to go along with it.

Narcissism goes far deeper than pride. It is a defensive mechanism that viciously attacks any dissent, and especially any acquisition of hypocrisy. It attempts to undercut opposition, not by any basis in truth, but every dirty psychological trick in the book.

Ultimate authority is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. If something is not true, there is no reason to go along with it.

Narcissism goes far deeper than pride. It is a defensive mechanism that viciously attacks any dissent, and especially any acquisition of hypocrisy. It attempts to undercut opposition, not by any basis in truth, but every dirty psychological trick in the book.

That sounds kinda like religion.

That sounds kinda like religion.

In the loose since perhaps, but definitively not a theology, it's not a belief in a supernatural power.

Actually, the fact is that no one really knows what is better for oneself than oneself--assuming one has a fully-functioning brain, which rules out teenagers. (No slam, just fact--the neo-cortex does not fully develop until sometime in the twenties.)

Right on.

Although I must say, there's been plenty of exceptions to that rule. I've met some teenagers/20-somethings who really have their shit together, and on the flip side - I've met some fully matured adults who couldn't pour piss out of a boot.

Jesus is said to have pointed out that the kingdom of God is within us--that is, the source of good things lies within. He also said "all threse things I have done, ye shall do also--all these and more." Which means that anyone has the potential for performing miracles. Then there is the "created in the image and likeness of God" thing. Anything God has done, we can do, because the spirit of God is within us.

According to Gnostic view. When Jesus says the Kingdom of Heaven is within, he means that The kingdom of Heaven is a mind set. Its having the eyes to see and ears to hear heaven all around you. In the Gnostic myth God has sparks of light in everything, even the most (subjectively speaking) disgusting things out their. When you "have the ears to hear and eyes to see" You precieve Heaven, and to me heaven is True Happiness and True Peace, something I have always believed heaven to be at its core.

Ultimate authority is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. If something is not true, there is no reason to go along with it.

Narcissism goes far deeper than pride. It is a defensive mechanism that viciously attacks any dissent, and especially any acquisition of hypocrisy. It attempts to undercut opposition, not by any basis in truth, but every dirty psychological trick in the book.

Precisely what I was going at. I was using Pride as in 'vanity', per the seven deadlies.

That little free will clause, remember?

Making one change in circumstance out of the infinite changes being controlled by God does not constitute as authority; it is His Grace being compassionate enough to let you choose whether to flow with His decisions or fight Him.

Let's say a deer runs across the street at the precise time a semi is going down the highway, it swerves a bit to dodge the deer, loosing a piece of timber from its bed. This timber rolls towards another car, it swerves into oncoming traffic and smashes into your aunt's car, killing her. Please tell me how your aunt had 'ultimate authority' here? All she decided was to go for a drive down the highway. She had no authority over the deer, over the driver of the semi, over the loosing of the timber, over the swerving driver, or over the impact that took her life. She was entirely at the mercy of God's authority...and apparently, it was her appointed time.

Authority, as far as mankind possessing it, is nothing but delusion. We control almost nothing in our own lives. You are correct, however, that we can choose to believe ourselves to be the authority in our lives, or we can choose to have Faith in the true Authority to handle Circumstances in our lives until the appointed time of death. That is the extent of our free will: We have choice in perspective, nothing more. The results of our choice in perspective is entirely determined by God's Will. Your core belief will be the only determining factor in your life.

I highly doubt anyone else is going to go through again and check their calculations to make sure they are 100% correct. And even if they did, who says they didn't make a mistake?


That is where you are wrong. When a scientist releases his hypothesis into the scientific community, many scientists look into the new idea. It is not like Newton introduced physics and people said "Ok, looks good." They said "Really? Doubt it." And then they tested it.

That little free will clause, remember?

Making one change in circumstance out of the infinite changes being controlled by God does not constitute as authority; it is His Grace being compassionate enough to let you choose whether to flow with His decisions or fight Him.

Let's say a deer runs across the street at the precise time a semi is going down the highway, it swerves a bit to dodge the deer, loosing a piece of timber from its bed. This timber rolls towards another car, it swerves into oncoming traffic and smashes into your aunt's car, killing her. Please tell me how your aunt had 'ultimate authority' here? All she decided was to go for a drive down the highway. She had no authority over the deer, over the driver of the semi, over the loosing of the timber, over the swerving driver, or over the impact that took her life. She was entirely at the mercy of God's authority...and apparently, it was her appointed time.

Authority, as far as mankind possessing it, is nothing but delusion. We control almost nothing in our own lives. You are correct, however, that we can choose to believe ourselves to be the authority in our lives, or we can choose to have Faith in the true Authority to handle Circumstances in our lives until the appointed time of death. That is the extent of our free will: We have choice in perspective, nothing more. The results of our choice in perspective is entirely determined by God's Will. Your core belief will be the only determining factor in your life.

Hard determinism is what makes society weak. You can't just blame a coincidental situation (bad, or good) on some invisible force. It just makes people lazy, because there's effectively no responsibility to be taken for anything (because everything is predetermined).

Take this scenario - a lazy, homeless bastard that had potential to do something with his life. He'd be more susceptible to disease, and therefore would have an extremely high chance of dying earlier than he would have had he not thrown away his potential. He gets pneumonia, and dies in the street. Was that his time? No. He probably could have avoided that by not being fucking lazy.

Nobody has a time, they can consciously make decisions for themselves. Your scenario was an accident, and nothing more. The driver in the truck should have realized that he has a bunch of fucking heavy lumber in the back, and just hit the deer. The deer would have died, and the truck would have a dent, but everyone would essentially be alot better off than if he swerved around the deer and possibly had lumber fly out the back.

That is where you are wrong. When a scientist releases his hypothesis into the scientific community, many scientists look into the new idea. It is not like Newton introduced physics and people said "Ok, looks good." They said "Really? Doubt it." And then they tested it.

:O

What??!?!?! Testing theories instead of just blindly accepting them?

Crazy, I know.

Well, atheism is by default a lack of belief in God, or gods, for many, or no reasons. It's nothing to do with science, and atheists have nothing in common as a whole aside from lack of belief in God(s). That's it. Simple as....

The whole "science" bit of your argument makes no sense, as for the "narcissism" stuff.... ho ho ho, that's even more flawed...

"Was that his time?"

Well, he died then, so yes.
What gets me, is that you think humans have any say in their death. Even if you shoot yourself in the face with a shotgun, you CAN survive. It's not very often one survives such a brutal suicide attempt, but humans have only the power of enacting one action at a time. The man can pull the trigger, but he cannot control the shell's explosion into his head; whether or not it causes death or disfigurement...or even the gun failing to fire.

Just because a specific action has a typical result does not make that the only result. Two cars of the same make and model can roll over at the same speed, both drivers wearing belts; the driver in one may die instantly, the other may survive unscathed or barely injured. These things are all the result of circumstance beyond the control of man. Much of these circumstances revolve around foundational laws of material existence...known as physics, by the way. Now I present this: Authority is the power to control: even under the notion of a godless existence, natural law is the determination of life, death, wealth, poverty, decay, reaction, and so on. Humans have no true authority.

Even a man who decides to murder another man could not do so without the permission of nature by the existence of the materials necessary to create the strength of a hand, or the creation of a weapon. Further, the decision could not be made without the existence of the other man in the first place; nor could it exist without the other man having entered one's life; nor could it exist without the genetic predetermination of the brain's development; nor could it exist without the experience containing the knowledge of death's existence.

To believe an individual has authority in any sense of the word is absurd. To believe an individual is the ULTIMATE authority, in their own life or any other life, is narcissism. It is THE defining trait of narcissism.

That is where you are wrong. When a scientist releases his hypothesis into the scientific community, many scientists look into the new idea. It is not like Newton introduced physics and people said "Ok, looks good." They said "Really? Doubt it." And then they tested it.

Sorry, I meant after the initial testing and it's accepted as a theory. In physics at school there were holes pointed out in various theories that even the head physics teacher couldn't answer and said he doubted even top physicists had answers for, only speculation. But it's unbelievable that many of you have not encountered atheists that act as though science is all knowing, there are even some on this board.


Anyway, to whoever said this thread is a trainwreck...doesn't look so much like a train wreck now

To believe an individual has authority in any sense of the word is absurd. To believe an individual is the ULTIMATE authority, in their own life or any other life, is narcissism. It is THE defining trait of narcissism.

So then what/who makes the ultimate decision? What/Who decides if I believe in a god or not? Either it's me, in which case AngryFemme made her point, or it's not, which case it's rather disgusting to punish me as your god would. Which is it?

The results of our choice in perspective is entirely determined by God's Will. Your core belief will be the only determining factor in your life.

Great! Then God himself willed me to be a non-believer. Since got determined it, he must be pleased with my decision! I'll see you at the Pearly Gates, Brother Hex.

Great! Then God himself willed me to be a non-believer. Since got determined it, he must be pleased with my decision! I'll see you at the Pearly Gates, Brother Hex.

Yeah, you probably will. Christ says that the Hellfire is for the purpose of 'removing impurities', not torture. What good is pain if it can't teach?

However, the decision to be a non-believer is a partnership with sin; you desired to be free from guilt and shame (I can't recall exactly how you worded it). Instead of asking for forgiveness, which is freely given to any who asks, you ran from your imperfection. The Book says that God seeks a personal relationship of Love with every person; your core belief limits the presence of His Love in your life. You still have not asked forgiveness; I'm inclined to believe that when you think of the things that brought shame and guilt when you WERE a believer still have a bit of a sting in your conscience. Partnership with sin only serves to falsely justify past wrongs. Underneath all the rationalization for why you don't need forgiveness is the same feeling that resided within when you first did wrong: shame. Forgiveness from God serves to turn your past into a testimony of Healing.

When you can look at being molested or raped as a child, and not only intellectually know it's not your fault, but feel no resentment whatsoever towards the one who harmed you, nor feel shame or guilt, or weakness; you have truly been healed of that wound. From this healing, you now have the experience necessary to help others who have gone through this trauma to find the other side, to be healed themselves.

If you, of your own self, are capable of entirely mending the wounds of your heart...then you truly do not need God. But, you, like myself, are human. You have no power. You have no ability to mend your own heart. How could one look at their own heart (and seeing how badly torn and bloodied it is) keep themselves from pouring the venom of self-pity into the wounds (or alternately, denying that it is even a wound) so they may grow even deeper and become infected with hatred?

God is the healer of hearts; man can only pretend he is not wounded...God can truly heal these wounds.

Of course though, you don't believe in God...so my testimony here is likely to be cast aside as nonsense, or some 'primal understanding' of mechanisms in my own mind I can't understand...because of course, if I believe in God, I must be too foolish or simple to have an understanding of the human psyche. There's a lot more to being human than a human being. :)

I hate to say it Hex, but I liked you a whole lot more before you lost your mind.:(

So then what/who makes the ultimate decision? What/Who decides if I believe in a god or not? Either it's me, in which case AngryFemme made her point, or it's not, which case it's rather disgusting to punish me as your god would. Which is it?

Rust, the ability to make a single decision does not constitute authority, especially when the ability to make that one decision is granted by a higher Authority. It is much the same as a democracy is designed to function: the proletariat is the authority, but can lend its authority.

The President of the United States, for example, has executive power on loan so long as the majority of the nation's proletariat (which carries the true authority) permits the Presidency to possess that power. It is loaned by the authority, and thus a responsibility, not authority in and of itself. Of course though, the ability of the proletariat to reason, decide, organize, revolt, etc. are powers loaned from God; thus a responsibility and not authority in and of itself.

You might imagine your abilities as a human being constitute authority, but just remember this: when you die, everything you've worked to enforce is easily over-ridden unless others are moved to continue your cause and expend their small bit of loaned power to keep the deceased alive. As you and all your works come from dust, so shall they return. Even the pyramids will crumble to dust; the Great Wall too...and in time, their very existence will be forgotten. Every other creation of mankind will follow this path as well. The power we are gifted lasts but a flash of time in the grand scheme of things: we have no authority. Read Ozymandias if you can spare the time. Humanity's lack of authority is the theme of the poem.

Our works will all be forgotten. God has been from the dawn of existence until now, and will forever be known and remembered. Even the concept of a god has changed very little; from pre-history until now, a god has always been a being of authority. So shall the legacy and understanding of God/gods remain: Ultimate Authority.

Some wish to eradicate God from mankind; it cannot be done. Within every living creature is the fundamental concept of the Ultimate Authority. If every man of faith were killed, God would be rediscovered. If every evidence of faith were destroyed, and every man of faith killed, God would be rediscovered. There will always be a human being willing to abandon his needless suffering and find atonement: ALL who seek peace will find Peace. What this Authority is called matters very little; but any who ask its name will be answered; God and faith will be known again.

Of course though, it's all unsubstantiated bullshit just because you haven't experienced it. :rolleyes: Such is the delusion of man's authority: I'm weaker than you because I have faith. Your ability to discern reality is greater than mine, thus the account of my experiences must be false since it doesn't meet your qualifications for truth. You know Rust, something internal cannot be shown as factual; it must be experienced for one to see the truth. So long as you look outside for verification of reality, you will miss Reality.

I hate to say it Hex, but I liked you a whole lot more before you lost your mind.:(

So did prisons and drugs. :) Can I ask what it so repulsive about me now? I don't typically post unless someone asks a question or directly comments one of my posts. Before, I would try to find anyone in opposition to my beliefs and attempt to 'enlighten' them...as if someone as miserable as I was could lead another to something good. Or is it my set of beliefs that you find repulsive? My opinion of you hasn't changed much at all; but I do now pray for your health, prosperity, joy, comfort, and general satisfaction with life.

What good is pain if it can't teach?

What good is the teacher, if it can only educate it's students by inflicting pain? You know, the whole: 'Lead-a-horse-to-water-but-can't-make-him-drink' kinda deal. If the horse isn't thirsty, holding it's head under water until it drowns isn't going to quench it's assumed thirst.

However, the decision to be a non-believer is a partnership with sin;

I almost stopped reading after this. But I realize that your newfound mindset regards "sin" in a different perspective than I do, so I trudged on...

you desired to be free from guilt and shame (I can't recall exactly how you worded it). Instead of asking for forgiveness, which is freely given to any who asks, you ran from your imperfection.

Funny thing is, though - this was at a time in my young life where I hadn't even gained the opportunity to "sin" enough to be filled with guilt and shame. The guilt and shame accompanied the teachings of the Bible at a very young age.

The Book says that God seeks a personal relationship of Love with every person; your core belief limits the presence of His Love in your life. You still have not asked forgiveness; I'm inclined to believe that when you think of the things that brought shame and guilt when you WERE a believer still have a bit of a sting in your conscience. Partnership with sin only serves to falsely justify past wrongs. Underneath all the rationalization for why you don't need forgiveness is the same feeling that resided within when you first did wrong: shame. Forgiveness from God serves to turn your past into a testimony of Healing.

Though you may be inclined to believe otherwise, I have had to face my "sins" already. The people I did harm to (including myself) through my careless actions when I was a rebellious teenager has already been brought to the surface, and I've had to make amends with both myself and the people I affected. Beyond that, beyond taking full accountability and realizing that I had previously chosen the "low road" - anything else is just abstract fluff. I could confess to God all day long - but it's not going to serve anything other than getting a few insurance points in my favor in the unlikely event there is an afterlife. I look at it as if it's a completely self-serving conscience salve, confessing. The only forgiveness I seek is from those I may have hurt. The shame and guilt is natural - I don't seek to deny it, or run away from it. In other words - I had it coming to me.

When you can look at being molested or raped as a child, and not only intellectually know it's not your fault, but feel no resentment whatsoever towards the one who harmed you, nor feel shame or guilt, or weakness; you have truly been healed of that wound. From this healing, you now have the experience necessary to help others who have gone through this trauma to find the other side, to be healed themselves.

That is a prime example of how people can rely on themselves to overcome hardship or pain. That is a true testament of the power a human being is capable of.

If you, of your own self, are capable of entirely mending the wounds of your heart...then you truly do not need God. But, you, like myself, are human. You have no power. You have no ability to mend your own heart. How could one look at their own heart (and seeing how badly torn and bloodied it is) keep themselves from pouring the venom of self-pity into the wounds (or alternately, denying that it is even a wound) so they may grow even deeper and become infected with hatred?


Are you perhaps letting your own personal disabilities bleed over to others, by assuming that they cannot find it within them to mend their own hearts? Did you perhaps wallow in self-pity and self-loathing for so long that you came to believe that since you couldn't overcome it without God, that others couldn't either? Because it seems like you're doing a whole lot of projecting here. Do I appear to be infected with hatred? Filled with self-pity? I certainly hope I don't exhibit that kind of personality, and can only give you my word that when I'm alone in the dark with no one watching or reading me - I'm not infected with hate or wallowing in self-pity.

God is the healer of hearts; man can only pretend he is not wounded...God can truly heal these wounds.

So no matter what anyone says, you're going to believe they are in denial about how "wounded" they are, and how "powerless" they are to overcome it without a divine help-along from God. Perhaps that is how you justify your newfound belief system, and perhaps that's what you need to tell yourself in order to adhere to this system without faltering.

Of course though, you don't believe in God...so my testimony here is likely to be cast aside as nonsense, or some 'primal understanding' of mechanisms in my own mind I can't understand...because of course, if I believe in God, I must be too foolish or simple to have an understanding of the human psyche. There's a lot more to being human than a human being. :)

I don't believe you're either foolish or simple. Just under a spell that you have no desire to break because it's helping you cope with your life right now. It is harder to converse with you than before, like truckfixr mentioned - but that's only because before, you didn't automatically assume that everyone was a sinner who was nursing a sick heart and a tired conscience and was bumbling through life arrogantly blissful but ignorant to "truth". You just didn't project your own emotions onto other people like you do now. I realize that you think you're doing a great service to others by pointing out what you perceive to be a big, empty void in their lives, but let's be real here - you have no idea what it's like to walk a mile in my shoes or have my perspective. To pretend that you do - that is the height of arrogance, IMO. And I forgive you for it, because I am going to blame the spell, and not the person.

:)

So did prisons and drugs. :) Can I ask what it so repulsive about me now? ...

To tell you the truth, I don't find you repulsive at all. I suppose what I feel for you is a sense of sadness. I feel badly for you that you could have experienced such a tragic situation that would force you to retreat to the depths of your imagination to find solace. It's difficult for me to accept that an intellectually honest person, such as you, could force yourself to cling to such a crutch for any length of time (while knowing full well that you are only lying to yourself).

My sincerest hope is that you will soon become strong enough to realize that it was you, and not your imaginary friend, that brought you through.

I have no doubt that you will come around. I would suspect that you will find it increasingly difficult to continue to delude yourself as time passes. I seriously doubt that you haven't (at some level) already realized for yourself the things I've just said.

Anyway, I wish you the best.

Rust, the ability to make a single decision does not constitute authority, especially when the ability to make that one decision is granted by a higher Authority. It is much the same as a democracy is designed to function: the proletariat is the authority, but can lend its authority.

You did not answer the question. I didn't ask you what didn't constitute authority, I asked you who you would say made the ultimate decision; that is, who you claim is ultimately responsible for the choice.

Please answer the question: Who is ultimately responsible for the choice?

--
Ignoring the rest of your rant that has nothing to do with what I said...


Of course though, it's all unsubstantiated bullshit just because you haven't experienced it. :rolleyes: Such is the delusion of man's authority: I'm weaker than you because I have faith. Your ability to discern reality is greater than mine, thus the account of my experiences must be false since it doesn't meet your qualifications for truth. You know Rust, something internal cannot be shown as factual; it must be experienced for one to see the truth. So long as you look outside for verification of reality, you will miss Reality.You're putting words in my mouth.

I never said you were weaker, nor did I say it is bullshit because I've never experienced it. It's bullshit because you've given absolutely nothing to support what you've said. That is independent of me having experienced it or not. For example, I haven't experienced cancer but there is mountains of evidence supporting it's existence. The same cannot be said of your never-ending unsubstantiated allegations. They had nothing supporting them when you made them, and continue to have nothing long after you have been repeatedly asked for evidence. That's why they remain utter bullshit.

--

I'll gonna respond to something you said to AF if you don't mind:

Yeah, you probably will. Christ says that the Hellfire is for the purpose of 'removing impurities', not torture. What good is pain if it can't teach?1. Could you cite where the Christ says that the hellfire is for the purpose of removing impurities?

2. Assuming that is true, why then is there an unforgivable sin? Is the Bible wrong in saying it's unforgivable? Or is it right, and therefore Hellfire is not just to remove impurities, but to punish those who commit the unforgivable sin(s)?


P.S. Are you planning on ever providing the specific passages that show, according to you, where the Bible predicted the Holocaust? Are you deliberately withholding information that would, according to you, show how the Bible is true? Or is it that you do not want to admit that you were wrong? Or maybe there's some other reason that you haven't provided any passages?

What if the "Imaginary Friend" that atheist call God was you along? What would an atheist say to that? Part of the reason why Im turned off to atheism is that it basically says (at least to me) that "This is all there is, no hope for something better, anything outside to what is perceived by the five senses is bullshit and you should indulge in every egoistic act before the day comes when you cant indulge anymore!" and of course, ultimately I feel that atheism is a dyfunct to religious orthodoxy. What do I mean by this... Most Atheist IMHO rejects not God but the way God has been presented to them.

For example (this is only hypothetical): A particular religious doctrine from some (either exclusive / fundamentalist line of thought) religion says that God made the grass red. But through simple observation and scientific test we prove that God didnt make the grass red but green through chemical process called photosynthesis!

Now the Doctrine which says that there way is the only true way is under questioning. Well God doesn't lie and he represents all knowledge so how can god say he made red grass but instead its green? Suddenly people start freaking out, people start saying well based on what is V. what is being said is at contradiction so I choose not to believe in a God because what is being said (religious doctrine) is supposed to be the only way to God. Thats Atheism... People largely let down (harshly or intellectual / philosophical questions) by THE DOGMATICS OF A PARTICULAR RELIGION!

Now God would need to represent the pinnacle of everything Good, so Truth, Freedom, Generosity, Mercy, Love... etc. Where ever we find truth that is where God is. So in this example... The true color of grass is green not red. Hey guess what you found a Spark of God in that discovery, you called God into existence in this world.

Notice symbolically, I'm talking about the most smallest minute topic in relation to God. Religious doctrine is "nit picky" and the more exclusive it becomes the more "nit picky" it is with dogma and doctrine, the more people will reject it. Now, in reality, people say "Well the bible says this and that, if this isn't true or its contradictory than it cant be done than there cant be a God."

In reality we forget that God would transcend anything we say about God, words cant express it; for God can only be experienced and revealed in our life experiences whether Good or Bad.

IMHO, Atheism to me is just intellectual and philosophical laziness, One side of the same coin the other side is fundamentalism, a transition to rebellious people who listen to "specialist" but never just look to themselves. There is more to this argument but just absorb this for now.

What if the "Imaginary Friend" that atheist call God was you along? What would an atheist say to that?

You mean if it turned out Hexadecimal was god all along? If that's the case then I'd be surprised, and baffled. I'd like to think I'd still would believe I was correct in my position all along, given the glaring absence of any evidence supporting that. I don't see how anyone in the world could have guessed some guy on the Internet making unsubstantiated claims was god.


Part of the reason why Im turned off to atheism is that it basically says (at least to me) that "This is all there is, no hope for something better, anything outside to what is perceived by the five senses is bullshit and you should indulge in every egoistic act before the day comes when you cant indulge anymore!" and of course, ultimately I feel that atheism is a dyfunct to religious orthodoxy. What do I mean by this... Most Atheist IMHO rejects not God but the way God has been presented to them. 1. If that's what atheism says to you then you have a very screwed up view of atheism. Atheism says absolutely nothing about the five senses, nothing about indulgence, and nothing about "there being nothing better out there".

All those are other philosophical positions that each individual atheist can approve of or disapprove of. For example, you can be an atheist that lives by a certain code that frowns upon "indulging in every egoistic act before the day comes when you can't indulge anymore".

2. I'd say most atheists reject (disagree with) both god(s) and the way they are presented in religious doctrine. Atheists might point out the logical contradictions in certain religions as a way to show how absurd they can be, but most still also demand evidence for the existence of a god, any god, regardless of religious doctrine.

They aren't going to magically start believing in a god just because you managed to define a god that doesn't have illogical religious doctrines. Most will still demand evidence for its existence. Most still need a good reason for believing in them. It sounding nice isn't enough.

I'm going to give a quick two step reply...

1. In the larger outlook some religions say that we are sparks of divine light from the source, which many of course call god, some traditions say we have forgotten who we really are and where we come from. So thats why I say what if God is You... Not your ego but this Eternal "I" this eternal "I" transcends all thoughts, physicality and emotions and your that "I" but you have become ignorant of it because the world around you has you divided against yourself... Conflicting goals, thoughts, emotions, sensations... etc

2. I must have been thinking Nihilism? However most atheist I have spoken to are Nihilist, I'm not I don't agree with it fully. What atheism in my view seems to have done is basically, call bullshit on anything spirituality. I find that just cold and unforgiving oh and makes everything seem final.

Now maybe I'm getting confused between a materialist atheist with just the term atheism, would it still be possible to believe in something beyond what I just see and still be an atheist? Not me, just in general inquiry...

1. What do we accomplish by that? Absolutely nothing. You just defined "god" into existence, just as if you were to say anything else is "god". Nothing changes. We are still the same humans we were before.

It's a completely meaningless exercise.

2.

a. Calling bullshit on everything (not just spiritual - though that is a start) is precisely what we need more of! We definitely don't need credulous individuals that want to believe every nonsense they read - like that we are "sparks of divine light from the source" , when there is absolutely no evidence to believe that at all.


b. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god. Besides that, an atheist can believe or disbelieve anything else. Some atheists are strict empiricists some are not. Some like Science, others don't.

You say the majority, in your experience are Nihilist but my experience most are not.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2068947

1. Theres many "I's" not just me, its an infinitude. Words can not explain it some may say that what you are looking for is what is looking. God transcend anything I could possibly even say no words can describe it, it can only be experienced. The real problem is that when I say God most get a picture of a bearded man with Grey flowing hair, does god need to be personified no, God cant even be called God it transcends that name as well.

2. Theres no proof for it because, most of us have become ethier ignorant or forgetful about it. Majority live for their body and worship their ideas and obey their emotions (religion or not). The idea is to have all of this obey us.

To you it maybe the case that religion and spirituality is bullshit but to others its part of who they are (God or No God). When someone cries bullshit they are obviously going to fight dont you think?

1. That accomplishes nothing just the same. Whether there is one "I", a million of them or an infinite amount, nothing changes. It's a meaningless exercise of redefining god into existence. We are still the same humans we were before.

You claiming you can't even describe god makes it even worse!

2. No. There is just no proof for it. Period. You have no idea whether we've become ignorant or not, that's just your convenient self-serving way of justifying the fact that absolutely no evidence exists. You'd rather call everyone ignorant and/or forgetful instead of admitting that your superfluous idea of a "god" is baseless.

As for religion/spirituality being part of what other people are, great! They can believe in whatever they want. It's when they make claims about facts, about Science, about logic, or try to legislate their beliefs through political or economic means that I see a problem.

Forgot about this thread, Rust. Your answer:

"'Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,' says the LORD of hosts. 'But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like launderers' soap. He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer to the LORD an offering in righteousness."

A bit further along in Mal 3: "For I am the LORD, I do not change; therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob."

God, in Genesis, does not remove man from paradise because of sin, but because in paradise there exists immortality: it would be cruel to let the pain of sin continue for eternity. From that day onward, God has been preparing the purification so we may enter a new paradise.

That isn't really an answer.

1. That's a pretty liberal interpretation of what was said in the passage. "Purify" here could just as well mean"to separate the wicked from the righteous", much in the way of the traditional, vengeful god who sends the wicked to suffer in hell and the righteous to rejoice in heaven.

That's pretty much the impression given in Malachi 3:5, which you for some reason skipped:

"Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD of hosts."

2. You didn't answer the part where Jesus explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin (i.e. blasphemy against the holy spirit). What is the difference between an unforgivable sin and any other sin, if all of us will be purified? An unforgivable sin fits with the idea of a god that condemns people to suffer for eternity.

---

Are you going to answer all the other points I made? It seems pretty dishonest to say you're providing an answer when in reality you just replied to a small fraction of what I actually said.

I would start arguing, but it looks already as if Rust is ripping Hex a new one, and it's annoying when you're arguing and then have two people to reply to.

Are you going to answer all the other points I made? It seems pretty dishonest to say you're providing an answer when in reality you just replied to a small fraction of what I actually said.

You aren't asking in hope of learning, but with the hope to attack. You're not looking for information, but argument. There's no point whatsoever to answering you. You seek not to understand, but to fuel your ego. Be gone with you.

As to the completion of my answer, I will not speak twice for one who seeks to poison his own heart with pride and arrogance when I have already provided my answers:

Who is ultimately responsible for the choice?

You asked this, and I had already answered prior. Yet you ask again to seek more argument.

Assuming that is true, why then is there an unforgivable sin? Is the Bible wrong in saying it's unforgivable? Or is it right, and therefore Hellfire is not just to remove impurities, but to punish those who commit the unforgivable sin(s)?

I have spoken to you and others about this in another thread; yet again, you ask it once more to seek another attack.

I have given you a whole answer, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

And further, as to your questioning of the Holocaust: You wish only to know the verses for the purpose of ridicule - I don't exist to fuel your mockery of God. You see God as a joke...how much more the man who believes; and how much more his bases for Faith? Seek folly elsewhere, I'll have no more part in this.

When your mind begins to open a fraction of what your mouth does, I will speak to you of these matters again.

You aren't asking in hope of learning, but with the hope to attack. You're not looking for information, but argument. There's no point whatsoever to answering you. You seek not to understand, but to fuel your ego. Be gone with you.

Sorry but you have absolutely no idea why I'm asking. It is dishonest of you to start making claims about things you know nothing about. I'm asking to get to the truth, regardless of whatever it may be.

Ignoring the fact that these accusations of yours are baseless, my questions would still stand regardless of my reasons for asking them. Any problems in your answers I may or may not have pointed out, would stand regardless of my reasons. An honest individual would acknowledge that, would not try to put words and reasons in someone else's mouths, and answer the questions.

The very fact that you don't know why I'm asking these questions and there could others that also hope to learn by reading these posts, should be reason enough for you to answer them. Please stop dismissing my questions.


You asked this, and I had already answered prior. Yet you ask again to seek more argument.

If you answered it, then I didn't see it. Do you think I like requesting you to answer my questions again? If you claim to have answered this, please point me to where. The only thing I've seen you write concerning that question was not an answer, but you putting words in my mouth (by saying "Rust, the ability to make a single decision does not constitute authority" when I never asked what constituted authority).


I have spoken to you and others about this in another thread; yet again, you ask it once more to seek another attack.

...and in that other thread you gave, as far as I can remember, no explanation that would reconcile the idea of Hell being for purification and the idea of an unforgivable sin.

The honest, righteous response would be to either quote the answer you claim to have given in that thread, or reiterate it here. In the time it took you to write these complaints of yours, you could have answered me!


And further, as to your questioning of the Holocaust: You wish only to know the verses for the purpose of ridicule - I don't exist to fuel your mockery of God. You see God as a joke...how much more the man who believes; and how much more his bases for Faith? Seek folly elsewhere, I'll have no more part in this.

When your mind begins to open a fraction of what your mouth does, I will speak to you of these matters again.

Again, you don't know why I seek these verses. You putting words in my mouth is completely dishonest and very much against the Christian ideals you claim to practice.

I ask in the interest of truth: Show me where the Bible predicts the Holocaust, as you claimed it did. It seems rather dishonest to make the thread with those claims when it seems you never intended to provide the actual passages themselves, and even worse to claim victory as you did in that thread before providing materials to support what you said!