PDA

View Full Version : PROOF Every Atheist on the Internet is a Fake



Pages : [1] 2

TruthSeeker
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 10:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXdifnfdezE

Suppose you REALLY BELIEVE that there is no God...
and you REALLY BELIEVE that there's no intelligent purpose or design to the universe...
So, therefore, you believe that nothing REALLY MATTERS. (belief, actions, etc...)
Then, why would you go through the trouble arguing about it?
UNLESS...
you REALLY DON'T BELIEVE what you claim?

Every Atheist who argues therefore has to be a fake.

:thumbup

If you don't get the video, or what's written above then think a little bit more about it.

Atheists believe there is no meaning or purpose to anything.

Why then do they debate over the net? Why all the trouble?

If you check my other thread, you will find 3 or 4 atheists who have trolled it out, going through great lengths to insult or attempt to refute Christianity or the Bible. Why though? Atheism means there is no purpose or meaning to anything.

Wychaert
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 11:09 PM
Thank you...
Now I've learned my lesson.
That guy with those supercool sunglasses, and his nice looking cap is absolutly right, now I wont never debate christianity again!

I will never tell the christians to get a life anymore.. Or asking them if they are wasting time with prayers and mandatory church vissits and sevices to some thing they call god..

Silly me, I tought that nature built it self..

Thank you TruthSeeker.

Sissi
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 11:26 PM
I don't think this constitutes any proof and the conclusions are quickly jumped to in a what seems a desperate attempt to disprove atheists.

The only thing that makes sense there is that atheists really believe that there is no god. The rest sounds like nonsense, sorry.

How did for example this person come to the conclusion that not believing a god made the universe leads to believing nothing really matters? Just because they/you/Christians believe your god equals everything, it doesn't mean the same must be thought by atheists. Atheism means there is no purpose to believing in god, not 'anything'. They believe in other things, particularly science, just not theism. That's what atheism means etymologically, absence of theism. Not absence of everything.

Hrogar
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 11:38 PM
Atheists believe there is no meaning or purpose to anything.


That video was absolutely dumb.
No god means no purpose???
Sorry, but that is one of the dumbest messages I ever heard.

I hope, truthseeker, that the video and your post was just a bit of funny sarcasm... Otherwise it would be just a pathetic preaching attempt.
It's humor, right? Isn't it? yes?
:-O

Wulfram
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 11:48 PM
What exactly IS the purpose of atheism?
As far as I can tell atheism is whoever can deny god in the most clever manner.
Is it an intellectual competition?

What good is it?
What worth is it supposed to ultimately have?
How is atheism supposed to benefit not only the world but those who adhere to it?
After atheism...what next for the individual?

Of course, you can also ask the very same questions about religion.

I simply could not be content with leaving it at that.
I would want to keep on pushing beyond atheism/agnosticism/religion.

Elessar
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 11:54 PM
As far as I'm concerned, Atheism is a religion itself.
It has its prophets, its holy scriptures, its answers to the divine questions.
Only it chooses not to believe in God based on unfalsifiable subjects and lack of evidence.

Half of it is introspection, the other half is propaganda spewed by conceited "intellectuals" who's only intent is to stray those who are eager to find God.
The converse can be said of certain religious persuasions.

I have a hard time believing that since the dawn of time, man has been wrong about his conjectures about the divine.
We are the only creatures on the Earth with such an ability as to questioning where we come from. This is the only difference between Man and Beast

Hrogar
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 09:05 AM
I will now embark on a dangerous mission, namely answering why questions about religion. Let's see where it leads me.


What exactly IS the purpose of atheism?

This might best be answered with a question:
What exactly IS the purpose of monotheism or polytheism or agnosticism?
Religions don't have a purpose, because they weren't created with a certain intention. They only have a value and a function, which is already quite enough I guess.
And for those who don't know me, I'm an asatruar. So I think there are gods. But let's not start of about the definition about god(s), because that's an entirely different and endless discussion.



As far as I can tell atheism is whoever can deny god in the most clever manner.

Of course atheists are not those who deny there is a god(s). They simply think there is no god(s), because they don't experience or 'see' one or any. This means there is nothing to deny. It's about the apparent abscense of god(s) as an axioma. It's the monotheists or polytheists who deny the apparent absense of god(s), by stating they DO exist.




What good is it?
What worth is it supposed to ultimately have?
How is atheism supposed to benefit not only the world but those who adhere to it?
After atheism...what next for the individual?
It has the same value as any vision of life or religion. It answers questions about life. Atheists only have different answers and axioma's.




Of course, you can also ask the very same questions about religion.

Indeed.
As for atheism, I think there is no purpose to religion because this would mean religion was created with an intention, which isn't the case. But I see two functions:
Finding meaning and explanations
ControlThe first function is the oldest and most meaningful aspect of religion. The second, control, increases with the amount of dogma, because dogma's delimit the number of interpretations and 'truths' of a religion. This delimiting is only needed for control and has no other significance. So ultimately dogma's are only about power.
In my opinion a religion should only be about meaning and explanations. The more dogma's a religion has, the more it loses sight of the first function. In my opinion, the number of dogma's is actually a sign of it's inherent weakness.



I simply could not be content with leaving it at that.
I would want to keep on pushing beyond atheism/agnosticism/religion.
Tricky, what if there is nothing beyond atheism/agnosticism/religion? This would make us all denialists?!? :D

The thanks was actually a mistake. But I already learned to live with it.




It has its prophets, its holy scriptures, its answers to the divine questions.
Only it chooses not to believe in God based on unfalsifiable subjects and lack of evidence.

No, they don't have prophets, nor holy scriptures. They don't deal in 'holy' stuff. But of course they do have their own set of axioma's. But it's mostly their scientific methods that differ from the religious methods. This makes it very different from religion.



Half of it is introspection, the other half is propaganda spewed by conceited "intellectuals" who's only intent is to stray those who are eager to find God.
The converse can be said of certain religious persuasions.

I sense some grudge and frustration here, especially concerning 'the other half'. Atheists are not evil, they have different views and they have an opinion. This shouldn't be a problem.
That's why we have forums. We verbally kick each other's ass, and afterwards we laugh about it and have a digital beer.



I have a hard time believing that since the dawn of time, man has been wrong about his conjectures about the divine.

Man has proven to be wrong about a lot of things. Believing something for a long period of time, doesn't make it more true. It only prolongs the existence of an assumption.




We are the only creatures on the Earth with such an ability as to questioning where we come from. This is the only difference between Man and Beast
The only difference between Man and Beast? Mead!

Well ok, questioning life is also important. :)

Caledonian
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 09:11 AM
More useless diatribe aimed against atheists I see.

King Sitric
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 01:08 PM
The theme of this thread proves nothing at all!

It's is as unconvincing as the proof of the existance of the Judeo-Christian god Yahweh that all such devout Christian folk follow like slaves!

Religion is slavery of the mind!

Vindefense
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 03:52 PM
No god means no purpose???

The question is ultimately not whether or not atheists can provide a purpose or values for themselves but whether they are better than the values already established. This has yet to occur, instead atheism has brought man lower into the realm of mediocrity. Nietzsche's warning remains unheeded.

While they (atheists) have failed to create any better values, they still cling to the same old values of the Church, why is that? If there is no God than, the values that parade in this charlatan's name are a fraud and thou shalt not should be replaced with thou shalt. Let life then be a struggle of the fittest awarded to he who is willing to use his fellow men as fodder and stepping stones, where your loss becomes my gain. If you are to deny, deny to the fullest.

What a paradox atheists must find themselves in. They can reject the notion of a Divine purpose to life, yet can not live or organize their societies without the values that arise from it. They are the epitome of lukwarmness.

Caledonian
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 04:08 PM
The question is ultimately not whether or not atheists can provide a purpose or values for themselves but whether they are better than the values already established. This has yet to occur, instead atheism has brought man lower into the realm of mediocrity. Nietzsche's warning remains unheeded.

While they (atheists) have failed to create any better values, they still cling to the same old values of the Church, why is that? If there is no God than, the values that parade in this charlatan's name are a fraud and thou shalt not should be replaced with thou shalt. Let life then be a struggle of the fittest awarded to he who is willing to use his fellow men as fodder and stepping stones, where your loss becomes my gain. If you are to deny, deny to the fullest.

What a paradox atheists must find themselves in. They can reject the notion of a Divine purpose to life, yet can not live or organize their societies without the values that arise from it. They are the epitome of lukwarmness.

Atheists aspire towards social order and one does not need the religious fictional fables of morality or ethics in script to aspire towards it.

If anything we seek to create newer kinds of values in the place of the old ones which doesn't limit the mind.

Wulfram
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 04:24 PM
Atheists aspire towards social order and one does not need the religious fables of morality or ethics to aspire towards it.

What social order has been achieved? Atheists have been aspiring for quite some time now. I think it is time we see some results.
So far there has been some very clever table talk about what NEEDS to be done, but nothing ever is.

Religion as well as atheism are a complete waste of time(and intellectual muscle), especially in this crucial era when our folk are suffering and need something valid to turn to that actually works.


If anything we seek to create newer kinds of values in the place of the old.

What newer values? Traditional Germanic values do not need belief/disbelief in order to be instilled with a natural sense of honor and morals by which to live by.

Caledonian
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 04:28 PM
What social order has been achieved? Atheists have been aspiring for quite some time now. I think it is time we see some results.
So far there has been some very clever table talk about what NEEDS to be done, but nothing ever is.

Religion as well as atheism are a complete waste of time(and intellectual muscle), especially in this crucial era when our folk are suffering and need something valid to turn to that actually works.



What newer values? Traditional Germanic values do not need belief/disbelief in order to be instilled with a natural sense of honor and morals by which to live by.

My comments were merely trying to state that as of yet traditional held morality and ethics is inefficient in their tasks to explain everything in phenomena when it concerns social conflict or social interaction.


What social order has been achieved? Atheists have been aspiring for quite some time now. I think it is time we see some results.

Well you won't see any results anytime soon considering atheists make up around 8% of the global population in that there are by far more religious people than there is atheists.


Religion as well as atheism are a complete waste of time(and intellectual muscle), especially in this crucial era when our folk are suffering and need something valid to turn to that actually works.

Validity is subjective.


What newer values? Traditional Germanic values do not need belief/disbelief in order to be instilled with a natural sense of honor and morals by which to live by.

Honor, morals, ethics, and what have you all revolve around subjectivity in that there is no objectivism for them to be compared to in that there is no universalism on the subject for us to say one moral or ethic is absolute in comparison to another.

SaxonPagan
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 04:35 PM
Vindefense: If there is no God than, the values that parade in this charlatan's name are a fraud and thou shalt not should be replaced with thou shalt.

No!!! Just because one doesn't believe in a biblical God doesn't mean that all Atheists are liars, thieves and killers! You have made the mistake of assuming that Atheists will do the exact opposite of what's in the Bible just because they reject God, when in fact most of them don't need God for their inspiration to behave decently.

The Bible (and its counterpart in other religions) is for weak people who need to be TOLD how to lead their lives and many of them willingly go out and kill when ordered to do so by a religious leader because, sadly, they lack the strength of character to make their own decisions - they would rather delegate this responsibility!


Let life then be a struggle of the fittest awarded to he who is willing to use his fellow men as fodder and stepping stones, where your loss becomes my gain.

Sounds like many societies I know (mentioning nowhere in particular ;)) where rampant capitalism with all its exploitation coexists alongside some very devout Christianity!

Hrogar
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 04:46 PM
Well I must say that I think that atheism does not need god(s) in order to establish values and virtues for society or to establish a social order. But it's a fact that they did not yet create any new values or social order. This still makes atheism a bit of a moral wasteland and a frustrating alternative to religion.
I really wonder when atheisms starts escaping nihilism and starts creating valuable new concepts that give answers to the relevant questions in life. Just having the potential to find answers is not enough.


Currently there are a lot of atheists in the west, but most of them are only monotheists who dropped the word 'god'. Nothing new has been created, and since Nietzsche exposed many atheists achievements and all of monotheism as either useless or even destructive to mankind, prospects are not good for either one.
From the ashes the Nietzsche has left behind both monotheism and atheism have not reinvented themselves. This is problematic because many people are leaving monotheism, but find that atheism has nothing to offer in return other than science (which doesn't answer why-questions and don't offer values).

But than again, the decline of both is an advantage for heathenism. So all is not lost.
:wsg

Paradigm
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 05:36 PM
First, I must say that when Christians try to debunk atheism, it's sort of pathetic, just as much when atheist try to debunk Christianity. It would be like someone trying to debunk Odinism by attack the Poetic Edda with "Thor goes around killing giants, everyone knows giants don't exist!" and completely misses the point of the lore. Therefore, the philosophy of both must be focused.

Second, as Christians claim since there is no belief in God there is no purpose to life, I can only point you to Buddhism, and that the idea of God has been embedded in Western thought, and not particular Eastern where the idea of sin and God are still very foreign. Let a Christian give a thorough critique of Buddhism, it would be interesting to say the least (if not hilarious).

Thirdly, the atheist here claim that they don't need a guide for morals, ethics, and values, and that these are subjective, so they disregard all belief in a higher power. I must say that it's interesting that this comes up, because I've been reading Sartre, and he even reaches the point that in existentialism, and I must say further that having no belief in god, that the individual is the highest plane, reaches a point of rather nihilistic tendencies, that there is no guide, no existentialist ethics or values. The idea of God has been destroyed or killed (to echo Nietzsche), and there lies the problem, that we drift into nihilism. The idea of an omnipotent being, that infinite source of perfection has been lost, the idea rotting. Nietzsche had warned us of this, and Sartre had confirmed it, but the question arises: where do you go from here?

This flies right in the face of traditionalism, the complete breakdown of established ethics, values, and morality. In atheism it's claimed that they need no guide, so then I must ask if ethics, values, and morality are objective or subjective? Does the atheist search for an absolute, and is the absolute applicable to everyone? Are new ethics, values, and morality created, or are they just mirrored from Christianity? Where do their ethics, values, and morality come from? How does one view the self in the world and the self with others? Is there a higher spiritual plane or planes one may reach, or is there a dead end to spiritual growth?

On a whole, what makes atheism more appealing compared to other religious and spiritual views?

Caledonian
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 05:45 PM
First, I must say that when Christians try to debunk atheism, it's sort of pathetic, just as much when atheist try to debunk Christianity. It would be like someone trying to debunk Odinism by attack the Poetic Edda with "Thor goes around killing giants, everyone knows giants don't exist!" and completely misses the point of the lore. Therefore, the philosophy of both must be focused.

Second, as Christians claim since there is no belief in God there is no purpose to life, I can only point you to Buddhism, and that the idea of God has been embedded in Western thought, and not particular Eastern where the idea of sin and God are still very foreign. Let a Christian give a thorough critique of Buddhism, it would be interesting to say the least (if not hilarious).

Thirdly, the atheist here claim that they don't need a guide for morals, ethics, and values, and that these are subjective, so they disregard all belief in a higher power. I must say that it's interesting that this comes up, because I've been reading Sartre, and he even reaches the point that in existentialism, and I must say further that having no belief in god, that the individual is the highest plane, reaches a point of rather nihilistic tendencies, that there is no guide, no existentialist ethics or values. The idea of God has been destroyed or killed (to echo Nietzsche), and there lies the problem, that we drift into nihilism. The idea of an omnipotent being, that infinite source of perfection has been lost, the idea rotting. Nietzsche had warned us of this, and Sartre had confirmed it, but the question arises: where do you go from here?

This flies right in the face of traditionalism, the complete breakdown of established ethics, values, and morality. In atheism it's claimed that they need no guide, so then I must ask if ethics, values, and morality are objective or subjective? Does the atheist search for an absolute, and is the absolute applicable to everyone? Are new ethics, values, and morality created, or are they just mirrored from Christianity? Where do their ethics, values, and morality come from? How does one view the self in the world and the self with others? Is there a higher spiritual plane or planes one may reach, or is there a dead end to spiritual growth?

On a whole, what makes atheism more appealing compared to other religious and spiritual views?

Amid the underworld of nihilism one can create newer forms of values even though they rest upon subjectivity where subjectivism becomes the field of creating them.

Nihilism isn't necessarily destructive depending on how you go about looking at it.

In many respects nihilism can be creative.

Hrogar
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 06:02 PM
... so then I must ask if ethics, values, and morality are objective or subjective?

Ethics, values, and morality are per definition subjective, whether you're religious or not.

In my case I even discard any universal tendencies, since I think such claims are absurd and destructive. Ethics, values, and morality are essenially an aspect of a people, not of the world itself.

And as an Asatruar, I can say that it's the folk who give birth to ethics, values, and morality, which delimits the validity of any set of values to that folk. The gods on their part give us great examples through their divine nature and thus inspire us to improve ourselves constantly.


And as for nihilism, it is the end of thought. It is in essence the destruction of questioning and answering. It is, as always, the strong who survive the mental onslaught of nihilism and start building new concepts and ideas from the ashes. In a way, nihilism could be what the Hagal-rune is to asatru. The creation of something new through the destruction of something else. It's the cycle of life.
But sadly enough, many people keep lingering in nihilism and don't surpass it.

Paradigm
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 06:04 PM
I must break it to you that you cannot. This was Sartre's confliction, there is nothing else. You're to decide, that there is no guide, that you must live being-in-itself and bare the responsibility of your actions, but there is no guide as what to choose, you choose freely, and that's that. The values, ethics, and morality you create are subjective to your own self, and can vary from another, so you may create a new set of guides to live by, but these guides are individual, and don't reflect humanity or even atheist as a whole.

Hrogar
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 06:15 PM
I must break it to you that you cannot. This was Sartre's confliction, there is nothing else.
Well that's tough noogies for Sartre.




... but these guides are individual, and don't reflect humanity or even atheist as a whole.
Which is a very good thing. People can conclude amongst each other that they have similar views on those guides. Problem solved. You don't need dogma and blind obedience to have a common view.
I personally resent one size fits all and universalistic fiction.

Hamar Fox
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 08:31 PM
The values of Christianity are the reason Europe is in the state it is in. The world is overpopulated with non-whites because of the Christian need to supply foreign races with the medicine and standard of living to spew out 25 healthy kids per woman. Europe is filled with millions of those people of foreign races who freely interbreed with the native population because of Europe's Christian love of all men and the equality of all men under God.

Zimobog
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 08:42 PM
^
While I agree that Christianity has much blame to shoulder, I wonder if atheism will be a better way? I think that the Soviet Union pushed much more universal brotherhood than they did as Russian Christians. Atheists, at least the ones I have encountered, behave much as Christians when it comes to the 3rd world and morality.

What Atheist, or Heathen for that matter, can totally remove the effects of Christian culture from his/her mind? Many Atheists I have known where just like Christians without a belief in God, and many others were total amoral scumbags.

Not to say anyone on Skadi is that way, I am just speaking of life experiences here.:)

Sigurd
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 09:43 PM
I personally consider Athenism to be an ill-informed route, as I have myself felt at times a pretty strong connection with our ancient Germanic Gods that cannot be denied and as such consider them as part of the spiritually yet unawakened who may or may not have an experience that leads them upon spiritual paths during this incarnation. ;)

However, I suppose precisely due to that --- you can't force anyone to believe in anything. For things such as philosophy, worldview, ideology and indeed spirituality, people need to find things themselves and one can only open the door. As such, I won't hold it against any Atheist if he so believes that there is absolutely no spirituality underlying the truths of this world.

Anything beyond the question of simply not believing, is a question of Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism, for which I would recommend this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=91273). Either way, I won't hold it against any Germanic preservationist with his heart in the right place if he/she is an Atheist. Not everyone can be a spiritual person, and it would be futile to think that all of our Christian and/or Heathen forebears were automatically all devout in their belief. :shrug

Vindefense
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 10:39 PM
Atheists aspire towards social order and one does not need the religious fictional fables of morality or ethics in script to aspire towards it.

Without morality, social order must come from the point of a gun. If might is right then there is no moral ground to demand property or persons be respected.

Instead of a higher aim for man we will descend into nihilism and barbarism where new subjective values are just as false. In a world where subjectivity rules force must become the anchor by which all is measured.



If anything we seek to create newer kinds of values in the place of the old ones which doesn't limit the mind.


Your newer kind of values do not exist. I have searched high and low and have found no such thing instead I have found the opposite, dogma, doctrine and faith and a world tearing itself to pieces in nihilistic bliss where the pleasantly confused mistake the murder of God for an improvement and now live a life of constant lies, denial and doubt to hide the crime.



No!!! Just because one doesn't believe in a biblical God doesn't mean that all Atheists are liars, thieves and killers! You have made the mistake of assuming that Atheists will do the exact opposite of what's in the Bible just because they reject God, when in fact most of them don't need God for their inspiration to behave decently.



As I said, atheists are lukewarm, and it because of this that they will not be able to stand against those which are not.

TruthSeeker
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 11:16 PM
First, I must say that when Christians try to debunk atheism

Atheism has already been debunked, everything about it is nagative.

Look at the following facts:

*1. 9% of the world is Atheist. 98. 1% believe in a God. Atheists are just a minority of cranks who only exist on the internet. I mean all other religions exist in the real world and serve a purpose, Christians have Churches, Muslims Mosques etc. Atheists only have cyberspace...

* Atheists are immoral. Of course since the Bible tells us homosexuality is a sin, 99% of Homosexuals or Lesbians are Atheist. Most murderers have also been Atheist, the communists, Nazis etc were Atheist and responsible for killing millions of Jews and Christians.

* Atheists have a high suicide rate compared to those who believe in God. Since Atheism teaches there is no purpose or meaning to life, many Atheists kill themselves.

* Atheists are more obese and unhealthy than religious people. This is because like the factor for suicide, Atheists believe there is no purpose to life and so are not productive moving. They just sit around all day, like slobs.

According to the Gallup Organization:

"Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious''.

Source here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx

Full article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity

* Atheists are depressed/mentally not stable.

Full article: http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mental_and_Physical_Health

Sigurd
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 11:48 PM
*1. 9% of the world is Atheist. 98. 1% believe in a God.

And how many of those 98.1% are nominal, secular or anything like that? In Austria we have a figure nearing 12% for the "Atheism/Agnosticism/No religion" bracket, aided by the reason that it's a very religious, Catholic country, prompting those dissenting to take a greater stand. ;)


Atheists are immoral. Of course since the Bible tells us homosexuality is a sin, 99% of Homosexuals or Lesbians are Atheist. Most murderers have also been Atheist, the communists, Nazis etc were Atheist and responsible for killing millions of Jews and Christians.

1.) Source for your 99% figure? I'd say that this figure is rather ill-distorted considering that the largest number of homosexually inclined, and actually in that case trans-gender people in the world are found in India (by virtue of its large population), and every single Hijra I've ever heard of is most certainly still a Hindu. ;)

2.) I'd like to see you finding conducive proof that "the Nazis" are/were Atheist. Some followed a measure of Christianity, some a measure of Heathendom, some saw NS as a religious persuasion in itself (being an all-encompassing worldview), and perhaps some were also Atheist.

3.) Who actually cares about how many Jews these groups murdered? Does it have any bearing on us as Germanics whether this was 100 or 10,000,000? Indeed I can't seem to think it does have a particularly huge bearing on me. :shrug


Atheists have a high suicide rate compared to those who believe in God. Since Atheism teaches there is no purpose or meaning to life, many Atheists kill themselves.

Statistic for this? How much higher a suicide rate? And even if it turned out to be true, should you as a Christian not ask yourself where your God, your church failed those poor suicidal souls to lose hope so much that they chose to not only turn from your God but also to commit suicide? Just food for thought here. :P


Atheists are more obese and unhealthy than religious people. This is because like the factor for suicide, Atheists believe there is no purpose to life and so are not productive moving. They just sit around all day, like slobs.

Let's compare the United States, arguably the most religious country in the Western World, with Albania, arguably the least religious country in the Western World. Hmm.... :wsg

Arktischer
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 12:01 AM
I took my time and carefully read all the posts of this topic, most of which are complete B.S. I really cannot understand why I should care if the freaking Asian immigrant sitting next to me while riding the Calgary light rail is seeking Nirvana or if the janitor named Achmed preys to his great Allah every hour or so.

I ask all of you Christians out there, why do you care if I or any other guy on Skadi do not believe in divinity?

wittwer
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 12:03 AM
The fact of the matter is, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Especially, when it comes to Religious matters. It all comes down to Belief and Faith. Which was articulated by Luther, among other Theolological issues, which got him thrown out of the Church and started the Reformation...

As for Atheists, they first have to posit the existence of a Godhead before they can reject it. Strange huh? There is a God, but there is no God...

Lol, :D

SaxonPagan
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 12:14 AM
I ask all of you Christians out there, why do you care if I or any other guy on Skadi do not believe in divinity?

I don't think most of them do, Arktischer ;)

In fact, the vast majority of sensible Christians are staying out of this thread (and another related one) because they don't want to be associated with a certain boorish, evangelical nut job who is doing his best to portray them all in a bad light!

Arktischer
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 12:27 AM
I don't think most of them do, Arktischer ;)

In fact, the vast majority of sensible Christians are staying out of this thread (and another related one) because they don't want to be associated with a certain boorish, evangelical nut job who is doing his best to portray them all in a bad light!


The question was meant for Christians, not just for some religious fanatic in particular. I think everybody deserves to be listened regarding the matter of religion. Letting someone portray his or hers believes as the opinion of the general public is not Germanic at all.

Heinrich Harrer
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 01:01 AM
Atheists are no cohesive group. Atheists are simply all people who don't believe in a god. That's the only commonality one can speak of. Of course one can further divide Atheism into subcategories like strong atheism and weak atheism to make more specific statements about such subgroups. But in a broad sense atheism is simply the lack of belief/theism. What some christians have attributed to all atheists here are absurd fabrications exemplary of their poor abilities to reason and argue.

I like our germanic gods, but only in a cultural folklore way as they're part of our history and the stories contain ancient folk wisdom and the soul of our people. And I'm sure one can draw personal strength from these stories and they might offer guidance from time to time. But it's something different to believe that they're beings which actually exist. I don't know where some people get their conviction from to have such beliefs. I could pretend to actually believe in them, but what would be the point. I could never get that inner belief without any kind of evidence.

Caledonian
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 06:17 PM
I must break it to you that you cannot. This was Sartre's confliction, there is nothing else. You're to decide, that there is no guide, that you must live being-in-itself and bare the responsibility of your actions, but there is no guide as what to choose, you choose freely, and that's that. The values, ethics, and morality you create are subjective to your own self, and can vary from another, so you may create a new set of guides to live by, but these guides are individual, and don't reflect humanity or even atheist as a whole.

Those are the newer values I speak of and although they may start individually the goal is to transform those newer values to the benefit of the collective as a whole for some level of social cohesion.


Without morality, social order must come from the point of a gun. If might is right then there is no moral ground to demand property or persons be respected.

Instead of a higher aim for man we will descend into nihilism and barbarism where new subjective values are just as false. In a world where subjectivity rules force must become the anchor by which all is measured.




Your newer kind of values do not exist. I have searched high and low and have found no such thing instead I have found the opposite, dogma, doctrine and faith and a world tearing itself to pieces in nihilistic bliss where the pleasantly confused mistake the murder of God for an improvement and now live a life of constant lies, denial and doubt to hide the crime.





As I said, atheists are lukewarm, and it because of this that they will not be able to stand against those which are not.


Without morality, social order must come from the point of a gun.And what do you think we have today?

In the historical past social order was dictated by the sword.



If might is right then there is no moral ground to demand property or persons be respected. Which goes back to the gun.


Instead of a higher aim for man we will descend into nihilism and barbarism where new subjective values are just as false. In a world where subjectivity rules force must become the anchor by which all is measured.High aims have always been illusive.

Barbarism is the norm.


In a world where subjectivity rules force must become the anchor by which all is measured.Yes and in all honesty that's what we have now not to mention that has been the guiding principle of all of the history when it concerns civilization.


Your newer kind of values do not exist. I have searched high and low and have found no such thing instead I have found the opposite, dogma, doctrine and faith and a world tearing itself to pieces in nihilistic bliss where the pleasantly confused mistake the murder of God for an improvement and now live a life of constant lies, denial and doubt to hide the crime. A world with a godhead or without one makes not much of a difference in that the world largely could careless in that it always remains the same irregardless.

You seem to think there is a stark difference whereas I do not.


As I said, atheists are lukewarm, and it because of this that they will not be able to stand against those which are not. Personally I find your virtuous aspirations towards things built upon religious narratives as weakness.


The fact of the matter is, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Especially, when it comes to Religious matters. It all comes down to Belief and Faith. Which was articulated by Luther, among other Theolological issues, which got him thrown out of the Church and started the Reformation...

As for Atheists, they first have to posit the existence of a Godhead before they can reject it. Strange huh? There is a God, but there is no God...

Lol, :D

It was the person that posited the existence of 'God' that came first with the denier who came second.

Elessar
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 07:34 PM
No, they don't have prophets, nor holy scriptures. They don't deal in 'holy' stuff. But of course they do have their own set of axioma's. But it's mostly their scientific methods that differ from the religious methods. This makes it very different from religion.

Prophets: Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Victor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens, and the ever so popular youtuber TheAmazingAtheist, just a name a few influentials.

Holy Scriptures: Origin of Species, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism, just to name a few.

Now as a man with a great interest in science, I don't view these men or books as "evil" or stupid. Such a ignorance is what puts money in their pockets. The un-knowing is beset on both sides: the Christian fundamentalists don't understand their arguments and get angry and belligerent, and the atheists who hold themselves so highly in regards to science and empirical knowledge prance around like pompous assholes.
There's not too many humble (famous) atheists. Because of course, what defines humility can't be defined at all because, of course, moral absolutes don't exist, because of course, you can even prove the existence of the God who provided us the set of values in the first place.

To me, they revel in sin and call it true happiness.



I sense some grudge and frustration here, especially concerning 'the other half'. Atheists are not evil, they have different views and they have an opinion.

No, not evil, misguided. I have plenty of Atheist friends and I don't judge them as such.
It's not my problem however, I can't make anyone believe anything, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining God to someone who's not willing to get serious about God and to sit down and shut up.



Man has proven to be wrong about a lot of things. Believing something for a long period of time, doesn't make it more true. It only prolongs the existence of an assumption.

The only exception, that belief in God is present across all cultures at all times in history. Beliefs on the scientific have been differentiated all throughout, there is one constant, belief in the Divine.
Yourself an Asatruar, you can understand this.
To be optimistic or pessimistic is up to oneself.
God has been present, and when man does not worship God and is not present, we have the age we're living this very second. I don't believe it's just a coincidence.

Wulfram
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 07:49 PM
It was the person that posited the existence of 'God' that came first with the denier who came second.

Just what did come first? Was it a baby?
If so then who raised that baby to eventually be a believer or a denier?
Or did evolution simply plop out a fully functional adult?
That would seem more logical since it would immediately need strength as well as advanced motor skills to adapt, protect itself, and survive.
But...wouldn't that also be a case for intelligent design/creation?

I understand when evolutionists say that humans evolved from previous human-like creatures, but my questions still hold the same for them, or any other humanoid as well.

What came first? The baby, or the adult?

Elessar
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 07:54 PM
In my opinion, I don't view evolution as unacceptable. Certain creatures, even ourselves, adapt to our environment and can by that accord "evolve"

But Nature is a machine and acts as such. There cannot be a machine without an operator. If it was put on "autopilot" there had to have been given the spark to do so.

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 07:58 PM
Atheism means there is no purpose or meaning to anything.

The onus is on the individual to provide meaning and purpose to his or her life. There is no inherent meaning or purpose in life. Is the universe meaningless/purposeless? Yes, it is meaningless/purposeless and utterly impersonal--so what? Why does it exist? The universe does not need a reason to exist. If one thinks it does need a reason to exist, why does it need a reason to exist? The universe just exists: it is what it is.

Hrogar
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 08:55 PM
In answer to your post, Elessar, I will give two definitions. But trust me that this is not meant negatively or as sarcasm or mockery. The reason I give these definitions is because I would like to keep the discussion clean.


Prophets: Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Victor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens, and the ever so popular youtuber TheAmazingAtheist, just a name a few influentials.

proph•et
–noun
1.
a person who speaks for god or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2.
a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.
3.
a person who foretells or predicts what is to come: a weather prophet; prophets of doom.
4.
a spokesperson of some doctrine, cause, or movement.

The people you list don't belong in any of these categories.

But of course there are 'scientists' who won't admit it when they are wrong and choose to frantically cling to their own constructs. And there are people who even trust science for issues, such as why-questions, to which science doesn't even want to give answers.




Holy Scriptures: Origin of Species, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism, just to name a few.

Scrip•ture
–noun
1.
Often, Scriptures. Also called Holy Scripture, Holy Scriptures. the sacred writings of the Old or New Testaments or both together.
2.
( often lowercase ) any writing or book, esp. when of a sacred or religious nature.
3.
( sometimes lowercase ) a particular passage from the Bible; text.

The Origin of Species most certainly doesn't belong in this category,
because no real scientist would say that any scientific book is sacred.
And also because there is no evidence yet that this theory is wrong. And not liking the theory or having a religion that says something else doesn't count as evidence against it.
I don't know the other books well enough to give a judgement about it. Maybe they are scientifically bad books, but I can't tell.

I think science and religion should coexist in order for people to have good and successful societies. We should also see the different roles of both.
As for explaining the mechanisms of man and nature, science beats religion in every aspect. As for explaining the 'inner guiding mechanisms' of man's soul and answering life's why-questions, religion still beats science by far.

Science and spirituality are two sides of the coin. We shouldn't ask science for the meaning of life and we shouldn't ask religion how the solar system functions.




There's not too many humble (famous) atheists. Because of course, what defines humility can't be defined at all because, of course, moral absolutes don't exist, because of course, you can even prove the existence of the God who provided us the set of values in the first place.

To me, they revel in sin and call it true happiness.

For atheists and non-monotheists, sin is a concept without meaning. It only has a meaning in the context of, for example, christianity. Outside of monotheism people don't believe in something called sin, only in behaviour that is constructive or destructive to others and to the world. The difference being that sin to monotheists is defined by a god, and constructive or destructive is defined by the community.





It's not my problem however, I can't make anyone believe anything, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining God to someone who's not willing to get serious about God and to sit down and shut up.

Accepting different each others different views of the world and of life would indeed be a constructive attitude.





The only exception, that belief in God is present across all cultures at all times in history. Beliefs on the scientific have been differentiated all throughout, there is one constant, belief in the Divine.
Yourself an Asatruar, you can understand this.

The gods have indeed been present in my opinion. And every culture has believed that a god or gods have been present. I do understand that.

But I would want to say that this is proof for the existence of god(s). And I don't even feel the need to prove their existence, since it's religion and not science.



God has been present, and when man does not worship God and is not present, we have the age we're living this very second.
I think the situation is much more complicated than this. The increasing non-acceptance of religion also meant that some of the valuable things were thrown away. But that in itself doesn't explain our current dimise. But that's for other threads I guess. :)

Elessar
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 09:17 PM
My scriptures and prophets spiel was a tongue in cheek definition.
I realize they don't treat these things as "holy" but to zoom out and look at the bigger picture, all humans look up to something, whether it be God or science, we have a tendency to revere that which is higher then ourselves.
There are those who worship themselves and material desire, but none the less are placing worth on some exterior motive.

Sin is not just a Judeo-Christian concept, it's also found in Hindu and Buddhism. Nor is it the same kind of sin. To sin is to do something detrimental to yourself and to society. Whether this is proclaimed by god or established by man, the concept is the same. It's the lack of the awareness of right and wrong that leads down the path to self-destruction.

Hrogar
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 10:05 PM
... all humans look up to something, whether it be God or science, we have a tendency to revere that which is higher then ourselves.

I agree. There are numerous definitions of what 'higher' means, but people do want something or someone to look up to.
Currently people aren't getting many examples of inspirational behaviour in our own society. And many ideologies (both atheistic and religous) are either weak in itself or suffer from self inflicted bad PR.



It's the lack of the awareness of right and wrong that leads down the path to self-destruction.
I don't think this is the core reason. Most people still know that murder, theft, deceit, and such is destructive behaviour. I see a few other reasons for our problems, such as:

We as a northern people lack a positive and strong identity. This criples the belief in our right to defend ourselves as a people.
Our image of man is only based on eros-motives, which is only half the picture. The disregard of thymotic motives leads to a flawed understanding of who we are as a person, who we can be and what we want to be.
Our sick and instrumental relation with nature.
Bad leadership. Our people need leading by example, role models, and simply put people who start out on a different path and lead the way.
A huge gap in our spiritual lives.

Paradigm
Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 05:06 AM
I don't see Nietzsche being a prophet for atheism, I see him forcasting atheism and nihilism.

Segestan
Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 05:53 AM
Atheist, Christian, Muslim , Judaist ...... Free will.

Caledonian
Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 04:35 PM
Atheist, Christian, Muslim , Judaist ...... Free will.

There is no free will...


Just what did come first? Was it a baby?
If so then who raised that baby to eventually be a believer or a denier?
Or did evolution simply plop out a fully functional adult?
That would seem more logical since it would immediately need strength as well as advanced motor skills to adapt, protect itself, and survive.
But...wouldn't that also be a case for intelligent design/creation?

I understand when evolutionists say that humans evolved from previous human-like creatures, but my questions still hold the same for them, or any other humanoid as well.

What came first? The baby, or the adult?

The micro - organism came first which then evolved into other creatures which yet even still eventually evolved into us.

Segestan
Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 08:00 PM
There is no free will...



The micro - organism came first which then evolved into other creatures which yet even still eventually evolved into us.



Free will and social order are not the same. Science is a worldly art , on the materialized plain it does not matter which design came first.. they came into a designed order.

TechFin
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 04:23 AM
Why then do they debate over the net? Why all the trouble?

It's probably because no one really knows what is going on... so they debate it. I do not think there is really atheists or theists... just agnostics.

If I said there is, or is not, an entity who created the universe, that is a belief. I would have no evidence whatsoever either way, of such an entity.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 02:14 PM
Membership of religion/rejection of religion appeals to certain types of people in different contexts. The character type of the average Christian in a Christian-dominated society is likely to be quite different from the average Christian in a secular society. And likewise with atheists.

This is the basis of a lot of cultural misunderstandings between American and European members. In secular societies (such as in Britain) Christians are on the fringe. Partly for this reason, they tend to be weirdos, mentally unstable, paranoid, obnoxious, judgemental, have a superiority complex and so on. This is almost always the case, especially with outspokenly religious types. By no means am I suggesting to be different from the norm makes someone a weirdo. All of us here can think outside the box. It's just that intelligent, mentally healthy free thinkers and less intelligent, mentally unhealthy 'free thinkers' tend to have different ways of thinking and are drawn to different types of worldview, the latter type often winding up with Christianity.

No doubt some of those characteristics apply to American Christians too, but probably to a lesser degree, given that different cultural conditions mean different character types are drawn to certain belief systems. I won't go into all the reasons why, although I have theories.

The same is probably true of atheists. Because US atheists are probably a minority, and therefore counter-cultural, they tend to lean more to the left. Atheism is much harder to be a purely philosophical stance for US nonbelievers because religion is shoved in their face much, much more than is the case for Western European nonbelievers. Therefore, US atheists tend to be a particular type of person, while W. E. atheists, like HH said, are diverse in character and thought. This is also probably the reason US atheists concentrate almost exclusively on Christianity, while European atheists dislike Islam at least as much.

SaxonPagan
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 02:56 PM
I do not think there is really atheists or theists... just agnostics.

Nice one, TechFin!

Depending on how strictly you define the term "agnostic", I think there's a lot of truth in this ;)

And Hamar, that's an excellent post describing how local culture will have an influence on the characteristics of Christians and Atheists alike. I've also noticed this; for example (using Catholicism in this instance), I've always found British Catholics to be vastly different from French ones, who are in turn different to German ones. These are just my own observations.

Rev. Jupiter
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 03:10 PM
If I said there is, or is not, an entity who created the universe, that is a belief. I would have no evidence whatsoever either way, of such an entity.

That it is a belief, is a belief.

A relativist would say that religious belief is a matter of belief alone, but an absolutist would say that "belief" is only recognition of what is there for all to see.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 04:15 PM
That it is a belief, is a belief.

A relativist would say that religious belief is a matter of belief alone, but an absolutist would say that "belief" is only recognition of what is there for all to see.

No, it's a belief. Even if they were right, it would only be by chance, and would therefore still be a belief.

People who haven't been initiated into a religious belief system at an early age don't feel the same internal bias towards it that its followers do. We can look at it objectively and see it has absolutely no more going for it that the infinite number of rival possibilities. The Christian god is the real god, the Islamic god is the real god, the Roman gods are the real gods, Chuck Norris is the real god (although I realise this last one has a little more evidence in its favour), are all on an equal footing with a trillion other things you could think up. And that's only assuming that the 'origin of things' is something that can be reduced to a level of simplicity the human mind can comprehend. In all probability, it can't.

Rev. Jupiter
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 04:25 PM
No, it's a belief. Even if they were right, it would only be by chance, and would therefore still be a belief.

And yet this somehow doesn't apply to your own point of view, right?

Anyway, in the mind of a "believer", it's not belief. It's knowledge. This is what separates gnosticism from agnosticism.


We can look at it objectively and see it has absolutely no more going for it that the infinite number of rival possibilities.

Of course, we CAN'T actually say such a statement and remain objective.
It is a philosophical outlook, not common reason, that leads one to believe that all possibilities are equally viable.


And that's only assuming that the 'origin of things' is something that can be reduced to a level of simplicity the human mind can comprehend. In all probability, it can't.

No, but the reverse is quite possible, and actually relatively simple.

Ardito
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 04:53 PM
People who haven't been initiated into a religious belief system at an early age don't feel the same internal bias towards it that its followers do.

My parents are the kind of Catholic who never think to say a prayer and never set foot in a church but for weddings and funerals. I, through honest inquiry and speculation, have concluded that the kind of man I should be is a fanatic devotee of Christ with the metaphysical understanding of Plato. I have, ideologically, pretty much nothing in common with my parents or with anyone else around me. Try again.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 05:48 PM
And yet this somehow doesn't apply to your own point of view, right?

My belief is that metaphysical matters are inherently imponderable. Of course it's a belief, but given it covers an infinitely greater number of bases than the Christian stance, it's more likely true.


Anyway, in the mind of a "believer", it's not belief. It's knowledge. This is what separates gnosticism from agnosticism.

If a believer doesn't think what he believes is a belief, then he's committed an error.


Of course, we CAN'T actually say such a statement and remain objective.
It is a philosophical outlook, not common reason, that leads one to believe that all possibilities are equally viable.

Wrong. Objectively one random baseless assertion is equally unlikely as another random baseless assertion. The only variable that could bias likelihood in favour of one assertion over another is grounding in reason or observation, neither of which Christianity has over my Chuck Norris hypothesis.


No, but the reverse is quite possible, and actually relatively simple.

When you posit the finite (what the human mind can grasp) against the inifinite (what the human mind can't grasp), then you have possibility but infinitesimal probability.

Rev. Jupiter
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 06:01 PM
My belief is that metaphysical matters are inherently imponderable. Of course it's a belief, but given it covers an infinitely greater number of bases than the Christian stance, it's more likely true.

In way does it "cover an infinitely greater number of bases than the Christian stance"?


Wrong. Objectively one random baseless assertion is equally unlikely as another random baseless assertion.

Agreed. The only problem is calling an assertion baseless, when it's not.


The only variable that could bias likelihood in favour of one assertion over another is grounding in reason or observation, neither of which Christianity has over my Chuck Norris hypothesis.

Based on...what?

Oh yes. Your own personal dislike (i.e. misunderstanding) of Christianity.


When you posit the finite (what the human mind can grasp) against the inifinite (what the human mind can't grasp), then you have possibility but infinitesimal probability.

Missed the point entirely.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 06:20 PM
In way does it "cover an infinitely greater number of bases than the Christian stance"?

Because the Christian position posits that God/creation/our origins falls within the finite* (things we can understand), mine, the infinite (things we can't understand). The origin of things is more likely to fall within the infinite number of things beyond our comprehension than the finite number of things that fall within it. And the likelihood of Christianity's guesswork being accurate gets even smaller when it guesses that God is just one thing within the finite*, but expansive number of things we do know.

*This is actually somewhat inaccurate. What we do know is also infinite, since number can be introduced into what we know. This actually means the Christian interpretation, given that it has no grounding in anything, is infinitely improbable multiplied by 2.


Agreed. The only problem is calling an assertion baseless, when it's not.

It has no empirical or rational support.


Based on...what?

Oh yes. Your own personal dislike (i.e. misunderstanding) of Christianity.

So explain how the Christian God is more likely to be the creator of all things than Chuck Norris.

Ingvaeonic
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 06:40 PM
The kind of reasoning in which it is stated that atheists must posit a god's existence in order to refute that god's existence used to be called chop logic. Or atheist's must implicitly acknowledge the existence of a god in order to refute that god's existence.

Rev. Jupiter
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 06:41 PM
So explain how the Christian God is more likely to be the creator of all things than Chuck Norris.

In the traditional Christian view, God is comprised of three constituent units.
The first, the Ancient of Days, also called the Father, is the ultimate symbol of γνῶσις.
The second, the Christ, also called the Son, is the embodiment of λόγος.
The third, the Holy Spirit, is the embodiment of Σοφíα.
These emanations of the Source, which we call God, guide that aspect of the human mind that is rooted in recognition of the Absolute, rather than the immediate and manifest, toward full realization of the Absolute within our own nature and existence.

It is not a matter of petty "facts". It is a matter of philosophical soundness.

You place so much emphasis on material knowledge, and hold religions at fault for not possessing the right amount of material knowledge, but it never occurs to you that it is your own biased perspective that leads you to see material knowledge as the sole and supreme determiner of truth.
Meaning, of course, that your beloved "objectivity" is nothing more than excessive confidence in your own thought processes.

In short, fuck off.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 07:18 PM
In the traditional Christian view, God is comprised of three constituent units.
The first, the Ancient of Days, also called the Father, is the ultimate symbol of γνῶσις.
The second, the Christ, also called the Son, is the embodiment of λόγος.
The third, the Holy Spirit, is the embodiment of Σοφíα.
These emanations of the Source, which we call God, guide that aspect of the human mind that is rooted in recognition of the Absolute, rather than the immediate and manifest, toward full realization of the Absolute within our own nature and existence.

In traditional Chuck Norrisism, Chuck Norris is composed of three divine elements: His acting prowess, his fist, and his beard. His acting prowess represents the Moral infallibility of the Holy Elders, his fist represents the inherent Balance in all things, and his beard represents the Knowledge of mother Earth. These comprise a trinity of Morality, Balance and Knowledge. All life strives towards these things by nature. However, whenever life approaches the ideal of the holy Norris, the day of roundhouse reckoning will befall the world and all will die.


It is not a matter of petty "facts". It is a matter of philosophical soundness.

Would that be the philosophical soundness of a perfect God who punishes his mistakes?


You place so much emphasis on material knowledge, and hold religions at fault for not possessing the right amount of material knowledge, but it never occurs to you that it is your own biased perspective that leads you to see material knowledge as the sole and supreme determiner of truth.

A misunderstanding of what I said. I said to increase its chances of being true over its rivals, an explanation needs either an empirical grounding or a rational grounding. Preferably both. Only one of those is material. As Christianity lacks both an empirical and a rational basis (given that Christianity is internally inconsistent), it follows that an objective person should give Christianity no more credit as an explanatory system than anything else.


Meaning, of course, that your beloved "objectivity" is nothing more than excessive confidence in your own thought processes.

I have no reason to accept the claims of any belief system that I'm not emotionally invested in, unless it supplies either (satisfactory) rational explication or empirical demonstration that proves it a more solid contender than the thousands of actual rival explanations or the infinite number of hypothetical rival explanations.


In short, fuck off.

That's racist.

Hamar Fox
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 07:45 PM
My parents are the kind of Catholic who never think to say a prayer and never set foot in a church but for weddings and funerals. I, through honest inquiry and speculation, have concluded that the kind of man I should be is a fanatic devotee of Christ with the metaphysical understanding of Plato. I have, ideologically, pretty much nothing in common with my parents or with anyone else around me. Try again.

First of all LOL @ 'Anglo-Saxons' being Catholic.

As for the rest, I was talking about people genuinely detached from religion. This can only truly be the case of people with atheist, agnostic or disinterested Protestant families (if that!). Nobody objectively looks at Christianity and thinks it makes sense. No philosopher ever did. If you think Platonism is Christianity, when the truth is that a couple of Christian philosophers over a thousand years after the birth of Jesus arbitrarily drew links between their religion and Plato's philosophy because their religion itself had nothing, then you're wrong.

Ardito
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 06:30 AM
First of all LOL @ 'Anglo-Saxons' being Catholic.

Stranger things have happened. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales)

I'd consider it a sign of basic decency and respect to believe someone when they tell you what religion they and their family are. You, it seems, would not.



As for the rest, I was talking about people genuinely detached from religion. This can only truly be the case of people with atheist, agnostic or disinterested Protestant families (if that!). Nobody objectively looks at Christianity and thinks it makes sense. No philosopher ever did. If you think Platonism is Christianity, when the truth is that a couple of Christian philosophers over a thousand years after the birth of Jesus arbitrarily drew links between their religion and Plato's philosophy because their religion itself had nothing, then you're wrong.

The density of falsehoods and absurdities in this paragraph is such that I feel it necessary to answer in the form of bullet points.

-A disinterested Catholic family is identical to a disinterested Protestant family.
-I neglected to mention, as it didn't seem relevant, that I spent about ten years in my young adulthood as a vocal atheist and democratic socialist. You have made this relevant.
-I was convinced of the merits of Christianity as a direct result of being convinced of the merits of Platonism.
-I was unaware of any Christian effort to claim Platonism and have been criticised by my fellows for being insufficiently Christian due to my "pagan" beliefs.
-You're an atheist and a libertarian, so you clearly have a low opinion of Platonism as well as Christianity. You appear to be defending Platonism simply as a way of attacking Christianity further. This is poor argumentative form.

Your aggressive, incisive tone indicates that you have a personal stake in this argument. I would guess that you are trying to justify your own beliefs by attacking someone else's. I suggest that you spend some time thinking over why that is.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 07:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXdifnfdezE

Suppose you REALLY BELIEVE that there is no God...
and you REALLY BELIEVE that there's no intelligent purpose or design to the universe...
So, therefore, you believe that nothing REALLY MATTERS. (belief, actions, etc...)
Then, why would you go through the trouble arguing about it?
UNLESS...
you REALLY DON'T BELIEVE what you claim?

Every Atheist who argues therefore has to be a fake.

:thumbup

If you don't get the video, or what's written above then think a little bit more about it.

Atheists believe there is no meaning or purpose to anything.

Why then do they debate over the net? Why all the trouble?

If you check my other thread, you will find 3 or 4 atheists who have trolled it out, going through great lengths to insult or attempt to refute Christianity or the Bible. Why though? Atheism means there is no purpose or meaning to anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well Belief or no Belief in God is a Personal decision.

But I will say this much, God or no God, HELL WILL FREEZE OVER AND PIGS FLY BEFORE I WOULD REEFER TO MY SELF AS AN "ATHEIST"

Namely because it brings up images of Pot Smoking, Red Diaper Doper Baby from the 1960's and 1970's and their dysfunctional kids.

F-Them!

There is only one good Marxist, and that is a dead Marxist.

IE no discussion with Marxist "Intellectuals" for any reason, at any time. And that includes Politics, Religion, Finance, or anything else for that matter.

As an American I say.

What a person wants to believe about God is one thing, but the Marxist/Atheist BS on the other hand is another issue.

And if they want to do that, they need to find another country to live in, bottom line.

Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 07:18 AM
Excellent post, EQ Fighter. You're exactly right...Nontheism is perfectly great, but "atheism" can fuck off. However, one minor issue...


Namely because it brings up images of Pot Smoking, Red Diaper Doper Baby from the 1960's and 1970's and their dysfunctional kids.

Why automatically associate smoking pot with obnoxious Marxist subversives? Excessive alcohol consumption was once associated with beatniks...Does this mean that every single person who gets drunk is a progressive? Hardly.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 07:35 AM
Why automatically associate smoking pot with obnoxious Marxist subversives? Excessive alcohol consumption was once associated with beatniks...Does this mean that every single person who gets drunk is a progressive? Hardly.

Well I would say because large numbers of them Hippies, Yippies, and other Dimwits form the 1960's would hold public sit ins, and get high in public.

If I'm not right "beatniks" were also campus "intellectual progressive" Marxist trash as well.

My personal visceral hatred of these people though comes from watching their polices be put in place in my life time.

Had I been a National Gard trooper, in the 1960's with my current 20/20 vision of these people I can guarantee you every shot would have been a head shot, and the ones that were not would have been follow up kill shots while they were on the ground.

So once again I say F-them, and all of their values systems.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 12:00 PM
Stranger things have happened. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales)

I'd consider it a sign of basic decency and respect to believe someone when they tell you what religion they and their family are. You, it seems, would not.

99% of Catholics in England are of full or partial Irish descent. The other 1% are of full or partial Italian or Polish descent. There are no Catholic Anglo-Saxons.


The density of falsehoods and absurdities in this paragraph is such that I feel it necessary to answer in the form of bullet points.

-A disinterested Catholic family is identical to a disinterested Protestant family.

Not true. Catholicism is a much more involved religion that Protestantism. Protestantism in fact laid the groundwork for the mass agnosticism and atheism in modern Britain. This is because the difference between the lifestyles of Protestantism and agnostism is so slight. A Catholic on the other hand, whether their parents are relatively disinterested or not, will be exposed to the culture of Catholicism through exposure to devout extended family, neighbours, teachers etc. I'd wager a disinterested Catholic knows as much about religion as an interested Protestant.


-I neglected to mention, as it didn't seem relevant, that I spent about ten years in my young adulthood as a vocal atheist and democratic socialist. You have made this relevant.

The democratic socialist thing isn't relevant.



-I was unaware of any Christian effort to claim Platonism and have been criticised by my fellows for being insufficiently Christian due to my "pagan" beliefs.

Aquinas did.


-You're an atheist and a libertarian, so you clearly have a low opinion of Platonism as well as Christianity. You appear to be defending Platonism simply as a way of attacking Christianity further. This is poor argumentative form.

My opinion of Platonism isn't relevant. The fact remains that a Christianity that had been lacking in philosophical justification for over 1000 years latched onto a barely similar philosophical system (Plato's) in order to syphon some of that philosophy's credibility. My opinion on Plato's ideal republic doesn't matter, since any Christian who uses that segment of his philosophy already admits that Christianity is at best a necessary lie. Christians focus on Plato's ideas on forms, which isn't related to politics.


Your aggressive, incisive tone indicates that you have a personal stake in this argument. I would guess that you are trying to justify your own beliefs by attacking someone else's. I suggest that you spend some time thinking over why that is.

Actually, when a post contains a direct insult towards me, and another member thanks that post, then I don't extend him the courtesy I would a menber who actually rationally discusses the subject matter without childishly getting personal.

Wychaert
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 12:22 PM
EQ Fighter,
what do you think about all the heathen on Skadi then?
Do you think they shall burn in hell because they dont believe in god?

Ardito
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 02:43 PM
99% of Catholics in England are of full or partial Irish descent. The other 1% are of full or partial Italian or Polish descent. There are no Catholic Anglo-Saxons.

Anyone can pull false statistics out of their ass and make generalisations. You're still being disrespectful, too.



Not true. Catholicism is a much more involved religion that Protestantism. Protestantism in fact laid the groundwork for the mass agnosticism and atheism in modern Britain. This is because the difference between the lifestyles of Protestantism and agnostism is so slight. A Catholic on the other hand, whether their parents are relatively disinterested or not, will be exposed to the culture of Catholicism through exposure to devout extended family, neighbours, teachers etc. I'd wager a disinterested Catholic knows as much about religion as an interested Protestant.

You're doing that thing where you presume to know all about someone else again. It's very rude. You should stop.



The democratic socialist thing isn't relevant.

Of course it is. You presumed to tell me about how I developed my opinions, it was incorrect, and I corrected you.



Aquinas did.

So he did. You're right. However, he was a scholastic scumbag and his approach to the faith has little to do with mine.



My opinion of Platonism isn't relevant. The fact remains that a Christianity that had been lacking in philosophical justification for over 1000 years latched onto a barely similar philosophical system (Plato's) in order to syphon some of that philosophy's credibility. My opinion on Plato's ideal republic doesn't matter, since any Christian who uses that segment of his philosophy already admits that Christianity is at best a necessary lie.

If you want to deliberately focus on the lowest forms of Christianity, yes.



Christians focus on Plato's ideas on forms, which isn't related to politics.

This is absurd and it indicates that you don't understand the application of the idea. All of Plato's political ideas rest on the theory of forms.



Actually, when a post contains a direct insult towards me, and another member thanks that post, then I don't extend him the courtesy I would a menber who actually rationally discusses the subject matter without childishly getting personal.

Your posts in this thread, particularly towards me, have been nothing but childish generalisations, false equivocations, lies and insults, and your lack of basic respect is profound and amazing.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 03:19 PM
Anyone can pull false statistics out of their ass and make generalisations. You're still being disrespectful, too.

I have no idea where you're from, but in England I've yet to meet one, much less two (e.g. your parents) Catholics who aren't of non-Anglo-Saxon descent.


This is absurd and it indicates that you don't understand the application of the idea. All of Plato's political ideas rest on the theory of forms.

Acceptance of Plato's ideas on forms doesn't lead to acceptance of Plato's republic. Defence of Plato's ideas on forms doesn't imply a defence of Plato's republic either. I don't agree with Plato's theory of forms anyway. My point was that it was a respected theory that Christianity sought to imbibe into its own teachings to strengthen its weak foundations. However, any other religion or nonreligion could have done the exact same thing with Plato's philosophy. I'm still waiting for some explication of how Christianity is so philosophically formidable. As of yet, I've only seen repeated claims that it is without any explanation of why it is.


Your posts in this thread, particularly towards me, have been nothing but childish generalisations, false equivocations, lies and insults, and your lack of basic respect is profound and amazing.

So criticising Christianity in a troll topic overtly designed to bash atheists is tantamount to 'childish generalisations, false equivocations, lies and insults'? Where have I lied about you or insulted you? How do you propose disagreement should be expressed anyway?

I don't remember insulting Rev. Jupiter. He just got mad because I didn't agree with him. I shrugged it off, and then you took his place, again getting mad that I don't agree with you.

Caledonian
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 11:21 PM
Membership of religion/rejection of religion appeals to certain types of people in different contexts. The character type of the average Christian in a Christian-dominated society is likely to be quite different from the average Christian in a secular society. And likewise with atheists.

This is the basis of a lot of cultural misunderstandings between American and European members. In secular societies (such as in Britain) Christians are on the fringe. Partly for this reason, they tend to be weirdos, mentally unstable, paranoid, obnoxious, judgemental, have a superiority complex and so on. This is almost always the case, especially with outspokenly religious types. By no means am I suggesting to be different from the norm makes someone a weirdo. All of us here can think outside the box. It's just that intelligent, mentally healthy free thinkers and less intelligent, mentally unhealthy 'free thinkers' tend to have different ways of thinking and are drawn to different types of worldview, the latter type often winding up with Christianity.

No doubt some of those characteristics apply to American Christians too, but probably to a lesser degree, given that different cultural conditions mean different character types are drawn to certain belief systems. I won't go into all the reasons why, although I have theories.

The same is probably true of atheists. Because US atheists are probably a minority, and therefore counter-cultural, they tend to lean more to the left. Atheism is much harder to be a purely philosophical stance for US nonbelievers because religion is shoved in their face much, much more than is the case for Western European nonbelievers. Therefore, US atheists tend to be a particular type of person, while W. E. atheists, like HH said, are diverse in character and thought. This is also probably the reason US atheists concentrate almost exclusively on Christianity, while European atheists dislike Islam at least as much.

Actually as a minority United States atheist I dislike all religions in general besides just Christianity alone.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 11:38 PM
Actually as a minority United States atheist I dislike all religions in general besides just Christianity alone.

I agree that American atheists probably don't think too highly of any religion, but I bet most have more of a problem with Christianity than Odinism or Greek polytheism.

But I also think the typical proponents of certain religions, like Christianity and Islam, are a major reason for their religions' unpopularity. I've never met one I liked.

Caledonian
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 11:40 PM
I agree that American atheists probably don't think too highly of any religion, but I bet most have more of a problem with Christianity than Odinism or Greek polytheism.

Probally considering it is still traditionally the largest religion in this country.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 11:55 PM
I'm not sure why I didn't reply to this specific statement:




If you want to deliberately focus on the lowest forms of Christianity, yes.



The lowest forms of Christianity meaning actual Christianity, as expounded in the Bible and followed by 99% of Christians today and throughout history? So all Christianity that isn't so esoteric and clandestine as never to be uttered to the uninitiated (because I'm still waiting for someone to fill me in here in this thread) belongs to Christianity's 'lowest forms'? What about Jesus Christ himself? I don't think he made any link between his religion and Plato, so was he a poor practioner of Christianity too?

Rev. Jupiter
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 12:08 AM
The lowest forms of Christianity meaning actual Christianity, as expounded in the Bible and followed by 99% of Christians today and throughout history?

This here is the problem. You assume that this has been the character of Christianity historically because you don't actually know anything about Christianity beyond its modern forms. The fact that you assume that modern Christianity = all Christianity has proven over and over to everyone with even a loose grasp of Christian history that you're uninformed.


So all Christianity that isn't so esoteric and clandestine as never to be uttered to the unitiated (because I'm still waiting for someone to fill me in here in this thread) belongs to Christianity's 'lowest forms'?

Read the Philokalia. If you want to know what the opposite of "Christianity's lowest forms it", read the bloody Philokalia.
Hell, the fact that you've not read it already proves how little real dedication you have to actually critically examining the Christianity, or religion in general for that matter.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 12:25 AM
This here is the problem. You assume that this has been the character of Christianity historically because you don't actually know anything about Christianity beyond its modern forms. The fact that you assume that modern Christianity = all Christianity has proven over and over to everyone with even a loose grasp of Christian history that you're uninformed.

What's written in, say, the King James Bible is exactly what every reader of the KJB has seen throughout history since its publication. The 'differences' through time in Christianity (i.e. actual Christianity, not b/s 'esoteric' Christianity) is what little was lost in translation over time


Read the Philokalia. If you want to know what the opposite of "Christianity's lowest forms it", read the bloody Philokalia.

A better idea: Instead of pompously sniping at everything I say, why don't you actually lay down your own ideas, rather than suggest I read this or that book because you think explaining yourself is so clearly beneath you?


Hell, the fact that you've not read it already proves how little real dedication you have to actually critically examining the Christianity, or religion in general for that matter.

Where did I say I hadn't read it? I haven't, but where did I say it before now? I'm guessing this was another sad, calculated effort to swerve the argument off course from confirming everyone's sneaking suspicion that you actually have no cogent reasons for anything you believe.

This is me: 2 + 2 = 4

This is you: No it isn't

This is me: How so?

This is you: You clearly haven't read the Calamalonion Volumes VIII through XIII *brushes hand through hair as he admires himself in the pocket mirror he carries at all times*

Rev. Jupiter
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 12:31 AM
What's written in, say, the King James Bible is exactly what every reader of the KJB has seen throughout history since its publication. The 'differences' through time in Christianity (i.e. actual Christianity, not b/s 'esoteric' Christianity) is what little was lost in translation over time

It hasn't occurred to you at all that improperly translating something can change the meaning entirely? It hasn't occurred to you at all that interpretations of the words change? Really?


A better idea: Instead of pompously sniping at everything I say, why don't you actually lay down your own ideas, rather than suggest I read a book, because you think explaining yourself is so clearly beneath you?

Ask a question and you'll receive an answer. It's pretty vague to ask me "lay down (my) own ideas".

However, if it's my beliefs regarding Christianity specifically that you're asking for...Well, I'm no more Christian than I am Hermeticist, Platonist, or Dharmi, but my Christian influences are St. John the Baptist, St. Paul the Anchorite, St. Anthony the Great, Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, and St. Augustine of Hippo, among others.
My favorite book of the Bible is the Gospel of John, and my favorite non-Biblical work is contained within The Philokalia of the Neptic Saints gathered from our Holy Theophoric Father, through which, by means of the philosophy of ascetic practice and contemplation, the intellect is purified, illumined, and made perfect. Most of my ideas regarding meditation and contemplation, especially hesychasm, come from this anthology.


Where did I say I hadn't read it? I haven't, but where did I say it before now? I'm guessing this was another sad, calculated effort to swerve the argument off course from confirming the suspicion that you actually have no cogent reasons for anything you believe.

Actually, you didn't need to say it because I can tell by your grasp of Christianity that you haven't any real knowledge about the religion.

Since you've never read the text, you can't really be expected to understand how it's relevant now can you?

Hamar Fox
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 12:47 AM
It hasn't occurred to you at all that improperly translating something can change the meaning entirely? It hasn't occurred to you at all that interpretations of the words change? Really?

Wow, that never occurred to me. I just...I just had no idea. Wow.

Either state specifically what those changes and misinterpretations are or don't bring it up at all.


Ask a question and you'll receive an answer. It's pretty vague to ask me "lay down (my) own ideas".

As for my beliefs on the subject of Christianity specifically...
Well, I'm no more Christian than I am Hermeticist, Platonist, or Dharmi, but my Christian influences are St. John the Baptist, St. Paul the Anchorite, St. Anthony the Great, Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, and St. Augustine of Hippo, among others.

I imagine if you had a good reason for believing in God or Christianity you'd have presented it by now. Ok, let's go for this: Explain why God exists.


Actually, you didn't need to say it because I can tell by your grasp of Christianity that you haven't any real knowledge about the religion.

Complete knowledge of scripture is obviously irrelevant when it comes to attacking the philosophical underpinnings of a religion. You don't need every single detail of Chuck Norrisism in order to dismiss it, do you?


Since you've never read the text, you can't really be expected to understand how it's relevant now can you?

Again, the failure of any Christian to do anything but reference their dull religion's plethora of mind-numbing literature suggests we have a smoke-screen tactic.

Rev. Jupiter
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 12:57 AM
Either state specifically what those changes and misinterpretations are or don't bring it up at all.

John 1:1

If you can't tell me off the top of your head what the controversy is regarding the translation of this passage, you officially know nothing of Christianity and discredit yourself to all.

I would hold a self-proclaimed Christian to the exact same standard.


I imagine if you had a good reason for believing in God or Christianity you'd have presented it by now. Ok, let's go for this: Explain why God exists.

He doesn't, and that doesn't matter. The Absolute by its very nature does not and cannot exist, since we cannot attach any of the qualities of manifest existence to it without it ceasing to be the Absolute. The key is not to bring God down to our level, but to raise us to His level.

Short answer: The argument of God's existence is a red herring. Next question.


Complete knowledge of scripture is obviously irrelevant when it comes to attacking the philosophical underpinnings of a religion.

You can't actually grasp the philosophical underpinnings without knowing the philosophical foundations, which are elaborated in the scripture.


Again, the failure of any Christian to do anything but reference their dull religion's plethora of mind-numbing literature suggests we have a smoke-screen tactic.

Actually, it's because the literature explains the concepts in greater detail than this format will allow.

Essentially, you're making blanket statements about Christianity, I point you to proof that your assertions are false, and instead of investigating said proof you continue to argue about why it isn't good enough proof.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 01:13 AM
John 1:1

If you can't tell me off the top of your head what the controversy is regarding the translation of this passage, you officially know nothing of Christianity and discredit yourself to all.

I would hold a self-proclaimed Christian to the exact same standard.

Again, no bearing on the quality of Christianity as an explanatory system.


He doesn't, and that doesn't matter. The Absolute by its very nature does not and cannot exist, since we cannot attach any of the qualities of manifest existence to it without it ceasing to be the Absolute. The key is not to bring God down to our level, but to raise us to His level.

Strangely, the premise here exactly echoes what I put in another thread some months back. Of course, you draw the wrong conclusions from it, but I'm surprised you even came close to me in quality of logical deduction.

Of course, the correct conclusion is that God can't be known, nothing whatsoever can be predicated of 'him', and 'he' is utterly irrelevant. But, again, I'm shocked you came close to being right about something.


Short answer: The argument of God's existence is a red herring. Next question.

Obscure and incorrect, but at least I got an answer out of you :)



You can't actually grasp the philosophical underpinnings without actually reading what the philosophy is.

Not what I said. But regardless, as we know, the 'best' arguments of any system filter through to wider philosophy -- which I'm completely familiar with -- and even to the mainstream. Christians aren't hiding away some magnificent confirmation of their unique access to truth that they just don't want to share with anyone. I've heard what they have to say, what you have to say, and recognise it for the poor logical calibre that it is.


Actually, it's because the literature explains the concepts in greater detail than this format will allow.

Essentially, you're making blanket statements about Christianity, I point you to proof that your assertions are false, and instead of investigating said proof you continue to argue about why it isn't good enough proof.

So your final say is: I can't explain why I'm right, but I have all the excuses in the world for why I'm not wrong.

Rev. Jupiter
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 01:28 AM
Again, no bearing on the quality of Christianity as an explanatory system.

Yes it does.

What does John 1:1 say? In the beginning there was only Reason. Reason was with God, and Reason WAS God.

Shoddy translation of λόγος has created a Christianity wherein "the Word" is not taken to be the primordial force of intellectual comprehension of order, but a literalistic interpretation of scriptural canon.

Primal force of God's cosmic wisdom vs. a bunch of books written by dead guys.
You bet your ass pristine translation is necessary for conveying the message.



Strangely, the premise here exactly echoes what I put in another thread some months back. Of course, you draw the wrong conclusions from it, but I'm surprised you even came close to me in quality of logical deduction.

Of course, the correct conclusion is that God can't be known, nothing whatsoever can be predicated of 'him', and 'he' is utterly irrelevant. But, again, I'm shocked you came close to being right about something.

I actually once came to that conclusion, and it's the conclusion I've labored under for most of my life.

You say I draw the wrong conclusion, but from my perspective you've drawn the right conclusion given the limits of your philosophical assumptions.

Protip: Just because you lack the strength to know God doesn't mean God can't be known. It means you need some lessons in focus.

Here's a good start http://www.ldysinger.com/Evagrius/02_Gno-Keph/00a_start.htm


So your final say is: I can't explain why I'm right, but I have all the excuses in the world for why I'm not wrong.

Exactly. I can't explain why I'm right. Why? Because none of my thoughts are my own. I'm just man guided by the words of wiser men. Individual realization is necessary for understanding the words of wizards (in the proper sense of the word), but no sound worldview can exclude the words of past sages and still stay a sound worldview. Write out Tradition and you are left with an illusory, sentimental, materialistic void. Some call it sinfulness, some call it maya. It's all the same to me.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 11:24 AM
Yes it does.

What does John 1:1 say? In the beginning there was only Reason. Reason was with God, and Reason WAS God.

And reason is flawed. See the liar's paradox or Zeno's paradox, or Kant's antinomies. So God is flawed and inconsistent with itself. We also see the universe (that is, God) is inherently irrational, (e.g. quantum physics) and deductions derived purely from reason tend to be false (e.g. Euclidean geometry).


I actually once came to that conclusion, and it's the conclusion I've labored under for most of my life.

You say I draw the wrong conclusion, but from my perspective you've drawn the right conclusion given the limits of your philosophical assumptions.

If God bears no relation to anything we can experience, then we can have absolutely no understanding of its true essence. According to you, the only thing we 'know' of God is that it is absolute. We therefore know it isn't the creator and we know it isn't sentient. If God is absolute, then it is unchanging. It is what it is and can be nothing else. It can't change and hence can't act. It also can't think. To think would mean this absolute entity (or plenitude) would be different before, during and after the thought process. God simply is, but what it is can't be known, only what it isn't. And what it isn't, by your own admission, is anything we can know.


Protip: Just because you lack the strength to know God doesn't mean God can't be known. It means you need some lessons in focus.

The things we can know aren't even gradationally similar to God. Hence, we can't focus on developing anything in our own reality to bring us closer to God.

Nebelwerfer
Sunday, January 9th, 2011, 11:06 PM
If you believe in the existence of a thing then surely you need proof of its existence.

Thiests don't have any proof of God, yet they still believe in God. Athiests don't need to prove themselves because they don't believe.

Belief in something without proof is fantasy.

EQ Fighter
Friday, January 14th, 2011, 01:44 AM
EQ Fighter,
what do you think about all the heathen on Skadi then?
Do you think they shall burn in hell because they dont believe in god?

Technically a heathen is not really and Atheist. Although I might not 100% agree with their views on God, they do not rank in the same category of the Marxist.

Who if your really look at it are a fanatical religion of their own, and derived form Talmudic BS, which was reformulated by Karl Marx to be a secular Religion.

Belief or not in God is one thing, but Atheism is in itself a Radical Religion, most of the rational disbelievers in God would most likely refer to themselves as Agnostics.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 11:25 PM
Technically a heathen is not really and Atheist. Although I might not 100% agree with their views on God, they do not rank in the same category of the Marxist.

Who if your really look at it are a fanatical religion of their own, and derived form Talmudic BS, which was reformulated by Karl Marx to be a secular Religion.

Belief or not in God is one thing, but Atheism is in itself a Radical Religion, most of the rational disbelievers in God would most likely refer to themselves as Agnostics.

Was I wrong in equating Epicurus and Lucretius with Atheism? It seems that they more or less resembled Pantheism or Deism in their writings and arguements and I've always equated naturalism and Deism under the heading of non-theism. Would any of you say that the former ideal was a source repression and sedition against the folk magic, beliefs and soothsaying practices of our peoples?

Plantagenet
Saturday, March 5th, 2011, 06:30 PM
Thiests don't have any proof of God, yet they still believe in God. Athiests don't need to prove themselves because they don't believe.


Actually, agnostics are the only ones able to say they need not provide any proof because they do not take a stance, they do not make a claim either for the existence of God or against the existence of God. A theist makes the claim there is a God and thus has a burden of proof for that claim, similarly an atheist is making the claim that there is no God. True atheism is not merely stating that one does not believe in God, it is the philosophical position that there is no God. Thus by making such a claim the atheist too must provide proof for that claim.

Jäger
Saturday, March 5th, 2011, 10:12 PM
Thus by making such a claim the atheist too must provide proof for that claim.
Then again, it is for both logically impossible to prove their statements, and thus there is no "burden of proof", there is no burden of the impossible.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 5th, 2011, 10:59 PM
Actually, agnostics are the only ones able to say they need not provide any proof because they do not take a stance, they do not make a claim either for the existence of God or against the existence of God. A theist makes the claim there is a God and thus has a burden of proof for that claim, similarly an atheist is making the claim that there is no God. True atheism is not merely stating that one does not believe in God, it is the philosophical position that there is no God. Thus by making such a claim the atheist too must provide proof for that claim.

It's quite easy to disprove the existence of God insofar as the concept has any meaning to humans. And where the concept of 'God' transcends human understanding, it becomes just a word completely devoid of meaning.

Plantagenet
Saturday, March 5th, 2011, 11:02 PM
Then again, it is for both logically impossible to prove their statements, and thus there is no "burden of proof", there is no burden of the impossible.

Correct. There is no way to give full proof logically for either the existence of non-existence of God. If it were possible we would probably know the answer by now. However, one can give logical reasons as to why they believe the existence of God is either probable or improbable. In my opinion using reason and logic to explain why a person believes in either theism or atheism (or any ism related to the existence of God) is bound to be inadequate when the nature of God or the Absolute necessarily transcends the realm of ordinary experience where logic and indeed any terms relating to mundane experience have no meaning. Perhaps this is why mystics across time often believed the only way to know God is to experience God firsthand or "be" God rather than intellectualizing or rationalizing God's existence.

An interesting book that goes more in depth with this idea is "Das Heilige -Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen ", better known by the English title, "The Idea of the Holy" by the German theologian Rudolf Otto. I highly recommend anyone even faintly interested in the existence or non-existence of the Divine to give this book a read.


It's quite easy to disprove the existence of God insofar as the concept has any meaning to humans. And where the concept of 'God' transcends human understanding, it becomes just a word completely devoid of meaning.

The concept of God in relation to daily mundane existence perhaps may not be filled with much meaning, but if God exists and is the source for all of existence including our own, I don't think anything can have more meaning.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, March 5th, 2011, 11:15 PM
The concept of God in relation to daily mundane existence perhaps may not be filled with much meaning, but if God exists and is the source for all of existence including our own, I don't think anything can have more meaning.

Any God that created existence has its origin beyond existence, and since we can't come even close to conceiving anything rooted beyond existence, then we can't come even close to conceiving God. It's an empty concept.

Jäger
Saturday, March 5th, 2011, 11:21 PM
Perhaps this is why mystics across time often believed the only way to know God is to experience God firsthand or "be" God rather than intellectualizing or rationalizing God's existence.
This is the correct path, there is abstract experience, meaning someone can explain the experience to you and you will understand this, and there is an inner experience, something where words don't make any difference. The problem is often the interpretation of the divine experience, or better put its revelation, Christians took advantage thereof, because of course after that logic can build on this premise.


I highly recommend anyone even faintly interested in the existence or non-existence of the Divine to give this book a read.
I agree.


The concept of God in relation to daily mundane existence perhaps may not be filled with much meaning, but if God exists and is the source for all of existence including our own, I don't think anything can have more meaning.
Gods!


Any God that created existence has its origin beyond existence, and since we can't come even close to conceiving anything rooted beyond existence, then we can't come even close to conceiving God. It's an empty concept.
That's the problem of ideas too! :D

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 11:37 AM
The more detailed a theist's definition of God is, the easier it is to dismantle. I don't think any position that has not even one good argument in its favour (theism) should be put on an equal footing with a position that has logic and reason on its side (atheism). Agnosticism does that, which is why it is an inferior, less rational position than atheism.

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 12:31 PM
Agnosticism does that, which is why it is an inferior, less rational position than atheism.

Not sure what you mean by this last sentence here.
One of the reasons people turn to agnosticism is because it allows them to "wait and see".
This is why we keep an open mind for both atheism as well as the possibility of a god.
I fail to see how this is taking a less rational position when the entire purpose is to wait for something rational to come along. :P
Lately I have been leaning toward intelligent design.
I have arguments in favor of design that so far not a single atheist has been able to counter.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 01:21 PM
Not sure what you mean by this last sentence here.
One of the reasons people turn to agnosticism is because it allows them to "wait and see".
This is why we keep an open mind for both atheism as well as the possibility of a god.

Agnosticism accords two unequal positions equal value. That's not rational. For example, it's not rational to say, "I don't know for a fact that a blue gibbon isn't sunbathing in that room over there, so therefore it is equally likely that a blue gibbon is sunbathing in that room as it is likely that one isn't."



Lately I have been leaning toward intelligent design.
I have arguments in favor of design that so far not a single atheist has been able to counter.

Impossible, since there are no good arguments for intelligent design.

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 01:28 PM
Impossible, since there are no good arguments for intelligent design.

I quote myself from earlier on in this thread. We shall take it from here:


In what form did the humanoid first emerge? Was it a baby?
If so then who, or what, raised that baby?
Or did evolution simply plop out a fully functional adult?
That would seem more logical since it would immediately need strength as well as advanced motor skills to adapt, protect itself, and survive.
But...wouldn't that also be a case for intelligent design/creation?

I understand when evolutionists say that humans evolved from previous human-like creatures, but my questions still hold the same for them, or any other humanoid as well.

What came first? The baby, or the adult?

Jäger
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 01:46 PM
The more detailed a theist's definition of God is, the easier it is to dismantle.
Of course, the mere definition of God is already dismantling his existence, a definition is a limit, God is (allegedly) limitless.


I don't think any position that has not even one good argument in its favour (theism) should be put on an equal footing with a position that has logic and reason on its side (atheism).
What is this logic?

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 01:56 PM
I quote myself from earlier on in this thread. We shall take it from here:

In what form did the humanoid first emerge? Was it a baby?
If so then who, or what, raised that baby?
Or did evolution simply plop out a fully functional adult?
That would seem more logical since it would immediately need strength as well as advanced motor skills to adapt, protect itself, and survive.
But...wouldn't that also be a case for intelligent design/creation?

I understand when evolutionists say that humans evolved from previous human-like creatures, but my questions still hold the same for them, or any other humanoid as well.

What came first? The baby, or the adult?

No offence, but that's even worse than the arguments I had in mind when I made my last post. Your point is more an observation on semantics than on biology. Why semantic? Well, it's like asking this: "At what specific blade of grass does the field end and the adjacent environment begin?"

The question is only a matter of language, since we know the 'field' is just a word and a concept and not something that literally exists. Since we create the concept of the field, we can arbitrarily determine its limits. So with species. It's a matter of semantics when the first human was born. Whichever organism we label the first 'human' would differ only marginally from its 'non-human' parents, and they would only be different species in language. Thankfully, since extant species are separated by generations, this problem is only hypothetical, not practical.

But to answer your questions: The first organism arbitrarily labelled 'human' would have been a baby before it was an adult, and it was raised by its mother. And, no, it doesn't make a case for intelligent design.


Of course, the mere definition of God is already dismantling his existence, a definition is a limit, God is (allegedly) limitless.

Conception of God is also a limitation on him. Therefore God can't be conceived and is irrelevant.


What is this logic?

It's present in my entire post history on theological matters. There's too much to reproduce here.

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 02:12 PM
Your point is more an observation on semantics than on biology.

How?


Why semantic?

Why not?


Well, it's like asking this: "At what specific blade of grass does the field end and the adjacent environment begin?"

Not really. You are attempting to make a complicated answer to a very basic question.


The question is only a matter of language, since we know the 'field' is just a word and a concept and not something that literally exists. Since we create the concept of the field, we can arbitrarily determine its limits.

Life had to begin somewhere. I have thought back as far as one possibly can when humanoids made their first appearance.
Please elaborate.


So with species. It's a matter of semantics when the first human was born.

The basic definition of semantics is:

"...the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form."

This is the same argument that can be used for evolution as well, so we are no nearer to an answer.
HUmanoids had to have an origin. Since evolution is the atheists answer for that we must try to determine how the very first human was able to survive without guidance.
You say it was raised by its mother? I counter by asking who raised the mother?


Whichever organism we label the first 'human' would differ only marginally from its 'non-human' parents, and they would only be different species in language.

This still does not explain how that first human was able to teach itself, or be taught in order that it survive and perpetuate.
You saying it all comes down to a matter of language is vague at best.
Please elaborate.


Thankfully, since extant species are separated by generations, this problem is only hypothetical, not practical.

Please explain.

Bernhard
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 02:25 PM
Evolutionary theory has done away with realist essentialism. Therefore the question "When did man originate?" has no meaning, because "Man" as such does not exist, save in our own minds.
So, from the perspective of an evolutionist it is indeed solely a matter of semantics - psychology even - but it is of no relevance to objective knowledge of the world.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 02:29 PM
How?

Read my post.


Why not?

What?? It was a rhetorical question. I rhetorically asked why it was a semantic issue, and then I explained why it was a semantic issue in the remainder of the post.


Not really. You are attempting to make a complicated answer to a very basic question.

It wasn't a complicated answer at all. It was a simple answer and the only answer to the question you asked.


Life had to begin somewhere. I have thought back as far as one possibly can when humanoids made their first appearance.
Please elaborate.

I'd only be repeating what I said in my last post.


The basic definition of semantics is:

"...the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form."

This is the same argument that can be used for evolution as well, so we are no nearer to an answer.
HUmanoids had to have an origin. Since evolution is the atheists answer for that we must try to determine how the very first human was able to survive without guidance.

What?

Who said, except you, that the first human existed without guidance?


You say it was raised by its mother? I counter by asking who raised the mother?

Its mother.

Predicted response: "Where did the first mother come from?"

My answer: "This wasn't the question you originally asked. You only asked where the first human came from."



This still does not explain how that first human was able to teach itself, or be taught in order that it survive and perpetuate.
You saying it all comes down to a matter of language is vague at best.
Please elaborate.


Sorry, but it's obvious you didn't understand my answer, and I don't think I can explain it any more simply than I already did.

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 02:32 PM
Evolutionary theory has done away with realist essentialism. Therefore the question "When did man originate?" has no meaning, because "Man" as such does not exist, save in our own minds.
So, from the perspective of an evolutionist it is indeed solely a matter of semantics - psychology even - but it is of no relevance to objective knowledge of the world.

Man does exist. If he did not then we would not be able to say that he does not exist. :D
Evolutionary theory has only deepened the mystery. In no way has it ever been a satisfactory conclusion.
Bernhard, as a man of god do you feel that god created everything, including evolution?
If god is supposed to have created everything then how is it that evolution emerged within his creation as a separate entity?
If you argue the semantics angle then cannot the same thing be said of god?


Who said, except you, that the first human existed without guidance?

Life had to begin somewhere, at some time.
We DO exist. For you to reduce our existence to nothing because of semantic theory is not a valid answer.
If you cannot explain it better then just admit so.


Its mother. The very first humanoid had to be taught or equipped to survive in an already evolved world.
I fail to see how you cannot understand this.
For you to rely on "semantics" is not going to get the job done.


Sorry, but it's obvious you didn't understand my answer, and I don't think I can explain it any more simply than I already did.:D Oh come on! Have a try!

Bernhard
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 02:50 PM
Man does exist. If he did not then we not be able to say that he does not exist. :D

This proves only that man exists as a concept in our minds, which is not denied by evulutionary theory. "To exist" can have many meanings.


Bernhard, as a man of god do you feel that god created everything, including evolution?
If god is supposed to have created everything then how is it that evolution emerged within his creation as a separate entity?


Although I'm still in the process of learning and developing my views when it comes to religion, my conception of God is not that of a creator-god, but rather as the ultimate cause of everything, including the laws which make evolution possible. In this way evolution is indeed a "creation" of God and innate to the cosmos, which is divine by origin.


If you argue the semantics angle then cannot the same thing be said of god?

It can be said of "God" as a linguistical term, but not of God as what we try to conceive by use of that term.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 02:52 PM
Life had to begin somewhere, at some time.
We DO exist. For you to reduce our existence to nothing because of semantic theory is not a valid answer.
If you cannot explain it better then just admit so.

What we call a species is a matter of semantics. The first 'human' is simply the first organism labeled 'human'. If we could observe the entire evolutionary process, science would at some point be forced to label one organism 'human', but its parents 'non human'. That doesn't mean it is essentially different from its parents. You (probably unconsciously) subscribe to linguistic essentialism -- the idea that a word represents the essence of its object, and everything for which we have a word is a self-sustaining, self-contained, eternally immalleable unit in and of itself.


The very first humanoid had to be taught or equipped to survive in an already evolved world.
I fail to see how you cannot understand this.

I don't really mind you not understanding my point, but for you to suggest the cognitive failing is mine is just unacceptable :D

But I suppose I should state it again, even though I know you won't understand it this time any more than you did the last time: It was taught to survive by its parents.

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 03:01 PM
This proves only that man exists as a concept in our minds, which is not denied by evulutionary theory. "To exist" can have many meanings.

Without existence you could not possibly come to these conclusions.


Although I'm still in the process of learning and developing my views when it comes to religion, my conception of God is not that of a creator-god, but rather as the ultimate cause of everything, including the laws which make evolution possible. In this way evolution is indeed a "creation" of God and innate to the cosmos, which is divine by origin.The "ultimate cause of everything" also had to have an origin, including its "laws".
How is it possible for you to disconnect a creator from its creations?


It can be said of "God" as a linguistical term, but not of God as what we try to conceive by use of that term.How are they both any different?!


What we call a species is a matter of semantics.

Semantics, which is nothing more than a limited attempt to define the mysteries of "meaning".


The first 'human' is simply the first organism labeled 'human'. Whether it is a concept or an actual existence still does not answer my original question of how this "labeled organism" survived.
You have been trying to avoid answering this from the very start, and have been over-elaborating your answers to compensate.


If we could observe the entire evolutionary process, science would at some point be forced to label one organism 'human', but its parents 'non human'. "non-human"? You mean the "void", or nothingness?


That doesn't mean it is essentially different from its parents. You (probably unconsciously) subscribe to linguistic essentialism -- the idea that a word represents the essence of its object, and everything for which we have a word is a self-sustaining, self-contained, eternally immalleable unit in and of itself.See below.


But I suppose I should state it again, even though I know you won't understand it this time any more than you did the last time: It was taught to survive by its parents.Why bother with trying to debate anything else when THIS is what you have been dreading to answer the whole time.
I will repeat myself again and again. It matters not if we are a "concept" or an actual existence.
We are still left with trying to find an explanation as to how the very first humanoid survived.
This very much points to the possibility of a creator.
That baby, or adult, had to have been taught or prepared for existence.
If you insist on saying it is the creation of human concept then how did humans come to be be able to conceptualize?

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 03:33 PM
Semantics, which is nothing more than a limited attempt to define the mysteries of "meaning".

*Shakes head in dismay*

This is painful.


Whether it is a concept or an actual existence still does not answer my original question of how this "labeled organism" survived.
You have been trying to avoid answering this from the very start, and have been over-elaborating your answers to compensate.

You just don't get it. Again, I don't like your attempt to make your failings appear as mine. The first human survived in the same way its parents survived, and their parents survived.


"non-human"? You mean the "void", or nothingness?

Um, no. That's not what I mean.


Why bother with trying to debate anything else when THIS is what you have been dreading to answer the whole time.
I will repeat myself again and again. It matters not if we are a "concept" or an actual existence.
We are still left with trying to find an explanation as to how the very first humanoid survived.
This very much points to the possibility of a creator.
That baby, or adult, had to have been taught or prepared for existence.

Breathing exercises and stress balls are helpful in times like these. The first humanoid survived in the same way all other mammals survive.

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 03:35 PM
*Shakes head in dismay*

This is painful.

Acting like an jerk is not going to make your arguments anymore believeable.
You clearly are incapable of answering a very simple concept.
If you aren't capable then just say so.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 03:39 PM
Acting like an asshole is not going to make your arguments anymore believeable.
You clearly are incapable of answering a very simple concept.
If you aren't capable then just say so.

I think teaching a child why 2 plus 2 equals 4 is one of the hardest and most stressful things imaginable. That's not a reflection on the quality of the argument. 2 plus 2 does indeed equal 4, whether the child gets that or not.

If I weren't capable of answering your question, then please explain how I managed to do so, not once, not twice, but about five times (more than once per reply, even) -- in this thread alone.

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 03:42 PM
If I weren't capable of answering your question, then please explain how I managed to do so, not once, not twice, but about five times (more than once per reply, even) -- in this thread alone.

You have done nothing of the sort.
Everything has an origin. Saying that this is a "concept" is not good enough.
The very notion of a "concept" had to be instilled into us.
That first humanoid, or baby, HAD to be taught or prepared by SOMETHING in order to survive.
To try and excuse your lack of understanding of this very basic explanation is typical of those who have much to fear.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 03:55 PM
You have done nothing of the sort.
Everything has an origin. Saying that this is a "concept" is not good enough.
The very notion of a "concept" had to be instilled into us.
That first humanoid, or baby, HAD to be taught or prepared by SOMETHING in order to survive.
To try and excuse your lack of understanding of this very basic explanation is typical of those who have much to fear.

I'll explain this in very simple terms. We have a species that scientists all agree should be called a Popalopticus. Scientists also all agree that the Popalopticus is descended from the now extinct Bamboonolopticus. The transition occured thus: Bamboonolopticus -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- Popolopticus.

Now, somewhere in that chain of children that were slightly (but all equally) different from their parents, the species Bamboonolopticus ends and the Popolopticus begins. Exactly where is purely arbitrary. It's a purely theoretical problem because 'Bamboonoloptici' and 'Popolopti' are just scientific labels that have no relevance to those species and no bearing on their chances of survival.



That first humanoid, or baby, HAD to be taught or prepared by SOMETHING in order to survive.

I'm going to say something I've not stated in this thread before: It was raised by its parents.


To try and excuse your lack of understanding of this very basic explanation is typical of those who have much to fear.

I must say, I feel very threatened by your superior understanding of science and philosophy.

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 04:12 PM
I'll explain this in very simple terms. We have a species that scientists all agree should be called a Popalopticus. Scientists also all agree that the Popalopticus is descended from the now extinct Bamboonolopticus. The transition occured thus: Bamboonolopticus -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- child slightly different -- Popolopticus.

Now, somewhere in that chain of children that were slightly (but all equally) different from their parents, the species Bamboonolopticus ends and the Popolopticus begins. Exactly where is purely arbitrary. It's a purely theoretical problem because 'Bamboonoloptici' and 'Popolopti' are just scientific labels that have no relevance to those species and no bearing on their chances of survival.


This still does not explain the origin of the humanoid or how it was raised to survive in this world.
Come on now Hamar, just admit that you are reluctant to answer something you don't have an answer for,
Humans had an origin somewhere. They had to either have been taught to survive or were placed on this earth already equipped.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 04:18 PM
This still does not explain the origin of the humanoid or how it was raised to survive in this world.
Come on now Hamar, just admit that you are reluctant to answer something you don't have an answer for,
Humans had an origin somewhere. They had to either have been taught to survive or were placed on this earth already equipped.

Well, at least there's a record here for others to see that I did all I could...

Wulfram
Sunday, March 6th, 2011, 04:19 PM
Well, at least there's a record here for others to see that I did all I could...

Likewise

Jäger
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 07:43 AM
Conception of God is also a limitation on him.
How so? That we conceive him within (our!) limits doesn't mean he is bound to the same. It only means we conceive just parts.


Well, at least there's a record here for others to see that I did all I could...
I feel the need to cheer this, so to encourage others not to think they lost an argument against Ronan just because he "plays" ignorant. :thumbup

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 11:02 AM
How so? That we conceive him within (our!) limits doesn't mean he is bound to the same. It only means we conceive just parts.

I'd say the totality of what God is pervades all his parts. Parts of God aren't differentiated from others, some conceivable others not. God would be all that he is and can be within every inch of his being. But this is just metaphor anyway -- if he precedes space-time, then any kind of 'division' is alien to his core being.

To be able to conceive any aspect of God, means also to conceive the totality of God. Additionally, it further means that the aspect of God is finite, limited by its availablity to human contemplation.

Theists tend to think of God as having elements, maybe even his entirety, rooted in, or analogous to, the realm he created (existence), which is absurd. But this is what would need to be accepted if we're to maintain that he, or his parts, can be understood, even partially.

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 12:04 PM
I feel the need to cheer this, so to encourage others not to think they lost an argument against Ronan just because he "plays" ignorant. :thumbup

My arguments were valid. Hamar could not counter them and kept giving bone-headed responses to explain how an organism survived in this world without example: Its mother!!!
I understand you are still upset from our previous debates, where I was forced to expose your own idiocies for what they were(ex-the third eye, and let us not forget you wanting to put people in concentration camps for dying their hair! :D) but that does not mean you should throw a tantrum because of it. If you wish we can always reopen them and start anew.

Jäger
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 12:47 PM
I'd say the totality of what God is pervades all his parts. Parts of God aren't differentiated from others, some conceivable others not.
And why would you say this? What necessitates such an axiom?

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 12:58 PM
My arguments were valid. Hamar could not counter them and kept giving bone-headed responses to explain how an organism survived in this world without example: Its mother!!!

I could react in two ways to this: I could get mad, or I could chuckle. I think I'll opt for the latter and treat this as a joke. I don't genuinely believe you're as dense as you make out. I accept that you've successfully trolled me in the past, including this thread, and I 'fell for it' -- I spent so much time arguing with someone trying (successfully) to troll me, that in the end I was the fool.

It's actually an interesting troll tactic you employ. You constantly pretend not to understand your opponent's point, and then from there conclude that your opponent has no point or 'can't give an answer'. Example: You claim that I haven't explained how an organism can survive without its mother, even though I clearly stated multiple times that the first human had a mother and was nurtured by her. At this point, I know for a fact that you're not the idiot you want me to think you are. A child could follow the points I've made in this thread. A child.

But the question now is 'why do you do it'? I understand people troll for fun, but you appear to view trolling as a legitimate means of winning an argument. So my question to you is this: Are you doing this just for lulz, or do you really believe you can win arguments simply by irritating your opponents into submission?


And why would you say this? What necessitates such an axiom?

It's in his pre-temporal, pre-spatial origin and nature. He's either pure infinite plenitude at every point, or he's finite, a composite, something constituted by analogy to spatial laws. If a part of God is absent in another part of God, he's not infinite, not omnipresent, but not omniscient or omnipotent either (as dependent on the former). Just some anthropomorphic 'spiritual' being that for some reason conforms, or orders itself by analogy, to spatial/material laws.

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 01:11 PM
You claim that I haven't explained how an organism can survive without its mother, even though I clearly stated multiple times that the first human had a mother and was nurtured by her. At this point, I know for a fact that you're not the idiot you want me to think you are. A child could follow the points I've made in this thread. A child.

My argument remains valid, and you can keep right on downplaying it all you want.
But your insistence that it was raised by its mother is startlingly inadequate.
It is quite easy. Humanity began somewhere. There was either a baby, or an adult.
Either that baby was raised and taught or that adult was disgorged from nothingness already equipped to survive.
The "mother" you speak of also had to start out as a child or a fully-equipped adult.
It really is not so difficult for you to understand this. I counter your charge that you yourself persist in playing ignorant to avoid answering this.
You fear this, I know. I have witnessed this same sort of reluctance from others.
This all comes down to you being unable to explain how an organism survived on its own. Quite simple really.

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 01:34 PM
My argument remains valid, and you can keep right on downplaying it all you want.
But your insistence that it was raised by its mother is startlingly inadequate.
It is quite easy. Humanity began somewhere. There was either a baby, or an adult.
Either that baby was raised and taught or that adult was disgorged from nothingness already equipped to survive.

You got a genuine laugh out of me. Thank you. Of course, I've already answered the question numerous times, from numerous angles in order to help you understand -- as everyone reading this thread can view for themselves. So three possibilites now present themselves: 1) You didn't actually read my replies, or at least the parts of them that addressed your laughable 'conundrum'; 2) You're mentally deficient; or 3) You're having a laugh.

I personally believe it's a combination of 1) and 3) (and, yes, it's possible I didn't say 2) just to avoid an infraction :D )


The "mother" you speak of also had to start out as a child or a fully-equipped adult.
It really is not so difficult for you to understand this. I counter your charge that you yourself persist in playing ignorant to avoid answering this.

I've answered how the first human came into existence, and showed it to be a matter of semantics. You seem to be clouding the question now with how the first organism came into existence. These are two different questions, as you well know.


You fear this, I know. I have witnessed this same sort of reluctance from others.
This all comes down to you being unable to explain how an organism evolved on its own. Quite simple really.

Simpleton.

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 01:48 PM
I've answered how the first human came into existence, and showed it to be a matter of semantics. You seem to be clouding the question now with how the first organism came into existence. These are two different questions, as you well know.

There is your problem. "...a matter of semantics."
This is like a press conference I saw years ago. The drug czar here in the states was questioned by a reporter on why marijuana was not legal. He went on to ask "What about the will of the people?" The drug czar realized that a truthful response would be "Yes, we know the drug war goes against the constitution, but we do it anyway for a variety of self-serving reasons".

How did he respond instead?:

"This is a matter of science, and a political one as well." He gave the reporter a response that was not really an answer at all. The reporter could have asked "What does 'science' have to do with this?!" and the drug czar would have proceeded to give a condescending answer that basically interprets as "Well, if you don't know what I am talking about then I don't feel it is necessary to bother explaining it to you."

Hamar, you are doing the same thing here.
I ask you to explain how that very first human/organism survived without being raised or already fully equipped to survive.
Either way this implies intelligent design.
You responded:
"It is a matter of semantics". :D AND?!

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 02:06 PM
Hamar, you are doing the same thing here.
I ask you to explain how that very first human/organism survived without being raised or already fully equipped to survive.
Either way this implies intelligent design.
You responded:
"It is a matter of semantics". :D AND?!

LOL, 'first human/organism', as though they were even close to interchangeable.

My point about semantics is clearly confusing you. So let me try a more basic approach: The first baby human was born to a mother of a different species. This mother of a different species raised the first baby human, protected it, fed it, taught it the skills it needed to survive. Probably the whole clan chimed in to help with the raising and protection of the younglings.

If you say you don't understand this (which I know you will), then this will be my last response to you in this thread, at least on this topic.

Jäger
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 02:15 PM
It's in his pre-temporal, pre-spatial origin and nature. He's either pure infinite plenitude at every point, or he's finite, a composite, something constituted by analogy to spatial laws. If a part of God is absent in another part of God, he's not infinite, not omnipresent, but not omniscient or omnipotent either (as dependent on the former). Just some anthropomorphic 'spiritual' being that for some reason conforms, or orders itself by analogy, to spatial/material laws.
Interesting point, yet if a God is omnipotent, then he must be able to make himself conceivable by a limited mind, e.g. through a burning scrub. :D
Thus he might be able to limit himself, which is different from us limiting him.

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 02:16 PM
The first baby human was born to a mother of a different species. This mother of a different species raised the first baby human, protected it, fed it, taught it the skills it needed to survive. Probably the whole clan chimed in to help with the raising and protection of the younglings.


:D You were not there to witness this "mother", much less observe that she was of a different species. The scientists who you blindly follow that also claim this are equally without evidence. You were not there to witness "her" raise it, protect it, etc.
How did she protect it without a man by the way? How do you know there was already a "clan" there to protect her? How did she even know how to raise a child, when she herself had to be raised? Where did she learn those skills herself, and how did she know that her purpose was to impart these skills onto the baby? SOMEONE, or something had to instill this in her. Evolution could not possibly have done this. The only way she could have raised that child is because she was also raised herself. She could not have possibly have known what to do automatically.
How would she know which plants to feed it without accidentally giving it poisonous ones?
I could go on for quite a while about what the requirements would be for her to raise that child but I will stop here for now, eagerly awaiting your response.

Caledonian
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 02:23 PM
If a existential "God" is beyond people's knowing then there is nothing to know.

There can be no knowing and unknowing at the same time.

Vindefense
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 02:26 PM
The first baby human was born to a mother of a different species. This mother of a different species raised the first baby human, protected it, fed it, taught it the skills it needed to survive. Probably the whole clan chimed in to help with the raising and protection of the younglings.


Isn't this a contradiction to the very definition of species?


species:
Groups of populations (which are groups of individuals living together that are separated from other such groups) which can potentially interbreed or are actually interbreeding, that can successfully produce viable, fertile offspring (without the help of human technology).
Source: Mayr, E. 1969. In: BioTech Life Sience Dictionary, BioTechResources and Indiana University


Or do you mean raised in an adopted sense, which in itself would still beg the question of origin.

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 02:42 PM
:D You were not there to witness this "mother", much less observe that she was of a different species.

:blueroll:

How can I observe a hypothetical? As always, you change the goal posts midway through a discussion. You first said that the first human couldn't exist, and now your argument changes to my not having any proof. Yawn. Been here. Discussed this. Just re-read old threads if you've forgotten what I said the million or so times we've already discussed this.


The scientists who you blindly follow that also claim this are equally without evidence. You were not there to witness "her" raise it, protect it, etc.Again, boring. Already been discussed in other threads.


How did she protect it without a man by the way?What. The. Fuck? Yes, the baby needed a mummy and daddy to snuggle each other before the pelicans brought it into the world. Obviously it had a father. The father probably stuck around. I thought you could work this out for yourself. My mistake.


How do you know there was already a "clan" there to protect her? How did she even know how to raise a child, when she herself had to be raised? Where did she learn those skills herself, and how did she know that her purpose was to impart these skills onto the baby? SOMEONE, or something had to instill this in her. Evolution could not possibly have done this. The only way she could have raised that child is because she was also raised herself. She could not have possibly have known what to do automatically.So we're not talking about the first human anymore? Ok, admit that I've defeated you on the argument as it relates to humans and I'll address this new problem.


How would she know which plants to feed it without accidentally giving it poisonous ones?
I could go on for quite a while about what the requirements would be for her to raise that child but I will stop here for now, eagerly awaiting your response.Considering evolutionary theory is one of the easiest things in science to grasp, I really can't respect that you don't get it.


Isn't this a contradiction to the very definition of species?

No offense, but Jesus Christ. If you actually even read the discussion before that post, it would be obvious that I simplified the argument for Ronan to understand. No, the mother wasn't actually a member of another species. Refer to my other posts in this thread. I was dumbing things down for Ronan, in the same way an adult 'lies' to a child that it's incorrect to begin a sentence with a proposition, so that the child can get a grasp of what a conjuntion is and what function it serves. Once that's achieved, THEN the child can be told it IS correct to start a sentence with a conjunction.


Or do you mean raised in an adopted sense, which in itself would still beg the question of origin.I can't deal with two Ronans at once...

Jäger
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 02:55 PM
If a existential "God" is beyond people's knowing then there is nothing to know.
The point some make is that he is not beyond knowing. Why would he?

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 02:56 PM
How can I observe a hypothetical?

Are you admitting here that the "mother" you speak of is only a theory?


You first said that the first human couldn't exist, and now your argument changes to my not having any proof.

I never said any such thing!
I said that your idea of a "mother' being the one to raise the child has no validity.
Where have I changed from this viewpoint?
I have been arguing ALL ALONG that you don't have any proof.


Yawn. Been here. Discussed this. Just re-read old threads if you've forgotten what I said the million or so times we've already discussed this.

I always re-read the posts of my opponents, many times, in fact, and all I see is your unwillingness to stop relying on the non-answer of "Its a matter of semantics."


Again, boring. Already been discussed in other threads.

No, STILL quite valid.


What. The. Fuck? Yes, the baby needed a mummy and daddy to snuggle each other before the pelicans brought it into the world. Obviously it had a father. The father probably stuck around. I thought you could work this out for yourself. My mistake.

Okay, a mummy and a daddy emerged together and made a baby.
My point still stays the same. How would they BOTH know how to raise that child? :D
They couldn't, unless they had both been instructed to.
The daddy had to have been instructed on how to use its muscles and its wits to fend off dangers, of which there were numerous of them.
The only way HE could have known to do this was by EXAMPLE. Or did he just emerge from nothingness already equipped?
Once again, either way, this implies intelligent design.


So we're not talking about the first human anymore?

Yes I am. Why do you feel that I have changed the subject?
Everything I have been discussing so far has not changed from the original viewpoint.


Considering evolutionary theory is one of the easiest things in science to grasp, I really can't respect that you don't get it.

Yes, it was quite easy, which is why it was just as easy for me to discard it for lack of validity.

Jäger
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 03:04 PM
The only way HE could have known to do this was by EXAMPLE. Or did just emerge from nothingness already equipped?
Why does a blackbird sing like a blackbird even if you raise it without it ever hearing another blackbird singing?
Evidently our genes can save information, and through inheritance we can pass this information.

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 03:09 PM
Are you admitting here that the "mother" you speak of is only a theory?

Nope. I'm admitting you don't know the distinction between possibility and actuality. You said it was impossible, I showed it wasn't impossible. Now you want to pretend that we were always discussing whether it was actual (which it is/was, but was never the crux of the discussion until 10 minutes ago).



I have been arguing ALL ALONG that you don't have any proof.

In you post history, yes, but in this thread, no you haven't.


I always re-read the posts of my opponents, many times, in fact, and all I see is your unwillingness to stop relying on the non-answer of "Its a matter of semantics."

Explain back to me exactly what you think my argument is. This is the test I'm setting you.


Okay, a mummy and a daddy emerged together and made a baby.
My point still stays the same. How would they BOTH know how to raise that child? :D

Not at all relevant to the emergence of humans, since those instincts had already long existed in our non-human ancestors. Try to stay relevant.


They couldn't, unless they had both been instructed to.
The daddy had to have been instructed on how to use its muscles and its wits to fend off dangers, of which there were numerous of them.
The only way HE could have known to do this was by EXAMPLE. Or did he just emerge from nothingness already equipped?
Once again, either way, this implies intelligent design.

No, it implies natural selection in favour of life-preserving and gene-perpetuating behavioural patterns.


Yes, it was quite easy, which is why it was just as easy for me to discard it for lack of validity.

Take it from me: It's obvious that you don't understand it at all.

Vindefense
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 03:10 PM
No, the mother wasn't actually a member of another species.

I can't deal with two Ronans at once...

What you can deal with is of no concern to me. It is natural that when we see a pattern of evolution that appears to contradict Natural laws, we question it. Especially when those laws present themselves as immutable and unbreakable.

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 03:20 PM
Why does a blackbird sing like a blackbird even if you raise it without it ever hearing another blackbird singing?
Evidently our genes can save information, and through inheritance we can pass this information.

From WHAT source did our genes save information from? From where did those genes originate?
This still does not explain how the very first humanoid was able to fend for itself, feed itself, and then impart this knowledge to its offspring.
It HAD to have been shown how to do this, just like we still have to instruct a baby how to survive.
Sure, the very first blackbird could sing, but its mother still had to feed it, teach it how to fly, and repeat the process with its own offspring.
It could not have done this without being instructed first. The only other explanation is that it was disgorged from nothingness(evolution) already equipped. But this is impossible, according to evolutionary theory. If it was already equipped then SOMETHING had to prepare it for survival on an already evolved world.


Nope. I'm admitting you don't know the distinction between possibility and actuality. You said it was impossible, I showed it wasn't impossible. Now you want to pretend that we were always discussing whether it was actual (which it is/was, but was never the crux of the discussion until 10 minutes ago).

You have admitted nothing in the way of a valid response. NOTHING.
I have you backed into a corner from which you cannot find an answer.
From this point forward I can expect to hear nothing more from you other than "I have already explained it".
Easy victory, Hamar. ;)


In you post history, yes, but in this thread, no you haven't.Prove this!


Explain back to me exactly what you think my argument is. This is the test I'm setting you.I don't need to jog your memory since we have reached a point in our debate that you are unable to answer.
All I keep hearing is "Its a matter of semantics." THAT has been you entire argument all along.


Not at all relevant to the emergence of humans, since those instincts had already long existed in our non-human ancestors. Try to stay relevant.(Grrr) Okay, the question STILL holds the same for our "non-human" ancestors. :D


No, it implies natural selection in favour of life-preserving and gene-perpetuating behavioural patterns.Which you are still trying to avoid explaining the origin of.


Take it from me: It's obvious that you don't understand it at all.;)

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 03:26 PM
What you can deal with is of no concern to me. It is natural that when we see a pattern of evolution that appears to contradict Natural laws, we question it. Especially when those laws present themselves as immutable and unbreakable.

Right. As I said, no natural law was broken in the emergence of humans from non-humans, since -- for maybe the thousandth time -- the transition was a semantic one more than a biological one. Over a series of generations, a species gradually develops from its ancestors to the point that it can be scientifically considered a new species. At what exact generation the species-break occurred is something that can only be arbitrarily decided, as with all things linguistic, since reality is fluid but concepts are discrete.



Which you are still trying to avoid explaining the origin of.


Um, the origin of naturally selected instincts is...wait for this...natural selection.

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 03:35 PM
Um, the origin of naturally selected instincts is...wait for this...natural selection.

Have it your way, Hamar. If you wish to bail then be my guest.
When you are ready to answer my questions seriously then I have plenty of patience.

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 03:38 PM
Have it your way, Hamar. If you wish to bail then be my guest.
When you are ready to answer my questions seriously then I have plenty of patience.

I didn't see the point in responding to the same few questions ad infinitum. If you have any fresh points, I'd be happy to address them.

Jäger
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 08:04 PM
Sure, the very first blackbird could sing, but its mother still had to feed it, teach it how to fly, and repeat the process with its own offspring.
How do you know it could sing, have you been there, have you seen it with your own eyes, heard it with your very own ears?


It could not have done this without being instructed first.
How do you know this, have you been there, have you seen it with your own eyes?

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 08:13 PM
How do you know this, have you been there, have you seen it with your own eyes?

We are basically arguing here which theory seems the most plausible. Of course I was not their to see it, but at least I admit to this while my opponents behave as if they are 100% certain.

There is no possible way the first humanoid could have survived without first being instructed, or disgorged from nothingness already equipped to survive in an already evolved world. That interprets to me that intelligent design is a very real possibility as well as being the most plausible. Since no one has yet to explain beyond "it is a matter of semantics" it still remains a mystery. If you need further clarification read my older posts. Unless you have something new to add Jager, there really is nothing more we can say about this.

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 08:30 PM
There is no possible way the first humanoid could have survived without first being instructed, or disgorged from nothingness already equipped to survive in an already evolved world.

How can you know there's no possible way, if you weren't there? Also, why can't you explain why the first humanoid must have been taught or 'disgorged from nothingness'? You're trying to evade the question through fear. Why are you so afraid to answer the question?


If you need further clarification read my older posts.

We've all read your old posts multiple times and I think everyone fully understands what your arguments are, which is why it's so easy for us to dismantle them. They're just smoke-screens because you fear the real question you've been presented with.

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 08:46 PM
How can you know there's no possible way, if you weren't there? Also, you can't explain why the first humanoid must have been taught or 'disgorged from nothingness'? You're trying to evade the question through fear. Why are you so afraid to answer the question?

As mentioned to Jager, we are debating what is the most likely scenario. I am not trying to avoid anything. I thrive on fear, rather than run from it, which is why I rarely experience it like I used to. So if you have something genuinely terrifying for me to read that makes a valid argument against my own, then all I see you are going to do is recycle the same old "semantics" routine over and over again.
Neither of us were there to witness anything. But we can still question and debate the possibilities of how it all actually started.
There had to be either one human, or multiple humans to have emerged from the nothingness. Whether it is one or many they ALL had to be raised by something who instructed them to survive. You can't keep using your "mummy and daddy" theory because they also would have to be taught to survive before they could impart those skills onto their children. This brings us once again right back to the point when that first humanoid was disgorged into an already evolved world.
It had to either be prepared for such an emergence in order for it to survive or it had to be instructed. There really is no other way to look at it, which is why you are so insistent on "semantics" to explain it all, when it has done nothing of the sort. Remember what I said about the drug czar?

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 09:05 PM
As mentioned to Jager, we are debating what is the most likely scenario.

We're talking about facts, and I'm waiting for proof that the first human couldn't have been 'disgorged from nothingness'. You also need to prove this through means developed solely by yourself. You can't rely on the methods of others, since you can't know for sure that they're not lying to you.


I am not trying to avoid anything. I thrive on fear, rather than run from it, which is why I rarely experience it like I used to. So if you have something genuinely terrifying for me to read that makes a valid argument against my own, then all I see you are going to do is recycle the same old "semantics" routine over and over again.

I didn't say anything about semantics. You were the one using some nonsense 'semantics' theory to mask your fear of the real matter.


Neither of us were there to witness anything. But we can still question and debate the possibilities of how it all actually started.

How can you prove anything was ever started? Why are you running away from me on these issues?


There had to be either one human, or multiple humans to have emerged from the nothingness.

Requires proof.


Whether it is one or many they ALL had to be raised by something who instructed them to survive.

Requires proof.


You can't keep using your "mummy and daddy" theory because they also would have to be taught to survive before they could impart those skills onto their children.

I'm seeing all these words like 'would' and 'could', but I'm not seeing any proof of this.


This brings us once again right back to the point when that first humanoid was disgorged into an already evolved world.

'Evolved'? Where's your proof that evolution ever occurred at all?


It had to either be prepared for such an emergence in order for it to survive or it had to be instructed.

Why haven't you answered the question about how you know the first human had to be instructed to survive?


here really is no other way to look at it, which is why you are so insistent on "semantics" to explain it all, when it has done nothing of the sort. Remember what I said about the drug czar?

I don't believe in semantics or evolution. I consider them smoke-screens that people hide behind out of fear of drug czars because they have no proof.

Wulfram
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 09:11 PM
We're talking about facts, and I'm waiting for proof that the first human couldn't have been 'disgorged from nothingness'. You also need to prove this through means developed solely by yourself. You can't rely on the methods of others, since you can't know for sure that they're not lying to you.



I didn't say anything about semantics. You were the one using some nonsense 'semantics' theory to mask your fear of the real matter.



How can you prove anything was ever started? Why are you running away from me on these issues?



Requires proof.



Requires proof.



I'm seeing all these words like 'would' and 'could', but I'm not seeing any proof of this.



'Evolved'? Where's your proof that evolution ever occurred at all?



Why haven't you answered the question about how you know the first human had to be instructed to survive?



I don't believe in semantics or evolution. I consider them smoke-screens that people hide behind out of fear of drug czars because they have no proof.

:|

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 7th, 2011, 09:16 PM
:|

Haha. That face is the face of pretty much everyone you've ever debated with.

Beornwiga
Sunday, May 15th, 2011, 01:28 AM
Actually, atheism means, literally 'non theist', or 'not someone who believes in a god or many gods.' It is not the lack of belief in meaning, which is more of an existential- or nihilist-philosophic viewpoint. Nihilists will generally kill themselves to try and find some sort of real world where meaning actually exists, or to escape this universe without meaning. We atheists argue religion because we find religion (especially the organized, unintellectual type that you seem to adhere to) to be a joke.

I can probably say with credibility that most true atheists will claim that we do not believe, since we do not believe in any form of a god, that any form of a god gives us meaning or purpose in life or death - probably many actually believe that people create their own meaning in life. This causes us to be career-minded, successful people with a vastly superior ability to draw conclusions and point logical fallacies such as:



Suppose you REALLY BELIEVE that there is no God...
and you REALLY BELIEVE that there's no intelligent purpose or design to the universe...
So, therefore, you believe that nothing REALLY MATTERS. (belief, actions, etc...)
Then, why would you go through the trouble arguing about it?
UNLESS...
you REALLY DON'T BELIEVE what you claim?

Every Atheist who argues therefore has to be a fake.


Because every atheist who argues simply must believe that life has no meaning whatsoever, and therefore every atheist who argues is afake. Please please please don't generalize so thoroughly. It often leads to millions of people dying (at the hands of Christianity, if I may remind you).

Nothing ever applies to everyone and the exception is the rule.

Caledonian
Monday, May 16th, 2011, 05:19 PM
As mentioned to Jager, we are debating what is the most likely scenario. I am not trying to avoid anything. I thrive on fear, rather than run from it, which is why I rarely experience it like I used to. So if you have something genuinely terrifying for me to read that makes a valid argument against my own, then all I see you are going to do is recycle the same old "semantics" routine over and over again.
Neither of us were there to witness anything. But we can still question and debate the possibilities of how it all actually started.
There had to be either one human, or multiple humans to have emerged from the nothingness. Whether it is one or many they ALL had to be raised by something who instructed them to survive. You can't keep using your "mummy and daddy" theory because they also would have to be taught to survive before they could impart those skills onto their children. This brings us once again right back to the point when that first humanoid was disgorged into an already evolved world.
It had to either be prepared for such an emergence in order for it to survive or it had to be instructed. There really is no other way to look at it, which is why you are so insistent on "semantics" to explain it all, when it has done nothing of the sort. Remember what I said about the drug czar?



Hey Ronan, have you ever heard of a self replicating cell?

Now looking back at history what was the first simple biological organism to exist?

Austin
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011, 10:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXdifnfdezE

Suppose you REALLY BELIEVE that there is no God...
and you REALLY BELIEVE that there's no intelligent purpose or design to the universe...
So, therefore, you believe that nothing REALLY MATTERS. (belief, actions, etc...)
Then, why would you go through the trouble arguing about it?
UNLESS...
you REALLY DON'T BELIEVE what you claim?

Every Atheist who argues therefore has to be a fake.

:thumbup

If you don't get the video, or what's written above then think a little bit more about it.

Atheists believe there is no meaning or purpose to anything.

Why then do they debate over the net? Why all the trouble?

If you check my other thread, you will find 3 or 4 atheists who have trolled it out, going through great lengths to insult or attempt to refute Christianity or the Bible. Why though? Atheism means there is no purpose or meaning to anything.


I'd agree that most Atheists and Agnostics would basically cease to exist ideologically if the factions of belief they loved to argue with simply disappeared. This is why most non-believers are youth. They need something to grind their axe on and what better than the various belief systems of their elders? It's a rebellion made-to-order for anyone with a cord of discontent and that's usually young people or people who never had a strong connection to any system of power.


It's why most Western Jews are secular or Atheistic, even more so than their Gentile counterparts. Jews are numerically thin in this world hence they instinctively lash out at those ideological systems they perceive as oppressing them (Christianity, Islam, European racial identity, +++++++).


Atheism is a symptom and trademark of the disenfranchised. It is not some winning argument, it is the argument to have an argument. For it is a great point, if one is truly atheistic then surely they understand that belief is simply a choice, hence Atheism boiled to raw form is simply the enjoyment of arguing with others of a different opinion. No different than a child who screams for the sake of screaming. When you grow up you realize there was merit in what your elders did or believed, and that the sake of argument was in fact the intellectually inferior position.

Jäger
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011, 10:50 AM
I'd agree that most Atheists and Agnostics would basically cease to exist ideologically if the factions of belief they loved to argue with simply disappeared.
You mean the Abrahamistic religions?


Jews are numerically thin in this world hence they instinctively lash out at those ideological systems they perceive as oppressing them (Christianity, Islam, European racial identity, +++++++).
This has little to do with numbers, everyone will lash out on something which he perceives is oppressing him.


For it is a great point, if one is truly atheistic then surely they understand that belief is simply a choice, hence Atheism boiled to raw form is simply the enjoyment of arguing with others of a different opinion.
Why do you jump around with your argumentation, the reason why one is an atheist and is vocal about it, is because they think (Abrahamistic) religions are oppressing them (and others). It's not that there isn't any (historical and contemporary) experience to base this assumption upon.


When you grow up you realize there was merit in what your elders did or believed, and that the sake of argument was in fact the intellectually inferior position.
If only! Then we wouldn't be stuck with idiocies like Christianity! Something which worked very hard to eradicate what our elders believed in.

Austin
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011, 10:59 AM
If only! Then we wouldn't be stuck with idiocies like Christianity! Something which worked very hard to eradicate what our elders believed in.


This is a false sense of a decent argument and is simply historically wrong on all fronts.

Most Atheists do this, present a false picture and claim it as somehow a superior position when it isn't true to begin with (yet the childless professor with molding fruit in their office said it, so it must be true).

Europeans adopted Christianity from heathenism because it was in their advantage to do so. Religions spread based on benefits they offer to a populace. Heathenism lost out to Christianity because it was the lesser of ripe apples presented so to speak.

So Europeans adopted a belief system that supposedly worked to eradicate them? I'm sure that's why they adopted Christianity, because they thought it was working to eradicate them O_o.

That makes zero sense.

Kauz R. Waldher
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011, 11:00 AM
Atheism is rubbish. Pure rubbish. I'm amazed at the arrogance that this "atheist" displays even here on this forum. He constantly asks for proof of anothers point of view, but cannot prove his own. The thing is, we don't know all the answers of "creation", we may never. But one thing we do know is that Atheism as a movement is killing our people. Not with guns and knives ... but spiritually. And as we all know, what we're (the Germanics) facing here in this world of ours is spiritual warfare. And it IS very modern to be an atheist. It is also very liberal. Atheism is like venom to our folk. Transcendental capability is what we need. And you cannot get that through absolute lack of spirituality. Spirituality is the cog-wheel to our success as a race and culture. And lastly, to all you so-called atheists .. stop being arrogant because last time I checked you have no proof for your theories either.

Austin
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011, 11:11 AM
Atheism is rubbish. Pure rubbish. I'm amazed at the arrogance that this "atheist" displays even here on this forum. He constantly asks for proof of anothers point of view, but cannot prove his own. The thing is, we don't know all the answers of "creation", we may never. But one thing we do know is that Atheism as a movement is killing our people. Not with guns and knives ... but spiritually. And as we all know, what we're (the Germanics) facing here in this world of ours is spiritual warfare. And it IS very modern to be an atheist. It is also very liberal. Atheism is like venom to our folk. Transcendental capability is what we need. And you cannot get that through absolute lack of spirituality. Spirituality is the cog-wheel to our success as a race and culture. And lastly, to all you so-called atheists .. stop being arrogant because last time I checked you have no proof for your theories either.



Now now, we have to be modern and of the intellectually IN crowd. Being Atheist is cool. Being Heathen means you're really, really cool.

The fact that Atheism is peddled by Europeans worst enemies is of no concern here Mr. Depressing. It's cool, and that's what matters.

Let's keep what's important in mind here.:D

Jäger
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011, 12:35 PM
So Europeans adopted a belief system that supposedly worked to eradicate them?
Can't you read? I wrote: "eradicate what our elders believed in". A.k.a Paganism.
And this is not historically wrong, at all.
You simply choose you want to read what you wanted to believe, and didn't even bother to read what I actually wrote.
I could say this is typical for Abrahamists, but then again this would be too easy :D

Anyways, it refutes your argument that you automatically will see merit in what your elders believed in, and that rebelling against a belief system (here Theism in general) is merely a question of age, or maturity, for that matter.

Lew Skannon
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011, 01:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXdifnfdezE

Suppose you REALLY BELIEVE that there is no God...
and you REALLY BELIEVE that there's no intelligent purpose or design to the universe...
.

I think that for many people it means a total rejection of Yawhe and the desert religions concept of a deity separated from man, more than a rejection of spirituality itself. Most of the time I discuss these things with self declared atheists I get that impression.

Personally I am not prepared to accept that weird coincidence is able to come up with a product that is 100 billions more complex and sophisticated than the space shuttle, computers, robotics or anything else the combined intelligence of 100 000 years of evolution of mankind is able to produce. I find it rather weird that some people can even consider such a thing.

But yawhe? Please.. Give me a break!!

Kc6XHXP8sZQ

Austin
Wednesday, December 7th, 2011, 09:37 PM
Na. I'll always associate Atheism with under 30's or Jews.

Based off my experiences those are Atheists strongest promoters with bored internet people coming in a close third, though those are mostly youths.


It's always the same story. I meet an Atheist person in real life and later on it's always, so are you Jewish? They are like, yeah, but I am not religious.

Other than that you simply have all the university kids full of their manic depressive professors atheistic rants. Those never last though and they revert rather quickly once getting out into the real world.

Wolfmother
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 12:53 AM
This picture should conclude the thread.
This is what happens everytime I try to argue with a religious person.
The saddest thing about it, is that the picture gives such a true picture of it all, and even in a funny way!

http://images.4chan.org/b/src/1323290833668.jpg

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:01 AM
I'd say take away every atheist in the West who is under 30, take away every atheist in the West who has Jewish parents, take away every gay person, every feminist, every fanatical leftist, and you are left with not even 5% atheists.


I've never met a serious atheist who was over 35, never, with one sole exception. They're either Jewish or gay. That isn't some conspiracy. It indicates that among white Europeans of a normal upbringing and thought pattern, atheism is a phase of youthful animosity because it is inferior and cannot comprehend the merit behind the action of its elders.


That doesn't equate to some grand intellectualism. It equates to the same thing that occurs when you take a toy away from a child. It screams at perceived oppression.

Wolfmother
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:07 AM
Atheism is rubbish. Pure rubbish. I'm amazed at the arrogance that this "atheist" displays even here on this forum. He constantly asks for proof of anothers point of view, but cannot prove his own. The thing is, we don't know all the answers of "creation", we may never. But one thing we do know is that Atheism as a movement is killing our people. Not with guns and knives ... but spiritually. And as we all know, what we're (the Germanics) facing here in this world of ours is spiritual warfare. And it IS very modern to be an atheist. It is also very liberal. Atheism is like venom to our folk. Transcendental capability is what we need. And you cannot get that through absolute lack of spirituality. Spirituality is the cog-wheel to our success as a race and culture. And lastly, to all you so-called atheists .. stop being arrogant because last time I checked you have no proof for your theories either.

Christ, his church and his sinister ways
Starter of wars, Instigator of crimes
Despoiler of cultures, Destroyer of minds

More people have died in the name of Christ
Than any other in the history of life
You kill all who oppose your perfidious might
A religion of conquest born in black light

Our father who art in heaven
Corruption be thy name
You blind your people with lies
False prophet your only gain
Thy kingdom come and be done
Your time is now at an end
The veil is slowly being lifted
Your past you must try to defend

They prey on our children so young and naive
These pedophile bastards they are a disease
They preach about love, or so I am told
But the love that they practice is twisted and cold

- It's sad but true..
I'd rather be a destroyer of spirituality than a destroyer of innocent lives and minds, brainwashing people and killing them for not believing in what you believe in. Let people have a free will and let them think what they will.
You're only making more enemies in saying so.
I'm not saying im better than you, but it's a fact that religion have had a very dark or bleak past, and continues to have a bad influence on people nowadays. It doesn't mean it has a bad influence on you.
There's bad atheists and bad believers - I'm not saying you're one of them, but if you really want to get on us and state that we are wrong in our values and beliefs, please keep in moderate and atleast, tell it to the Atheists that are doing too well in being neutral about their beliefs and wants to preach about it instead.

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:19 AM
Yes but Wolfmother, your heathenism will never and did never bring unity to Europeans, which is why it failed.

Your heathenism never protected Europe like Christianity did. Christianity produced the world you live in that allows you to attack it.


Heathenism and rallying behind it is no different than rallying behind every anti-European type out there. Surely you realize those elements love hearing what you're saying yes? People that hate you and hate Europe love every word of your above post.


Heathenism will never and has never done what Christianity did for Europeans the world over, which is why they adopted it. Atheism and heathenism are the ignorant, anti-intellectual positions of the very people that hate Europe.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:20 AM
This picture should conclude the thread.
This is what happens everytime I try to argue with a religious person.
The saddest thing about it, is that the picture gives such a true picture of it all, and even in a funny way!

This is almost true, but the religious don't even have an analogical picture on a box to work with (since it's logical to believe initially that the jigsaw would mirror the box's picture, whereas even a rudimentary belief in God has no such rational basis). Religious beliefs and the arguments that proceed from them are more like vomit on a blank jigsaw box that proceeded from gorging on too much raspberry jam and salted peanuts the evening prior, and then believing that the jigsaw will probably turn out to depict the vomit in all its splodgy likeness, and moreover arguing that the vomit is in fact the reason the jigsaw ever came into existence, even though if they were to think a little bit harder, they'd remember (or maybe realise for the first time) that the jigsaw was actually there before the vomit, or even the eating of the jam and peanuts that occasioned the vomit, and it really doesn't make sense to link the two causally, or, in fact, in any way at all.

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:31 AM
Notice anything Jewish about these names?





Leadership


David P. Silverman, President


*

Kathleen Johnson, Vice President and Military Director

*

Board of Directors

American Atheists has a dedicated Board of Directors, each of whom has been an Atheist activist for 10 years or more (in some cases, 30 years). The Board of Directors sets the policy for American Atheists, and elects a President to run the organization.

Current Board members:

Neal Cary, Board Chairperson

*

Wayne Aiken

*

Chris Allen

*

Ellen Birch

*

Ed Buckner (former President)

*

Mark Dunn

Monty Gaither

*
Conrad Goeringer

*

Kathleen Johnson

*

Edwin Kagin

*

Blair Scott

*

Noel Scott

*

Dave Silverman

*

Ann Zindler

*

Frank Zindler (former interim president)

*

Indra Zuno

Wolfmother
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:37 AM
Yes but Wolfmother, your heathenism will never and did never bring unity to Europeans, which is why it failed.

Your heathenism never protected Europe like Christianity did. Christianity produced the world you live in that allows you to attack it.


Heathenism and rallying behind it is no different than rallying behind every anti-European type out there. Surely you realize those elements love hearing what you're saying yes? People that hate you and hate Europe love every word of your above post.


Heathenism will never and has never done what Christianity did for Europeans the world over, which is why they adopted it. Atheism and heathenism are the ignorant, anti-intellectual positions of the very people that hate Europe.

What is this.. I don't even...
First of all - in 2011 there's many ways to define "Heathenism".
I'd like to tell you what I mean/understand by it, which is simple: Me, not believing in the god(s) you believe in - mostly Christian and Islamic.
Yes, surprisingly simple - Don't try to prove me wrong, this is just what it means for me and not necesarilly in general. Thereafter.. "Atheist" - I'd say I'm an atheist yes, and all that the things that atheism includes.

Now try again - cuz I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from.
Just leave out the heathenism part, it doesn't really matter.
Call me atheist-atheist if you like that.

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:40 AM
What is this.. I don't even...
First of all - in 2011 there's many ways to define "Heathenism".
I'd like to tell you what I mean/understand by it, which is simple: Me, not believing in the god(s) you believe in - mostly Christian and Islamic.
Yes, surprisingly simple - Don't try to prove me wrong, this is just what it means for me and not necesarilly in general. Thereafter.. "Atheist" - I'd say I'm an atheist yes, and all that the things that atheism includes.

Now try again - cuz I'm not sure you understand where I'm coming from.
Just leave out the heathenism part, it doesn't really matter.
Call me atheist-atheist if you like that.


So if atheism was in fact a bad thing for Europeans you'd still be an atheist?


-non-religious people have less children

-non-religious people marry less: there is a proven correlation between marriage and happiness

-unmarried people earn less statistically

-irreligious people on average are less nationalistic and more libertine


Those are all negatives based on any societal graph. That is decline not progression.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:58 AM
So if atheism was in fact a bad thing for Europeans you'd still be an atheist?


-non-religious people have less children

-non-religious people marry less: there is a proven correlation between marriage and happiness

-unmarried people earn less statistically

-irreligious people on average are less nationalistic and more libertine


Those are all negatives based on any societal graph. That is decline not progression.

What has any of that to do with atheism's philosophical verity? Intellectual rigour is always healthy. Propensity to believe bilge for the sake of it is a quality of lesser minds and lesser races. As an Englishman, I have higher standards for myself. I like logic and reason. I don't ask myself what benefits or disadvantages accrue from believing that two plus two make four. It's irrelevant to me in ascertaining the truth or falsity of the claim.

If we decide not to discuss the philosophy of the matter, but instead its pragmatics, then fine, but let's not pretend the one cuts to the core of the other: they're unrelated. A philosophical position and the cultural associations of its average adherent have nothing to do with one another in any kind of absolute sense. If everyone who believes the world isn't flat also believes Milli Vanilli made good music, the world still wouldn't be flat. You don't need to have the same mindset I do, but don't pretend yours is superior. It isn't. It's a backwards mentality, one befitting the Negro and the Moor, not the European.

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 02:02 AM
A philosophical position and the cultural associations of its average adherent have nothing to do with one another in any kind of absolute sense.



That is just completely false on every level. This is what I mean. This is blind, anti-logic that is peddled by atheists.


If you believe a certain way of life is best and live by those convictions, which most humans do, then absolutely they have a direct correlation to one another. What horrible, anti-logic.


Also your statement basically amounts to "IDGAF if it hurts Europeans and their mastered cultural superiority, I like how it sounds so I'm following it".

That is both illogical and ignorant.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 02:24 AM
That is just completely false on every level. This is what I mean. This is blind, anti-logic that is peddled by atheists.

Ah, so you believe it's logical to hold that the cultural background of the average subscriber to a particular position (and in just one corner of the world, America, in this case) and the nature of the universe are deeply interrelated?

Only once you establish something is false (or overwhelmingly likely to be) can you begin to look into possible cultural reasons that that particular falsity sprang into existence and gained currency among a certain social subset. When instead something is strongly supported by reason, much moreso than its rival position, then no other reason for its popularity need be sought but its clear rational backing.


If you believe a certain way of life is best and live by those convictions, which most humans do, then absolutely they have a direct correlation to one another. What horrible, anti-logic.

'Way of life' has little to nothing to do with the philosophical question of God's existence.


Also your statement basically amounts to "IDGAF if it hurts Europeans and their mastered cultural superiority, I like how it sounds so I'm following it".

That is both illogical and ignorant.

I like how it sounds in the same way I like how the seven times table sounds. Like I said, I can detach a philosophical or scientific issue from its cultural associations because I'm a rational being. Obviously I think Christianity hurts (or has hurt) Europe deeply, but that has nothing to do with my disbelief in the Christian (or any) deity. I don't believe in any God or Gods, and on top of that position, I also dislike Christianity for cultural reasons.

Wolfmother
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 02:29 AM
That is just completely false on every level. This is what I mean. This is blind, anti-logic that is peddled by atheists.


If you believe a certain way of life is best and live by those convictions, which most humans do, then absolutely they have a direct correlation to one another. What horrible, anti-logic.


Also your statement basically amounts to "IDGAF if it hurts Europeans and their mastered cultural superiority, I like how it sounds so I'm following it".

That is both illogical and ignorant.

You're not making any sense right now..?
What has all this to do with Europeans in the first place? You confuse me.

You're suddenly talking marriage and happiness - You can't be happy if you're not married?

I'll probably be married, in years to come.
What's most important to me though is to be happy with the way I live my life, and I do just fine even though I'm not religious - I've struggled with things, as we all do in life - I'm struggling with epilepsy and vitiligo but that's not reason to starting to believe in something. I'm still a very happy person, and I'll continue to be that.

Please do elaborate on where you're going with this though.

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 02:44 AM
You're not making any sense right now..?
What has all this to do with Europeans in the first place? You confuse me.

You're suddenly talking marriage and happiness - You can't be happy if you're not married?

I'll probably be married, in years to come.
What's most important to me though is to be happy with the way I live my life, and I do just fine even though I'm not religious - I've struggled with things, as we all do in life - I'm struggling with epilepsy and vitiligo but that's not reason to starting to believe in something. I'm still a very happy person, and I'll continue to be that.

Please do elaborate on where you're going with this though.


I just find in my experiences that atheists tend to be marginal societal elements on average.

They aren't conducive to a healthy society.

Religion is important to a people not because of the exact details of the dogma, but because it provides a stable path in a dark room for a disorganized mass. It IS culture. Europe is more unified by Christianity than by anything else culturally, racially, and achievement wise. To argue that is not the case is ludicrous.


Atheism is a path of nothingness. It provides nothing to the group. It is inherently meaningless to all efforts of a group focus. It creates a million paths of randomness so as the group coherence is undone. Jews are well aware of this, which is why they peddle atheism so fervently among the whitest of Europeans. It is no coincidence that Jewish funding for Atheism groups is most focused on Sweden and other Nordic nations. It's not an accident that Jews don't even bother attempting to ideologically pollute the Southern Swarthy masses of Europe. They don't care. They leave them completely alone largely speaking. They are already mixed and base, masculinity obsessive cretins. The Jews pay them no heed.

Jäger
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 08:45 AM
I don't ask myself what benefits or disadvantages accrue from believing that two plus two make four.
This should be marked as one of the drawbacks of Abrahamistic religions, a conditioning for believing for the sake of reward, and avoiding disbelief for the sake of avoiding punishment. Slave minds :)

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 09:07 AM
So if atheism was in fact a bad thing for Europeans you'd still be an atheist?


-non-religious people have less children

-non-religious people marry less: there is a proven correlation between marriage and happiness

-unmarried people earn less statistically

-irreligious people on average are less nationalistic and more libertine


Those are all negatives based on any societal graph. That is decline not progression.

Certain religions discourage reproduction, the quakers are dying out due to it. The Amish are growing because they encourage it.

It depends on the religion.

Some religions promote poverty and celibacy.

Some religions promote that people should abstain from nationalism.

Show me statistics and from what religions. Religious views vary so greatly, even within common parent religions like Christianity.

Where are your statistics?

Your statistics well need to include statistics for all religions since the beliefs vary greatly on these subjects. Also, show the statistics for Atheists.

I would like to know what studies you base this on, and to lump all religion together is quite a leap, considering that they have different religions due to different beliefs.

I would suppose that self-proclaimed Atheists on average may do certain things less than specific religious groups. But, which religions?

But, all supposition aside, where are the sources for such statments?

Jäger
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 09:18 AM
I would like to know what studies you base this on, and to lump all religion together is quite a leap, considering that they have different religions due to different beliefs.
He said he bases this on his own experience, by which he should know that he won't convince anyone of his idea, who didn't make the same experiences.
What is arrogant and ignorant is how he trumpets the truth of his findings, maybe some David Hume would do him good :D
First, he speaks of religion in general, and then he lashes out on Paganism.
He didn't even respond to me, for making a BS post, due to his reading errors.
Consequentially, I wouldn't consider him a worthy discussion partner who is interested in truth, then again, he already made it clear, that truth is not relevant to him, as long as he can make an advantage out of falseness. :thumbup

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 09:25 AM
I just find in my experiences that atheists tend to be marginal societal elements on average.

They aren't conducive to a healthy society.

Religion is important to a people not because of the exact details of the dogma, but because it provides a stable path in a dark room for a disorganized mass. It IS culture. Europe is more unified by Christianity than by anything else culturally, racially, and achievement wise. To argue that is not the case is ludicrous.


Atheism is a path of nothingness. It provides nothing to the group. It is inherently meaningless to all efforts of a group focus. It creates a million paths of randomness so as the group coherence is undone. Jews are well aware of this, which is why they peddle atheism so fervently among the whitest of Europeans. It is no coincidence that Jewish funding for Atheism groups is most focused on Sweden and other Nordic nations. It's not an accident that Jews don't even bother attempting to ideologically pollute the Southern Swarthy masses of Europe. They don't care. They leave them completely alone largely speaking. They are already mixed and base, masculinity obsessive cretins. The Jews pay them no heed.

Europe is more unified by christianity?

What a laughable crock.

The prostestan-catholic wars, witch hunts, and forced conversions were some of the times when Europeans fought eachother with the most fervor.

Only now that government is not ruled by the church and people have intellectual freedom do we have some resemblance to peace amongst ourselves.

"The Reformation did not occur bloodlessly. There was military conflict in the Empire before a settlement allowing old church and protestant worship was passed, while France was riven by the ‘Wars of Religion’, killing tens of thousands. Even in England, where a protestant church was established, both sides were persecuted as the old church Queen Mary ruled inbetween protestant monarchs."

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/reformation/p/ovreformation.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Feuropean history.about.com%2Fod%2Freformation%2Fp %2Fovreformation.htm)

"From the late 15th century to the late 18th century a wave of persecution washed across parts of Europe. Tens of thousands of people were executed for witchcraft."

"In many parts of Europe people accused of witchcraft were tortured until they 'confessed'. Obviously if you were tortured you would probably 'confess' to anything to stop the torture. However torture was not used in England and after 1594 it was not used in Holland, (which is probably one reason why there were fewer executions for witchcraft there)."


http://www.localhistories.org/witchtrials.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loca lhistories.org%2Fwitchtrials.html)

"For three centuries of early modern European history, diverse societies were consumed by a panic over alleged witches in their midst. Witch-hunts, especially in Central Europe, resulted in the trial, torture, and execution of tens of thousands of victims, about three-quarters of whom were women. Arguably, neither before nor since have adult European women been selectively targeted for such largescale atrocities."

http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gend ercide.org%2Fcase_witchhunts.html)


He said he bases this on his own experience, by which he should know that he won't convince anyone of his idea, who didn't make the same experiences.
What is arrogant and ignorant is how he trumpets the truth of his findings, maybe some David Hume would do him good :D
First, he speaks of religion in general, and then he lashes out on Paganism.
He didn't even respond to me, for making a BS post, due to his reading errors.
Consequentially, I wouldn't consider him a worthy discussion partner who is interested in truth, then again, he already made it clear, that truth is not relevant to him, as long as he can make an advantage out of falseness. :thumbup

Well then his own experiences are limited. Probably to a small area in which the majority of people are religious. He most definitely is parroting what he hears from his pastor and others in the religious community.

Your own experiences aren't worth anything if you are a youngster that still lives at home and hasn't ventured out of the wing of mother, father, and church.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 10:13 AM
I just find in my experiences that atheists tend to be marginal societal elements on average.

In your American experiences. Most NW European nations haven't cared about God in a good couple of centuries now. It's interesting how your Christian nation isn't better off ethnically than our atheist ones (and that's ignoring the very obvious truth that all Western nations have been, and still are, heavily Christianised morally, if not any longer overtly).


They aren't conducive to a healthy society.

True. Independent thought conflicts with social interests. The more perspicacious your view of reality, the less willing you are to buy into society's distortion of it. This is good and bad. When the society in question is good, you might have a slightly pertinent point. In such cases, it may well be better for the intellectually gifted to put their insights 'on ice' in public, and leave their opinions for their own kind, within their own circles a la Plato's Republic. But when the society is an unquestionable abortion, as with Christian or Christianised nations, no such conundrum presents itself.


Religion is important to a people not because of the exact details of the dogma, but because it provides a stable path in a dark room for a disorganized mass. It IS culture. Europe is more unified by Christianity than by anything else culturally, racially, and achievement wise. To argue that is not the case is ludicrous.

Christianity unifies all Christians, not all Europeans.


Atheism is a path of nothingness. It provides nothing to the group. It is inherently meaningless to all efforts of a group focus. It creates a million paths of randomness so as the group coherence is undone.

I don't care about this, since I have no problem with individuality. As I said above, it's not even as though it is a worthwhile society that's supposedly breaking up (which, sadly, isn't happening fast enough, and in some of the more important aspects, such as ethics, isn't happening at all).

Besides, it's in the nature of most people to belong to a hive. If you honestly think there'll come a day when most people are able to think for themselves, then you know little about your own species. Yes, most modern alternatives to Christianity are non-racial (owing largely to the ongoing allegiance to Christian morals), but since neither is Christianity, it's neither a turn for the better nor worse.


Jews are well aware of this, which is why they peddle atheism so fervently among the whitest of Europeans. It is no coincidence that Jewish funding for Atheism groups is most focused on Sweden and other Nordic nations. It's not an accident that Jews don't even bother attempting to ideologically pollute the Southern Swarthy masses of Europe. They don't care. They leave them completely alone largely speaking. They are already mixed and base, masculinity obsessive cretins. The Jews pay them no heed.

Catholics are idiots who still cling to religion because religion is still culturally relevant to them. Protestant nations found it easier to break from theism simply because their religion never really was a big part of their lives anyway, so they could view the matter intellectually and not emotionally.

I'm not going to bother debating the role of Jooz in the promoting of atheism, because, one, this isn't SF, and, two, the Western nation most under the thumb of Jewish intellectualism, i.e. the US, is also the most religious.

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 10:20 AM
Certain religions discourage reproduction, the quakers are dying out due to it. The Amish are growing because they encourage it.

It depends on the religion.

Some religions promote poverty and celibacy.

Some religions promote that people should abstain from nationalism.

Show me statistics and from what religions. Religious views vary so greatly, even within common parent religions like Christianity.

Where are your statistics?

Your statistics well need to include statistics for all religions since the beliefs vary greatly on these subjects. Also, show the statistics for Atheists.

I would like to know what studies you base this on, and to lump all religion together is quite a leap, considering that they have different religions due to different beliefs.

I would suppose that self-proclaimed Atheists on average may do certain things less than specific religious groups. But, which religions?

But, all supposition aside, where are the sources for such statments?



One doesn't need any exact statistics. Though I will give you some. San Antonio Texas. Whites are liberalized, Mexicans are not. Mexicans are religious, whites are less religious (secular). Whites represent 25% of the city and live in the Northeast and Northwest, Mexicans represent 75% of the city and live in the center and south of the city. http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/6789/717714442.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/828/717714442.jpg/)


One would have to be a deluded addict of sorts to look at regional demographics and then turn around say that the more secular demographics have more children. They do not. It is visibly apparent no matter what culture you're looking at, be it Islam, Western Europe, or Secular Northeastern Americans. The birthrates do not lie. Nor do the adherence to religion in the regions that have high birth rates compared to the ones that don't, which always are the secular ones.

It is a fact. One which you don't like. Accepted, but that doesn't make your atheism or heathenism or whatever a superior argument because you've adopted it. Global birth rates do not lie. Europeans have less children because they are secular. Non-Europeans have more children because they are religious and or traditionalist.


-Islam in Europe

-Blacks in America

-Mexicans in America

-Native Americans in South America

All are more religious/traditionalist than their European counterparts and all have higher birth rates. There is a direct correlation.


So if we are going by the on the ground reality that secularism creates lower birth rates, which it undeniably does, and one accepts that lower birth rates are a bad thing for a people (duh), then one has to logically conclude that secularism is a BAD theme for the longevity of a people. Lack of cohesion equates to traditionalism losing out. That is the ultimate effect of secularism. Everything traditional loses ground to a broad nothingness.

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:16 AM
One doesn't need any exact statistics. Though I will give you some. San Antonio Texas. Whites are liberalized, Mexicans are not. Mexicans are religious, whites are less religious (secular). Whites represent 25% of the city and live in the Northeast and Northwest, Mexicans represent 75% of the city and live in the center and south of the city. http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/6789/717714442.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/828/717714442.jpg/)


One would have to be a deluded addict of sorts to look at regional demographics and then turn around say that the more secular demographics have more children. They do not. It is visibly apparent no matter what culture you're looking at, be it Islam, Western Europe, or Secular Northeastern Americans. The birthrates do not lie. Nor do the adherence to religion in the regions that have high birth rates compared to the ones that don't, which always are the secular ones.

It is a fact. One which you don't like. Accepted, but that doesn't make your atheism or heathenism or whatever a superior argument because you've adopted it. Global birth rates do not lie. Europeans have less children because they are secular. Non-Europeans have more children because they are religious and or traditionalist.


-Islam in Europe

-Blacks in America

-Mexicans in America

-Native Americans in South America

All are more religious/traditionalist than their European counterparts and all have higher birth rates. There is a direct correlation.


So if we are going by the on the ground reality that secularism creates lower birth rates, which it undeniably does, and one accepts that lower birth rates are a bad thing for a people (duh), then one has to logically conclude that secularism is a BAD theme for the longevity of a people. Lack of cohesion equates to traditionalism losing out. That is the ultimate effect of secularism. Everything traditional loses ground to a broad nothingness.

Non-Whites have more children not because they are religious. But, because they are more inclined to breed like bunnies if conditions are favorable.

The countries with the highest birthrates are not christian nations, but nations in Africa that are the most ignorant of all.

Why due to their animal instinct being most like the bonobo monkey which is to engage incessantly in sexual intercourse.

http://www.aneki.com/birth.html

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:20 AM
Non-Whites have more children not because they are religious. But, because they are more inclined to breed like bunnies if conditions are favorable.

The countries with the highest birthrates are not christian nations, but nations in Africa that are the most ignorant of all.

Why due to their animal instinct being most like the bonobo monkey which is to engage incessantly in sexual intercourse.

http://www.aneki.com/birth.html

Wrong.


Secularism is crashing Nordic nations birthrates and marriage rates.

It is not simply a matter of race, though race plays a factor. It is secularism.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0079.html


The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
STANLEY KURTZ
Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more.
Notice to Reader: "The Boards of both CERC Canada and CERC USA are aware that the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one that deeply affects the personal lives of many North Americans. Both Boards strongly reiterate the Catechism's teaching that people who self-identify as gays and lesbians must be treated with 'respect, compassion, and sensitivity' (CCC #2358). The Boards also support the Church's right to speak to aspects of this issue in accordance with her own self-understanding. Articles in this section have been chosen to cast light on how the teachings of the Church intersect with the various social, moral, and legal developments in secular society. CERC will not publish articles which, in the opinion of the editor, expose gays and lesbians to hatred or intolerance."




Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern — including gay marriage — is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.

This is not how the situation has been portrayed by prominent gay marriage advocates journalist Andrew Sullivan and Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr. Sullivan and Eskridge have made much of an unpublished study of Danish same-sex registered partnerships by Darren Spedale, an independent researcher with an undergraduate degree who visited Denmark in 1996 on a Fulbright scholarship. In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage (Norway followed in 1993 and Sweden in 1994). Drawing on Spedale, Sullivan and Eskridge cite evidence that since then, marriage has strengthened. Spedale reported that in the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12 percent. Writing in the McGeorge Law Review, Eskridge claimed that Spedale's study had exposed the "hysteria and irresponsibility" of those who predicted gay marriage would undermine marriage. Andrew Sullivan's Spedale-inspired piece was subtitled, "The case against same-sex marriage crumbles."

Yet the half-page statistical analysis of heterosexual marriage in Darren Spedale's unpublished paper doesn't begin to get at the truth about the decline of marriage in Scandinavia during the nineties. Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.

Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.

What about Spedale's report that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996? Again, the news only appears to be good. First, there is no trend. Eurostat's just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn't reported). Second, marriage statistics in societies with very low rates (Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997) must be carefully parsed. In his study of the Norwegian family in the nineties, for example, Christer Hyggen shows that a small increase in Norway's marriage rate over the past decade has more to do with the institution's decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older couples "catching up." These couples belong to the first generation that accepts rearing the first born child out of wedlock. As they bear second children, some finally get married. (And even this tendency to marry at the birth of a second child is weakening.) As for the rest of the increase in the Norwegian marriage rate, it is largely attributable to remarriage among the large number of divorced.

Spedale's report of lower divorce rates and higher marriage rates in post-gay marriage Denmark is thus misleading. Marriage is now so weak in Scandinavia that shifts in these rates no longer mean what they would in America. In Scandinavian demography, what counts is the out-of-wedlock birthrate, and the family dissolution rate.

The family dissolution rate is different from the divorce rate. Because so many Scandinavians now rear children outside of marriage, divorce rates are unreliable measures of family weakness. Instead, we need to know the rate at which parents (married or not) split up. Precise statistics on family dissolution are unfortunately rare. Yet the studies that have been done show that throughout Scandinavia (and the West) cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married parents. So rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth stand as proxy for rising rates of family dissolution.

By that measure, Scandinavian family dissolution has only been worsening. Between 1990 and 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden's rose from 47 to 55 percent. In Denmark out-of-wedlock births stayed level during the nineties (beginning at 46 percent and ending at 45 percent). But the leveling off seems to be a function of a slight increase in fertility among older couples, who marry only after multiple births (if they don't break up first). That shift masks the 25 percent increase during the nineties in cohabitation and unmarried parenthood among Danish couples (many of them young). About 60 percent of first born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents. The rise of fragile families based on cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing means that during the nineties, the total rate of family dissolution in Scandinavia significantly increased.

Scandinavia's out-of-wedlock birthrates may have risen more rapidly in the seventies, when marriage began its slide. But the push of that rate past the 50 percent mark during the nineties was in many ways more disturbing. Growth in the out-of-wedlock birthrate is limited by the tendency of parents to marry after a couple of births, and also by the persistence of relatively conservative and religious districts. So as out-of-wedlock childbearing pushes beyond 50 percent, it is reaching the toughest areas of cultural resistance. The most important trend of the post-gay marriage decade may be the erosion of the tendency to marry at the birth of a second child. Once even that marker disappears, the path to the complete disappearance of marriage is open.

And now that married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon, it has lost the critical mass required to have socially normative force. As Danish sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson describe it, in the wake of the changes of the nineties, "Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family — neither legally nor normatively. . . . What defines and makes the foundation of the Danish family can be said to have moved from marriage to parenthood."

So the highly touted half-page of analysis from an unpublished paper that supposedly helps validate the "conservative case" for gay marriage — i.e., that it will encourage stable marriage for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike — does no such thing. Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline — an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood — can be linked to gay marriage. To see this, we need to understand why marriage is in trouble in Scandinavia to begin with.

Scandinavia has long been a bellwether of family change. Scholars take the Swedish experience as a prototype for family developments that will, or could, spread throughout the world. So let's have a look at the decline of Swedish marriage.

In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?

Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step — the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures — or higher tax rates — than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.

The taxes necessary to support the welfare state have had an enormous impact on the family. With taxes so high, women must work. This reduces the time available for child rearing, thus encouraging the expansion of a day-care system that takes a large part in raising nearly all Swedish children over age one. Here is at least a partial realization of Simone de Beauvoir's dream of an enforced androgyny that pushes women from the home by turning children over to the state.

Yet the Swedish welfare state may encourage traditionalism in one respect. The lone teen pregnancies common in the British and American underclass are rare in Sweden, which has no underclass to speak of. Even when Swedish couples bear a child out of wedlock, they tend to reside together when the child is born. Strong state enforcement of child support is another factor discouraging single motherhood by teens. Whatever the causes, the discouragement of lone motherhood is a short-term effect. Ultimately, mothers and fathers can get along financially alone. So children born out of wedlock are raised, initially, by two cohabiting parents, many of whom later break up.

There are also cultural-ideological causes of Swedish family decline. Even more than in the United States, radical feminist and socialist ideas pervade the universities and the media. Many Scandinavian social scientists see marriage as a barrier to full equality between the sexes, and would not be sorry to see marriage replaced by unmarried cohabitation. A related cultural-ideological agent of marital decline is secularism. Sweden is probably the most secular country in the world. Secular social scientists (most of them quite radical) have largely replaced clerics as arbiters of public morality. Swedes themselves link the decline of marriage to secularism. And many studies confirm that, throughout the West, religiosity is associated with institutionally strong marriage, while heightened secularism is correlated with a weakening of marriage. Scholars have long suggested that the relatively thin Christianization of the Nordic countries explains a lot about why the decline of marriage in Scandinavia is a decade ahead of the rest of the West.

Are Scandinavians concerned about rising out-of-wedlock births, the decline of marriage, and ever-rising rates of family dissolution? No, and yes. For over 15 years, an American outsider, Rutgers University sociologist David Popenoe, has played Cassandra on these issues. Popenoe's 1988 book, "Disturbing the Nest," is still the definitive treatment of Scandinavian family change and its meaning for the Western world. Popenoe is no toe-the-line conservative. He has praise for the Swedish welfare state, and criticizes American opposition to some child welfare programs. Yet Popenoe has documented the slow motion collapse of the Swedish family, and emphasized the link between Swedish family decline and welfare policy.

For years, Popenoe's was a lone voice. Yet by the end of the nineties, the problem was too obvious to ignore. In 2000, Danish sociologist Mai Heide Ottosen published a study, "Samboskab, Aegteskab og Foraeldrebrud" ("Cohabitation, Marriage and Parental Breakup"), which confirmed the increased risk of family dissolution to children of unmarried parents, and gently chided Scandinavian social scientists for ignoring the "quiet revolution" of out-of-wedlock parenting.

Despite the reluctance of Scandinavian social scientists to study the consequences of family dissolution for children, we do have an excellent study that followed the life experiences of all children born in Stockholm in 1953. (Not coincidentally, the research was conducted by a British scholar, Duncan W.G. Timms.) That study found that regardless of income or social status, parental breakup had negative effects on children's mental health. Boys living with single, separated, or divorced mothers had particularly high rates of impairment in adolescence. An important 2003 study by Gunilla Ringbäck Weitoft, et al. found that children of single parents in Sweden have more than double the rates of mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children in two parent households. This held true after controlling for a wide range of demographic and socioeconomic circumstances.

The decline of marriage and the rise of unstable cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbirth are not confined to Scandinavia. The Scandinavian welfare state aggravates these problems. Yet none of the forces weakening marriage there are unique to the region. Contraception, abortion, women in the workforce, spreading secularism, ascendant individualism, and a substantial welfare state are found in every Western country. That is why the Nordic pattern is spreading.

Yet the pattern is spreading unevenly. And scholars agree that cultural tradition plays a central role in determining whether a given country moves toward the Nordic family system. Religion is a key variable. A 2002 study by the Max Planck Institute, for example, concluded that countries with the lowest rates of family dissolution and out-of-wedlock births are "strongly dominated by the Catholic confession." The same study found that in countries with high levels of family dissolution, religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, had little influence.

British demographer Kathleen Kiernan, the acknowledged authority on the spread of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births across Europe, divides the continent into three zones. The Nordic countries are the leaders in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. They are followed by a middle group that includes the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, and Germany. Until recently, France was a member of this middle group, but France's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has moved it into the Nordic category. North American rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth put the United States and Canada into this middle group. Most resistant to cohabitation, family dissolution, and out-of-wedlock births are the southern European countries of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, and, until recently, Switzerland and Ireland. (Ireland's rising out-of-wedlock birthrate has just pushed it into the middle group.)

These three groupings closely track the movement for gay marriage. In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly in the middle group of nations. Not coincidentally, nearly every country in that middle group has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success.

This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.

We see this process at work in the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that swept across Scandinavia in the nineties. If Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high in the late eighties, gay marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:29 AM
In your American experiences. Most NW European nations haven't cared about God in a good couple of centuries now. It's interesting how your Christian nation isn't better off ethnically than our atheist ones (and that's ignoring the very obvious truth that all Western nations have been, and still are, heavily Christianised morally, if not any longer overtly).



True. Independent thought conflicts with social interests. The more perspicacious your view of reality, the less willing you are to buy into society's distortion of it. This is good and bad. When the society in question is good, you might have a slightly pertinent point. In such cases, it may well be better for the intellectually gifted to put their insights 'on ice' in public, and leave their opinions for their own kind, within their own circles a la Plato's Republic. But when the society is an unquestionable abortion, as with Christian or Christianised nations, no such conundrum presents itself.



Christianity unifies all Christians, not all Europeans.



I don't care about this, since I have no problem with individuality. As I said above, it's not even as though it is a worthwhile society that's supposedly breaking up (which, sadly, isn't happening fast enough, and in some of the more important aspects, such as ethics, isn't happening at all).

Besides, it's in the nature of most people to belong to a hive. If you honestly think there'll come a day when most people are able to think for themselves, then you know little about your own species. Yes, most modern alternatives to Christianity are non-racial (owing largely to the ongoing allegiance to Christian morals), but since neither is Christianity, it's neither a turn for the better nor worse.



Catholics are idiots who still cling to religion because religion is still culturally relevant to them. Protestant nations found it easier to break from theism simply because their religion never really was a big part of their lives anyway, so they could view the matter intellectually and not emotionally.

I'm not going to bother debating the role of Jooz in the promoting of atheism, because, one, this isn't SF, and, two, the Western nation most under the thumb of Jewish intellectualism, i.e. the US, is also the most religious.

The USA is supposed to be a secular nation. Separation of church in state are elements of the constitution. Ofcourse, religious nut jobs would like nothing more than to take it over.

The USA has a religious bible belt, which has a high density of religious wack jobs, that try to cram their superstitions down everyone's throat.

The poster Austin comes from the deeeply religious area. In the Netherlands we also have a religious area. I can assure you not all people in the deeply religious areas are religious. It just seems like religious types seem to gravitate towards certain areas.

Austin is obviously led by his small view of the world which has been slanted by his religious views and upbringing, community.

He has been taught atheists are a certain way, he has been taught people need religion and are uncapable of guiding themselves without it. He has no proof, to his type it is blaspemy to say other wise.


Wrong.




No Austin.

The highest birthrate countries like Niger, etc. The mother's are often unwed.

The mexicans and the Blacks also have higher rates of birth out of wedlock.

Sex without concern is the reason for higher birthrates.

The Mexicans breed like cockroaches. The Spaniards also said the Natives of Mexico were like cockroaches. This has to do with their sexual nature not religion.

http://www.aneki.com/birth.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anek i.com%2Fbirth.html)

The highest birthrates belong to the races that are closer to their primitive animal nature.

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:30 AM
The USA is supposed to be a secular nation. Separation of church in state are elements of the constitution. Ofcourse, religious nut jobs would like nothing more than to take it over.

The USA has a religious bible belt, which has a high density of religious wack jobs, that try to cram their superstitions down everyone's throat.

The poster Austin comes from the deeeply religious area. In the Netherlands we also have a religious area. I can assure you not all people in the deeply religious areas are religious. It just seems like religious types seem to gravitate towards certain areas.

Austin is obviously led by his small view of the world which has been slanted by his religious views and upbringing, community.

He has been taught atheists are a certain way, he has been taught people need religion and are uncapable of guiding themselves without it. He has no proof, to his type it is blaspemy to say other wise.


Me and my future 3 kids will promptly undo any despicable atheism by our numerical advantage in the future.

Don't worry though, I intend to have forced mind-swipes of all atheists of white European racial heritage ;).

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100029971/atheism-is-doomed-the-contraceptive-pill-is-secularisms-cyanide-tablet/

Atheism is doomed: the contraceptive Pill is secularism's cyanide tablet

By Ed West Last updated: March 15th, 2010

29 Comments Comment on this article
The Pill is stopping the conception of atheists

The Pill is stopping the conception of atheists

The 1960s counterculture slogan “make love, not war” could have been invented for the Hutterites, a conservative, pacifist Anabaptist community in the US and Canada. Numbering 400 at the end of the 19th century, when they moved to Dakota on the point of extinction, there are almost 50,000 Hutterites today, despite conversion being extremely rare (they speak an archaic form of High German and live in the middle of nowhere, which makes it unlikely they’ll turn up at your doorstep with a funny grin).

They are not alone. The Mormons continue to grow by 40 per cent every decade, largely thanks to a high birth rate, so much so that by 2080 there will be anywhere between 63 and 267 million Mormons, depending on whether that figure falls to 30 per cent or 50 per cent.

And Evangelical Christians now account for two thirds of white American Protestants, while the ultra-Orthodox account for 17 per cent of British Jewry, but 75 per cent of children.

Across the western world the fertility rate of religious conservatives far outstrips that of non-believers, so much so that modern liberal secularism is endangered. That, anyway, is the thesis of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, a fascinating new book by Eric Kaufmann of Birkbeck University, which is published later this month. It may well be one of the most significant books of our era.

It used to be taken for granted that, just as liberal democracy meant the end of history, so it also meant the end of religion. Once people became rich, educated and sexually liberated, they left irrational beliefs and other such nonsense behind.

Christianity declined steadily from the mid-19th century but it wasn’t until the 1960s that European societies were able to fully abandon the emotional baggage of their civilisation’s infancy, and especially its repressive attitude to sex.

But if what Kaufmann is saying is true – and the demographic data suggests it is – then the contraceptive Pill was not so much secular Europe’s liberation as its cyanide tablet.

The good news is that Europe will not become Islamicised (although Kaufmann’s estimate of 20 or 25 per cent is Islamic enough). The bad news (for some) is that it will become Evangelical Protestant instead. This will at least be encouraging for Israel, although whether it will be the same progressive, secular Israel where gays can serve in the military is another matter, as by the second half of the century the ultra-Orthodox will be the majority.

New Atheists comfort themselves with the idea that religious people will continue to drift their way, like rustics to the city, but the figures do not bear this out. It is true that liberal religious people continue to embrace atheism at a rate that alarms the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Methodist Churches, and Reform synagogues. Once religions start to accept secularism and rationality, their young people usually reach the logical conclusion of doubt – unbelief.

More conservative religions do not have that problem. Only 5 per cent of the more traditional Amish leave the faith, and when a community’s birth rate outstrips the national average by 200 or 300 per cent they can easily afford to lose one in 20 of the flock.

While the likes of Richard Dawkins aim their bile at traditional Christianity, fundamentalists are largely immune to their attacks, and become only stronger as the more committed members of the established churches head their way. Those religions that survive will become more conservative.

God alone knows what will happen to the Church of England this century, but we can safely say that the Catholic Church will become smaller but more committed. It will continue to exist at the margins of an atheist-dominated Europe ruled by an increasingly intolerant secular Left.

Widespread anti-religious feeling will only get more intense as the coming demographic changes outlined by Kaufmann appear to ring true, and as Evangelical Christians start to become more significant in, for example, the British Conservative Party.

But that smaller, more orthodox Catholic Church will have a huge inbuilt advantage – what French Canadian Catholics used to call “revenge of the cradle”. Many orthodox Catholics I know have 3 or 4 children – that’s not a recklessly high number, but in a society where the atheist fertility rate is around 1 child per woman, that advantage will show over a few decades, especially since orthodox Catholics have a far smaller drop-off rate than their liberal brethren.

Much as this will anger the New Atheists, which is a plus, Kaufmann’s thesis is disturbing. Personally I prefer Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and Anglican civilisation to some of the wackier strains of Evangelical Christianity. As for fundamentalist Islam…

It’s happened before: Kaufmann believes that Christianity’s rise from 40 followers to 6 million within three centuries had less to do with conversions that with higher birth rates, since the Christians rejected such pagan practises as polygamy and infanticide.

Today we view the ancient world’s attitude to infanticide as barbaric and incomprehensible, but perhaps future generations will look at our attitudes to abortion in the same way – that's not because pro-lifers would have won the argument, simply that (in addition to the effect of the Pill) abortion is killing the atheists of tomorrow.

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:37 AM
Me and my future 3 kids will promptly undo any despicable atheism by our numerical advantage in the future.

Don't worry though, I intend to have forced mind-swipes of all atheists of white European racial heritage ;).

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100029971/atheism-is-doomed-the-contraceptive-pill-is-secularisms-cyanide-tablet/

Atheism is doomed: the contraceptive Pill is secularism's cyanide tablet

By Ed West Last updated: March 15th, 2010

29 Comments Comment on this article
The Pill is stopping the conception of atheists

The Pill is stopping the conception of atheists

The 1960s counterculture slogan “make love, not war” could have been invented for the Hutterites, a conservative, pacifist Anabaptist community in the US and Canada. Numbering 400 at the end of the 19th century, when they moved to Dakota on the point of extinction, there are almost 50,000 Hutterites today, despite conversion being extremely rare (they speak an archaic form of High German and live in the middle of nowhere, which makes it unlikely they’ll turn up at your doorstep with a funny grin).

They are not alone. The Mormons continue to grow by 40 per cent every decade, largely thanks to a high birth rate, so much so that by 2080 there will be anywhere between 63 and 267 million Mormons, depending on whether that figure falls to 30 per cent or 50 per cent.

And Evangelical Christians now account for two thirds of white American Protestants, while the ultra-Orthodox account for 17 per cent of British Jewry, but 75 per cent of children.

Across the western world the fertility rate of religious conservatives far outstrips that of non-believers, so much so that modern liberal secularism is endangered. That, anyway, is the thesis of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, a fascinating new book by Eric Kaufmann of Birkbeck University, which is published later this month. It may well be one of the most significant books of our era.

It used to be taken for granted that, just as liberal democracy meant the end of history, so it also meant the end of religion. Once people became rich, educated and sexually liberated, they left irrational beliefs and other such nonsense behind.

Christianity declined steadily from the mid-19th century but it wasn’t until the 1960s that European societies were able to fully abandon the emotional baggage of their civilisation’s infancy, and especially its repressive attitude to sex.

But if what Kaufmann is saying is true – and the demographic data suggests it is – then the contraceptive Pill was not so much secular Europe’s liberation as its cyanide tablet.

The good news is that Europe will not become Islamicised (although Kaufmann’s estimate of 20 or 25 per cent is Islamic enough). The bad news (for some) is that it will become Evangelical Protestant instead. This will at least be encouraging for Israel, although whether it will be the same progressive, secular Israel where gays can serve in the military is another matter, as by the second half of the century the ultra-Orthodox will be the majority.

New Atheists comfort themselves with the idea that religious people will continue to drift their way, like rustics to the city, but the figures do not bear this out. It is true that liberal religious people continue to embrace atheism at a rate that alarms the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Methodist Churches, and Reform synagogues. Once religions start to accept secularism and rationality, their young people usually reach the logical conclusion of doubt – unbelief.

More conservative religions do not have that problem. Only 5 per cent of the more traditional Amish leave the faith, and when a community’s birth rate outstrips the national average by 200 or 300 per cent they can easily afford to lose one in 20 of the flock.

While the likes of Richard Dawkins aim their bile at traditional Christianity, fundamentalists are largely immune to their attacks, and become only stronger as the more committed members of the established churches head their way. Those religions that survive will become more conservative.

God alone knows what will happen to the Church of England this century, but we can safely say that the Catholic Church will become smaller but more committed. It will continue to exist at the margins of an atheist-dominated Europe ruled by an increasingly intolerant secular Left.

Widespread anti-religious feeling will only get more intense as the coming demographic changes outlined by Kaufmann appear to ring true, and as Evangelical Christians start to become more significant in, for example, the British Conservative Party.

But that smaller, more orthodox Catholic Church will have a huge inbuilt advantage – what French Canadian Catholics used to call “revenge of the cradle”. Many orthodox Catholics I know have 3 or 4 children – that’s not a recklessly high number, but in a society where the atheist fertility rate is around 1 child per woman, that advantage will show over a few decades, especially since orthodox Catholics have a far smaller drop-off rate than their liberal brethren.

Much as this will anger the New Atheists, which is a plus, Kaufmann’s thesis is disturbing. Personally I prefer Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and Anglican civilisation to some of the wackier strains of Evangelical Christianity. As for fundamentalist Islam…

It’s happened before: Kaufmann believes that Christianity’s rise from 40 followers to 6 million within three centuries had less to do with conversions that with higher birth rates, since the Christians rejected such pagan practises as polygamy and infanticide.

Today we view the ancient world’s attitude to infanticide as barbaric and incomprehensible, but perhaps future generations will look at our attitudes to abortion in the same way – that's not because pro-lifers would have won the argument, simply that (in addition to the effect of the Pill) abortion is killing the atheists of tomorrow.

Plenty of non-catholics use birth control.

I know many religious couples that opt not to have children. Even catholicism allows natural birth control that allows abstinence from sex relations during certain times of the month.

Also, nuns and monks don't have any children at all. In certain religions it is considered selfless to abstain from marrying and having a family.

I don't believe that the birthrate of protestants is higher than that of atheists. It depends on what the religion encourages, and many religions do not encourage people to have large families anymore.

I think you are delusional if you think you will ever get into a position that allows you to make forced mind sweeps. Obviously, you would hurt Germanics that dare to think for themselves without being led by a non-Germanic text. No thanks, no more Whites killing Whites in the name of religion.

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:41 AM
Plenty of non-catholics use birth control.

I know many religious couples that opt not to have children. Even catholicism allows natural birth control that allows abstinence from sex relations during certain times of the month.

Also, nuns and monks don't have any children at all. In certain religions it is considered selfless to abstain from marrying and having a family.

I don't believe that the birthrate of protestants is higher than that of atheists. It depends on what the religion encourages, and many religions do not encourage people to have large families anymore.



The birthrate of protestants is MUCH higher than atheists. Lmao, you have a lot to learn about America.

Religious people have more children than secular peoples. The Nordic nations prove this. Sorry it's true.


Plenty of non-catholics use birth control.


I think you are delusional if you think you will ever get into a position that allows you to make forced mind sweeps. Obviously, you would hurt Germanics that dare to think for themselves without being led by a non-Germanic text. No thanks, no more Whites killing Whites in the name of religion.




The problem for you is, you are on the decline. Religious whites are having 3-4+ kids on average and secular whites are having 1 if that.

We win.


I'll try to get you a pass on the mind-sweep line if I can manage. XD

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:52 AM
The birthrate of protestants is MUCH higher than atheists. Lmao, you have a lot to learn about America.

Religious people have more children than secular peoples. The Nordic nations prove this. Sorry it's true.

I lived in the USA longer than you have been alive. Also I have lived in more areas of the USA than you have.

I lived in the USA for 28 full years, and I have lived in the Netherlands for 2.

Do you have birthrate statistics for Atheists? Or do you just assume that protestants in general have a higher birthrate than Atheists/Agnostics?

The Nordic nations don't prove this, because it lumps together protestant Nordics and Atheists. So by your reasoning Niger must be the most christlike nation in the world?

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:54 AM
I lived in the USA longer than you have been alive. Also I have lived in more areas of the USA than you have.

I lived in the USA for 28 full years, and I have lived in the Netherlands for 2.

Do you have birthrate statistics for Atheists? Or do you just assume that protestants in general have a higher birthrate than Atheists/Agnostics?


Well then shame on you!!!! You should not be poisoned as you are!!!! If the great chasm occurs and you're still around I hope to capture you and wash away your mental poisoning. You are a Northern European and you should be spreading your eternal self and promoting other Northern Europeans to do the same!!! Shame on you for your misguided ways.

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 12:00 PM
The problem for you is, you are on the decline. Religious whites are having 3-4+ kids on average and secular whites are having 1 if that.

We win.


I'll try to get you a pass on the mind-sweep line if I can manage. XD

No, the Netherlands has one of the healthiest birthrates in Europe. The Netherlands birthrate is higher than the more religious Poland.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25

You have no figures to show how many children secular whites have. So it is all just delusional thinking.

Schneider
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:21 PM
"Me and my future 3 kids will promptly undo any despicable atheism by our numerical advantage in the future."


I doubt all 3 of your kids will share your beliefs.

Many in the US who say they are christian, are only christian by superstition.

Christianity (religion in general), has a positive affect on the uneducated, that's about the only good thing I can say about it.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 01:47 PM
The USA is supposed to be a secular nation. Separation of church in state are elements of the constitution. Ofcourse, religious nut jobs would like nothing more than to take it over.

The USA has a religious bible belt, which has a high density of religious wack jobs, that try to cram their superstitions down everyone's throat.

The poster Austin comes from the deeeply religious area. In the Netherlands we also have a religious area. I can assure you not all people in the deeply religious areas are religious. It just seems like religious types seem to gravitate towards certain areas.

Austin is obviously led by his small view of the world which has been slanted by his religious views and upbringing, community.

He has been taught atheists are a certain way, he has been taught people need religion and are uncapable of guiding themselves without it. He has no proof, to his type it is blaspemy to say other wise.

Americans are massively religious compared to non-Catholic Europe. Weirdos such as the starter of this thread are an extreme oddity among Britons, but not among Americans. Austin projects his own experience of native Christian good ol' boys vs. irreligious cultural destroyers on NW Europe -- with dire results. However important and part of his precious culture Christianity may be, it doesn't have the same resonance with us. The Jews didn't need to poison our breakfast cereal for this to happen. As I said before, Jews dominate all aspects of American political and cultural life, much more than is the case in modern Europe, yet this hasn't eroded America's religious nature one ounce. And this is even if we take at face value that American atheism is dominated by Jews to a greater extent than other, even rival, ideologies. Without looking back, about 50% of the names he listed earlier were probably Jewish. I could beat that figure by citing the credits of Will and Grace or American Pie. Jews are over-represented in everything American, even its conservative niches.

------------

As to the thread topic and a few other points others have raised, which I may have answered before, but I'm not going back to check: It's not very important to me what others believe. I do like to represent my viewpoint, especially when it seems to be in the minority, however. This is the nature of debate. It doesn't mean that I'm a repressed believer of the other guy's argument any more than disagreeing with a bunch of people who unanimously agree that Dr Pepper tastes nice means that I secretly like to drink it.

I like to put irrationality under the microscope wherever I find it. I also like to challenge people who believe in ghosts and goblins, premonitions, fate, and various other superstitions etc. Whether or not religion is involved in their defence doesn't matter. I'm fascinated by thought processes. I love to see how irrationality preserves itself in the face of reason, how it responds to it (and I've found out it's usually with silence :D ). I love to see reason and unreason clash and do battle. I like to test human psychology and defence mechanisms, and so on and so forth. This is why I do what I do; it's not because I secretly believe my arguments have some kind of cosmic significance.

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 03:14 PM
Americans are massively religious compared to non-Catholic Europe. Weirdos such as the starter of this thread are an extreme oddity among Britons, but not among Americans. Austin projects his own experience of native Christian good ol' boys vs. irreligious cultural destroyers on NW Europe -- with dire results. However important and part of his precious culture Christianity may be, it doesn't have the same resonance with us. The Jews didn't need to poison our breakfast cereal for this to happen. As I said before, Jews dominate all aspects of American political and cultural life, much more than is the case in modern Europe, yet this hasn't eroded America's religious nature one ounce. And this is even if we take at face value that American atheism is dominated by Jews to a greater extent than other, even rival, ideologies. Without looking back, about 50% of the names he listed earlier were probably Jewish. I could beat that figure by citing the credits of Will and Grace or American Pie. Jews are over-represented in everything American, even its conservative niches.



The bible belt region is the most religious area in the USA. Guess what? Texas is in it. Also, more bible believing Americans ascribe to protestantism than catholicism

I think that the USA constitution tolerates religious nutters more, and that is why so many different nutty types of religion are allowed to flourish there.

However, religious nutters live in Europe as well, like the Briton that started this thread. However, America is more of a breeding ground for them since in it's folly it tolerates all sorts of religious beliefs no matter how ridiculous they are.

I think it is more than religion with the poster Austin. I think he is mentally imbalanced. He makes all sort of crazy statements talking about "mind sweeps" and some sort of cleansing of non-christian types when he gets into power. He clearly is exibiting signs delusions, delusions of grandeur. I don't think it is just religion with the case of these very deranged posts.

Personally, I think this thread is just a fight starter. A fight that was started by a self-identified anti-atheist.

BroBro
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 03:33 PM
Quotes from the founding fathers of the United States:

Benjamin Franklin -

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat

Austin
Thursday, December 8th, 2011, 11:37 PM
Quotes from the founding fathers of the United States:

Benjamin Franklin -

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat

Most the Founders were Christians.

Wolfmother
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 12:00 AM
Most the Founders were Christians.

But only Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were true in their statements.

Austin
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 12:04 AM
But only Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were true in their statements.

When I think of Atheists, I think of this, based off my experiences of who is Atheist in real life in America.

oN3K1Wsd-I0


http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/8371/billmaherreligilous.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/848/billmaherreligilous.jpg/)

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5933/billmaher.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/billmaher.jpg/)


And I prefer this one:
George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

and this one

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

Wolfmother
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 12:33 AM
Yeah - And they all smoked cannabis from time to time.

Seems like you really love America, and hate jews.

This quote is more than enough for me.

"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

Austin
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 12:41 AM
Yeah - And they all smoked cannabis from time to time.

Seems like you really love America, and hate jews.

This quote is more than enough for me.

"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

Most Atheists in America are Jews.

Most Jews in America are Atheists because they feel resentment towards the white, Christian majority.

So yes, I dislike Jews who attack white Christians.

Kauz R. Waldher
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 01:09 AM
Americans are massively religious compared to non-Catholic Europe. Weirdos such as the starter of this thread are an extreme oddity among Britons, but not among Americans. Austin projects his own experience of native Christian good ol' boys vs. irreligious cultural destroyers on NW Europe -- with dire results. However important and part of his precious culture Christianity may be, it doesn't have the same resonance with us. The Jews didn't need to poison our breakfast cereal for this to happen. As I said before, Jews dominate all aspects of American political and cultural life, much more than is the case in modern Europe, yet this hasn't eroded America's religious nature one ounce. And this is even if we take at face value that American atheism is dominated by Jews to a greater extent than other, even rival, ideologies. Without looking back, about 50% of the names he listed earlier were probably Jewish. I could beat that figure by citing the credits of Will and Grace or American Pie. Jews are over-represented in everything American, even its conservative niches.

------------

As to the thread topic and a few other points others have raised, which I may have answered before, but I'm not going back to check: It's not very important to me what others believe. I do like to represent my viewpoint, especially when it seems to be in the minority, however. This is the nature of debate. It doesn't mean that I'm a repressed believer of the other guy's argument any more than disagreeing with a bunch of people who unanimously agree that Dr Pepper tastes nice means that I secretly like to drink it.

I like to put irrationality under the microscope wherever I find it. I also like to challenge people who believe in ghosts and goblins, premonitions, fate, and various other superstitions etc. Whether or not religion is involved in their defence doesn't matter. I'm fascinated by thought processes. I love to see how irrationality preserves itself in the face of reason, how it responds to it (and I've found out it's usually with silence :D ). I love to see reason and unreason clash and do battle. I like to test human psychology and defence mechanisms, and so on and so forth. This is why I do what I do; it's not because I secretly believe my arguments have some kind of cosmic significance.

I believe in destiny (fate), premonitions, astral projection and shape shifting as well. But I don't believe in these things based on a "blind faith". I believe in them, undoubtedly, due to personal experience. As for ghosts and goblins .. not so sure.
I view christianity the same as I view any other pop-culture trend. Though it is highly destructible and dark, it is an easy option that doesn't take much intelligence or perseverance to follow. The masses choose this as their "religion" .. the sheeple I should say. Very view have the strength to dare or challenge what was indoctrinated into them since they exited the womb. One thing that I believe is as vital to our folk as any other element or "belief system" is that of "Traditionalism". RADICAL Traditionalism. You must first cleanse your body, mind and spirit of ALL that you know and have been polluted with. And number one is ... christianity and it's principles. They are embedded in our folks psyche. And christianity alone drives a wedge down the center of our folk and keeps us unable to unite. Christianity is thee most critical and elitist of all spiritual paths any one of our folk may follow.

Austin
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 01:13 AM
Christianity is thee most critical and elitist of all spiritual paths any one of our folk may follow.

Oh yes and heathenism is going to unite people............:thumbsdwn
Every culture has their own heathen beliefs, which means that heathenism is an abject failure at uniting people. It will never do it, ever. Hence being a heathen is the same as declaring you're going to be a nihilist.

Heathenism never united Europe, which is why Europe adopted a uniting religion, Christianity.

Europe was invaded under heathenism more than under Christianity.


What would Christian Europe have done if everyone had been heathens during the Islamic invasions of Spain and Southern Europe? Heathenism is worthless.

Kauz R. Waldher
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 10:40 AM
Oh yes and heathenism is going to unite people............:thumbsdwn
Every culture has their own heathen beliefs, which means that heathenism is an abject failure at uniting people. It will never do it, ever. Hence being a heathen is the same as declaring you're going to be a nihilist.

Heathenism never united Europe, which is why Europe adopted a uniting religion, Christianity.

Europe was invaded under heathenism more than under Christianity.


What would Christian Europe have done if everyone had been heathens during the Islamic invasions of Spain and Southern Europe? Heathenism is worthless.

You're acting like a mainstream jesus-lover. You're being all so typical. Austin, I expect you are searching everyday, more and more for answers to the questions that burn in your soul? Christianity offers no real path or transcendence. It's basically like, "be good and you will be rewarded". You believe and endorse this? You have a bleak future my friend.

Byt he way, how does Heathen = Nihilist? I believe any real thinking man was a nihilist at one time in his life. But I certainlydo not think that is the end.

Austin
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 11:47 AM
You're acting like a mainstream jesus-lover. You're being all so typical. Austin, I expect you are searching everyday, more and more for answers to the questions that burn in your soul? Christianity offers no real path or transcendence. It's basically like, "be good and you will be rewarded". You believe and endorse this? You have a bleak future my friend.

Byt he way, how does Heathen = Nihilist? I believe any real thinking man was a nihilist at one time in his life. But I certainlydo not think that is the end.


I'm not even all that religious. I haven't been to church regularly in years.

Heathenism is fine as a cultural relic that people have an interest in as a hobby. I've no issue with that as it is a legitimate part of a peoples culture. But it will not ever unite Northern Europeans against their current antagonists of Islam and void secularism. Adopting Heathenism is like accepting a fate of decline. Heathenism cannot produce great nation states. It cannot defeat great ideological factions.

If Heathenism is so wonderful why didn't it beat out Christianity? Shouldn't the mighty heathenism have defeated such a supposedly weak ideology? Apparently the millions of heathens that converted didn't think Christianity was all that bad at the time. Christianity did not spread at the tip of a sword in the West. Heathenism was the default system. What happened? It failed. Why did it fail if it was better?


Why would Europeans admitted enemies so peddle Heathenism if it's such a good thing for Europeans? Obviously Muslims and Jews and other minorities love nothing more than to hear that you're Heathen. It directly equals division of European compactness.

Elessar
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 05:45 PM
Christianity offers no real path or transcendence.
False in every sense.
Ascetic paths were followed diligently in the early days of Christianity, and later on during the Middle Ages, particularly in Ireland and the Levant with the Church Fathers and the Hesychastic tradition practiced in the Orthodox church.
We have Monastic orders due to the paths of trancendance sought by the Christian devotees, many of which preserved a vast number historical texts from being lost to history after the fall of Rome. Saving Europe from itself in a sense.

If your statement were true, there wouldn't be a Christianity. Its core tennants themselves being Trancendance.


It's basically like, "be good and you will be rewarded".
Is this not the goal in every religion, including Heathenism? Don't tell me the goal of a heathen is to be bad and not get rewarded.
Christianity's aim is for the salvation of the soul through Jesus Christ and to live a life under the moral code in accordance with God, spiritual truth and beauty than about politics or petty arguments. Is still more about the community you live in on a day to day basis than about saving the world.

Hamar Fox
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 06:04 PM
When I think of Atheists, I think of this, based off my experiences of who is Atheist in real life in America.


Most Atheists in America are Jews.

Most Jews in America are Atheists because they feel resentment towards the white, Christian majority.

So yes, I dislike Jews who attack white Christians.

I'm assuming you know that 100% of Christianity's founding fathers were Jews? Not just a case, as you claim of atheists, of 40% of this nerd committee being called 'Adelstein' and 'Fleischbaum', and 43% of that one. Nope. Every single one of them. One hundred percent. Not many, not even most, but all.


I believe in destiny (fate), premonitions, astral projection and shape shifting as well. But I don't believe in these things based on a "blind faith". I believe in them, undoubtedly, due to personal experience. As for ghosts and goblins .. not so sure.

Ok, fine, you're entitled to those beliefs. But let's contrast it to what you said a bit earlier:


Atheism is rubbish. Pure rubbish. I'm amazed at the arrogance that this "atheist" displays even here on this forum. He constantly asks for proof of anothers point of view, but cannot prove his own. The thing is, we don't know all the answers of "creation", we may never. But one thing we do know is that Atheism as a movement is killing our people. Not with guns and knives ... but spiritually. And as we all know, what we're (the Germanics) facing here in this world of ours is spiritual warfare. And it IS very modern to be an atheist. It is also very liberal. Atheism is like venom to our folk. Transcendental capability is what we need. And you cannot get that through absolute lack of spirituality. Spirituality is the cog-wheel to our success as a race and culture. And lastly, to all you so-called atheists .. stop being arrogant because last time I checked you have no proof for your theories either.

Claiming to believe in shape-shifters and calling someone else's belief system rubbish don't really sit well together. If I believed in shapeshifters and astral projections, I'd probably go more for the, "No, seriously, just hear me out. I totally respect everything you said on the matter, but please just hear me out for 30 seconds...fine, 20 seconds...come on, man, I listened to you'' approach. By what standard is anything David Icke thinks about cosmic order less prepostrous than what any atheist in present or past existence believes (in respect to atheism)? And how are we more venomous to our folk? I don't personally picture the unshaven-unwashed-and-clad-in-nothing-but-a-the-end-is-nigh-placard followers of Icke fitting 'saving the Western world' in between searching for Freemason symbolism on toilet paper packaging and trying to molest old grannies in the subway. Maybe I'm wrong -- who can say? -- but I just don't see it happening.

On a more serious note, rational thought and philosophical confidence are always a boon in any kind of political or social struggle. The movement needs the bold and arrogant (if indeed that's what we are) much more than it needs the paranoid and creepy.

Scario
Friday, December 9th, 2011, 08:20 PM
As for Europe, most of Europe at one time was Heathen. Why or how did Christianity beat it out. The Roman Empire had better weapons and brought Christianity to the forefront of religions. Then we had a Heathen Leader who through a marriage and love for his wife went over to Christianity and then beat all the other heathens in battle if they did not bend a knee to Christianity. In the end, Christianity is a false religion anyways. A lot of the holy days were Pagan/Heathen. The New Testament is still attached to the Old Testament, same God right? The Jews stole stories and made them their own from other older religions. So go ahead and feel superior believing in a false Desert Jewish God. I'll stick with what religion my forefathers had.

Kauz R. Waldher
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 12:24 AM
I'm assuming you know that 100% of Christianity's founding fathers were Jews? Not just a case, as you claim of atheists, of 40% of this nerd committee being called 'Adelstein' and 'Fleischbaum', and 43% of that one. Nope. Every single one of them. One hundred percent. Not many, not even most, but all.



Ok, fine, you're entitled to those beliefs. But let's contrast it to what you said a bit earlier:



Claiming to believe in shape-shifters and calling someone else's belief system rubbish don't really sit well together. If I believed in shapeshifters and astral projections, I'd probably go more for the, "No, seriously, just hear me out. I totally respect everything you said on the matter, but please just hear me out for 30 seconds...fine, 20 seconds...come on, man, I listened to you'' approach. By what standard is anything David Icke thinks about cosmic order less prepostrous than what any atheist in present or past existence believes (in respect to atheism)? And how are we more venomous to our folk? I don't personally picture the unshaven-unwashed-and-clad-in-nothing-but-a-the-end-is-nigh-placard followers of Icke fitting 'saving the Western world' in between searching for Freemason symbolism on toilet paper packaging and trying to molest old grannies in the subway. Maybe I'm wrong -- who can say? -- but I just don't see it happening.

On a more serious note, rational thought and philosophical confidence are always a boon in any kind of political or social struggle. The movement needs the bold and arrogant (if indeed that's what we are) much more than it needs the paranoid and creepy.

Atheism IS rubbish. And I really have no idea why you think I can't say that and recount what I witnessed spiritually. I didn't say "I believe in shape-shifters". I said, "I believe in shape-shifting". And there's a reason I believe that.
At least you could say that you're an agnostic. Atheism is like the black plague. You claim that you KNOW that there is no human spirit! See? Atheism is claiming that one KNOWS that there is nothing in the hereafter. Agnosticism is saying "hey, there may be .. i'm not sure". Which one is arrogant and which one is humble?
TRANSCENDENCE! This word cannot be stressed enough. Atheism offers none of this. This is what every Germanic man and woman must strive towards. Transcendence! What future do we have otherwise? Think about it my friend. Meditate if you must. Think deeply and search yourself. If you're drawing blanks ... you must force a breakdown. A man without spirituality is a dead man walking.

Granraude
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 12:32 AM
I suggest you read up on atheism (and the different variants of it) if that is what you believe atheism is about. Some "branches" of atheism is very close to being agnosticism.

Kauz R. Waldher
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 12:49 AM
I'm not even all that religious. I haven't been to church regularly in years.

Heathenism is fine as a cultural relic that people have an interest in as a hobby. I've no issue with that as it is a legitimate part of a peoples culture. But it will not ever unite Northern Europeans against their current antagonists of Islam and void secularism. Adopting Heathenism is like accepting a fate of decline. Heathenism cannot produce great nation states. It cannot defeat great ideological factions.

If Heathenism is so wonderful why didn't it beat out Christianity? Shouldn't the mighty heathenism have defeated such a supposedly weak ideology? Apparently the millions of heathens that converted didn't think Christianity was all that bad at the time. Christianity did not spread at the tip of a sword in the West. Heathenism was the default system. What happened? It failed. Why did it fail if it was better?


Why would Europeans admitted enemies so peddle Heathenism if it's such a good thing for Europeans? Obviously Muslims and Jews and other minorities love nothing more than to hear that you're Heathen. It directly equals division of European compactness.

So, if we keep being bred-out and our race becomes extinct it's because the other races were "better"? Look, all these things that have happened in the pasdt, have happened for a reason. Nothing is born and stays longa nd strong forever. NOTHING! Not the great Roman empire, not paganism, and not the united states of america. We live by cycles. And it will soon again be time for the Heathen to rise. Many scholars feel the same. We are re-awakening. Heathenism doesn't need to "reunite europe". We need to plant seeds. And that starts in our homes. Christianity is what got us here in the first place. THAT IS WHY WE ARE SURRENDERING! Quit being naive. I'm not "against" christianity as far as someone believing in jesus. But the christian church must go! I'll endorse christianity if it can be esoteric, gnostic and tribalistic. These elements are essential to the Germanic peoples rebirth. Most christians don't know anything about other religions or spiritualities. I take the time to know not only what I believe, but what the person who may be considered the exact opposite of me believes. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT AND WHY. Because you know what? I may be missing something. But christians don't do that. They just call everything "evil".

Austin
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 01:01 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Neopaganism


Germanic neopaganism (also known as heathenism,[1][2] heathenry,[3][4] or Germanic heathenry[5][6]) is the contemporary revival of historical Germanic paganism. Precursor movements appeared in the early 20th century in Germany and Austria. A second wave of revival began in the early 1970s. Since its first times heathenism has developed according to diverse denominations, the most prominent ones amongst all being Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr and Theodism.[1] Attitude and focus of adherents may vary considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), pragmatic psychologist, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals. Different terms exist for the various types of Germanic neopaganism. Some terms are specific in reference whereas other are blanket terms for a variety of groups.[7]


Hitler knew this. This is why he in the end supported Catholicism. Spiritualism and religion are worthless if you do not have unity among them. They mean nothing without a distinct, unified following.

GroeneWolf
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 06:46 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Neopaganism


[copied text]

Which also could be said about protestantism, or for that fact early Christianity.


Hitler knew this. This is why he in the end supported Catholicism. Spiritualism and religion are worthless if you do not have unity among them. They mean nothing without a distinct, unified following.

Which was easier then try create a large scale and united Heathen state Church

Austin
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 07:36 AM
Which also could be said about protestantism, or for that fact early Christianity.



Which was easier then try create a large scale and united Heathen state Church

Face it. Heathens have more problems with heathens than they do other factions which is why they lost out in the first place.

Heathenism might as well be in competition with the local gay clown club in terms of ability to unify or solidify a large population of people.

Well I don't particularly care about dogma of Christianity. It's all trivial bullshit just as much as the Heathens beliefs that they can charge a sword are. I care that it represents a clear and defined group theme and cultural theme for white Europeans. That's all that matters.

Heathenism won't ever come close to producing that on a geopolitical level (and it never did).


I agree the Christian equality zealots are a problem and they do need to be taken care of. But heathenism is not the answer as there are too many forms of it. Also I agree that Christianity needs to be merged into one and internally purged of its negatives.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 08:53 AM
Atheism IS rubbish. And I really have no idea why you think I can't say that and recount what I witnessed spiritually.

No, you can say it. I said you're entitled to those beliefs. I have no idea what witnessing something spiritually even means, but I have no problem with you saying it.


I didn't say "I believe in shape-shifters". I said, "I believe in shape-shifting". And there's a reason I believe that.

So you believe in shape-shifting but not in shape-shifters? So things can shape-shift, but the same things can't be described as shape-shifters? Is that because they're not people? Do you see lampshades and pen holders shape-shift? I need answers!


At least you could say that you're an agnostic.

Not really. I don't like the term's 50/50 connotations. I'm not really split on the issue any more than I'm in two minds whether people turn into mushrooms whenever I'm not looking at them. True, I don't know in an absolute sense that they don't, but I'm still not going to give the idea credence or give it respect it doesn't deserve by coining a phrase that distorts its 'not being absolutely impossible' into 'It's 50/50!'. I mean, I know beyond all reasonable doubt that people don't turn into mushrooms, just as you do -- though, on second thought, you believe in shape-shifting, so, actually, you probably don't.


Atheism is like the black plague. You claim that you KNOW that there is no human spirit! See? Atheism is claiming that one KNOWS that there is nothing in the hereafter. Agnosticism is saying "hey, there may be .. i'm not sure". Which one is arrogant and which one is humble?

See above. One is arrogant and overwhelmingly likely to be correct. One is humble and stupid.


TRANSCENDENCE! This word cannot be stressed enough. Atheism offers none of this. This is what every Germanic man and woman must strive towards. Transcendence! What future do we have otherwise? Think about it my friend. Meditate if you must. Think deeply and search yourself. If you're drawing blanks ... you must force a breakdown. A man without spirituality is a dead man walking.

And again we come back to the fallacy of taking the perceived negative consequences of a philosophical position as evidence of said position's untruth. Most NW Europeans go about their lives with nary a concern for God or 'transcendence', and we're no less content or less human than Americans. Probably no more either, but no less, all the same. For me, and likely for every other atheist European, atheism is an intellectual position, and not a cultural one. I don't take my 'oh-so vacuous philosophical negativism' with me into my daily life. Just because I argue for atheism here doesn't mean it's part of some identity. Not believing in ghosts or shape-shifters also isn't part of my identity, and the non-existence of the latter two aren't at the forefront of my mind all too often.

Atheist/agnostic nations aren't devoid of culture (as long as we make it clear we're not talking about high culture :P ). We just found something else to replace religion, something equally vapid, but no less 'human'. Instead of quoting Corinthians, we now quote Katy Perry lyrics. Instead of modelling our lives on Jesus, we model them on Justin Timberlake. The point is, it's human nature to seek culture, to forge cultural bonds with those who surround us, and to ground ourselves in something larger. People don't become 'dead men walking': they remain the same idiots under all conditions. And with that, we find the pseudo-philosophical verbiage (i.e. 'we need transcendence') that promoted the previous culture as 'the only way to keep from sinking into a vacuum of spiritual and cultural death' was just that -- pseudo-philosophical verbiage.

So where do I stand? Do I care whether people believe in Jesus or Lady Gaga? Not really, because I know the masses will always need to believe in something, and that thing will always be idiotic. There are, however, simple ideas that can be promoted that are healthier than either religiosity or celebrity culture (and other assorted nonsense worshipped in the modern West), and, to be honest, I have no problem with people having some kind of 'spirituality', if they want, as long as they keep it clear of intellectual circles unless they're prepared to take the critical flak their poor arguments warrant. It's certainly not for me, but some people certainly seem to need it. But, again, these are all cultural considerations, and have nothing to do with any kind of philosophical truth. Atheism, as a philosophical position, is sound.

Elessar
Sunday, December 11th, 2011, 10:03 PM
All I ask, Austin, is that you don't end up like these two.

jQKigCl30Sk
:P

Kauz R. Waldher
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 03:28 PM
Well i'm sure that you're so "blocked off" that I may as well save my breath. Shape-shifting probably isn't what you think it is. It's not as overtly physical as one might think. I make subtle changes to my personality and appearance and in my mannerisms I become someone else. If I tell you about an incident, you will surely say that i'm insane. But that's because you don't believe in anything. One can use magic to influence events. You can see great examples of this, and there are more subtle events happening. Making someone believe in something is just the same as the "said thing" being an actuality. I have done it myself, and I have seen it even in the mainstream media. My eyes are brown/green okay? Once, I was in a deep meditative trance ... in the bathroom. My mind was just spiraling deeper and deeper into realms of the unknown. I was not deciding or controlling where my mind went. It just went. I looked up into the mirror, using black magick I gave myself a wild eyed smile, and instantly a bright shimmer of emerald green went directly across the color part of my eye. Like an emrald reflection. It didn't stay, but right then and there I knew what I was capable of. Before I ever knew of the term or possibility of shape-shifting. I found that out later.
Now go on, go ahead and say "you're full of shit". I have an even better one for you. You know of premoinitions right? Well usually they'll come right before the tragic event occurs. I predicted a mans death 2 years before it happened. I even predicted his cause of death. I saw him a year later and we laughed about it. Another year later, he was dead. We were vaguely connected and were not a part of one anothers lives. I'm asking you .... WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? When I ask you ... you must know that all things are possible.

Hamar Fox
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 04:57 PM
Well i'm sure that you're so "blocked off" that I may as well save my breath.

I was hoping you'd expound a little more on your idea of 'transcendence', and on how religiosity garnishes us with some existential drive toward something that could never be reached via secular paths, and then explain how this thing is not only important, but integral to the very concept of being human. That would also happily curve the discussion back to the OP's original point. You wouldn't have wasted your breath (so to speak) if you'd done that.


Shape-shifting probably isn't what you think it is. It's not as overtly physical as one might think.

No, wrong. That's exactly what I did think. I fully expected a nonsense theory to hide in the ephemerally subjective, weightedly interpretative, selectively 'experiential' realm, free of any kind of scientific or logical rigour, necessary to fool at least someone into believing it. I don't even think most New Age types would seriously believe there are Odo-like shapeshifters moving among us. Even they would probably ask why no act of shape-shifting has ever been recorded, ever, why no slice of shapeshifter tissue has ever been preserved, why no one ever bound and gagged one, took him to some basement with shape-shifter proof walls and a 24/7 camera and then delivered the irrefutable evidence to the world. Okay, New Agers probably wouldn't question it, but, still, the tried and true method of laughable ambiguity is always the best way to go about things.


I make subtle changes to my personality and appearance and in my mannerisms I become someone else. If I tell you about an incident, you will surely say that i'm insane. But that's because you don't believe in anything.

Well, if I believe you're insane, then that's believing in something.


One can use magic to influence events. You can see great examples of this, and there are more subtle events happening. Making someone believe in something is just the same as the "said thing" being an actuality. I have done it myself, and I have seen it even in the mainstream media. My eyes are brown/green okay? Once, I was in a deep meditative trance ... in the bathroom. My mind was just spiraling deeper and deeper into realms of the unknown. I was not deciding or controlling where my mind went. It just went. I looked up into the mirror, using black magick I gave myself a wild eyed smile, and instantly a bright shimmer of emerald green went directly across the color part of my eye. Like an emrald reflection. It didn't stay, but right then and there I knew what I was capable of. Before I ever knew of the term or possibility of shape-shifting. I found that out later.

Did this 'black magick' come in the form of a small tab you got from a man named Tariq?


Now go on, go ahead and say "you're full of shit". I have an even better one for you. You know of premoinitions right? Well usually they'll come right before the tragic event occurs. I predicted a mans death 2 years before it happened.

I don't think you're full of shit at all. When I was about six or seven I started worrying that my grandmother, because she was old, might die. You can even ask my mother, and she'll vouch that it was something I used to think about a lot as a child. Uncannily, about 14 years later she did die. I predicted it as a child. I didn't know when it would happen, I always knew that someday it would. It's my honest belief that children are more connected with the Earth. They feel, nay, conduct, its vibrations, and sometimes these vibrations reach the conscious level and become what we call 'premonitions'.


I'm asking you .... WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?

Ah, movie scenes! Well, I believe that what doesn't kill you simply makes you...stranger.

Kauz R. Waldher
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 05:30 PM
I was hoping you'd expound a little more on your idea of 'transcendence', and on how religiosity garnishes us with some existential drive toward something that could never be reached via secular paths, and then explain how this thing is not only important, but integral to the very concept of being human. That would also happily curve the discussion back to the OP's original point. You wouldn't have wasted your breath (so to speak) if you'd done that.



No, wrong. That's exactly what I did think. I fully expected a nonsense theory to hide in the ephemerally subjective, weightedly interpretative, selectively 'experiential' realm, free of any kind of scientific or logical rigour, necessary to fool at least someone into believing it. I don't even think most New Age types would seriously believe there are Odo-like shapeshifters moving among us. Even they would probably ask why no act of shape-shifting has ever been recorded, ever, why no slice of shapeshifter tissue has ever been preserved, why no one ever bound and gagged one, took him to some basement with shape-shifter proof walls and a 24/7 camera and then delivered the irrefutable evidence to the world. Okay, New Agers probably wouldn't question it, but, still, the tried and true method of laughable ambiguity is always the best way to go about things.



Well, if I believe you're insane, then that's believing in something.



Did this 'black magick' come in the form of a small tab you got from a man named Tariq?



I don't think you're full of shit at all. When I was about six or seven I started worrying that my grandmother, because she was old, might die. You can even ask my mother, and she'll vouch that it was something I used to think about a lot as a child. Uncannily, about 14 years later she did die. I predicted it as a child. I didn't know when it would happen, I always knew that someday it would. It's my honest belief that children are more connected with the Earth. They feel, nay, conduct, its vibrations, and sometimes these vibrations reach the conscious level and become what we call 'premonitions'.



Ah, movie scenes! Well, I believe that what doesn't kill you simply makes you...stranger.

Why should I waste my time typing when you're not even there to receive it? I'm not wasting my time. Your cynicism is well received. You believe in nothing so you will be nothing. I'm not talking about about jobs and financial accomplishments .... you seem very intelligent and well spoken. But you know, gnosis only goes so far. What are your favorite books? I'm interested in your influences. You sound like one of the enemy when you speak (not saying that you are). You should probably research your heritage and culture more deeply and read experts opinions on spiritual matters. I was not a child when I predicted this mans death. We were in our 20's and I barely knew him at all. I never saw him as an adult and we weren't friends in school. We lived in different towns ... etc. You don't believe because you don't want to believe. And honestly, I don't care if you do. I used to be like you. Then my amazing experiences opened me up. Things won't happen to people who are shut down. My wife is a black magician and didn't even know it till recently. How many times does a person have to overcome 1,000 to 1 odds consecutively in order for you to believe there is a greater force involved? Even if you were able to easily and clearly disprove cheating of ANY sort? If you could see, without a shadow of a doubt that there was no dishonesty whatsoever ... would you believe then? Or would you chalk it up as just another AMAZING coincidence? So I guess you don't believe in the ability to harness "vril"?

Primus
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 05:43 PM
So go ahead and feel superior believing in a false Desert Jewish God. I'll stick with what religion my forefathers had.

I'm pretty sure that the deity worshipped by the chosen ones isn't same fellow that the ancient Hebrews worshipped.

Scario
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 06:23 PM
Primus, when I use to go to a Christian Church, we read from the Old and New Testament. If it is not the same deity, then why go by both books? As a Christian, do you believe in the 10 Commandments? And if what you say is true, Christians don't believe the Old Testament God is theirs, then why mix their religion with an outside religion? I've heard differing opinions on every question I ever asked to the Churches I attended or visited. None gave me the same answer, or even close to the same answers. And because I questioned anything, I was looked on as a Heretic of sorts. I should blindly follow a religion that gives me no feelings deep down? I am Heathen because it is a Ancestor based religion. I believe in my ancestors. My ancestors gave me life. There are too many contradictions within the Old and New Testaments to believe anything written there. I am supposed to believe if I give my sins to another, that I'll have eternal life. So if I commit a crime, I should say my neighbor did it and walk scot free? If Christianity is right, then I will take my sins with me to the grave or Hell that the Desert God gives me. This is what is wrong with this Country and the World in general. No one accepts what they have done and Christianity gives them the way out of feeling bad for their crimes or sins. I repent, so I no longer have to feel the weight of my sins on my shoulders, at least till next week when I repent for this weeks sins. Show me one preacher who is pure and without some hidden sin, like Pedophilia or cheating on his wife or homosexual urges or stealing from the congregation. Am I proud of my failings/sins. No. But they are mine and I will fix them on my own and not try to pawn them off on some made up God. That is what my religion teaches me.

Kauz R. Waldher
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 06:41 PM
Christianity is an alien religion. Yahweh's presence is crippling to the Germanic man. Yahweh is "god" or the "one and only" in both the old and new testaments. Pay attention to details in those writings. The hebrew religion, and it's stories are ripped off from our peoples traditions. "The crucified god" ring a bell? Wotan made his sacrifice for gnosis, or knowledge, yahweh forbid adam and eve to eat from the "tree of knowledge". Jesus was crucified for the sins of man. How can there be any connection between our people and what the hebrew gospels teach? People become so disenchanted spiritually because of christianity and it's failure. So then they're just like "forget it all". Once people can understand what our traditions were and what they really meant ... it will become very easy to see why the germanic man has forged such a path through time and history. We are children of Gods! Only us! None other. The cleaner and more pure we are .. the closer we will be to reaching our full potential. We are children of the black sun.

Elessar
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 07:00 PM
If it is not the same deity, then why go by both books?
Without the Old Testament, the Gospels would have no validity. I don't adhere to hebrew law, but to the laws of my country and folk. Hence why Christ made the distinction between Caesar and God (Mark 12:17). The Old Testament is also what fufils the prophecy of Jesus himself, his subsequent rebellion from the reigning Jewish order and establish the 2nd covenant. The issues Jesus preached against and propogated was precisely what heathens rail against: jewish tribalism. The reason why Jews still hate him so.

To not aqaint yourself with the OT would be to read "The Return of the King" and not the "Fellowship" first ;)


And if what you say is true, Christians don't believe the Old Testament God is theirs, then why mix their religion with an outside religion?
"Truth is one, sages call It by different names" (Rig-Veda)
Christianity lies in the sucession of Abrahamic philosophy, the perfection of which through Christ was incarnated. Jesus spoke of the cosmic Father, the old religion of the Israelites was based on a maelvolent sky god, reflective of where they lived and the harsh lives they lived, like the bloodthirsty Wotan or Tiw of ancient Germanic religion.
He had the same position as that of Buddha and Hinduism: fleshing out the out-dated ideology to make it applicable to all and to simplify complex theological jargon.


Show me one preacher who is pure and without some hidden sin, like Pedophilia or cheating on his wife or homosexual urges or stealing from the congregation.
The sins and malpractice of a preacher or believer don't render void the teaching of Christianity.


There are too many contradictions within the Old and New Testaments to believe anything written there
There are also many contradictions in the Eddas, but since heathens don't believe the book to be the holy word of God it remains a passive discrepancy.


Christianity is an alien religion
I find this statement hard to give credit. After 2,000 years of tradition within the West, it's hardly at all an alien religion.
If you don't respect the lecacy of Greece & Rome, you're not European.

How alien was the cult of the Aesir when they encroached unpon the Vanic way of life?


Once people can understand what our traditions were and what they really meant
Only one problem: Heathenism is no longer "Traditional" by traditional standards. It would be more at home amoung New Age spirituality. i.e. there is no coherent continuum of pagan theology and ritual to make sense of the practice of our heathen ancestors, without some reason for doubt.

Hamar Fox
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 07:23 PM
Why should I waste my time typing when you're not even there to receive it?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the cultural benefits of religiosity and secularism.


I'm not wasting my time. Your cynicism is well received. You believe in nothing so you will be nothing.

No, I just choose for myself what to believe in. I don't readily accept other people's nonsense, but neither do I believe my own subjective ideals and values to be absolutes, things that have rigid immutable counterparts in the real world. I can differentiate between the two. Few things anyone believes are objective. Most objects of our thought are inherently subjective: mores, ideals, values, goals etc. Knowing that these things are subjective and relative is quite liberating. I can think, act, and value in ways I wish to, as corresponds with my nature, and with the comforting self-assuredness that comes from knowing my way of looking at things is no less valid than anyone else's. I don't need to bolster my confidence in myself by appealing to some higher authority, or to the inner core of the universe. I don't get weighed down by the fact I push against the tide of the moral majority. My confidence doesn't waver.

I don't understand why, just from the fact I recognise that there's a cold, objective reality out there that remains forever unperturbed by our whims and silly interpretations, that I don't still believe in things. I see the world as it really is, I see people the way they really are, myself included, and I make a compromise between them.


I'm not talking about about jobs and financial accomplishments ....


You sound like one of the enemy when you speak

That's because you assume people can't come to the same basic conclusions as you (which is to say, striving for more than the strictly material, and also not supporting Germanic preservation, presumably) via any other route than you're used to. And this comes back to the OP's basic point: that if you don't believe in some kind of absolute, why bother doing or believing anything? The answer is, quite simply, that there are psychological analogues to those deeply human (and organic in general) biological needs to feed, sleep, reproduce etc. It's irrelevant what culture coats these needs, colours their precise expression: Italians eat pasta, Chinamen eat dogs, and so on, but what doesn't change is that people are always going to eat. Similarly, regardless of the cultural/philosophical paths taken, people are still going to love, hate, form groups, strive for this or that, create meaning etc. etc. etc. This means that people are always going to be people and even be drawn toward similar ends, regardless of their explicit beliefs and ideals. But just as the particulars of what we eat can more or less healthily satiate the undying need to eat, so too can the particulars of culture more or less healthily answer our deeply human psychological needs.

In short, what I do or don't believe or acknowledge to be true has little to do with the health of my instincts or my pschological goals, so unless I explicitly state that I support race-mixing or whatever you infer I think, the conclusions you draw are unfounded.


You should probably research your heritage and culture more deeply and read experts opinions on spiritual matters.

The English are a rational race. To be sure, English grandmothers shy from black cats and the rest of it, but educated English don't, and haven't for centuries. What race is more logical and rational than the English (we pretty much tie with Scots and Germans)? How is it an honour to my ancestors to revert to voodoo-like superstition? I mean, back to my grandmother, who left school at the age of 13, even she didn't ever talk about ghosts or shape-shifters, so what reason do I have to believe my more educated ancestors would?


I was not a child when I predicted this mans death. We were in our 20's and I barely knew him at all.

Yes, I know. The child bit was just my little addition.


How many times does a person have to overcome 1,000 to 1 odds consecutively in order for you to believe there is a greater force involved? Even if you were able to easily and clearly disprove cheating of ANY sort?

This should be fairly easy to document, so why don't these miraculous people record their miracles?

Jäger
Monday, December 12th, 2011, 07:39 PM
Or would you chalk it up as just another AMAZING coincidence?

David Hume: AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm#section10



X. Of Miracles
Part II.
In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

For first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.

Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish extremely the assurance, which we might, from human testimony, have, in any kind of prodigy. The maxim, by which we commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the objects, of which we have no experience, resembles those, of which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is always most probable; and that where there is an opposition of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations. But though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree; yet in advancing farther, the mind observes not always the same rule; but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd and miraculous, it rather the more readily admits of such a fact, upon account of that very circumstance, which ought to destroy all its authority. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events, of which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.

You may want to read the whole chapter, or even better the whole book.

Man, I wish you (esp. American) Anglos would give more credit to your geniuses, which are due to Calvinist thought mostly ridiculed rather than praised.

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 06:21 AM
I already told you that I don't care if you believe me or not. So why would it matter if you agreed with me or not? It doesn't. All i'm saying is that there are boatloads of knowledge out there. Some books are more recently translated. Just look at Nietzsche for example. He's one of my favorite people of all-time. But he drove himself mad. A few of his peers believe it's because he lacked any transcendental element. Just like "men will always eat" ... men will always need to serve a "greater purpose". Just living and doing what "living things" do is a pretty meager existence. Why be plain and flat? Reach for the stars! Discover your primordial essence. Rediscover your destiny. You say i'm subjected to materialism? No, that's you. You laugh or stab at me because I experienced things you don't believe to be true or understand. But you accuse ME of doing that to you. No, that's what YOU do. So because people don't go to the media with their experiences that means they never happened? Most people telling the truth about what they experienced wouldn't bother going to the media or anyone else for that matter mostly because trying to explain or make people believe is a total and utter waste of time. I was just as atheistic as you are. Even nihilistic at one time. But something transformed inside of me. And rare and obscure people became known to me who influenced me to understand myself internally. They wrote books in different times, in different countries, surrounded by different events ... but nonetheless their writings were translated as if I had written them myself. I had my breath taken from my body and my heart fill with joy and my eyes well up with tears ... somehow, someway I had found my path, on my own, going against the grain and spending most of my life as a lone-wolf and isolated. Just me and my deepest, darkest thoughts. Leading me to believe that maybe everyone was right. Maybe I "was" an outcast. Maybe i'll never speak of my experiences to anyone ... but FINALLY everything, and I mean everything made sense. MORE than sense, it meant "DESTINY". You will meet yours if you seek it. We all have our own, most will die unaware of itor fighting it unknowingly.

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 06:40 AM
Jager, that writing by Hume means nothing to me. It's nothing I didn't already know. And it has nothing to do with what I speak of.
Secondly, are you aware of the fact that we are not using our minds at full capacity? So once something "new" starts to occur within our abilities it will no longer be a "miracle" right? Just like someone from the past dreaming of space travel and believing it possible would have been called a superstitious. Some of the "smartest" and most creative minds of all-time were people who believed in things outside the box. To say otherwise is bullshit arrogance. Think of philosophers who still to this day influence our thought. Did they think "rationally" in their time? Hell no. They were laughed at and mocked. I'm not a christian by the way. So don't link up christian information and point it at me. Christianity is a joke and what i'm speaking about is the total opposite of it. I may be a "far-out thinker" but I wouldn't want it any other way.

Hamar Fox
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 10:06 AM
How many times does a person have to overcome 1,000 to 1 odds consecutively in order for you to believe there is a greater force involved? Even if you were able to easily and clearly disprove cheating of ANY sort?

I was a bit tired by the end of the last post, so I didn't really reply much to this. For every one-in-a-thousand event that occurs, the law of averages dictates there'll be nine hundred and ninety nine one-in-a-thousand events that don't occur. Counter-evidence is negative, so you don't even notice it, much less remember it and factor it into your worldview. You experience thousands of things, thousands of thoughts every day of your life. Naturally, some of those things or thoughts are going to couple up with things or thoughts that happen on some later date, and become 'coincidences'. What you don't remember, however, are the thousands, millions of experiences you have that don't correspond to anything that happens in the future. Example: You don't remember dreams whose contents don't come true the next day, the next week, or ever again in the remainder of your life, but just the ones that do (however broadly interpreted).

When I think about some coincidences that have happened to me, I come up with events like the time I was a kid on holiday with my parents and my mother met someone she knew and had a brief, boring chat; or the time I was out for a meal and noticed an odd looking person across the room from me, then a week or so later I walked past the same man in a hospital in a different city.

Am I to believe fate or providence set up these statistically unlikely but absolutely inane coincidings? Fate thought it imperative for me to walk past some person in a corridor, or my mother to meet someone she barely knew and have a quick chat? Of course not. But if so, fate is easily entertained and must really have nothing better to do.


I already told you that I don't care if you believe me or not. So why would it matter if you agreed with me or not? It doesn't. All i'm saying is that there are boatloads of knowledge out there. Some books are more recently translated. Just look at Nietzsche for example. He's one of my favorite people of all-time. But he drove himself mad. A few of his peers believe it's because he lacked any transcendental element. Just like "men will always eat" ... men will always need to serve a "greater purpose". Just living and doing what "living things" do is a pretty meager existence.

Which is what I said. When people lose their religious investment in the future or the world around them, they don't curl up in a ball and waste away, they replace it with some secular ideology. In fact, that was the entire history of the 20th century. As for Nietzsche, probably history's most famous atheist, he too was unwilling to sit idly by and let himself or humanity be consumed by nihilism. Half of his philosophy focused on alternatives to the oncoming age of atheistic apathy (which, for reasons stated above, I don't personally believe would ever happen). His madness was caused by syphilis.


You say i'm subjected to materialism?

I didn't say or imply that anywhere.


You laugh or stab at me because I experienced things you don't believe to be true or understand. But you accuse ME of doing that to you.

No, I didn't accuse you of that. And I'm not trying to offend or upset you either, which is why I'm criticising the ideas and not the person behind them beyond his readiness to believe ideas I'm inclined to criticise.


No, that's what YOU do. So because people don't go to the media with their experiences that means they never happened?

It couldn't hurt their case.


Most people telling the truth about what they experienced wouldn't bother going to the media or anyone else for that matter mostly because trying to explain or make people believe is a total and utter waste of time.

No, a clear video, more realistic than anything that could be produced by even the most sophisticated special effects departments, of someone channelling his spiritual powers into his arm or something, and making it transform into whatever you believe an arm can be transformed into, would be infinitely more convincing than spoken testimony.

Jäger
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 11:34 AM
It's nothing I didn't already know. And it has nothing to do with what I speak of.
Of course it has. You should be aware that no sane person should believe you, just because you tell a tale of your alleged, extraordinary experience.


Just like someone from the past dreaming of space travel and believing it possible would have been called a superstitious.
This has nothing to do with what you said.
It is totally different to believe something could be happening and then working to actually make it happen, than to say it is happening without any rational (after Hume empirical) proof.


So don't link up christian information and point it at me.
Hume wasn't a Christian, he calls Christianity exactly what it is: superstition.

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 04:18 PM
I know he isn't a christian. But he was covering christianity so why would someone send me a link to a person debunking christianity unless they thought I was a christian?
So your response is ... "look at how many times things DON'T happen"? Of course! What the hell? That's because those odds are insurmountable. When a person beats those odds, that is worth mentioning. Succumbing to the odds isn't anything to talk about. I'm talking about people who CONSTANTLY beat the odds. They are doing something different. They are doing magick. People who can literally influence events before they happen. Ones who can alter destiny. When someone says "magick" you think of witches turning people into frogs. You really aren't educated on the subject. You should get more education and then form an opinion. Some people make things happen. Other people sit around and watch things happen. And other people deny they ever happened. Those last two are sad states. I'm a trailblazer. And I will follow my destiny and learn to do more. The occult exists because it is the truth. Magick is real. I have done it and I have seen it. You just have to know what to look for. It's not going to be a puff of smoke.

p.s. you remind me of a less-pompous Eccardus. And for a fellow not yet past his twenties ... you're pretty damn sharp. But you should be using that for the greater good of the folk. And if you're not folkish please let me know so I can quit wasting my time.

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 04:38 PM
Have you ever heard the phrase "bad things happen in threes"? When one thing goes wrong, it seems to have a domino effect? How do you stop it in motion? Have you ever been talking about a song, movie or person and turn the next corner and there it is? Have you ever been thinking of someone you haven't talked to in awhile and the next thing you know, the phone rings and it's that person? Look, things like this happen to me all the time. I'm aware of my psychic ability. I have not yet mastered harnessing it. This materialistic and commercial world creates obstacles intentionally. How can you explain me predicting the death of a person (including the cause), in their twenties that I don't REALLY know or was never really connected to? Coincidence then right? Lol.

Hamar Fox
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 05:01 PM
Have you ever heard the phrase "bad things happen in threes"? When one thing goes wrong, it seems to have a domino effect? How do you stop it in motion? Have you ever been talking about a song, movie or person and turn the next corner and there it is? Have you ever been thinking of someone you haven't talked to in awhile and the next thing you know, the phone rings and it's that person? Look, things like this happen to me all the time. I'm aware of my psychic ability.

This may be a little too pretentious, but I'm going to have to quote myself (:D)


For every one-in-a-thousand event that occurs, the law of averages dictates there'll be nine hundred and ninety nine one-in-a-thousand events that don't occur. Counter-evidence is negative, so you don't even notice it, much less remember it and factor it into your worldview. You experience thousands of things, thousands of thoughts every day of your life. Naturally, some of those things or thoughts are going to couple up with things or thoughts that happen on some later date, and become 'coincidences'. What you don't remember, however, are the thousands, millions of experiences you have that don't correspond to anything that happens in the future. Example: You don't remember dreams whose contents don't come true the next day, the next week, or ever again in the remainder of your life, but just the ones that do (however broadly interpreted).

What I said in that paragraph is even more relevant to your last post than to the one it was originally written for.

Jäger
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 06:35 PM
I know he isn't a christian. But he was covering christianity so why would someone send me a link to a person debunking christianity unless they thought I was a christian?
What he said is not restricted to Christianity.


When a person beats those odds, that is worth mentioning.
The point is that we see reality through our experience.
E.g. a few centuries ago we didn't know about the concept of energy and its heat properties, we could observe that heat follows a flame, yet, we didn't know why. Some principle which escaped our observation at this time was responsible for this, but nowadays we have found ways to make this visible/measurable.
However, declaring such a force as unmeasurable as a principle (meaning not because it seems impossible to achieve, but because it is logically defined that way), simply removes it from human reality.
As such, it might be very well the case that you have some sort of "6th sense", but I would be a fool to believe such things simply because someone tells me about those.
At no time, anyone provided proof, so I am safe to assume superstition here. The odds are in my favor, and this is the sane thing to do :thumbup

Hume's point is that even Metaphysic cannot escape observation and experience. Let the world observe your claims in action, and it most likely will believe you. The less spectacular your doings are, the more often you have to show it. It is like an usual experiment of physics. ;)


But you should be using that for the greater good of the folk. And if you're not folkish please let me know so I can quit wasting my time.
I do, and I am :)

Bernhard
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 06:54 PM
The point is that we see reality through our experience.
E.g. a few centuries ago we didn't know about the concept of energy and its heat properties, we could observe that heat follows a flame, yet, we didn't know why. Some principle which escaped our observation at this time was responsible for this, but nowadays we have found ways to make this visible/measurable.
However, declaring such a force as unmeasurable as a principle (meaning not because it seems impossible to achieve, but because it is logically defined that way), simply removes it from human reality.
As such, it might be very well the case that you have some sort of "6th sense", but I would be a fool to believe such things simply because someone tells me about those.
At no time, anyone provided proof, so I am safe to assume superstition here. The odds are in my favor, and this is the sane thing to do :thumbup

Hume's point is that even Metaphysic cannot escape observation and experience. Let the world observe your claims in action, and it most likely will believe you. The less spectacular your doings are, the more often you have to show it. It is like an usual experiment of physics. ;)


I don't have time to read all posts at the moment, so this comment is more directed to this point in general than in relation to the specific example of Waldher of which I don't know the exact nature.

The problem here is that you depart from the concept of materialism on an empirical basis. Thus knowledge rests on the principle of induction. Induction is generally suited to gain knowledge, but can never provide knowledge for the whole, only for parts. For example one can formulate a law of energy by induction, but this is only limited to that part of reality. By way of induction we can even assume that there are no human beings living on the sun (which we technically can't disprove), because we have empirically reached the knowledge which is needed to check whether this is plausible or not. But again, this inductionally gained knowledge is limited to a specific domain. Hence we cannot empirically falsify anything that goes beyond these domains, i.e. claims of an immaterial basis.

The philosopher on whose text I base this on, probably explains it better though: Der moderne Materialismus by Hermann Schwarz (http://ia600306.us.archive.org/18/items/dermodernemateri00schw/dermodernemateri00schw.pdf) (the first chapter).

Hamar Fox
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 07:38 PM
I do, and I am :)

I think he muddled us up a bit. The latter half of his post seemed to be talking about me ("a fellow not yet past his twenties").

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 09:17 PM
"Luciferians/Wotanists (LHP) are people of knowledge. Knowledge is however, not limited to intellectual mathematical understanding, nor having experienced something of a material nature. I am referring to direct knowledge in what is contained neither intellectually or physically. Mystical knowledge and gnosis obtained by serious study and meditation can offer experiences that are as real and tangible to the initiate as the answer to Fermat’s theorem or a sexual orgasm. What better way is this idea illustrated than in Julius Evola’s “Abraxas: Knowledge of the Waters“. Readers are encouraged to take the care to read the full article only in a relaxed and meditative state, to fully appreciate its mystical interpretation. Knowledge can be expressed on many levels." - anonymous

Jäger
Tuesday, December 13th, 2011, 10:53 PM
The problem here is that you depart from the concept of materialism on an empirical basis. Thus knowledge rests on the principle of induction.
Yes, through logic with the basis of empiricism, how is this contradicting what I said?

Bernhard
Thursday, December 15th, 2011, 07:15 PM
Yes, through logic with the basis of empiricism, how is this contradicting what I said?

My point was that it is problematic to come to materialism as the base for everything - material monism - by empiricism, because empiricist induction can never lead to a first cause and therefor cannot rule out phenomena that cannot be explained by empirically established material laws.

Jäger
Thursday, December 15th, 2011, 07:38 PM
My point was that it is problematic to come to materialism as the base for everything - material monism - by empiricism, because empiricist induction can never lead to a first cause and therefor cannot rule out phenomena that cannot be explained by empirically established material laws.
Yes, this is true. However, this is the limit of the human mind. All causes which are explained through non-empiricism, meaning they can't be experienced, have to have at least a predictable effect which can, or else they are meaningless to us.

Hamar Fox
Friday, December 16th, 2011, 11:11 AM
My point was that it is problematic to come to materialism as the base for everything - material monism - by empiricism, because empiricist induction can never lead to a first cause and therefor cannot rule out phenomena that cannot be explained by empirically established material laws.

This is true, but reason takes us to the endpoint of the thing-in-itself, and not God (Kant's argument for the existence of God, and his attempt to equate God with the thing-in-itself, were pitiful).

Bernhard
Friday, December 16th, 2011, 04:44 PM
Yes, this is also the reason why knowledge of God is often considered to be of a different nature than knowledge attained by reason. A while ago I posted a quote of what is called intuitive knowledge here (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=1055843&postcount=28). This knowledge would be the domain of the intellect rather than that of reason. The intellect as God in us (compare Meister Eckhart, the Indian concept of Atman-Brahman and perhaps the Germanic heathen concept of Önd after Völuspá 18) is that which makes us able to reconnect with the divine. Seen this way it indeed has nothing to do with Kant's thing-in-itself, reason or empiricism, yet it also doesn't loose its pretention to be real.

For those interested a thread related to this topic: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=109684

Hamar Fox
Friday, December 16th, 2011, 06:12 PM
Yes, this is also the reason why knowledge of God is often considered to be of a different nature than knowledge attained by reason. A while ago I posted a quote of what is called intuitive knowledge here (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=1055843&postcount=28). This knowledge would be the domain of the intellect rather than that of reason. The intellect as God in us (compare Meister Eckhart, the Indian concept of Atman-Brahman and perhaps the Germanic heathen concept of Önd after Völuspá 18) is that which makes us able to reconnect with the divine. Seen this way it indeed has nothing to do with Kant's thing-in-itself, reason or empiricism, yet it also doesn't loose its pretention to be real.

But this is a problem, since I intuit the non-existence of God, and the crazy man down the street intuits that his trousers are subtly influencing the economy. It's a mistake to imagine that intuition of God's existence is an innate human capacity. Rather, it's either a culturally created need, or a more fundamental, natural, primal need that in certain cultures has been twisted into a religious one, but certainly not in all. After all, there are entire nations, and particularly generations within nations, of people who utterly lack this sense, or even possess a contrary one (i.e. that there is no God). However profoundly Americans, and maybe even continentals, feel the existence of God, I don't, nor do my family, my friends, my neighbours, my acquaintances. Nobody in Britain, save a few serial killers and paedophiles, 'intuits' that God exists. Whatever drives and intstincts are perverted in the service of religion in other cultures are otherwise satisfied in us. There's no inherently human sense for the divine.

Albrektsdotter
Friday, December 16th, 2011, 06:27 PM
I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the paranormal. There are many things science cannot explain.

I don't blindly believe any faith. I take it all with a grain of salt, and that includes atheism.

Kauz R. Waldher
Friday, December 16th, 2011, 06:32 PM
I don't believe that at all. Do you understand that not all people are the same? Yes, in some ways we are all the same. But you're equating spiritualism to the need to eat, and reason, and fear ... and everything else that "humans just do". I hear people like you say to me, "race doesn't matter. Who cares what ethnicity a person is?". You see, we care about different things, we feel different things, things manifest inside of us individually. Don't tell me how I feel or what I "intuit". I have become someone else. And things happened that a person like you would call a coicidence. I do not believe in coicidences. And just like you're SURE there are no gods, i'm SURE there are. You doubt people, that's understandable. But anyone can do that. Pessimism is too easy. Unless of course things happen for you like they have me. Where divinity calls your name, and sweeps the path for you, and shows you the light. I know what is in men that legends are made of.

I hate to use this man as an example, based on his "faith" and occupation, but look at Tim Tebow. He continues to perform miracles with less than average physical abilities. Why do you think that is? If he went with "the odds" he'd fail consistently. Like you would. Anyone can sit down and think deeply. But what about action? Tebow has made christianity useful for himself (one of the very, very few). Yes, I know it's only football. And I hate pro sports but that's beside the point. The point is, Tebow is a magician. He not only believes that he will prevail, but so does everyone on his team ... and everyone on the opposing team. He is constantly defeating odds. If Tebow would turn his motivation into something that really matters, he could be a historical figure of action. He is channeling the divinity that dwells within his spirit.

Kauz R. Waldher
Friday, December 16th, 2011, 06:51 PM
"There's no inherently human sense for the divine."
Oh really? That's odd because I can see the very opposite very clearly. You're a true atheist, i'll give you that. Atheism would destroy our people finally and forever.

Hamar Fox
Friday, December 16th, 2011, 07:30 PM
But you're equating spiritualism to the need to eat, and reason, and fear ... and everything else that "humans just do".

Well, not exactly. I said that humans would still create and bond and value and believe etc. regardless of their explicit beliefs, and that mass atheism/agnosticism wouldn't fundamentally alter human psychology.


I hear people like you say to me, "race doesn't matter. Who cares what ethnicity a person is?"

Race's existence is easy to demonstrate rationally and empirically. If race were mythical or God were proven, race and God might be comparable.


You see, we care about different things, we feel different things, things manifest inside of us individually. Don't tell me how I feel or what I "intuit".

My point is that people intuit all kinds of things. It's the height of arrogance to assume that because you intuit/feel something then not only must everybody else, but so must the entire universe, the fundamental nature of which your personal whims are deemed indicative. Since we can all agree that at least some people are capable of intuiting incorrectly, such as a man who thinks he's made of fish scales, we can discard that method as being some kind of privileged pathway to truth, and return to the superior method of logic.


And just like you're SURE there are no gods, i'm SURE there are.

Exactly. I could find you five million people who are 'sure' of five million mutually exclusive things. At best only one could be right, and in all likelihood none would be. Being sure of something in absence of rational backing for that position means nothing.


"There's no inherently human sense for the divine."
Oh really? That's odd because I can see the very opposite very clearly. You're a true atheist, i'll give you that. Atheism would destroy our people finally and forever.

How so?

Kauz R. Waldher
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 04:55 AM
"How so?"

In all these rumblings of yours in regards to human behavior or nature ... you'd realise what owuld happen if most were atheist through and through. It seems as though you aren't aware of the dark nature of man. Think about it man, think long and hard. You want to talk about "communism"? Try communism x10. You're talking about a world who holds no value whatsoever on human life, no difference between men and children, Instead of experimenting on animals, they'll be experimenting on babies. Even as a "Fascist", i'm not into all that. You might be thinking, "you're full of it" ... but if you think long-term ... it is a very dark future. The last thing you want to do is take spirituality from humankind. A whole world of nihilists ... not a pretty thought.

Gardisten
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 06:11 AM
Hitchens died the other day, and for some reason this prompted the Canadian politics channel (CPAC) to re-broadcast the debate that was held November 2010 between himself and Tony Blair. The latter was totally ineffective in presenting an accurate argument about the truth about Christianity, while Hitchens was the typical atheist "thinker" making a smug, sarcasism-laced argument based on a completely ignorant and warped understanding of Christianity. I can't help but wonder why so many of these atheists in having virtually no understanding of Christianity think that they have any real grounds for entering into a debate about its "validity". Don't they realize that every time they open their mouths they just reveal this selves to be ignorant and foolish? Guess not. (Or as long as they can make money off of it, they don't care to admit it...)

Hamar Fox
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 11:05 AM
The latter was totally ineffective in presenting an accurate argument about the truth about Christianity

Yes, things that aren't true tend to have ineffective arguments as to their truth.


I can't help but wonder why so many of these atheists in having virtually no understanding of Christianity think that they have any real grounds for entering into a debate about its "validity".

Probably for the same reasons you don't need to know how many buttons Santa has on his coat to know that he doesn't exist, and that only a child or a spastic could believe different.


Don't they realize that every time they open their mouths they just reveal this selves to be ignorant and foolish? Guess not. (Or as long as they can make money off of it, they don't care to admit it...)

I suppose not. Having better arguments than the opposition and consistently defeating them with ease tends to have the opposite effect on one's self-concept.

Kauz R. Waldher
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 07:08 PM
"Hitchens was the typical atheist "thinker" making a smug, sarcasism-laced argument ..."

I agree. Atheists always make me want to punch them in the face. Funny thing is, they speak "matter-of-factly" about it as if they have all the answers. They think science is everything, even though we're still pretty ignorant in the grand scheme of things .. not to mention that science has proved unreliable time and time again. Atheists are just as naive as any christian.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 08:12 PM
"Hitchens was the typical atheist "thinker" making a smug, sarcasism-laced argument ..."

I agree. Atheists always make me want to punch them in the face. Funny thing is, they speak "matter-of-factly" about it as if they have all the answers. They think science is everything, even though we're still pretty ignorant in the grand scheme of things .. not to mention that science has proved unreliable time and time again. Atheists are just as naive as any christian.

But you don't know what I think, only what I don't. My conception of the universe and existence is a lot more complex and original than that of any religious person I know. I hint at it from time to time, and I once attempted to explain a portion of it at length. No one was interested, which is fine -- the ideas are mine and mine alone, and I'm far from dogmatic about their 'truth'. They're where logic led me, but I recognise the flaws possible in my logic, and in all logic in general (being the mode of expression of something that may well be inherently flawed: the human intellect). But don't assume that disbelief in God is the beginning and end of an atheist's understanding of the universe. It simply means that whatever conclusions he reaches as to the nature of existence are much more likely to be guided by rationality than emotion and superstition.

Science is the perfect method of mapping empirical reality -- the world of human experience. Whether the human consciousness has boundaries beyond which it can't see, or there are planes which it can't occupy is possible -- and I don't mean other planes and realms in some silly religious sense, but in a Kantian one, of 'things' that are inherently inconceivable to the human mind, and have either no or a too-obscure-to-understand causal connection to our reality. But since these planes, if they exist, are pure negatives (from our perspective), they have no philosophical, much less practical relevance. Science can explain everything relevant to human experience, except the universe's deepest fundaments -- and this, again, not because of some divine origin, but because science can only explain 'in terms of', and the deepest fundaments of the universe (if they even exist) lack an 'in terms of'.

Schwanengesang
Sunday, December 18th, 2011, 11:48 AM
I hint at it from time to time, and I once attempted to explain a portion of it at length. No one was interested, which is fine -- the ideas are mine and mine alone, and I'm far from dogmatic about their 'truth'.

I didn't get to read your explanation. Would you mind repeating it? I'm interested :}

Feyn
Monday, December 19th, 2011, 12:12 PM
"Hitchens was the typical atheist "thinker" making a smug, sarcasism-laced argument ..."

I agree. Atheists always make me want to punch them in the face. Funny thing is, they speak "matter-of-factly" about it as if they have all the answers. They think science is everything, even though we're still pretty ignorant in the grand scheme of things .. not to mention that science has proved unreliable time and time again. Atheists are just as naive as any christian.

Most atheists i have met don´t think science knows everything, but they think that science has given us the best answers/the best insight we have about nature etc., which is absolutely correct. Science freely admits that they work only with theories, that are as close as possible (with our current knowledge) to how nature really works. Most atheists are aware of that. But even those that are not have usually way better answers then most christians i meet on the internet.
How exactly has science proven to be unreliable ? Because theories get overturned ? Usually the new theories are just more exact, and the old theories are still in use, because they may be not exact, but exact enough for most purposes. Take gravity for example. Newtons theory got overturned by einstein, yet we used newtons theories for most of the space program, since einsteins formulas where to complicated to compute at the time (you need to keep in mind that the computers they had had less abilities then a calculater has today) and newtons where good enough.
btw. do you know anything that has brought us better answers , better technology, has saved more lives and has given us deeper insight into nature then science ? Science has given us so much and asked so little in return, that the least we can do is give it the respect it so rightfully earns !!!

Elessar
Monday, December 19th, 2011, 11:05 PM
Science has given us so much and asked so little in return, that the least we can do is give it the respect it so rightfully earns !!!

At what cost? The lack of responsibility of scientists and Babel-builders has left us with a sick and dying planet filled with air, water, and soil pollution, stronger diseases, mass-destruction of trees and the environment, hormone injected meat and vegetables, overpopulation, etc etc.
And you insist we should be thankful?
:rstrange

Feyn
Monday, December 19th, 2011, 11:25 PM
At what cost? The lack of responsibility of scientists and Babel-builders has left us with a sick and dying planet filled with air, water, and soil pollution, stronger diseases, mass-destruction of trees and the environment, hormone injected meat and vegetables, overpopulation, etc etc.
And you insist we should be thankful?
:rstrange


How is that the fault of science ? By the same logic we should put guns in jail for shooting people ! Science is a tool, if we abuse it to destroy our planet that is not the fault of science, its the fault of those who abuse it. Science has told us 60 years ago already that we need to stop polluting the planet, yet we did not listen. Now you want to give science the fault for that ? If you use science correct it saves lives in the millions, and that is just one of many positive things science gave us, so yes it deserves respect for that !!! If you hate science so much why do you use a computer, you only have thanks to science, why do you use your car, use your refrigerator, use your tv, use the internet, go to the doctor etc.etc.etc. All those things you owe science, so if you hate science stop using them. If not pay science the respect it rightfully earns for giving you all those things !!!

Elessar
Monday, December 19th, 2011, 11:28 PM
How is that the fault of science ? By the same logic we should put guns in jail for shooting people ! Science is a tool, if we abuse it to destroy our planet that is not the fault of science, its the fault of those who abuse it. Science has told us 60 years ago already that we need to stop polluting the planet, yet we did not listen. Now you want to give science the fault for that ? If you use science correct it saves lives in the millions, and that is just one of many positive things science gave us, so yes it deserves respect for that !!! If you hate science so much why do you use a computer, you only have thanks to science, why do you use your car, use your refrigerator, use your tv, use the internet, go to the doctor etc.etc.etc. All those things you owe science, so if you hate science stop using them. If not pay science the respect it rightfully earns for giving you all those things !!!

The lack of responsibility of scientists and Babel-builders
Calm down and read.

Two old adages come to mind "Give man an inch, he'll take a mile", and the more apt "The way to hell is paved with good intentions." Seeing obviously as you're a neopagan, I find your defense of nature corrupting scientific advances puzzling.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 12:09 AM
What exactly IS the purpose of atheism?
As far as I can tell atheism is whoever can deny god in the most clever manner.
Is it an intellectual competition?

Lol, at times it can appear that way. But like HF wrote, for most atheists this attitude comes as naturally as breathing. It’s not something we think about on a regular basis.


What good is it?

What worth is it supposed to ultimately have?
How is atheism supposed to benefit not only the world but those who adhere to it?
After atheism...what next for the individual?

Atheism frees me from false hope, thereby making my life more manageable, and indeed in many ways making me, as an individual, stronger.

If anything, atheism will breed stronger individuals.


I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the paranormal. There are many things science cannot explain

Anything that was ever ascribed to the supernatural eventually gave in to science. Take anything, absolutely anything, and some branch of science is more than capable of explaining it very nicely without reverting to the supernatural. The same cannot be said of superstition explaining any of the innumerable things ascribed to scientific thought.

Plantagenet
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 12:32 AM
Is it me or is life ultimately meaningless on an atheistic world-view?

Think about it. Our lives and actions become ultimately meaningless if all we are is dirt in the ground after it is over. Some may say that our actions are useful so that we can live on in the memories of our loved ones or so that we can pass on our genes to the next generation by reproducing. But in the end humanity will be destroyed in the heath death of the universe, no memory of our actions will exist, and there will be no future generations to pass our genetics on to. Another common response is that we endow our lives with meaning, but that is just us making up and superimposing a meaning to our lives. It is not a real, objective meaning.

I think atheism, if followed to its logical conclusion, is equivalent to nihilism. An utterly meaningless existence wherein no action is superior or inferior to another. It also seems that atheism and autism are linked--

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 12:52 AM
But you don't know what I think, only what I don't. My conception of the universe and existence is a lot more complex and original than that of any religious person I know. I hint at it from time to time, and I once attempted to explain a portion of it at length. No one was interested, which is fine -- the ideas are mine and mine alone, and I'm far from dogmatic about their 'truth'. They're where logic led me, but I recognise the flaws possible in my logic, and in all logic in general (being the mode of expression of something that may well be inherently flawed: the human intellect). But don't assume that disbelief in God is the beginning and end of an atheist's understanding of the universe. It simply means that whatever conclusions he reaches as to the nature of existence are much more likely to be guided by rationality than emotion and superstition.

Science is the perfect method of mapping empirical reality -- the world of human experience. Whether the human consciousness has boundaries beyond which it can't see, or there are planes which it can't occupy is possible -- and I don't mean other planes and realms in some silly religious sense, but in a Kantian one, of 'things' that are inherently inconceivable to the human mind, and have either no or a too-obscure-to-understand causal connection to our reality. But since these planes, if they exist, are pure negatives (from our perspective), they have no philosophical, much less practical relevance. Science can explain everything relevant to human experience, except the universe's deepest fundaments -- and this, again, not because of some divine origin, but because science can only explain 'in terms of', and the deepest fundaments of the universe (if they even exist) lack an 'in terms of'.

I find it amusing that anyone can think that all of this is "incidental". Even from "nothing" comes "something". There has never been nothing, there has always been something. No matter what. Just because there was no "human" mind to conceive it doesn't mean it wasn't there. No human can wrap their minds around it. Could a higher power be like that? Something no fool of a human can fathom? Humanity has made god out to be a simplistic moron. Especially the christians, jews and islamists. The weirdest thing is, we aren't even at half our possible potential as humans. Maybe the negro is? But white people are special. And they are special for more reasons than "where they were born geographically". We are the elite of this planet. And we have an untepped potential. Some people (including me) believe that there was a time when we were tapped into this "divine ability". The theory that the discovery of fire, which tenderized meat, which shrunk the jaw muscles, then expanded brain cavity size ... it's nice and all, it makes sense even .. but it still doesn't answer bigger questions. Science is still very ignorant, and any real scientist will tell you that. It's a common joke amongst scientists that if they hear about another scientist "who believes this, or KNOWS that" that they run away from him or her. They go in the opposite direction of them. Because they're schmucks! NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING. And the human body DOES have a spirit. We HAVE, in your words, "uintuited" that since the very beginning.

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 01:01 AM
By the way, Mr. Scientist .. hope is not false. It's only false when one perceives it to be. And it arises out of nowhere, in an instant. And the creator of it holds it in his own hands. It IS real. Trust me, I have it right now. And without it, you should shoot yourself in the face for fun.

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 01:12 AM
By the way, Mr. Scientist .. hope is not false. It's only false when one perceives it to be. And it arises out of nowhere, in an instant. And the creator of it holds it in his own hands. It IS real. Trust me, I have it right now. And without it, you should shoot yourself in the face for fun.

I don't need a promise of some otherworldly thing to lead a happy, comfortable life. I am very content with the worldly. Believe me, I have plenty of worldly hope. ;)

Perhaps I give my life meaning by believing that I could share in some child's innocent ignorance, some day, but at the end of the day I know I am a lone wolf, and that gives me far more strength than any god could.

Kauz R. Waldher
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 01:44 AM
No, you don't use the concept of "god" to make you strong. Monotheism makes people WEAK. When I was able to TOTALLY remove the abrahamic god from my mentality once and for all ... I was liberated. Not that I ever believed in him, but even the ideals sickened me and this ill society. But my point is, why do you bother fighting for your people? What's it matter then? If we're only here "incidentally", and nothing matters, why not just hide out, or strive for money and move to a "happy place"? It would be sooo simple if I were to remove spirituality. The white soul, or "Aryan spirit" (if you will, or if i'm allowed), is what we're fighting for. If it were just a matter of quality of life, then why not just surrender and give up? Life for you would be easier. Would it not? Believing in "a" god, or an brahamic god is slavery .. no doubt and not a darn person here can dispute that. But if you get deep into Ariya Buddhism, ancient Sanatana Dharma and combine these priciples with ancient Heathenry .. you get something pretty damn spectacular. But if you decide to sit and grumble and nit-pick and whine ... you get nowhere and the experience for you will be as you will it. You reap what you sow my friend ... The "white" spirit is a powerful thing to waste.

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? … All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth.... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche


"YES " evolution! But evolution SPIRITUALLY.

Zauberlehrling
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 01:45 AM
I'll speak only for myself:

Is it me or is life ultimately meaningless on an atheistic world-view?


yes, for me there is no impartial meaning, but this doesn't mean that I don't care about anything
It is up to me to decide what I believe to be good or bad

Edit:
for example:from a neutral point of view it doesn't matter whether europe will be black or white in 200 years - the universe doesn't care-
BUT I do, because I want to preserve my country

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 02:19 AM
No, you don't use the concept of "god" to make you strong. Monotheism makes people WEAK. When I was able to TOTALLY remove the abrahamic god from my mentality once and for all ... I was liberated. Not that I ever believed in him, but even the ideals sickened me and this ill society. But my point is, why do you bother fighting for your people? What's it matter then? If we're only here "incidentally", and nothing matters, why not just hide out, or strive for money and move to a "happy place"? It would be sooo simple if I were to remove spirituality. The white soul, or "Aryan spirit" (if you will, or if i'm allowed), is what we're fighting for. If it were just a matter of quality of life, then why not just surrender and give up? Life for you would be easier. Would it not? Believing in "a" god, or an brahamic god is slavery .. no doubt and not a darn person here can dispute that. But if you get deep into Ariya Buddhism, ancient Sanatana Dharma and combine these priciples with ancient Heathenry .. you get something pretty damn spectacular. But if you decide to sit and grumble and nit-pick and whine ... you get nowhere and the experience for you will be as you will it. You reap what you sow my friend ... The "white" spirit is a powerful thing to waste.

I love my people enough to want to preserve them in the face of nothingness.

The lack of a theistic belief system is not synonymous with nihilism and it will not lead to corruption if you have the right mind for it. Atheists are not devoid of all normal human emotion, they simply replace god with something tangible and attainable. We chose to take control of our own life, rather than rely on some unseen presence to guide us along.

This is a move towards, not away from, the Overman, if you ask me.

Jäger
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 09:47 AM
But in the end humanity will be destroyed in the heath death of the universe, no memory of our actions will exist, and there will be no future generations to pass our genetics on to.
Why would the "universe" completely die, to the point that there is nothing?
The axiom of nothingness is a Semitic one, only present in the Abrahamistic religions. Only theoretical science, dominated by Jews, uses this axiom in their "thought experiments".
This very idea is already very religiously motivated.

If we get rid of the Semitic dogma (or the Jewish "scientific" hypothesis thereof), that the universe came out of nothing, it can only mean that the universe cannot revert back to be nothing. It can only change into something else. And our offspring, as different to us as they might be then, could be part of it.

Wittmann
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 09:51 AM
Why would the "universe" completely die, to the point that there is nothing?
The axiom of nothingness is a Semitic one, only present in the Abrahamistic religions. Only theoretical science, dominated by Jews, uses this axiom in their "thought experiments".
This very idea is already very religiously motivated.

If we get rid of the Semitic dogma (or the Jewish "scientific" hypothesis thereof), that the universe came out of nothing, it can only mean that the universe cannot revert back to be nothing. It can only change into something else. And our offspring, as different to us as it might be then, could be part of it.


The heat death of the universe is a suggested ultimate fate of the universe, in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain motion or life. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other process may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches the maximum entropy.

From the Big Bang through the present day and well into the future, matter and dark matter in the universe are thought to be concentrated in stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters. Therefore, the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium and objects can do physical work. The decay time for a supermassive black hole of roughly 1 galaxy-mass (10^11 solar masses) due to Hawking radiation is in the order of 10^100 years, so entropy can be produced until at least that time. After that time, the universe enters the so-called dark era, and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons. With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long time scales. Speculatively, it is possible that the universe may enter a second inflationary epoch, or, assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state. It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the universe will achieve heat death.

Jäger
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011, 10:42 AM
@Wittmann, that's what I meant, it's just about Jewish speculations.