PDA

View Full Version : Atheism: A Jewish Thing?



Wodens Day
Monday, August 24th, 2009, 09:40 PM
"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham, Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to two- and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings and distributed in leaflet form:

1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of charge in State Hospitals.

2) Non-interference with prostitution.

3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard to marriage and divorce.

4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be educated by the community.

5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to be granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.

"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the wilful destruction of the nations and their civilization and the substitute of barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.

"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world movement? Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted this ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it prevail in other countries? The answer to these question discloses the actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing less than a Jewish International."

Part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist Party Congress.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb58.htm


Is the pope Catholic? Richard Dawkins - Jewish.

His mother was Jean Mary Vyvyan Dawkins (nee Ladner).
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Dawkins_Richard.html

Ladner Name Meaning and History
Jewish (Ashkenazic): occupational name for a shopkeeper, from a
derivative of Laden ‘shop’.
http://www.ancestry.com/facts/Ladner-civil-war.ashx

-Names ending in "-ner" (Asner, Lardner, etc.)
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:37gFCsr6TWYJ:wsi.matriots .com/jews7.html+jewish+names+lardner&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3



'Jewish lobby' model for atheist
JTA, Published: 10/02/2007

A renowned atheist cited the "Jewish lobby" as a model for his campaign to promote atheism in the United States.

Richard Dawkins said he wanted to gain the same kind of influence as the Jewish lobby, saying it "monopolizes" U.S. foreign policy.

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told -- religious Jews anyway -- than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see," Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who advocates atheism, told the Guardian newspaper. "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Dawkins, an Oxford professor who wrote the best-seller "The God Delusion," told the Guardian that he wants to organize American atheists to counter the influence of religious groups.

"I think some sort of political organization is what they need," he said.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:QDGgPGU4S84J:jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104454.html%27,595,700)+Jewish+lobby%27+ model+for+atheist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1



What are they up to?

"The Communists are against religion (Christianity), and they seek to destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature of Communism, we see that it is essential nothing else than a religion (Judaism)." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 138).
__________

"The Jews welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews should show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, by Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 148). __________

http://wake-up-america.net/jews_and_communism__part_1.htm

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8428/richarddawkinsyh5vf0.jpg

Renwein
Monday, August 24th, 2009, 09:58 PM
uh, ok (dunno if I find these kind of posts more funny or more sad). I guess you didn't read the sentence which said 'almost all Marxist atheists are jews' or notice that the speech by Goebbels was railing against 'Jewish Bolshevieks'. Then, your last quotes are about Communism, not atheism.

I'm suprised you didn't quote 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'... which states that 'marxism' and 'darwinism' are doing the jews work in destroying the west. I've seen people on fora use that as 'evidence' against Darwinism and somebody here even once used that to claim that Darwin was a jew :lol - shameful that one of the greatest european minds should be used in that way, shows how idiotic some of these people can be. 'Protocols' being a fake written by a priest may have something to do with those comments...
I can't find anything to confirm 'Ladner' is a jewish surname (the first link you provide has it as German as well, and many 'jew' names are also ethnic German) but Dawkins had an 'anglican' upbringing (unlikely for a 'jew'), and besides there are many european marxists and Darwinists who aren't jews who were atheists long before Dawkins (eg. JBS Haldine).

BTW, there are also plenty of Euro-atheists going back through time (one example off the top of my head, David Hume) and europeans who helped inspire communism, eg the levellers/digger movement in England, Thomas Muntzer in Germany, Thomas More in England, and a play satirising a 'communist' like society in ancient Greece...

If atheism is a Jewish thing what does that make Christianity, which actually did originate in Judea and had a jew as it's founding prophet, unlike atheisms and 'egalitarian' views which find expressions all over Europe all through history?

in sum, I find your post idiotic.

Wulfram
Monday, August 24th, 2009, 10:25 PM
Did you get the idea for this post over at Stormfront?
Here is a link to that thread.
I haven't read all of it yet, but I will look to see if anybody there can back up these claims:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=540308

Bittereinder
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009, 09:06 PM
:hutheb

In general I think these 5 points Marxism was pushing for in Germany at that time was connected with their aim of social and family structural decline rather then with Atheism the main reason IMO they advocated the abolishment of Christianity was because Christianity to a degree supports healthy social and family structures. Anti abortion and the marital institution supported by Christianity does not sit well with Marxist ideals. However I fail to see how the connection can be made that atheism is of Jewish construct. One could argue in the same vague manner that Christianity is of Jewish construct, I guess one should try and stick to the more verifiable things known of Jews instead of giving them credit for just about every theological view out there.

EQ Fighter
Thursday, August 27th, 2009, 03:25 AM
Personally I think only an idiot would want to be known as a “Atheist” Belief in God aside.
Agnostic is probably a term that would be used by a sensible person. Generally because most of them are, at least the ones in the public Eye are closed minded leftist fanatics. Who are yes, generally Jews. But I would say if you look at Jewish Atheism it does have a sharp edge. They do not like Christians because in the past, Christianity united the grater population as one force. A force that was Undefeatable to them.

They want a population that is easy to knock off, and easy to control, and once Christianity moved into the non Jewish population it had an effect they did not like, and was not controllable to them.


I've seen people on fora use that as 'evidence' against Darwinism and somebody here even once used that to claim that Darwin was a jew

FYI Darwin was a Christian.

Bittereinder
Thursday, August 27th, 2009, 05:59 AM
:hutheb


Christianity united the grater population as one force. A force that was Undefeatable to them.

I fail to see the logic on this one too, If Christianity was 'undefeatable' to the Jews, we would not be on Skadi discussing our preservation. The thread christianity on Skadi (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=124112&page=20) should indicate just how divisive Christianity truly is in the Germanic sphere.

PS: Do you have some proof to support that Darwin was a Christian?

Wulfram
Thursday, August 27th, 2009, 12:50 PM
:hutheb

PS: Do you have some proof to support that Darwin was a Christian?


(Source for information: christiananswers.net)


Many people are under the impression that Charles Darwin, the most well known promoter of evolutionism, died a Christian and renounced his theory. This is mainly due to rumors surrounding his death, and the fact that he studied at seminary as a young man and is buried in Westminster Abbey.

Charles Darwin's thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject the evidence for God in nature and ultimately to renounce the Bible, God, and the Christian faith.

Darwin did not lack religious influences in his youth. Baptized an Anglican and steeped in his mother's Unitarianism, young Charles was brought up to pray. He used to run the mile or so from home to school, concerning which he wrote:

"I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided."

He had dropped out of medical studies after two years at Edinburgh, and his father suggested to him the calling of an Anglican clergyman. Charles wasn't sure whether he could accept everything in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. However, he later wrote:

"I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted."

During his three years of theological studies at Christ's College, Cambridge, he was greatly impressed by Paley's Evidences of Christianity and his Natural Theology (which argues for the existence of God from design). He recalled:

“I could have written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley,” and, “I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's 'Natural Theology.' I could almost formerly have said it by heart.”

In a letter of condolence to a bereaved friend at that time, he wrote of “so pure and holy a comfort as the Bible affords,” compared with “how useless the sympathy of all friends must appear.”

His intention to enter the ministry, he wrote, was never “formally given up, but died a natural death” when, on leaving Cambridge, he joined HMS Beagle as an unpaid naturalist. However, the religious influences in his life did not abate. His official position was that of gentleman companion to the captain, and for the next five years Darwin heard the Bible read and expounded on a regular basis.

Captain Robert FitzRoy was a deeply religious man who believed every word in the Bible and personally conducted divine service every Sunday, at which attendance by all on board was compulsory.

Darwin later recalled his own doctrinal orthodoxy when, in discussion with some of the officers, much to their amusement he quoted the Bible as “an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.” And at Buenos Aires, he and another officer requested a chaplain to administer the Lord's Supper to them before they ventured into the wilds of Tierra del Fuego.

Despite all of the above religious influences in his life, the decline of Darwin's faith began when he first started to doubt the truth of the first chapters of Genesis. This unwillingness to accept the Bible as meaning what it said probably started with and certainly was greatly influenced by his shipboard reading matter—the newly published first volume of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (the second volume, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo). This was a revolutionary book for that time. It subtly ridiculed belief in recent creation in favor of an old earth, and denied that Noah's Flood was world-wide; this, of course, was also a denial of divine judgment.

Based on James Hutton's dictum that all natural processes have continued as they were from the beginning (2 Peter 3:4), or 'uniformitarianism', Lyell's book presented Darwin with the time frame of vast geological ages needed to make his theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution 'work'. One of Darwin's biographers calls Charles's reading of this book his 'point of departure from orthodoxy'.

And when Lyell died in 1875, Darwin said:

“I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works.”

Inevitably, the more Darwin convinced himself that species had originated by chance and developed by a long course of gradual modification, the less he could accept not only the Genesis account of creation, but also the rest of the Old Testament as the divinely inspired Word of God. In his Autobiography, Darwin wrote:

“I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

When Darwin came to write up the notes from his scientific investigations he faced a choice. He could interpret what he had seen either as evidence for the Genesis account of supernatural creation, or else as evidence for naturalism, consistent with Lyell's theory of long ages. In the event, he chose the latter—that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness rather than as the result of divinely guided, meaningful intention, and, after several years, in 1859 his Origin of Species was the result.

On the way, in 1844, he wrote to his friend, Joseph Hooker:

“I am almost convinced... that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.”

Concerning this, Ian Taylor writes, "Many commentators have pointed out that the 'murder' he spoke of was in effect the murder of God."

Having abandoned the Old Testament, Darwin then renounced the Gospels. This loss of belief was based on several factors, including his rejection of miracles: "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become"; his rejection of the credibility of the Gospel writers: "the men of that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us"; his rejection of the Gospel chronology:

"the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events";

and his rejection of the Gospel events:

"they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses."

Summing up the above, he wrote:

“by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”

One major factor that contributed to Charles's apostasy is worth noting--the role model of his father, Robert, and of his grandfather, Erasmus. Both were ' freethinkers', so disbelief was an acceptable trait within the Darwin family--perceived not as 'a moral crisis or rebellion,' but perhaps even as 'a filial duty'. Indeed, in 1838, when Charles had become engaged to Emma Wedgwood, a very devout Unitarian, Robert had felt the need to advise his son to conceal his religious doubts from his wife--other households did not discuss such things.

Surrounded as he was by unbelievers, and having soaked his mind in literature that rejected the concept of divine judgment in earth's history, Charles mused:

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote:

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”

EQ Fighter
Friday, August 28th, 2009, 05:31 AM
My Point is Grimner, that under Christianity Europe matured as a continent. Im am also saying that Jews did not expect it to incorporate the local culture which is what happened. As far as preservation goes, the most destructive Jewish Philosophy is Marxism, and that has done far more damage then Christianity ever did.

In fact it has done it in decades and not centuries. If you start adding up casualties of Marxist and Oligarch Democracy, they have an unprecedented murder rate more then any other event in human history.

Hundreds of millions of victims under the soviet system alone, contracted out as many puppet systems all over the world. From China to N Korea. Then add in the social victimization under various social engineering regimes directly derived from Marxist thinking.

Basically the Marxist have done what Christianity was never able to do.
Take over the world.
Force the population into slavery of a few elites. Most of them Jewish Marxist.

Auteire
Friday, August 28th, 2009, 08:55 PM
My oh my.

No. Atheism is not a Jewish thing. Perhaps there were indeed a few forward-thinking souls among the Jewish community back then, but that doesn't mean they 'invented' it.

They can't win can they? If they're religiously observant, they're evil and exclusivist (true I suppose), and if they're atheist, then they must be up to something aswell.

Siebenbürgerin
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 02:16 PM
Hmm, in my view Atheism would have surfaced anyway, because where there is belief, there is also disbelief unfortunately, and it's irrelevant who 'invented' it. We may actually not even know who was the first person who disbelieved in deities (the true 'pioneer' Atheist), but it certainly wasn't Dawkins or Marx. ;)

Ossi
Sunday, August 30th, 2009, 03:25 PM
Did you get the idea for this post over at Stormfront?
Here is a link to that thread.
I haven't read all of it yet, but I will look to see if anybody there can back up these claims:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=540308
LMAO. On Stormfront, EVERYTHING has been Jewish at least once. Can't wait to surf through those 200 pages of arguing whether Hitler was a Jew himself.

:D

Sigurd
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, 12:54 AM
Names ending with -ner? Got to be kidding me ... half of Austria would be Jewish then, with common names such as Thurner or of course Ernst Kaltenbrunner.

What claim is going to be next? Names ending with -ler being Jewish? You know like Sandler, Stiller ... Hitler? :rofl

Either way, Ladner is not particularly a Jewish name - I could see it happen further north in Germany. Down south, this would more likely have been Greisler --- but just the same way that the name Metzger and Fleischer exist besides each other I can see Ladner and Greisler existing next to each other. ;)

Grey
Thursday, September 3rd, 2009, 04:46 PM
How could atheism be a jewish thing considering that most pre-christian Europeans weren't particularly religious? Religion was more important to the nobility than to the average worker.

GroeneWolf
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 06:34 PM
How could atheism be a jewish thing considering that most pre-christian Europeans weren't particularly religious? Religion was more important to the nobility than to the average worker.

Ah yes, because the avarge peasant did not pay any atention to the rites of the fertillity gods upon wich they believed there harvest depenes. Heck to this day the Catholic Church has a day where they pray for the crops and fields.

Svalbard
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 07:43 PM
Denial of 2000 year old bedtime stories in the year of 2009 is definately not a jewish thing.

GroeneWolf
Saturday, September 5th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Denial of 2000 year old bedtime stories in the year of 2009 is definately not a jewish thing.

Even more because the Jewischb theology does not vieuw not atheism as a sin. Where is does vieuw polytheism as a sin.

Nagelfar
Tuesday, September 8th, 2009, 12:32 AM
Reminds me of Jewish mysticism of the Ain Soph; the highest jewish aspect of the godhead being "nothingness", like in the movie The Believer, Q: "What's the difference between that and him not existing at all?" - A: "there is no difference"...

Svalbard
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Even more because the Jewischb theology does not vieuw not atheism as a sin. Where is does vieuw polytheism as a sin.

- Because the jews doesn't view it as a sin it becomes a jewish thing? Come on, thats ridicilous. So if jews liked drinking beer, it would be a jewish thing to drink a beer?

Oski
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009, 07:13 PM
When I was in high school I knew a goth girl, daughter of a rabbi (kosher home and all). I asked her what jews believed and she said "its basically rules, no afterlife, atheism."

Svalbard
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009, 07:15 PM
When I was in high school I knew a goth girl, daughter of a rabbi (kosher home and all). I asked her what jews believed and she said "its basically rules, no afterlife, atheism."

- Still doesn't make atheism a jewish thing. A lot of people don't believe in god nor any afterlife, theese are jews mentally you say?

Oski
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009, 07:20 PM
[LIST]
theese are jews mentally you say?

Mentally & racially? scratch

I don't understand what you are asking, they are jews they are atheists is what I'm saying. Full blown jews that send their kids to spend time in Israel etc...

Svalbard
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009, 07:59 PM
Mentally & racially? scratch

I don't understand what you are asking, they are jews they are atheists is what I'm saying. Full blown jews that send their kids to spend time in Israel etc...

- Ok...still don't get your point. So likewise i guess.

Sigurd
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 11:43 AM
When I was in high school I knew a goth girl, daughter of a rabbi (kosher home and all). I asked her what jews believed and she said "its basically rules, no afterlife, atheism."

That Jews may be Atheists is well possible, but this would not make Atheism inherently a Jewish thing, that is also a fact. That would be a classic example of the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

That'd be like saying that all vegetarians were National Socialists, because Hitler was a National Socialist, and a vegetarian. Though it'd be something quite amusing to bring up at one of those Vegan stalls at punk music festivals. ;)

Wulfram
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 12:48 PM
Atheism has been around for as long as pain or discontentment. It is probably one of the original human emotions, right up there with love and hate. But, it does seem that jews have taken to it the most. They have always set destructive examples for gentiles to act by, and atheism has had a definite role in the downfall of our people.
“Life is hopeless/meaningless” is a major theme by which they keep most Germanics in a state of bleak desperation. Perhaps "jewish atheism" can be placed on the same level as the overwhelmingly jewish multi-cult, feminist, pornographic brainwashing that most gentiles have fallen prey to.
Even if they did not invent atheism, it can be argued that they sure helped to refine it to it's essence.
If the earliest humans questioned the existence of g-d, that doesn’t necessarily mean they took it as a sign to cause destruction the way jews have used it. It is more likely that the first atheists carried on their lives in a peaceful manner, whereas the jew uses it to subvert with a complexity that it was never really meant to have.
“g-d is dead” or “g-d doesn't exist”. You don’t really need to build on this very basic premise.
Atheism will never be as reasonable as agnosticism. That we were created by nothing, from nothing, for no reason whatsoever, bears no logic to me at all.

velvet
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 05:06 PM
Atheism has been around for as long as pain or discontentment. It is probably one of the original human emotions, right up there with love and hate.

Atheism isnt an emotion ;)


“Life is hopeless/meaningless” is a major theme by which they keep most Germanics in a state of bleak desperation. [...] If the earliest humans questioned the existence of g-d, that doesn’t necessarily mean they took it as a sign to cause destruction the way jews have used it.

You put the cart before the horse.
I agree to the destruction causing Jews, but the theme was vice versa. The Jews created the question 'who made us' and then took it away to finish their course by implying life is meaningless.



“g-d is dead” or “g-d doesn't exist”. You don’t really need to build on this very basic premise.
Atheism will never be as reasonable as agnosticism. That we were created by nothing, from nothing, for no reason whatsoever, bears no logic to me at all.

To declare something for dead or none-existent requires a valid (or taken as valid) claim, prior to that, that it was 'alive' and existent.
A question indeed designed by Jews to replace the guardians our gods were before monotheism, or deism at all, was planted into our souls. We took our meaning from ourself, our values and virtues came to be 'on the fly' as we evolved. We honoured our gods as ancestors, progenitors of our folks, as guardians of the forces that defined and shaped our lives. These gods should not be confused, by no means, with the monotheistic depiction of the creative god.

The question for the 'why' is the most dangerous question ever asked, since there is no answer to that and it holds only destructive values to strive for an answer of a question that has no answer.

Nature created us, not an imagined creative power that now has no interest anymore in us. That's bs. Really.

I know you will argue that an evolution that brings about a complex creature like a human being needs an endless amount of 'accidential' events.
It is one of the defects that were implanted with the question 'why', the defect of thinking by observing events as single events, unrelated to each other. For each event (evolutionary step) the question for the why is tried to be answered for this event alone.

Evolution though needed exactly two events to get the spin-off. Earth, with its 'perfect' distance to its center star sun within the system, the environment in which plants could grow, an atmosphere and a 'perfectly' balanced gravity, to hold the atmosphere without killing plants and living things with too much gravity.
It is not so unusual, such constellations can be found many times in the universe.

If you find plants on such a planet, life is there. It comes about through the conditions of this environment. There is no magic, no miracle, no god, just NATURE. Sooner or later more complex life will come to be. And once complex life, and complex life is anything above a single-cell organism, has come to be, it will develop according to its conditions of environment. No miracle, no god, no magic, only NATURE.

Now, the only 'miracle', concerning human beings was that we made a quite sudden jump in our evolution, and it was a mutual nature-environment-evolution motor. Once we stood upright, our brain grew, we needed to compensate for the loss of speed and needed to develop alternative methods to get food. This adaption needed to come about very quickly, further speeding up the need for using our brain. It became more and more complex, but it is still 'only' a monstruous machine of single cells which communicate with each other, distribute tasks and specialising more and more to that task, and so on and so on.

Meanwhile our brain holds capacities to think that surmount the required amount to fulfill our 'purpose', exist, eat, procreate. In this free room of thinking capacity came the wish to be to explain our environment. Science was born.

It wasnt enough anymore to know that things work, but we wanted to know how things work. Again a mutual development took place. While trying to understand how things work, our ability for abstract thinking grew. In this free room, occupied by imagination and abstraction, not only the invention of tools and methods to make survival in our specific environment easier came to be, but also such abstract questions like that for the 'reason of our existence'.

But it is important to understand that this question exists completely in the sphere of abstraction, most likely born in the fear that came to be in the moment of realisation that the universe is an unbelievable big thing. You can respond to that in two ways: invent some sort of 'creative god' that gives you purpose. Or with science. Darwin opted for science, and many people before him too. In fact all ancient high cultures ran large scientifical researchs, alongside to their local gods, guardians of the world their lived in, their ancestors, the progenitors of their folk, who gave the specific folk purpose and order and law.

Then monotheism decided that science is the poison which spoils the vision of the creative god. The abstraction of the spirits of nature created, and it should be made clear that this is a creation of humans, a single god that was believed to be the source of the human being, who made it out of mud, defined its purpose and took it out of the context of nature and science and placed in a misleaded imagination that there 'must be something higher'.

Now, it is easy to fall for that belief. The many unanswered questions of life can be, twisted and with nature turned upside down, answered by that human-made 'creative god', but it still doesnt exist. It is not there, no matter how much you believe in it or wish it to be there.

There is only we, as one of the few species that are aware of our existence and the only which is able to construct a complex reality by collecting, passing on and advancing abstract knowledge, and nature. And there will never be something else. Only we, nature, and science, the desire to explain and our curiosity to understand.

The destructive power, which is inherent to the concept of the creative god, is that it takes us out of the context of nature. When we started to believe that some invisible creature made us, we gave away responsibility. We gave up science, we gave up the natural order, and we gave up our consciousness about us being still a part of nature, despite our ability to influence it. No matter how much we will believe in this invisible creature, it will not make us a new earth when we destroyed this one. There is no paradise and no heaven to go to when we blew up this planet. But because people fell for this believe, we do exactly that, destroying our environment in which we live and on which we depend to live.
Another destructive power lies in that weird belief that we should strive to overcome our bodily existence to please the invisible creator, to be able to enter the imagined, but still nonexistent heaven and to become part of the likewise nonexistent flock of angels. In turn this leads to all sorts of life denying actions. To deny your body and your very being in favour of a completely unprooven afterlife probably is the most destructive force created in the misleaded abstraction process.

Yes, I agree, in the light of a 'purpose' the realisation that there is nothing except ourselves might seem bleak.
But we can be gods, we can give our lives purpose and sense, in fact, we are all that was is assigned to that creative god, which only limits us. And again, it is a completely human made construct.

Atheism is the natural state of being for humans as well as for any other living creature on earth and throughout the universe.

Oski
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 07:06 PM
That Jews may be Atheists is well possible, but this would not make Atheism inherently a Jewish thing, that is also a fact.

Very true, I was just pointing out that they are very much a part of that culture.

White Africa
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 07:10 PM
How can Atheism be a Jewish thing if being a Jew means you must adhere to Judaism?

Sigurd
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 07:28 PM
How can Atheism be a Jewish thing if being a Jew means you must adhere to Judaism?

Because the term "Jewish" is understood to refer both to their religion and their folk. The more correct question would be "Atheism: A Semitic Thing?" or "Atheism: A Hebrew Thing?", but since these terms are seen as synonymous or quasi-synonymous, people generally also refer to non-religious Jews as Jews, calling them "secular Jews" at best. ;)

Wulfram
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 07:36 PM
The Jews created the question 'who made us' and then took it away to finish their course by implying life is meaningless.

To say that the jew coined such a question is lacking just as much evidence as the claim they invented atheism. Unless we were there to witness them formulating this question, or inventing atheism, there is no possible way to know just who said “Why?” first.


The question for the 'why' is the most dangerous question ever asked, since there is no answer to that and it holds only destructive values to strive for an answer of a question that has no answer.

But atheism claims to answer it by stating positively that there cannot possibly be a “g-d”. Every atheist I have ever met felt 100% sure that there is no plan behind it all, and yet, at the same time, they claim that "nature" was responsible, which to me is a word that is interchangeable with "g-d". Atheism is contradiction defined.


Nature created us, not an imagined creative power that now has no interest anymore in us. That's bs. Really.

Whether it is called “g-d” or “nature” the same principle applies. Nature could not have been created from nothing, by nothing, for no reason whatsoever.
The only way to know this answer is to ask g-d/nature itself. (Atheism did not give us the power to ask, this was inherent from the start.) Until then, I’m afraid that you and I are just practicing our debate skills.


I know you will argue that an evolution that brings about a complex creature like a human being needs an endless amount of 'accidential' events.

I am just as suspicious and wary of evolution, itself another form of “g-d”, in my opinion. It too claims with immortal confidence that humans MUST have originated with the ape. Evolution must reduce by the same principle that atheism reduces into agnostism. And agnosticism for me is: I have no proof g-d exists, but I will keep an open mind and hope that if one does it will be benevolent. Until then, I will take a wait-and-see approach but never giving up the search.


It is one of the defects that were implanted with the question 'why', the defect of thinking by observing events as single events, unrelated to each other. For each event (evolutionary step) the question for the why is tried to be answered for this event alone.

If we didn’t ask “Why?” then we would be perfectly content to hunt, have sex, sleep, etc. in the same way the ape does. But obviously those pleasures are not enough. Because we do ask why, I feel that this might be a sign that whatever created us meant that the question be asked. As I have stated in a previous post, what if our brains were created for the exclusive purpose of understanding “g-d”? We humans hardly know ourselves much less anything else. Maybe our brains are there to understand ourselves first, then g-d. Or rather, understand ourselves, hence, g-d.
Perhaps the brain that formulated the "why?" was designed to help us go beyond the pointlessness of debate and become one with our alleged creator.


If you find plants on such a planet, life is there.

If you find plants on such a planet, “g-d” is there. You see how they are interchangeable? Life, evolution, athiesm, nature, etc., are all the same to me, and each reduces into agnosticism.


There is no magic, no miracle, no god, just NATURE.

What if I said:

“There is no Germany, there is no atheism, there is no Velvet."?

Would you like your personal beielfs and convictions reduced to such a nothingness? If there is no point to the universe then the same must apply to what happens on the earth. To follow this nothingness principle must necessarily mean that Germanic Preservation is just as meaningless to pursue as the definition of life and what possibly created it.


Sooner or later more complex life will come to be.

I hope not! In the world of math, everything reduces to basic arithmetic, even calculus, in order to finalize an answer that started out as very complex. In my opinion, we need to refine what we understand already, which will allow us to reduce any and all excess theories and guesswork. To make it more complex will mean that our logic will be scattered to the wind. Complexity that is not contained or reduced is pure chaos.


Once we stood upright, our brain grew...

It is also entirely possible that our brain grew while we were still on all-fours, and because of this, we were able to figure out that we can stand and walk. But myself, as well as many others out there feel that we humans began to think and figure things out as soon as we came into being, not because of some gradual procession that took thousands of years. Possibly there wasn’t a “jump” in our “evolution” because we were already there and the before mentioned theories were imposed on our conscious as a way to keep us humbled.
Science says we are monkeys, that our planet is but a grain of sand out of endless billions.
Really?
To prove this someone would literally have to travel back in time and then live long enough to witness the monkey blend into the human, or travel to the stars and invent an indisputable method to count those alleged billions of other grains of sand. Until this happens, I feel that these are nothing but false notions designed to keep humans from reaching their potential. They shackle us to the theory that we dont have the right to understand "g-d" or nature in its details.


Meanwhile our brain holds capacities to think that surmount the required amount to fulfill our 'purpose', exist, eat, procreate.

Again, there is no evidence that says we were supposed to be wild, barely thinking creatures who happily scrounge around for grubs and berries. You are still comparing humans to chimpanzees. Besides, exactly what is this “required amount”. If it does exist then how much of it is the right amount?


It wasnt enough anymore to know that things work, but we wanted to know how things work.

Spengler?


But it is important to understand that this question exists completely in the sphere of abstraction, most likely born in the fear that came to be in the moment of realisation that the universe is an unbelievable big thing.

I could just as easily say:

"But it is important to understand that atheism exists completely in the sphere of abstraction, most likely born in the fear that came to be in the moment of realisation that the universe is an unbelievable big thing."


Now, it is easy to fall for that belief. The many unanswered questions of life can be, twisted and with nature turned upside down, answered by that human-made 'creative god', but it still doesnt exist. It is not there, no matter how much you believe in it or wish it to be there.

I could also say this sentence as this:

"Now, it is easy to fall for that belief. The many unanswered questions of life can be, twisted and with nature turned upside down, answered by that human-made 'atheism', but it still doesnt exist. It is not there, no matter how much you believe in it or wish it to be there."


No matter how much we will believe in this invisible creature, it will not make us a new earth when we destroyed this one. There is no paradise and no heaven to go to when we blew up this planet. But because people fell for this believe, we do exactly that, destroying our environment in which we live and on which we depend to live.

You base this knowledge on what evidence?
Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion.


Atheism is the natural state of being for humans as well as for any other living creature on earth and throughout the universe.

Write this same sentence out as:

“Atheism is a g-d-like state of being for humans as well as for any other living creature on earth and throughout the universe.”

To claim that atheism is the final answer means that you have refused to reduce it any further, which would be into agnosticism. To claim that atheism is absolute truth means that you are somehow thoroughly schooled and knowledgeable of every facet of existence, which extends to every thing on this planet and beyond the stars. This would make you are "g-d" itself.
The only entity that could possibly say that with absolute confidence is a "creator". But, if our creator says that atheism is valid then it must necessarily come into existence to say it. And to do that it would have needed to create all of this, including itself, in the first place.

Oski wrote:

Very true, I was just pointing out that they are very much a part of that culture.

Could you elaborate on this further please?

Bittereinder
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 07:40 PM
:hutheb


Evolution though needed exactly two events to get the spin-off. Earth, with its 'perfect' distance to its center star sun within the system, the environment in which plants could grow, an atmosphere and a 'perfectly' balanced gravity, to hold the atmosphere without killing plants and living things with too much gravity.
It is not so unusual, such constellations can be found many times in the universe.

Velvet, I am sure you are aware of my personal stance surrounding theism, I basically agree with all you have said. Though you are forgetting one more (if not the most important) event that people wrestling with the problem surrounding theism struggle with. Why indeed is there anything at all. Personally I don’t think there is an answer to this question, but this I believe is the crux of the matter, no pun intended.

Wulfram
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 08:05 PM
Personally I don’t think there is an answer to this question, but this I believe is the crux of the matter, no pun intended.

Why not give it a try, even if just for the fun of it?

Nachtengel
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 08:14 PM
But atheism claims to answer it by stating positively that there cannot possibly be a “g-d”. Every atheist I have ever met felt 100% sure that there is no plan behind it all, and yet, at the same time, they claim that "nature" was responsible, which to me is a word that is interchangeable with "g-d". Atheism is contradiction defined.
There is a huge difference between the concepts. There is no evidence that a "g-d", whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim exists. But there is evidence how everything came to life. Nature did not create it, nature was created, from simple chemical elements. Science has explained how. Originally, the Earth was a hostile environment to life. Life began only after water and oxygen started to exist in proper proportions on Earth. Water was brought to Earth by comets and asteroids. No "g-d" planned this, it was pure incidence. Now if you have something to refute about science, please go ahead. Otherwise, atheism, aka the disbelief in "g-d" as the creator of everything as described in the Bible, or some other "holy" book, is no "Jewish" belief, it is just common sense.

Bittereinder
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 08:14 PM
I have, it hurts my brain... :insane

Bittereinder
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 08:18 PM
Nature did not create it, nature was created, from simple chemical elements. Chemicals, elements, matter are all part of nature... So nature created itself? You see, my head is already stinging.:insane

Wulfram
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 08:39 PM
There is no evidence that a "g-d", whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim exists.


True, but there is also not enough "evidence" to prove that one doesn't exist.


But there is evidence how everything came to life.

Which is?


Nature did not create it, nature was created, from simple chemical elements.

What elements would these be, and how exactly were they used to create nature? Also, who was the entity that mixed these chemicals just right in order to create life? Saying that "nature" did it is too easy.


Science has explained how.

Explained everything?


Life began only after water and oxygen started to exist in proper proportions on Earth.

How do you know it began after water and oxygen started to exist in proper proportions on earth?
If your answer is "science", then please explain how science came to this conclusion.


Water was brought to Earth by comets and asteroids.

This theory always seemed a little too easy for me. The scientist who thought it up could not possibly have seen a meteor crash onto earth or witness how it prevented all the water on its surface from evaporating during its burning entrance into the atmosphere. Was the water somehow stored inside it?
If water was brought by comets then how did the earth not get pulled along behind one when it made a pass, much less destroy the earth altogether? No comet in recorded human history has ever dumped a surplus of water onto our planet, and nobody can explain why a comet would lose water at the precise moment it passes over one. And no amount of gravity could possibly pull the water off of a speeding comet and suck it down onto the surface.


No "g-d" planned this...

No "atheist" planned it either.:P


Now if you have something to refute about science, please go ahead.

"Science" is another g-d-like word I have reduced into agnosticism. It claims to create out of nothing without providing evidence as to just how science was enabled to do this in the first place. No matter how much they reduce their explanation into its most tiny details, they fail to admit that even then, this reduction must continue unabated. To stop this search for "The Answer" and claim no further study is needed means that you are either g-d or pretending to be one.
The true "answer" it seems, does not have an end. But science insists that it finds them all the time.

Bittereinder
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 08:53 PM
What elements would these be, and how exactly were they used to create nature? Also, who was the entity that mixed these chemicals just right in order to create life? Saying that "nature" did it is too easy.

Ronan, the bigger question is where did all this lifeless matter ie. the stuff that makes up atoms and ultimately life come from. again why is there anything at all? alive or dead for that matter, again no pun intended.

Wulfram
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Ronan, the bigger question is where did all these lifeless matter ie. the stuff that makes up atoms and ultimately life come from. again why is there anything at all? a live or dead for that matter, again no pun intended.

This is why I have the convenience (and comfort) of agnosticism to explain it all for me.:D
Neither myself, nor any scientist, has a shred of evidence to prove how the creation process works. But, whereas I still hold out for a possible explanation, the scientist claims with a g-d-like coolness to have a definite reason for why everything is. Or why most things are, but even then they are not telling the truth. They can only guess how it works much in the same way you and I can only guess whether g-d exists or not. And this must neccasarily involve making up answers that are so elaborate and complex that most people do not dare to question them. This is an aspect of science I despise, that it considers us little people not worthy of having it expalined to us, when all along they haven't any more proof than we have.

Bittereinder
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 09:22 PM
My personal opinion, We can’t go bazillions of years back in time to go and see for ourselves so that question is irrelevant. The point is I am here, who do I have to thank for that? Firstly my Parents and their/my forefathers and secondly & lastly nature, because these are the only things that can be proven to exist I believe in them and nature. I owe no gratitude or servitude to anything that is not unequivocally part of these two realities. Simple...

velvet
Thursday, September 10th, 2009, 11:47 PM
But atheism claims to answer it by stating positively that there cannot possibly be a “g-d”. Every atheist I have ever met felt 100% sure that there is no plan behind it all, and yet, at the same time, they claim that "nature" was responsible, which to me is a word that is interchangeable with "g-d". Atheism is contradiction defined.

Let's make an experiment. Put some sort of food into a box and place this box on a shelf. Dont care for it for let's say six weeks. Then open it.
Whatever you will find in there is alive, when you find "g-d" let me know ;)



Whether it is called “g-d” or “nature” the same principle applies. Nature could not have been created from nothing, by nothing, for no reason whatsoever.

Why do there need to be a 'reason' behind?


The only way to know this answer is to ask g-d/nature itself. (Atheism did not give us the power to ask, this was inherent from the start.) Until then, I’m afraid that you and I are just practicing our debate skills.

This at least has a purpose, no? ;)



I am just as suspicious and wary of evolution, itself another form of “g-d”, in my opinion. It too claims with immortal confidence that humans MUST have originated with the ape. Evolution must reduce by the same principle that atheism reduces into agnostism. And agnosticism for me is: I have no proof g-d exists, but I will keep an open mind and hope that if one does it will be benevolent. Until then, I will take a wait-and-see approach but never giving up the search.

I didnt say humans must have originated with or from the apes. In fact I doubt that, at least to a certain degree, myself. There is a missing link. But only because we didnt found it yet is for me no reason to make up instead an imagined creative god.



If we didn’t ask “Why?” then we would be perfectly content to hunt, have sex, sleep, etc. in the same way the ape does. But obviously those pleasures are not enough.

Is this so? To ask 'why' we indeed need a certain evolutionary level of development. Why is a complete abstract question. It requires consciousness and abstraction and language. Things that came to be long before any deity.

But we are not the only species conscious about our existence. I mean fully conscious about existence. This full consciousness requires to understand death. We are not the only species that feels grief about the death of another member of our herd. Elephants feel grief, dogs feel grief, and even despair to a degree that they die on the grave of their beloved. Wales appear to have a death cult even. Are they less aware of death just because they seem to have no language to formulate their own why? Or is it more that we are not able to understand their language? Of course they have one, every herd animal has a language, a way to communicate certain things to each other. On different levels indeed.

And we are not the only species creating states with castes (ants and bees) or creating free time for other members (meerkats). This is an important thing. Wales have this, lions too and meerkats. They organise their time to give leisure time to others. Why? They obviously are not content to hunt, sleep and have sex. There is something else. This something else is a higher form of culture, and once this process is started, there will be a furthering of this. Depending on how much they will be able to utilise their environment, this will probably reach another form of high culture.

Human beings were for a very long time (some million years), despite us going upright and having a large brain, no more than those animals. We were perfectly content with hunting, sleeping and having sex. The spin-off was on a very late state. It was our early form of high culture that speeded up the evolution. By that time we already had a large brain, the ability to abstract thinking, we could influence our environment to a certain degree. At one point it became a mutual development, a perpetuum mobile if you want, the more we were able to utilise and manipulate our environment, the more grew our ability for further abstraction and refinement of already present abstractions.

Even the connection of understanding that a sharp stone will make skinning the prey easier is an enormous abstract performance. Or that hitting two stones on each other can create fire. It's not that some weird creative god came and told us these things, we found out by ourselves. That we could preserve this knowledge and pass it on, on an abstract language level was the spin-off.



Because we do ask why, I feel that this might be a sign that whatever created us meant that the question be asked. As I have stated in a previous post, what if our brains were created for the exclusive purpose of understanding “g-d”? We humans hardly know ourselves much less anything else. Maybe our brains are there to understand ourselves first, then g-d. Or rather, understand ourselves, hence, g-d.
Perhaps the brain that formulated the "why?" was designed to help us go beyond the pointlessness of debate and become one with our alleged creator.

I think, see above, that we created us.



If you find plants on such a planet, “g-d” is there. You see how they are interchangeable? Life, evolution, athiesm, nature, etc., are all the same to me, and each reduces into agnosticism.

It is only interchangeable when you equal life with god. When you assume that god is a prerequisite for life and that without god there can be no life.



What if I said:

“There is no Germany, there is no atheism, there is no Velvet."?

I would ask:
How can we discuss when I do not exist? In that case I would only exist within your imagination. ;)


Would you like your personal beielfs and convictions reduced to such a nothingness? If there is no point to the universe then the same must apply to what happens on the earth. To follow this nothingness principle must necessarily mean that Germanic Preservation is just as meaningless to pursue as the definition of life and what possibly created it.

That is probably true, there is no 'objective' point to it whatsoever.
But does it really matter why we are here or who or what created us? We are here (let's assume for a moment this is the case), and we face threats, in fact, we face extinction. We are living beings, and we are even aware of the wider sphere of our existence, not only our direct herd members. It doesnt matter who or what created us, we consider ourselves a valuable, in fact the most valuable species on earth, we created us through creating civilisation, and we should react to the threat accordingly: fight our enemies.

If we are not able to do this, then we can either assume that our creator changed its mind, or that with our evolution went something wrong, because we lost somehow our survival instinct. The latter is correctable, the former would be 'destiny'.

But the more interesting question though is: what makes you believe that if there is no 'point to the universe' that this would nullify everything? Despite us being here, despite our consciousness, despite the value of our lives? Would a lack of reason for the universe really nullify our very existence, which is a fact, regardless of what one believes would be a reason or lack thereof?

This seems, I'm sorry and it is really no intent to insult you, but it seems to me like a very bleak view onto life. Even desperate.


I hope not! In the world of math, everything reduces to basic arithmetic, even calculus, in order to finalize an answer that started out as very complex. In my opinion, we need to refine what we understand already, which will allow us to reduce any and all excess theories and guesswork. To make it more complex will mean that our logic will be scattered to the wind. Complexity that is not contained or reduced is pure chaos.


Well, we can either decide to try to understand the complexity that is, or we flee into reductionism and end with the assumption that an invisible god which doesnt care about its creation anymore made us and lose ourselves in the try to find out what he would probably want us to do, not to do or to be to please him for that he returns and solves all the problems for us.

Considering the total lack of even hints to the existence of such a god I'd rather opt for the former. Knowing that my lifetime will not even be enough to come to know everything that is already known.



It is also entirely possible that our brain grew while we were still on all-fours, and because of this, we were able to figure out that we can stand and walk. But myself, as well as many others out there feel that we humans began to think and figure things out as soon as we came into being, not because of some gradual procession that took thousands of years. Possibly there wasn’t a “jump” in our “evolution” because we were already there and the before mentioned theories were imposed on our conscious as a way to keep us humbled.

Eh, what?
And who would that probably be who imposes these theories upon us to keep us humble? God? The Jews? Aliens? Please, you cant mean that serious :-O



To prove this someone would literally have to travel back in time and then live long enough to witness the monkey blend into the human, or travel to the stars and invent an indisputable method to count those alleged billions of other grains of sand. Until this happens, I feel that these are nothing but false notions designed to keep humans from reaching their potential. They shackle us to the theory that we dont have the right to understand "g-d" or nature in its details.

Have you ever been outside at night? Looked into the sky and noticed all the little blinking points called stars (incorrect term, but doesnt matter for the moment)? You dont believe God would pull a fabric there each night on which he had painted some points, do you? Visit an observatory. I really dont know what to reply to that.



I could just as easily say:

"But it is important to understand that atheism exists completely in the sphere of abstraction, most likely born in the fear that came to be in the moment of realisation that the universe is an unbelievable big thing."

Twisting sentences and senses will not help you to convince me of a complete unprooven creator god.



I could also say this sentence as this:

"Now, it is easy to fall for that belief. The many unanswered questions of life can be, twisted and with nature turned upside down, answered by that human-made 'atheism', but it still doesnt exist. It is not there, no matter how much you believe in it or wish it to be there."

Atheism refers to a lack of any sort of creator. As I said, twisting sentences and replacing terms with other terms that describe something completely different will not bring us nearer to an answer. The sentence doesnt make any sense anymore.



You base this knowledge on what evidence?
Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion.

Observation of human behavior. Make yourself the world a subject.

And a complete lack of hints that point to an actual existence of a creator. You say there is not enough evidence to deny god. I say there is not even a hint to come to a belief that there could be one.



Write this same sentence out as:

“Atheism is a g-d-like state of being for humans as well as for any other living creature on earth and throughout the universe.”


Now you got it ;)



To claim that atheism is the final answer means that you have refused to reduce it any further, which would be into agnosticism. To claim that atheism is absolute truth means that you are somehow thoroughly schooled and knowledgeable of every facet of existence, which extends to every thing on this planet and beyond the stars. This would make you are "g-d" itself.
The only entity that could possibly say that with absolute confidence is a "creator". But, if our creator says that atheism is valid then it must necessarily come into existence to say it. And to do that it would have needed to create all of this, including itself, in the first place.

False premise. If my creator... end of sentence, because in this case atheism would be invalid.

But do I really need to know in and out every facet of existence? Do I need to understand into the very last detail how a car works, or a radio, or a computer to use it?
Or is it enough to never have seen a hint for the creator to be convinced that it isnt there? Isnt it enough that I know how the universe came to be? How from the chaos of atoms the first molecules came to be? How from the chaos order arose, and from chaos complexity? I recommend the lecture of some astrophysical books.

Yes, it makes huge headaches when you try to understand the dimensions, the split-second events of the big bang and all that. Is every detail of it explained? No. Does it mean the theories are all wrong? No either. There are much more hints that some of these theories are right than there are hints to a creative god. As long as the latter doesnt come and shows itself, I say it doesnt exist. Science, the search for answers, on the other hand is very real. Sometimes it creates false answers. And? At some point someone comes and prooves it wrong.

The creative god (the human made invention of it) wanted to tell us that the earth is flat while at the same time being the center of the universe. Did they care that the truth was known, that the sun is the center of our galaxy and that our galaxy certainly is not the center of the universe? Did they care that the earth certainly was not flat? No, they didnt. If there was anything that tried to keep us humble then it was the superstition of an creative god.




:hutheb

Velvet, I am sure you are aware of my personal stance surrounding theism, I basically agree with all you have said. Though you are forgetting one more (if not the most important) event that people wrestling with the problem surrounding theism struggle with. Why indeed is there anything at all. Personally I don’t think there is an answer to this question, but this I believe is the crux of the matter, no pun intended.

Grimner, yes, this is the only question that remains. I think to know how the universe came to be, how planets and ultimately life came to be. I fought myself, despite a quite complete lack of mathematical talent, through books of astrophysics. Why the universe came to be? I dont know.
But I came to the conclusion that the why is perfectly unimportant ;)

Wulfram
Friday, September 11th, 2009, 01:54 PM
Let's make an experiment. Put some sort of food into a box and place this box on a shelf. Dont care for it for let's say six weeks. Then open it.
Whatever you will find in there is alive, when you find "g-d" let me know ;)

Let's make an experiment. Put some sort of food into a box and place this box on a shelf. Dont care for it for let's say six weeks. Then open it.
Whatever you will find in there is alive, when you find "atheism" let me know


Why do there need to be a 'reason' behind?

Atheism merely acts as a clamp on a severe bleeder, or like the old saying "putting a band-aid on a bullet hole". With agnosticism I am forever seeking this reason. Sometimes the search is painful, but sacrifice is necessary if true answers are to found. Sometimes the search is rewarding, and when this occurs my life becomes that much more worth living.
To uncover the mystery of all things is my goal. Atheism confines itself to human-made mysteries, but the agnostic goes beyond this and seeks an answer that you say can never happen. Until I am proven wrong, I am going to continue this search for "g-d" and hopefully be able to apply a valid definition for its being. Maybe then I can come to know myself as well as humanity alot better.


But only because we didnt found it yet is for me no reason to make up instead an imagined creative god.

You merely exchanged the word "g-d" with that of atheism. They are both one and the same. You can deny both, as I do, or you can choose one and convince yourself that it is a valid belief, which is impossible to prove(for now).


Why is a complete abstract question. It requires consciousness and abstraction and language. Things that came to be long before any deity.

Is this an admission that you were there to witness life emerge and form? Once again you claim to have 100% knowledge of how life came into being, seemingly based on the premise of "just because".


But we are not the only species conscious about our existence. I mean fully conscious about existence.

We are the only species that seeks and denies a higher power. You keep reducing the thinking human to that of an animal. I feel that because our search for the truth is singular among all other species, that we were possibly created for an ultimate purpose. Atheism wants to take away the mystery of that possibilty and claim it to be a false hope.


This full consciousness requires to understand death. We are not the only species that feels grief about the death of another member of our herd. Elephants feel grief, dogs feel grief, and even despair to a degree that they die on the grave of their beloved.

Animals feel grief then move on. We humans are the only species that tries to figure out why death as well as grief occur. There must be a reason why we are able to observe ourselves and then try to figure out the mystery of our being here.


Human beings were for a very long time (some million years), despite us going upright and having a large brain, no more than those animals.

Please provide for me evidence that proves we have been here for millions of years. The fact is, you were not there millions of years ago to witness these first human come into being. You persist in trusting the word of science that they have infallible proof of the history of humankind, when they themselves were not there to witness the beginning. How do you know we stood upright? How do you know we weren't already standing? And if you can't answer these questions then why do you confidently write them as if they are utter truths?


We were perfectly content with hunting, sleeping and having sex. The spin-off was on a very late state. It was our early form of high culture that speeded up the evolution.

Please provide for me evidence to support this statement. You must be in possession of a time-machine. If at all possible can you take me along on your next journey so that I too may witness these millions of years old events for myself?


At one point it became a mutual development, a perpetuum mobile if you want, the more we were able to utilise and manipulate our environment, the more grew our ability for further abstraction and refinement of already present abstractions.

True


I think, see above, that we created us.

We only have the capacity to refine the creation that is "human". A human cannot just appear from nothing and then create itself, because it is already created. If a human ever does "create" itself then it would be commiting an act of plagiarism.


It is only interchangeable when you equal life with god. When you assume that god is a prerequisite for life and that without god there can be no life.

Please elaborate


I would ask:
How can we discuss when I do not exist? In that case I would only exist within your imagination.

How can we discuss when atheism does not exist? In that case atheism would only exist within your imagination.


But does it really matter why we are here or who or what created us?

Yes! If we find the possible answer to "g-d" we just might find a solution to deal with the Germanic predicament. Maybe there is a race between jews and Germanics to see who can get to that answer first.
Atheism/religion have failed Germany. If something does not work you try something new. Agnosticism allows for this possibilty.
Atheism is just as pointless as the drug war, which was never meant to be won or have a logical reason behind it other than suppresion, which atheism has also been very good at.


It doesnt matter who or what created us, we consider ourselves a valuable, in fact the most valuable species on earth, we created us through creating civilisation, and we should react to the threat accordingly: fight our enemies.

Where is your evidence? Our self-importance could also have been the result of our "creator" implanting it.


But the more interesting question though is: what makes you believe that if there is no 'point to the universe' that this would nullify everything? Despite us being here, despite our consciousness, despite the value of our lives? Would a lack of reason for the universe really nullify our very existence, which is a fact, regardless of what one believes would be a reason or lack thereof?

If you kill the possible mystery of why life is you will utterly demoralize a race of people who needed this possiblity to not only make life worth living but also conduct themselves in an appropriate and respectful manner. Germany has become more less an atheist entity. And what have we seen as a result? The decline of morals as well as pride in heritage that most Germans simply do not care about anymore. This to me is as a direct result of
communist/jewish atheism imposed on our people through its many forms.


This seems, I'm sorry and it is really no intent to insult you, but it seems to me like a very bleak view onto life. Even desperate.

Are you saying that you are not desperate as well? I live almost every hour of my day stressing myself out over trying to come up with a solution to our problem.
No, I am not a happy person. I could be if I wanted, but that would mean re-joining society and just giving in. As long as Germanics are subjugated I do not feel that I have a right to contentment until all of us are given back what is rightfully ours as a people.
Of course I am desperate. These are desperate times and they require desperate measures to fix the problem.


Eh, what?
And who would that probably be who imposes these theories upon us to keep us humble?

Atheism, for one.
Science, religion, etc. Your athesim merely picked up where religion left off. It was meant to finish off the nearly destroyed spirit of a people ruined by religion. Wherever atheism has ruled, like religion, misery and genocide always follow.


Have you ever been outside at night? Looked into the sky and noticed all the little blinking points called stars (incorrect term, but doesnt matter for the moment)? You dont believe God would pull a fabric there each night on which he had painted some points, do you? Visit an observatory. I really dont know what to reply to that.

You call them stars because science tells you that they are stars. But you have never left this planet to find out if that is indeed what they are. Science, like atheism, has become your version of g-d, which is more contradiction. As far as we know that panorama of stars up there could just as easily be a backdrop similar to the one seen in the film 'The Truman Show'. If that sounds ridiculous (and it does) I defy you to prove to me that it isn't.


Twisting sentences and senses will not help you to convince me of a complete unprooven creator god.

Refusing to untwist them is no excuse either.:P


And a complete lack of hints that point to an actual existence of a creator. You say there is not enough evidence to deny god. I say there is not even a hint to come to a belief that there could be one.

Right, what I said. No proof either way. But whereas agnosticism allows the mystery to survive, atheism refuses its right to exist.


But do I really need to know in and out every facet of existence?

If you claim that atheism is absolute truth, then yes, you would. You have placed yourself on "g-d"'s throne. The only way for you to know is that you had to have witnessed the creation from start to its end. You have only caught a glimpse of this life, and yet you claim this is enough evidence?


Isnt it enough that I know how the universe came to be?

But you dont. You have not provided any evidence to prove this extraordinary statement. If you can I will prostrate myself before you and look upon you as a g-d.


I recommend the lecture of some astrophysical books.

Astrophysics. Another g-d-like word that can be reduced to agnosticism. How has this particular form of science convinced you of your atheism? Please give me some details.


Yes, it makes huge headaches when you try to understand the dimensions, the split-second events of the big bang and all that. Is every detail of it explained? No.

It is at this point where any reason that atheism could have comes to a halt, because it cannot possibly explain every detail. Only a "creator" can do this.


Does it mean the theories are all wrong? No either.

As mentioned before, theories are only temporary successes. But the individuals who created them refuse to reduce the possibilties any further.


There are much more hints that some of these theories are right than there are hints to a creative god.

Which are?


As long as the latter doesnt come and shows itself, I say it doesnt exist.

But atheism has shown itself, quite vividly. As stated before, it leaves a trail of confusion and destruction in its wake. Agnosticism is far more people-friendly.


Science, the search for answers, on the other hand is very real. Sometimes it creates false answers.

Ultimately, they are all false.


And? At some point someone comes and prooves it wrong.

Absolutely. Whose to say that at some point they wont?

Nachtengel
Saturday, September 12th, 2009, 12:33 AM
True, but there is also not enough "evidence" to prove that one doesn't exist.
Negatives cannot be proved in themselves, but if you can prove a positive that indirectly supports the theory, you can also prove a negative. Example, if someone can prove you are a Jew, there is the proof that you are not German. See? ;)


Which is?
I just explained it. H2O and O2. :)


What elements would these be, and how exactly were they used to create nature?
The elements we are made up of, and the elements that we need to sustain our lives. Water, air (oxygen), carbon, etc. Do we need to have a chemistry lesson here?


Also, who was the entity that mixed these chemicals just right in order to create life? Saying that "nature" did it is too easy.
There was no "who". You are thinking in Semitic terms.


How do you know it began after water and oxygen started to exist in proper proportions on earth?
If your answer is "science", then please explain how science came to this conclusion.
Because there isn't a single being on earth that can exist without these variables. And, because science found fossils, and dated them.


This theory always seemed a little too easy for me. The scientist who thought it up could not possibly have seen a meteor crash onto earth or witness how it prevented all the water on its surface from evaporating during its burning entrance into the atmosphere. Was the water somehow stored inside it?
If water was brought by comets then how did the earth not get pulled along behind one when it made a pass, much less destroy the earth altogether? No comet in recorded human history has ever dumped a surplus of water onto our planet, and nobody can explain why a comet would lose water at the precise moment it passes over one.
There wasn't a comet, or a handful, the Earth was constantly bombed, by millions of them, an amount significant enough to produce more than a few trickles of water. Scientists came to this conclusion because they studied the matter of comets. They sent out robots and found the physical and chemical structure of a comet.
And yes, they did destroy the Earth when they bombed it, i.e. what was there already, the landscape.


And no amount of gravity could possibly pull the water off of a speeding comet and suck it down onto the surface.
That's not what scientists said either. The comets hit the earth first, you know. Jeez, we aren't at science class here, and it's late at night. I don't feel like going into details. Watch Naked Science or something, you'll get the scientific answers there.


No "atheist" planned it either.:P
Of course not. It was not planned. That was my point. There was no god or conspiracy to create us. It just happened.


"Science" is another g-d-like word I have reduced into agnosticism. It claims to create out of nothing without providing evidence as to just how science was enabled to do this in the first place. No matter how much they reduce their explanation into its most tiny details, they fail to admit that even then, this reduction must continue unabated. To stop this search for "The Answer" and claim no further study is needed means that you are either g-d or pretending to be one.
The true "answer" it seems, does not have an end. But science insists that it finds them all the time.
That's what it does. Science, or more specifically, exact sciences, because that's what we are talking about here - mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, etc - doesn't just come up with hollow theories, it verifies them. If a scientist tells you this rock is 2 million years old, it is because he verified it with a carbon test and found its age, not because he makes wild, superstitious guesses.

Another difference between science and religion is, that when science goes wrong, it corrects this error, unlike religion, which denies, silences and ignores when it's proven wrong. Religion never refutes, science does.

If to you, "atheism" is just another word for "god", to me, "agnosticism" is another word for "ignorance". I don't wish to be an ignorant, so I indulge in the path of truth seeking, on the path of science.

velvet
Saturday, September 12th, 2009, 02:22 AM
To uncover the mystery of all things is my goal. Atheism confines itself to human-made mysteries, but the agnostic goes beyond this and seeks an answer that you say can never happen. Until I am proven wrong, I am going to continue this search for "g-d" and hopefully be able to apply a valid definition for its being. Maybe then I can come to know myself as well as humanity alot better.

When that makes you feel happy, fine, go for it.
I just wonder why you (are you the same Ronan that posts one anti-christian article after another? :-O) want to persuade me, not only that it is the right way for you, but also want to persuade me that your way would be right for me too?

Actually, I'm extremely curious to learn about the universe, how life works, why certain things work how they work, I want to know as much as possible (that's why I read, for fun, every now and then books about astrophysics or other weird scientific stuff that no halfway normal human would touch voluntary). The only thing that parts us is that I decided that there is no answer to the 'big why'. Maybe there will one day be an answer, but I dont think that it will come about in my lifetime. If it however does, it is soon enough to care about.
Because, what Grimner said, now is now and this life is the only one I have. There is no point in giving gratitude and servitude to something that is not part of that life or even place it in importance above this very life.



Animals feel grief then move on. We humans are the only species that tries to figure out why death as well as grief occur. There must be a reason why we are able to observe ourselves and then try to figure out the mystery of our being here.

Is the mystery THAT we are not enough? Wouldnt there be enough to figure out? Miracles to find, potentials to grow, things to learn?
Instead you dont care about that mystery and try to figure out an answer to the 'big why', on the fly nullifying your very life, all the mysteries, miracles and potentials.


Please provide for me evidence to support this statement. You must be in possession of a time-machine. If at all possible can you take me along on your next journey so that I too may witness these millions of years old events for myself?

No, I'm sorry, it is a one-seat I'm afraid :wsg

The species Homo is around 2mio years old (when you add the pre-forms even much older), Homo Sapiens or modern human round about 160.000 years, but 'culture', paintings on cave walls, other remnants, start at not even 40K years. So for more than 100K years nothing of much interest happened. Man was nothing but an animal, perfectly content with sleep, food, sex, despite that fire was known and used already about 800.000 years ago, before the modern human even came to be. Between 40K years ago and about 10K years also not much happen. Then, 'suddenly' several high cultures arose, in Egypt around 7-8K years ago, in the middle east around 6K years ago, in China about 3,5K years ago, one otherwise completely unknown culture left Stonehenge around 7K years ago. Somewhen inbetween agriculture was invented, another important spin-off for evolution and the premise for these high cultures.

It is all there, all the fascinating informations. Maybe they dont answer the big why, but they answer all the little hows, that I find likewise interesting and fascinating. And at least I find them even more important. When I understand the how and where, it is of much more use than when I'd know the why, which is for the how and where perfectly irrelevant and doesnt explain them either.



Yes! If we find the possible answer to "g-d" we just might find a solution to deal with the Germanic predicament. Maybe there is a race between jews and Germanics to see who can get to that answer first.
Atheism/religion have failed Germany. If something does not work you try something new. Agnosticism allows for this possibilty.

Atheism allows for that possibility too. Atheism doesnt suppress anything, atheism is a conscious decision in the first place based in and emerged from free will, rejecting all the superstitions that reigned supreme for the last millenia, and indeed trying something new: science. If you want, call it a religion, it is not however.

If the premise to deal with the Germanic predicament is a solution to the question for god, then, I'm afraid, we are doomed to fall.
Unless you can figure this question out within the next five years, I'm sorry to announce that an answer will be given to a dead race. We dont have time to bother with a question with which humans bother for 2000 years already without figuring out an answer.
And when we dont act soon, and again I'm sorry to announce that there will be no 'peaceful' solution, we will be history in 2020 maybe.



Our self-importance could also have been the result of our "creator" implanting it.

Where is your evidence?



Germany has become more less an atheist entity. And what have we seen as a result? The decline of morals as well as pride in heritage that most Germans simply do not care about anymore. This to me is as a direct result of
communist / jewish atheism imposed on our people through its many forms.

No, it is a result of a) the guilt complex and b) the relentlessly running media / entertainment / brainwash machinery of the indeed Jewish people behind the curtain.

Unless you provide proof that atheism was imposed on us and is not a natural result of the vanishing of christianity's tightening grip, this is a void assumption.



Are you saying that you are not desperate as well? I live almost every hour of my day stressing myself out over trying to come up with a solution to our problem.
No, I am not a happy person. I could be if I wanted, but that would mean re-joining society and just giving in. As long as Germanics are subjugated I do not feel that I have a right to contentment until all of us are given back what is rightfully ours as a people.
Of course I am desperate. These are desperate times and they require desperate measures to fix the problem.

My observation was pointed to your spiritual belief, but obviously you connect both untearable together.

However, yes, I'm desperate too about our situation.
The difference between us is that you search for a justification to defend our race, for me it is justification enough that we are civilisation, that we are the most creative race, that we created the world that we know. It gets ruled by others right now, but it is rightfully ours and we dont need justification from a possible creator to take it back.



Science, religion, etc. Your athesim merely picked up where religion left off. It was meant to finish off the nearly destroyed spirit of a people ruined by religion. Wherever atheism has ruled, like religion, misery and genocide always follow.

I'm not hostile to a reawakening of our true faith, in fact, as you know, I support that. But to get rid off the superstitions brought by christianity the state of atheism is, I think, required. It makes no sense, and in the end no difference, when you simply replace Jesus with Oðin. To free your mind from this system, it is best to take a step back and watch it for a while from the outside.
For me it makes likewise no sense to take the belief, strip it off 'Jesus' and 'Jahwe' and call it instead agnosticism, but else go on just like before.

Maybe it was meant as what you say, but whether it came about naturally or was 'imposed', it is actually the best that could happen. We dont have a 'chinese atheism' or a 'russian atheism' which is part of suppression machinery. We have a free atheism which gives room for your own spiritual search. And, although I cant provide you with exact numbers because in Germany it is not possible to register officially as heathen, there are really many people who pick up what is just in their blood: Germanic heathenism. Despite it being demonised, still, despite you're called nazi, despite you're frowned upon. Along with the vanishing of christianity also the impact of the brainwash decreased. If it was a plan, it backfired on them.



You call them stars because science tells you that they are stars

I said that it is an incorrect term, didnt I?
They are stars and planets and satellites, there are galaxies and black holes, there are white dwarfs and red giants, supernovae and countless more miracles.

Why dont you proof your Truman Show backdrop?


You have not provided any evidence to prove this extraordinary statement. If you can I will prostrate myself before you and look upon you as a g-d.

Well, you will just have to believe me that I know. For two reasons: I'm no math genius and therefor will not be able to explain the how very detailed, and second I would have to pour out knowledge which I collected in round about 20 years of more or less intense study (hobby). You may understand that this would just take too much time.



Ultimately, they are all false

Proof?



Absolutely. Whose to say that at some point they wont?

To 'proove something wrong' means that there is a proof for something else. When it becomes proof, it leaves the sphere of being a theory, because it is true and verifiable by everyone.

Now you come and say every proof, every truth on which we base our very lives, even reality itself is, as a whole and completely, wrong.

You will just have to accept that I cant believe that. When I cant trust my senses with which I perceive the world around me and my senses with which I perceive my slice of immediate reality, even are able to perceive wider contextes, with which I understand abstract concepts, then I will certainly not trust another human's words who claims to have figured out "god".

Wulfram
Saturday, September 12th, 2009, 01:42 PM
I just explained it. H2O and O2. :)

This is not an explanation. You have only mentioned a couple of elements. Have you personally created life from them? If you haven't then there is no way for you to know for sure. No living creature has seen life created from these elements. This is just as easy as saying "g-d" created everything. Atheism/science=Religion. Every time.


The elements we are made up of, and the elements that we need to sustain our lives. Water, air (oxygen), carbon, etc. Do we need to have a chemistry lesson here?All I asked was that you explain how they create life. If you can't answer then you have no right to claim this as if it is a 100% certainty. You were not there to see the creation process. However, if you are prepared to teach me some chemistry to prove this then I am more than willing to learn.;)


There wasn't a comet, or a handful, the Earth was constantly bombed, by millions of them, an amount significant enough to produce more than a few trickles of water.Millions of comets? Wow. According to science/religion, by the time just one of them enters the inner solar system and their ices turn to gas, they billow like clouds into objects with cores thousands of miles across and tails that can stretch 10s of MILLIONS of miles as the ices in the nucleus are heated and give off gas and dust clouds and streamers. The earth would have disappeared into a puff of dust and become part of the comets tail. Also, comets are a rare intrusion into our solar system. If there were millions of them way back then how come we aren't seeing millions now?


Scientists came to this conclusion because they studied the matter of comets. They sent out robots and found the physical and chemical structure of a comet.Were you there to conduct these same studies? Did you build the robot and shoot it out into space and were able to program it to collect samples? Are you schooled enough in all facets of science relating to comets to know exactly what you are looking for, or what to conclude? Until you are able to conduct these experiments yourself there is no possible way for you to know that these scientists are telling you the truth. Why should you take their word for it? If you cant prove how the scientist achieved this then you are not qualified make such a claim. You are once again just taking their word for it.


There was no god or conspiracy to create us. It just happened.It just happened. That simple, huh?
When I ask my protestant father or mother how they know g-d works within them they say "We just know?". Your arguments for science are exactly the same way a x-tian argues for the existence of a g-d. This supports my earlier statement that "g-d" and "atheism" and "science" are all one and the same. You are still worshipping an entity.


That's what it does. Science, or more specifically, exact sciences, because that's what we are talking about here - mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, etc - doesn't just come up with hollow theories, it verifies them. Please explain how they verify them (without suggesting that I take a college course or watch National Geographic.) Also, please explain just how exact these "exact" science are. If you can't explain them yourself then you are not qualified to say these things. That show 'Naked Science' only tells you what to think. It does not, nor ever will, explain how scientists come to these conclusions or explain how they "just know" that their conclusioons are immortal proof.


If a scientist tells you this rock is 3 million years old, it is because he verified it with a carbon test and found its age, not because he makes wild, superstitious guesses.Even science admits that the carbon testing method is not completely reliable, which is the usual theme for all sciences. Have you yourself invented a method by which to determine how old something is? If you haven't then how do you know that science is telling the truth about this also?
Once again, you take the word of a scientist the same way a x-tian takes the word of a preacher. Unless you know how the method was invented and how the testing produces the desired results you are not qualified to say that it is an infallible method for answers. But, neither does the scientist. Carbon testing scratches the surface at best.



I just wonder why you (are you the same Ronan that posts one anti-christian article after another? :-O) want to persuade me, not only that it is the right way for you, but also want to persuade me that your way would be right for me too?

My search for the alleged "spirit" has nothing at all to do with my goal of becoming the ultimate anti-christ.:D
I thought we were sharpening our debate skills here. I was not trying to convince you to come over to the dark side.


The only thing that parts us is that I decided that there is no answer to the 'big why'. Maybe there will one day be an answer, but I dont think that it will come about in my lifetime. If it however does, it is soon enough to care about."Maybe". An interesting word coming from an atheist, who espouses a dogma which preaches that such a word is not possible. Maybe is more an agnostic conclusion than an atheist one. "If it does" also qualifies as agnostic because it implies hope, whereas a genuine atheist denys the possibility of "if".


There is no point in giving gratitude and servitude to something that is not part of that life or even place it in importance above this very life.How do you know that it isn't part of your life? Maybe "it" intended us to have adverse lives to that of what society preaches. Did you not think that maybe this is the "spirits" way of saying "I made you differently form all the rest". And we are different from all the rest. The members from Skadi are, in my opinion, the ultimate rebels.


Is the mystery THAT we are not enough? Wouldnt there be enough to figure out? Miracles to find, potentials to grow, things to learn?Are you speaking of man-made "miracles"? For me they only provide a temporary amusement. They fail to completely hold my fascination for why something even more mysterious chose to create mysterious humans that stand out above the rest.


Instead you dont care about that mystery and try to figure out an answer to the 'big why', on the fly nullifying your very life, all the mysteries, miracles and potentials.What is so wrong about this?
You don't give yourself enough credit. How do you know that you aren't capable of finding the 'big why'?


The species Homo is around 2mio years old (when you add the pre-forms even much older), Homo Sapiens or modern human round about 160.000 years, but 'culture', paintings on cave walls, other remnants, start at not even 40K years. These numbers are all based on frivolous carbon testing. Unless you were there to witness pre-man come into being millions of years ago and live long enough to watch the inexplicably sudden appearance of man then you simply haven't enough evidence to prove your statement. You are taking the word of scientists who have never sat you down and explained step-by-step, inch-by-inch exactly how they have determined with infallible accuracy that man is such and such age.


So for more than 100K years nothing of much interest happened.Your preacher, the scientist, certainly has done a fine job of maintaining your faith in the unexplainable. Are you saying that you lived for this 100k period and saw nothing happen? There is no way for science to have either, and unless you can prove science is telling the truth there is no way for you to provide evidence to support your statements.


Man was nothing but an animal, perfectly content with sleep, food, sex, despite that fire was known and used already about 800.000 years ago, before the modern human even came to be.You were alive 800,000 years ago to see fire being first used? (Are you sure it is just a one-seater?:D) Can you give me a sketch, or description of the creature who came before man and was using fire? I still maintain the possibilty that man was already a thinking creature when it came into existence, which would possibly explain how civilization also just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. But, I am not saying this is what happened, I am only considering its potential as a valid theory.


Between 40K years ago and about 10K years also not much happen.How did you pass the time?;)


Then, 'suddenly' several high cultures arose, in Egypt around 7-8K years ago, in the middle east around 6K years ago, in China about 3,5K years ago, one otherwise completely unknown culture left Stonehenge around 7K years ago. Somewhen inbetween agriculture was invented, another important spin-off for evolution and the premise for these high cultures.See above.


It is all there, all the fascinating informations. Maybe they dont answer the big why, but they answer all the little hows... But true atheism does claim to have the answer for both the big and little 'whys'. It is a dogma invented to prevent individuals from having to explain the impossible details as well as the whole of life at once, and claiming it to be authority. Communism would be an excellent example of how atheism equals tyranny. "Do as you are told", or "Believe everything you are told" pretty much defines atheism when it is given power.


Atheism doesnt suppress anything... When it is being discussed in the light of intellectualism it is harmless. But when you give it guns and bombs and millions of men to fight, it becomes deadly, just like any religion. Because it has to prove its dogma to the millions of people who are justifiably going to oppose it, (and they have) the result is always the same, that millions of them die in the process.


If the premise to deal with the Germanic predicament is a solution to the question for god, then, I'm afraid, we are doomed to fall.How so?


We dont have time to bother with a question with which humans bother for 2000 years already without figuring out an answer.I was under the impression that we dont have time for anything else either. If that is the case, and unless you have a solution to offer, you may as well admit that all is already lost. I am still searching where atheists refuse to go, which is in a possible "spiritual" answer. Why not? Every attempt so far on Skadi has not come up with a viable solution other than theorizing armies out of thin air to march on Berlin. In my opinion, this forum is about the last chance that Germanics have and as far as I can see, all we are doing is reliving the glory days, at best.


And when we dont act soon, and again I'm sorry to announce that there will be no 'peaceful' solution, we will be history in 2020 maybe.If its only that far away then you may as well say that we already are history. Whats the difference between a few years? Did you ever consider taking a non-atheist approach to finding an answer?


No, it is a result of a) the guilt complex and b) the relentlessly running media / entertainment / brainwash machinery of the indeed Jewish people behind the curtain.The 'power jew' behind the scenes differs greatly than the common carpenter jew who has no power. The carpenter believes in a g-d, whereas the power jew only uses "g-d" as an excuse to claim they are chosen, when behind the scenes they are all atheists. Because they are confident that nothing comes after this life they feel this gives them the right to behave as despicably as possible and subvert, rape, and mass murder who they please in order to fill their pockets and reaffirm their unproven claim that they are superior to the Gentile. It is these same power jews who do indeed control both America as well as Germany with "jewish atheism". everywhere you turn you can the subversion, and this only came about after they have thoroughly destroyed the notion of a Gentile g-d and relaced it with that of a jewish one.


Unless you provide proof that atheism was imposed on us and is not a natural result of the vanishing of christianity's tightening grip, this is a void assumption.Can you convince me otherwise?


The difference between us is that you search for a justification to defend our race...I search for ways to justify our race to the brainwahed hordes who have been programmed to see the very devil itself at the slightest mention of Germanic Preservation. If this were an ideal world, I would not have to explain it because we Germans would be masters of this world.


...for me it is justification enough that we are civilisation, that we are the most creative race, that we created the world that we know. No arguments here.:thumbup


Maybe it was meant as what you say, but whether it came about naturally or was 'imposed', it is actually the best that could happen. We dont have a 'chinese atheism' or a 'russian atheism' which is part of suppression machinery. We have a free atheism which gives room for your own spiritual search. We have an intellectual form of atheism that allows people to find comfort in an ideology that may look good on paper, but once it is given power, all "forms" of atheism become the same, with the same results, subjugation.


Why dont you proof your Truman Show backdrop?I never claimed it was true, just a possiblity, in spite of how silly the idea is. But if there is no giant backdrop then science itself has certainly created a cloak of deceit very similar to what you saw in the film.


Well, you will just have to believe me that I know.Now you are a closet preacher?:(


For two reasons: I'm no math genius and therefor will not be able to explain the how very detailed... Nobody on this planet has ever been able to use math to find 'The Answer'. You are not alone.


You may understand that this would just take too much time.Perhaps all of "eternity".


Proof?Sure. Ultimately they are all true!
Take your pick. Wheter it is called true or false they are both unfinished answers that leave everybody hanging. How have "true" scientific answers made this worls any better for the Germanic?


When it becomes proof, it leaves the sphere of being a theory, because it is true and verifiable by everyone.Only a temporary theory, so that the scientist who invented it can collect his unearned accolades.
There is no way to prove that it is true, and from my experience this "everyone" will follow anybody off the side of a cliff if the answer is elaborate enough to fool them into thinking that way.


Now you come and say every proof, every truth on which we base our very lives, even reality itself is, as a whole and completely, wrong.Are suggesting that it is completely right?


...then I will certainly not trust another human's words who claims to have figured out "god".I never claimed to figure out "g-d". I am only hoping that if one were to exist then maybe we can find a way to use it to better our lives as Germanics. Until then I am just as skeptical as you are, the only difference is that I am open to the idea of it's potential.

velvet
Saturday, September 12th, 2009, 04:27 PM
My search for the alleged "spirit" has nothing at all to do with my goal of becoming the ultimate anti-christ.:D

But you base your search on the very same premise like christianity. That of a single, creative god that placed the human being, which he formed out of mud and blew a 'spirit' in, on earth with some weird, and basically undefined, 'purpose'.

So, from what I see, you becoming the 'ultimate anti-christ' is nothing but you becoming the new messiah.

I, on the other hand, question the entire story of an omnipotent creative god as depicted in the semitic religions.



I thought we were sharpening our debate skills here. I was not trying to convince you to come over to the dark side.

But you use the same rhethoric methods.

Else, I'm ready to cut my flesh :D


"Maybe". An interesting word coming from an atheist, who espouses a dogma which preaches that such a word is not possible. Maybe is more an agnostic conclusion than an atheist one. "If it does" also qualifies as agnostic because it implies hope, whereas a genuine atheist denys the possibility of "if".

To use your own way of argumentation: Since you are no atheist, how can you possibly know what a 'genuine atheist' would think or say? Obviously you are not in a position to make such assumptions, as you've never been there mentally.


How do you know that it isn't part of your life?

Because it isn't.



Maybe "it" intended us to have adverse lives to that of what society preaches. Did you not think that maybe this is the "spirits" way of saying "I made you differently form all the rest". And we are different from all the rest.

As I said, we created us, we made us different from all the rest. There is no creator, no destiny which is written in some imagined book of life, with a predefined outcome.

We are not only our own creators, our own gods, but also we are our own destiny: our destiny is what WE MAKE it to be, because we are GODS.

(btw a genuine atheist thought :wsg)



The members from Skadi are, in my opinion, the ultimate rebels.

Many could be, indeed.


Are you speaking of man-made "miracles"? For me they only provide a temporary amusement. They fail to completely hold my fascination for why something even more mysterious chose to create mysterious humans that stand out above the rest.

No, I speak about the miracle man is. We just start to understand that miracle, and we better concentrate on figuring out the miracle at hand than wasting time in searching for a 'not impossible' miracle, for that no hint whatsoever exists beside the desperate hope that there could be one creatur that will solve all the problems for us.

As I said, we are gods, and we better start to understand our creation ;)



What is so wrong about this?
You don't give yourself enough credit. How do you know that you aren't capable of finding the 'big why'?

I actually believe that I am, I just search for the answer in another place: within us.



These numbers are all based on frivolous carbon testing. Unless you were there to witness pre-man come into being millions of years ago and live long enough to watch the inexplicably sudden appearance of man then you simply haven't enough evidence to prove your statement.

I may have not 'enough' evidence (yet) to explain every little detail.
You on the other hand dont even have an evidence to start with, that is the problem. You turn science upside down with your assumption that when science cant explain every little detail, it would falsify the entire theory, despite all the proofs for parts of it.
What you are doing is creating an axiom, declare it as ultimately true until someone will proove it wrong, knowing very well that your axiom contradicts life itself, every experience of reality and therefor a counterproof of said axiom is not possible, because said axiom exists outside reality.

This is the basic problem of all religions: it creates an ivory tower of 'hope', hope creates belief, and belief denies reality and ultimately life.

The problematic part is given already with the discrepancy between reality/life and belief. People who believe in something are very likely to ignore proofs when that proof does not fit into the belief.

Mainly exactly what you are doing. You refuse to engage yourself with informations and expect others to proof your belief wrong.
Very well knowing that a belief resists proof.



Are you sure it is just a one-seater? :D

Yes, and it is mindcontrolled and can only be controlled by a mind being convinced itself is god :D


You were alive 800,000 years ago to see fire being first used? Can you give me a sketch, or description of the creature who came before man and was using fire?

The creature was homo erectus.


I still maintain the possibilty that man was already a thinking creature when it came into existence, which would possibly explain how civilization also just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. But, I am not saying this is what happened, I am only considering its potential as a valid theory.

How can a theory be 'valid', or even possible, when the premise of that theory contradicts every known fact?



But true atheism does claim to have the answer for both the big and little 'whys'. It is a dogma invented to prevent individuals from having to explain the impossible details as well as the whole of life at once, and claiming it to be authority.

First, atheism is not dogma, it is, when connected with that concept, the lack thereof.
Second, I didnt talk about 'little whys' but about 'little hows'.

Third: why do you think an explanation gained step by step would be worth less, or even be worthless and invalid, than an explanation given 'at once'?
A demand that is impossible to fullfil, nothing can be explained 'at once'. This is based in the desperate hope for a paradise.


Communism would be an excellent example of how atheism equals tyranny. "Do as you are told", or "Believe everything you are told" pretty much defines atheism when it is given power.

You mix up two things that actually are not that connected than you try to assume.
I explained further below that the 'German atheism' (or Germanic atheism for that matter) is something completely different than the Chinese atheism.

That communism utilises 'atheism' doesnt make it a communist invention. Chinese atheism, as utilised by the communist regime, isnt true atheism but an anti-Tibetian dogma to ensure their own control position over the thoughts and feelings of their people. This really has nothing to do with true atheism.
It is essentially replacing one religion (Taoism) with another (Communism).


When it is being discussed in the light of intellectualism it is harmless. But when you give it guns and bombs and millions of men to fight, it becomes deadly, just like any religion. Because it has to prove its dogma to the millions of people who are justifiably going to oppose it, (and they have) the result is always the same, that millions of them die in the process.

Atheism here, general in the western world, does indeed only exist on the intellectual level. It does not have any 'power' or influence, nor does it seek for them. As I said, it is a 'wild atheism', not an engineered one. And it isnt so new either. Nietzsche, Kant, Kafka, etc., all atheists (and partly misanthropes and nihilists). You dont want to re-declare them as 'marxists', wont you?



How so?

You made that claim, I just pointed out the consequence.



I was under the impression that we dont have time for anything else either. If that is the case, and unless you have a solution to offer, you may as well admit that all is already lost. I am still searching where atheists refuse to go, which is in a possible "spiritual" answer. Why not? Every attempt so far on Skadi has not come up with a viable solution other than theorizing armies out of thin air to march on Berlin. In my opinion, this forum is about the last chance that Germanics have and as far as I can see, all we are doing is reliving the glory days, at best.

This is exactly the problem that I have with the premise of a spiritual answer before we will be able to 'march on Berlin'.
We should solve the problems at hand, the very real ones, gather an army, march on Berlin and save our race. Then there will be enough time to solve the spiritual problem.
Trying to solve first the spiritual problem and then save our race will not work, this is my argument.
Even if you would be able to come up with a spiritual answer today, you would need time to spread the word and your spiritual enlightenment, from which in turn your army would arise which then marches on Berlin and saves the Germanic race. No belief or religion ever popped up on one day and had a mass following the next. Christianity needed round about 200 years. We dont have 200 years, we dont even have 20 years, see below.


If its only that far away then you may as well say that we already are history. Whats the difference between a few years? Did you ever consider taking a non-atheist approach to finding an answer?

The demographic numbers say that we will be outnumbered in 2050. Based on today's numbers, which do not take into account the newcoming immigrants but only the already here ones breeding, and that we will be 'de facto outnumbered' when the Muslim population reaches 15-20 percent. And this figure might only apply to countries as big as Germany, with 80mio inhabitans, small countries like Denmark might face (and they actually do already) the same 'de facto outnumbering' with a far smaller figure of maybe 5-8 percent, which will be reached, given the current influx, in not even five years. Adding some years of war and you come to at best 2020.



The 'power jew' behind the scenes differs greatly than the common carpenter jew who has no power. The carpenter believes in a g-d, whereas the power jew only uses "g-d" as an excuse to claim they are chosen, when behind the scenes they are all atheists. Because they are confident that nothing comes after this life they feel this gives them the right to behave as despicably as possible and subvert, rape, and mass murder who they please in order to fill their pockets and reaffirm their unproven claim that they are superior to the Gentile. It is these same power jews who do indeed control both America as well as Germany with "jewish atheism". everywhere you turn you can the subversion, and this only came about after they have thoroughly destroyed the notion of a Gentile g-d and relaced it with that of a jewish one.

But isnt this the best argument for atheism?
They believe in their superiority and came far with that, didnt they?

As I said above, we are gods, and from my point of view it is the only 'spiritual' way that will be able to save us, because only this belief in (or conviction of) our own superiority, or to start with, our right to live, can break the imposed suicide.
No god or otherwise spiritual power will be able to do so, because in that case you would have to convince every single person one by one of your 'god' which justifies every person's survival instinct.
Where it is much easier to reawake this exact survival instinct with the pure truth: that we otherwise face extinction.



We have an intellectual form of atheism that allows people to find comfort in an ideology that may look good on paper, but once it is given power, all "forms" of atheism become the same, with the same results, subjugation.

Who says to give atheism 'power'?



Now you are a closet preacher? :(

I just turned back on you what you tried to turn to me.



Nobody on this planet has ever been able to use math to find 'The Answer'. You are not alone.

Well, physics and astrophysics require a good portion math to be explained, I never said I wanted to explain 'The Answer'. Please stop to willfully twist my statements, that's laboring.



Perhaps all of "eternity".

There is no eternity.



Sure. Ultimately they are all true!
Take your pick. Wheter it is called true or false they are both unfinished answers that leave everybody hanging. How have "true" scientific answers made this worls any better for the Germanic?

The suppression of science devastated the Germanic world, not its presence.



Only a temporary theory, so that the scientist who invented it can collect his unearned accolades.
There is no way to prove that it is true, and from my experience this "everyone" will follow anybody off the side of a cliff if the answer is elaborate enough to fool them into thinking that way.

And instead of trying to figure out yourself if it could be true or not you make it easy and deny science alltogether and place in its position a 'creative god'.



Are suggesting that it is completely right?

No, I'm suggesting that it is possible to figure out the truth. Blind faith in a nonexistent creator though will not help you to do so.



I never claimed to figure out "g-d". I am only hoping that if one were to exist then maybe we can find a way to use it to better our lives as Germanics. Until then I am just as skeptical as you are, the only difference is that I am open to the idea of it's potential.


I have to disagree. You dont only keep the possibility open, you place all your hope in it being somewhere out there, solving mysteriously 'at once' all our problems. And more worse, you seem to deny any other possible solution for the threats at hand, as you label everything except this search as 'illusions', even the reality that is.

I have some sad news for you: Utopia is dead.

Now we can either die of grief or accept the fact that we are still alive and do something that this stays that way. Utopia will not give us sense, this is up to ourselves. Which brings us back to the start:

We are gods, we are our creation, we are our destiny. No utopia, no god, no knight on the white horse and noone else, there is only we.

Vindefense
Saturday, September 12th, 2009, 05:21 PM
The question of whether atheism is jewish, is misleading. The 'Jews' who propagate this lie among our people are jews only by name. Deception is the primary weapon they use to wage war and identity is a big part of that.


These numbers are all based on frivolous carbon testing. Unless you were there to witness pre-man come into being millions of years ago and live long enough to watch the inexplicably sudden appearance of man then you simply haven't enough evidence to prove your statement. You are taking the word of scientists who have never sat you down and explained step-by-step, inch-by-inch exactly how they have determined with infallible accuracy that man is such and such age.

True. Science is in many ways nothing but a collection of theories. For every theory one scientist comes up with there is another to counter. Logically, they must cancel each other out. The carbon testing is certainly frivolous in this regard, as many results are supported only by hypothesis.


I still maintain the possibilty that man was already a thinking creature when it came into existence, which would possibly explain how civilization also just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. But, I am not saying this is what happened, I am only considering its potential as a valid theory.


Man was likely, incapable of thought until the moment in time he became self aware. But this was not the only advantage 'given to man' he was also led. We should not rule out the possibility that man's advancement is owed to a superior outside influence. The Proto Germanic people in particular, may have been 'taught' by a superior intelligence to farm and manufacture tools, vehicles and weapons.


But true atheism does claim to have the answer for both the big and little 'whys'. It is a dogma invented to prevent individuals from having to explain the impossible details as well as the whole of life at once, and claiming it to be authority.

Exactly, tear man away from his creator god, and he has no purpose. Life becomes superficial and the basest external pleasures become the highest goal. Answers that can only be found intuitively become unsolvable, therefor unimportant. There is little doubt that this is the true purpose of atheism, to sever this bond between man and his god(s) making us no better than yeast. It should not be difficult to see how spiritual decline leads to cultural decline.


When it is being discussed in the light of intellectualism it is harmless. But when you give it guns and bombs and millions of men to fight, it becomes deadly, just like any religion. Because it has to prove its dogma to the millions of people who are justifiably going to oppose it, (and they have) the result is always the same, that millions of them die in the process.

Even as an idea atheism is far from harmless. Consider, what should happen if the cells within your own body became callous to your existence. If your immune system no longer thought it worthwhile to fight invasions. If your red blood cells refused to deliver oxygen to your organs. What if your heart decided that going on day in day out was futile, after all, it has never 'seen' you. If cells are aware (which I believe they are) and they begin to spread this lie, your decay is eminent.



If the premise to deal with the Germanic predicament is a solution to the question for god, then, I'm afraid, we are doomed to fall.


How so?

Because of the state we are in, this is a very unfortunate truth. Yet if the Germanic folk do not re-discover their creator god then they will have no other destiny either.

Barren, is the heart of man,
if his creator he knows not.




We dont have time to bother with a question with which humans bother for 2000 years already without figuring out an answer.


I was under the impression that we dont have time for anything else either. If that is the case, and unless you have a solution to offer, you may as well admit that all is already lost. I am still searching where atheists refuse to go, which is in a possible "spiritual" answer. Why not? Every attempt so far on Skadi has not come up with a viable solution other than theorizing armies out of thin air to march on Berlin. In my opinion, this forum is about the last chance that Germanics have and as far as I can see, all we are doing is reliving the glory days, at best.

We need to make time. The most important task that the Germanic folk have before them is regaining their spirituality. Atheism is a root to our decline, it's presence among the spirit in it's total form will only be disastrous for us. The spiritual answer may be the only one that will lead to complete revival.


If its only that far away then you may as well say that we already are history. Whats the difference between a few years? Did you ever consider taking a non-atheist approach to finding an answer?

The minority is not always disadvantaged. To believe that is suicide. Numbers should mean nothing. When they begin to, is when we are truly beaten.


No, it is a result of a) the guilt complex and b) the relentlessly running media / entertainment / brainwash machinery of the indeed Jewish people behind the curtain.

Yes, this guilt is very real problem for us, getting rid of it is even harder. For instance here in America. The colonists came to this Nation not with armies, not with soldiers, and not with the intention of driving the Natives out. Had they openly displayed this intent, then they would have been viewed as conquers for the throne. Instead the reason they were here, and the reason they gave King George, was to proselytize. They were to show the savage natives the compassion of their God. Because this compassion amounted to slaughter and desecration (and because it was primarily through deception this was achieved) our enemy has rightfully accused us. To them, we have no right to be here at all. This is why it is easy for them to justify destroying us.



The 'power jew' behind the scenes differs greatly than the common carpenter jew who has no power. The carpenter believes in a g-d, whereas the power jew only uses "g-d" as an excuse to claim they are chosen, when behind the scenes they are all atheists. Because they are confident that nothing comes after this life they feel this gives them the right to behave as despicably as possible and subvert, rape, and mass murder who they please in order to fill their pockets and reaffirm their unproven claim that they are superior to the Gentile. It is these same power jews who do indeed control both America as well as Germany with "jewish atheism". everywhere you turn you can the subversion, and this only came about after they have thoroughly destroyed the notion of a Gentile g-d and relaced it with that of a jewish one.

This enemy escaped persecution during the Reich, and they turned thier backs against their own people. They are godless, indeed.




...for me it is justification enough that we are civilisation, that we are the most creative race, that we created the world that we know.

If we are dis-satisfied with that world we have only ourselves to blame. Worlds can only be what you make of them.

Atheism is only one tool they are using to further our destruction, there are many more but all of them depend on our own acceptance. The most complete way to destroy a people is to make them do it themselves atheism, feminism, and materialism is accomplishing what guns and bullets never could.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, September 12th, 2009, 08:36 PM
I'm sorry to say, Ronan, but agnosticism is not very different from atheism. Because the agnostic rejects God too. Moreover, the agnostics are very similar to the seculars in our countries. The agnostics, like the atheists, don't care for the existence of God. Like the atheists, they act as if He didn't exist. They don't go to church, and they don't pray to him. In my view, the agnostics reject God. That's the common thing they've together with atheists.

Who invented agnosticism, by the way? Germanics or Jews? Could you prove Agnosticism is more Germanic than Christianity? Not that I think it's important, but I place agnosticism and atheism in the same pot, so I've a little bit of curiosity.

By the way, Christianity isn't opposed to evolutionism. Christianity accepts it. God created the first life forms, and they evolved. See, they aren't mutually exclusive.

Bittereinder
Sunday, September 13th, 2009, 08:49 AM
:hutheb


By the way, Christianity isn't opposed to evolutionism. Christianity accepts it. God created the first life forms, and they evolved. See, they aren't mutually exclusive.:-O

Siebenbürgerin, I have a bit of sympathy with Christians in general. I must ad that for a long time I ventured to establish a relationship with god (as that is what is required to be a Christian, at least in the protestant sects); I personally found it to be a rather single sided affair contrary to the definition of a relationship. One of the problems I have with Christians is that they are willing to take the new testament as literal relating to salvation but when something as inconvenient as the old testament’s account of creation cannot be accepted as reality Christians are willing to use their imagination to fill in the gaps.

IMO as a Christian one cannot say that this part of the bible is meant as literal and should be accepted as such, but this part is only a story and can be interpreted in the most convenient manner so as to bolster credibility. IMO if one part is brought into doubt it affect the whole account. Christians in general, cannot consider their faith as pliable by any stretch of the imagination for it serves only to fuel skepticism. It is also rather presumptuous to speak for Christianity in general regarding a quagmire with so much bearing on the Christian faith. It can be comparable to me saying that Nationalsocialism isn’t opposed to racial interbreeding. The implications of such a statement are to far reaching for any one persone to make such a claim, especially in such a mater o’ fact manner. I do appreciate the fact that Christians such as you are willing to engage a sticky topic like evolution.;)

GroeneWolf
Sunday, September 13th, 2009, 11:58 AM
- Because the jews doesn't view it as a sin it becomes a jewish thing? Come on, thats ridicilous. So if jews liked drinking beer, it would be a jewish thing to drink a beer?

Wether you like it or not, Jewish theology does not vieuw atheism as something evil. One can still be Jewish will profess to be an atheist. The only time during the Classical Germanic period, to give it a name, was during its ending, when some Germanic leaders professed a believe in their own strength alone.

Second of all the Jews claimed to have given commandments for the non-Jews. The socalled edicts of Noach. one of them is that non-Jews should adhere to the same rules considering gods as Jews. With other words either worship Jaweh alone, or no gods at all.


How can Atheism be a Jewish thing if being a Jew means you must adhere to Judaism?

Because Jewish theology does not mean you have to believe in Jaweh to be a Jew. Only that you do not worship other gods. Wether or not you worship Jaweh is indifferent for them.