Is the whole atheist "movement" getting boring?

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Is the whole atheist "movement" getting boring?

I don't mean this in any derogatory way. I love this site and others. However, I find that what needs to be said has been said. Back in 2006, when this site launched along with the Blasphemy Challenge and the books by Harris, Dawkins, etc.., it was like listening to "Safe European Home" by the Clash. That song starts off with a jolt equivalent to several cups of brewed coffee. And every now and then when I hear that song, I still get the jolt. Unfortunately, I don't with the atheist sites anymore.

5 years later, religion is alive and strong. What great sites like this has achieved is enlightening the deluded sky daddy worshippers and greater civil liberties for unbelievers. Yet many of the key players on the forum have left. No word from Kelly O'Connor or Hambydammit. I especially miss Kelly's large, nice, full, round, soft set of......... blogs!  

I bet it's just me. I tend to get desensitized very easy. It's like watching the same porn flick over and over again and you end up falling asleep 5 minutes into it when Jenna Jameson nibbles on her partner's nether regions.

I love this site and will continue to contribute. Let's all continue to keep up the good fight. Maybe I should just listen to The Clash while surfing RRS.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:jcgadfly

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

However---Atheism offers  them nothing   

Reality isn't nothing to me.  It doesn't have to be nothing to you.

 

But--- that puts us back to who,s realty and what is it based on. To give them "there's no God" is going no where. I agree that God doesn't exist as they say. But that doesn't do anything for them---you have to prove it. From our observation post both sides are in the same fault---unidirectional mindsets. Their religion allows social bonds which is one reason they believe what they do---it gets and keeps them together. Their congregation causes an emotional experience which they need for contentment. Atheism doesn't create what they need and in the attempt to institute the "no God' idea will dissolve the social bonding they need leaving no house to go to. The "no God" direction gives them no place to go. No matter what reality they have, true or false, it serves their purpose of social cohesion. If Atheism doesn't provide an alternative to church going then it's asking them to socially hang in mid air. Your part in this reality struggle needs to be--the reality that they have a reality that's not yours or is false, and live with it---we do. There seems to be no objective to Atheism other then the removal of the belief in a God. If we see this correct---Atheism is to bring peace to the world because religion is the fault for the world being the way it is. That's not reality as we see it. The world is the way it is because of the pursuit of material gratification, god or no god. That's a mental condition of everyone not just the religious.

The old "If you don't have a God you don't have meaning to your life" argument? Are you that intellectually bankrupt that you can't bring meaning to your own life? I don't think you are but I feel bad that you do think you are.

It's about them. I'm not a theist even though somebody labeled me as one. I don't believe there is a "god" per sec. I merely understand the forces that are around me and that are greater or lesser then myself. I'm with Adam and their mental makeup.  And that's nothing other then belief in "the self". The term "god" isn't even on the Hebrew language. By logical deduction Adam had no concept of "god", and the God term relative to the book is strictly a European attachment, and under the circumstances  Alpha Smurf would be an Atheist in the eye of the Pope, and in turn that would also mean "Adam" is an Atheist. I'm attempting to give you all an understanding of them. It's "them" you're dealing with in so far as making any changes in their beliefs. A person is made up of beliefs or has beliefs that they need or find useful. If you want to change their beliefs you want to change their persons----so what are they supposed to change to (see---I'm back to about them, not me). Atheism has nothing for them to go to. The "no God" idea is of no value to them. You have to give them an understanding in the value of "no God". So- if it's about stop the killing, Stalin said there,s no God and believed such, and killed over 26000000 floks. Atheism has no record of ---no killing.

So here we are again----You've gone the same way as past religions. You all say that because someone doesn't go along with your beliefs they are intellectually bankrupt. That manner of mind is what caused Stalin, past religions and government powers to kill the people they did. So, from our perspective, if Atheism becomes the norm, and all they that are considered intellectually bankrupt could be deemed a public threat and get the Stalin treatment.  Think about that ---we see it.    Smiling

So if it doesn't fit with what your created religion says why do you use the old Christian arguments to attack atheism? Stalin, for example, did not kill anyone in the name of atheism. He killed them because they were threats to his power.

 I accused you of intellectual bankruptcy not because you disagree with my position but because you used the "you need something greater than yourself to give your life meaning" argument and stopped looking for your purpose to your life.

I'm not arguing, I'm stating what we see. I'm not looking for any meaning of life-I've already acquired it's meaning to me. I don't look, I encounter. You all keep thinking I'm them. I'm not. It looks as though you think we think as you , not so. This is why we are hard to understand. Those who claim to be Christian (which they,re not) think I'm you. Heck of a fix right. Well no, we let others be as they may. We have no fixation to change anyone. If what we convey changes no one then so be it. God to us is one lording it over others---we don't do that, that's the concept of Europeans. We don't believe in lording it over others so----we don't believe in God. Such a god can only exist if one makes them self that way.    That's why the world is the way it is. Cease lording it over each other and God goes away. In the Smurf world god went away. So---we are not like you or they. Advantage happens as a course of nature. When one seeks the advantage he goes against nature---then he created himself as god to be greater then nature which is unnatural and a mere invention.  We could claim that all of you are intellectually bankrupt. We won't because it would not be true. We see high levels of intellect in progress here. But consider---- the Menza society---- only the top 2% of the geniuses (at least perceived as so) in the world are admitted. But---can they solve the worlds problems---nope. So, so much for intellect. Amount of intellect isn't the question. The question is---what's stifling any amount of intellect. It is the median use of intellect and the direction guided, or constructed. All, bar none are under greater forces then them selves---it applies to all, and understanding/recognizing those forces is necessary.

OK--Stalin. But, did he not shut down religion and kill all or any possible that were religious. I say it's so. Anti religion was a key component in his government. 

Civilization creates people from it's perspective of reality. If that reality is constructed by those that rule for their ideas to be imposed on the people who's reality does one go by. If they constructed the reality for their advantage then there reality is a lie. If the existence of god is a lie (and is as we know it)  then the god no god is moot. You have to find all the lies you're under, and there,s many of them. Maybe you find it hard to understand us because we know the lies and you don't.  In this case if we convey truth (that's hypothetical) the truth may be construed as a lie.  You've got one of the false realities recognized. Now you may need to find the others.  Smiling

 

You can say it's so (Stalin killing in the name of atheism) all you want - doesn't make it real. You might as well blame his mustache for the homicides.

As for the type of theist you are - you lost me at Alpha Smurf. You don't want to be compared to a Christian - stop using their arguments and phrasing them as "we vs. you" as they do. What I did was make you vs. me. - still is.

So, you want me to think your way then. We understand "what " Christianity is, they have some good stuff as well as anyone else.  I 'm not going to get into a "you verses me". I'm not a competitor. Adam is the basis of the Hebrew religion and the formation of Hebrews original religion. It's the one thy fell away from, Adam and Christianity are the same, except Christianity has changes and additions. We have not adapted to the changes---that leaves us Adamites not Christians. I'm not a Theist. I just explained as to why. Adam was just Adam and had no concept of any God. Neither do we.

  At one time there were people in England who called themselves Adamites. Their idea of Adam was nudism. So, the migrants from Africa to the Tigress Euphrates area, threw off their lion skins and pooof became Adam?  ?  ?. Now- I point this out to show how ridiculous the Euro mind is when connected to the book. They conjured up a religion from this passage in Genesis---and they were naked and not ashamed. So what do we (sorry Alpha smurf is Alpha smurf. It was a team effort and we go by the book--give credit to whom credit is due. If I go the "I" then I'm the greatest intellectual that ever lived. The Menza floks are fools and pikers, stupid and ignorant. But-we know better, we take no pride in our intellect.

 Naked and not ashamed is they were as children-innocent, they had nothing to hide, they weren't liars, cheats, and dishonest, predators upon each other----nothing to hide from reach other---notice--in the OT --the child will sit next to the lion. That means a child like entity (Adam and Christianity alike require a return to a childlike mental condition) the person will no longer be a predator( the main tenant of civilization) and return from where they came--- to the beginning. Adam is not the physical, he is the mental. Now, that's the Smurfs interpretation of one mere passage from the book. There are only two possible interpretations of that passage. One---the Smurfs---2- the Euros. which do you prefer. If you prefer theirs you're stuck with what you got, and you want me to have the same so I match your interpretation because it fits yours. Not gonna happen, We're right.  Now--if we're right---you've been had by your own mental direction.

Or-- if all of you here studied the book so well ---why didn't you see this---Why. It is an alternative to the one you have---why didn't you see it. Why didn't the pope see it, why didn't the president of the US see it, why didn't all your high kaflootin academic type see it----because----because---you all think the same. You are all hiding and ashamed to show yourselves.

 Now--show another interpretation if possible, or make the choice---which is correct. (I'll leave it up to you) only---only one can be correct. Don't tell me about it---tell each other. If ours is correct then we also have the rest correct. No competition here, don't need it.

 

No - I want you to think. End of.

As I said before, there are as many interpretations as there are readers. They can't all be right. They can all be wrong. No need for even one to be correct. You seem to have found one that you know must be right.  Good luck to you on that.

I'm still waiting on you to tell me why atheists have no purpose to their lives and can't bring in one of their own..

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

However---Atheism offers  them nothing   

Reality isn't nothing to me.  It doesn't have to be nothing to you.

 

But--- that puts us back to who,s realty and what is it based on. To give them "there's no God" is going no where. I agree that God doesn't exist as they say. But that doesn't do anything for them---you have to prove it. From our observation post both sides are in the same fault---unidirectional mindsets. Their religion allows social bonds which is one reason they believe what they do---it gets and keeps them together. Their congregation causes an emotional experience which they need for contentment. Atheism doesn't create what they need and in the attempt to institute the "no God' idea will dissolve the social bonding they need leaving no house to go to. The "no God" direction gives them no place to go. No matter what reality they have, true or false, it serves their purpose of social cohesion. If Atheism doesn't provide an alternative to church going then it's asking them to socially hang in mid air. Your part in this reality struggle needs to be--the reality that they have a reality that's not yours or is false, and live with it---we do. There seems to be no objective to Atheism other then the removal of the belief in a God. If we see this correct---Atheism is to bring peace to the world because religion is the fault for the world being the way it is. That's not reality as we see it. The world is the way it is because of the pursuit of material gratification, god or no god. That's a mental condition of everyone not just the religious.

The old "If you don't have a God you don't have meaning to your life" argument? Are you that intellectually bankrupt that you can't bring meaning to your own life? I don't think you are but I feel bad that you do think you are.

It's about them. I'm not a theist even though somebody labeled me as one. I don't believe there is a "god" per sec. I merely understand the forces that are around me and that are greater or lesser then myself. I'm with Adam and their mental makeup.  And that's nothing other then belief in "the self". The term "god" isn't even on the Hebrew language. By logical deduction Adam had no concept of "god", and the God term relative to the book is strictly a European attachment, and under the circumstances  Alpha Smurf would be an Atheist in the eye of the Pope, and in turn that would also mean "Adam" is an Atheist. I'm attempting to give you all an understanding of them. It's "them" you're dealing with in so far as making any changes in their beliefs. A person is made up of beliefs or has beliefs that they need or find useful. If you want to change their beliefs you want to change their persons----so what are they supposed to change to (see---I'm back to about them, not me). Atheism has nothing for them to go to. The "no God" idea is of no value to them. You have to give them an understanding in the value of "no God". So- if it's about stop the killing, Stalin said there,s no God and believed such, and killed over 26000000 floks. Atheism has no record of ---no killing.

So here we are again----You've gone the same way as past religions. You all say that because someone doesn't go along with your beliefs they are intellectually bankrupt. That manner of mind is what caused Stalin, past religions and government powers to kill the people they did. So, from our perspective, if Atheism becomes the norm, and all they that are considered intellectually bankrupt could be deemed a public threat and get the Stalin treatment.  Think about that ---we see it.    Smiling

So if it doesn't fit with what your created religion says why do you use the old Christian arguments to attack atheism? Stalin, for example, did not kill anyone in the name of atheism. He killed them because they were threats to his power.

 I accused you of intellectual bankruptcy not because you disagree with my position but because you used the "you need something greater than yourself to give your life meaning" argument and stopped looking for your purpose to your life.

I'm not arguing, I'm stating what we see. I'm not looking for any meaning of life-I've already acquired it's meaning to me. I don't look, I encounter. You all keep thinking I'm them. I'm not. It looks as though you think we think as you , not so. This is why we are hard to understand. Those who claim to be Christian (which they,re not) think I'm you. Heck of a fix right. Well no, we let others be as they may. We have no fixation to change anyone. If what we convey changes no one then so be it. God to us is one lording it over others---we don't do that, that's the concept of Europeans. We don't believe in lording it over others so----we don't believe in God. Such a god can only exist if one makes them self that way.    That's why the world is the way it is. Cease lording it over each other and God goes away. In the Smurf world god went away. So---we are not like you or they. Advantage happens as a course of nature. When one seeks the advantage he goes against nature---then he created himself as god to be greater then nature which is unnatural and a mere invention.  We could claim that all of you are intellectually bankrupt. We won't because it would not be true. We see high levels of intellect in progress here. But consider---- the Menza society---- only the top 2% of the geniuses (at least perceived as so) in the world are admitted. But---can they solve the worlds problems---nope. So, so much for intellect. Amount of intellect isn't the question. The question is---what's stifling any amount of intellect. It is the median use of intellect and the direction guided, or constructed. All, bar none are under greater forces then them selves---it applies to all, and understanding/recognizing those forces is necessary.

OK--Stalin. But, did he not shut down religion and kill all or any possible that were religious. I say it's so. Anti religion was a key component in his government. 

Civilization creates people from it's perspective of reality. If that reality is constructed by those that rule for their ideas to be imposed on the people who's reality does one go by. If they constructed the reality for their advantage then there reality is a lie. If the existence of god is a lie (and is as we know it)  then the god no god is moot. You have to find all the lies you're under, and there,s many of them. Maybe you find it hard to understand us because we know the lies and you don't.  In this case if we convey truth (that's hypothetical) the truth may be construed as a lie.  You've got one of the false realities recognized. Now you may need to find the others.  Smiling

 

You can say it's so (Stalin killing in the name of atheism) all you want - doesn't make it real. You might as well blame his mustache for the homicides.

As for the type of theist you are - you lost me at Alpha Smurf. You don't want to be compared to a Christian - stop using their arguments and phrasing them as "we vs. you" as they do. What I did was make you vs. me. - still is.

So, you want me to think your way then. We understand "what " Christianity is, they have some good stuff as well as anyone else.  I 'm not going to get into a "you verses me". I'm not a competitor. Adam is the basis of the Hebrew religion and the formation of Hebrews original religion. It's the one thy fell away from, Adam and Christianity are the same, except Christianity has changes and additions. We have not adapted to the changes---that leaves us Adamites not Christians. I'm not a Theist. I just explained as to why. Adam was just Adam and had no concept of any God. Neither do we.

  At one time there were people in England who called themselves Adamites. Their idea of Adam was nudism. So, the migrants from Africa to the Tigress Euphrates area, threw off their lion skins and pooof became Adam?  ?  ?. Now- I point this out to show how ridiculous the Euro mind is when connected to the book. They conjured up a religion from this passage in Genesis---and they were naked and not ashamed. So what do we (sorry Alpha smurf is Alpha smurf. It was a team effort and we go by the book--give credit to whom credit is due. If I go the "I" then I'm the greatest intellectual that ever lived. The Menza floks are fools and pikers, stupid and ignorant. But-we know better, we take no pride in our intellect.

 Naked and not ashamed is they were as children-innocent, they had nothing to hide, they weren't liars, cheats, and dishonest, predators upon each other----nothing to hide from reach other---notice--in the OT --the child will sit next to the lion. That means a child like entity (Adam and Christianity alike require a return to a childlike mental condition) the person will no longer be a predator( the main tenant of civilization) and return from where they came--- to the beginning. Adam is not the physical, he is the mental. Now, that's the Smurfs interpretation of one mere passage from the book. There are only two possible interpretations of that passage. One---the Smurfs---2- the Euros. which do you prefer. If you prefer theirs you're stuck with what you got, and you want me to have the same so I match your interpretation because it fits yours. Not gonna happen, We're right.  Now--if we're right---you've been had by your own mental direction.

Or-- if all of you here studied the book so well ---why didn't you see this---Why. It is an alternative to the one you have---why didn't you see it. Why didn't the pope see it, why didn't the president of the US see it, why didn't all your high kaflootin academic type see it----because----because---you all think the same. You are all hiding and ashamed to show yourselves.

 Now--show another interpretation if possible, or make the choice---which is correct. (I'll leave it up to you) only---only one can be correct. Don't tell me about it---tell each other. If ours is correct then we also have the rest correct. No competition here, don't need it.

 

No - I want you to think. End of.

As I said before, there are as many interpretations as there are readers. They can't all be right. They can all be wrong. No need for even one to be correct. You seem to have found one that you know must be right.  Good luck to you on that.

I'm still waiting on you to tell me why atheists have no purpose to their lives and can't bring in one of their own..

I didn't say Atheists have no reason to live. You're applying that from someone's religious point of view--it's not ours. Their reasons are no different then anyone else,s. I refered to---if you were  to change their minds Atheism has no place for them to be. Ok---my home town. It's a community of church goers going back to the old country, as they call it. What they have in common is the commaradery developed by being centered on their church. If, one turns to Atheism ---where to go. They're practically on their own. No social interaction, Then you have to realize that they will come under the judgement of their former peers, would this not be the case. Being that they already accept their surroundings they have no reason to become Atheist. And, if I know my home town correctly they wouldn't care about god or no god, They are content the way it is. Now turn that around and you have an all Atheist community and one joins a religion. The one joining the religion would have the same problem. When I visit my mother she questions her religion extensively, the brothers do the same---but they're not about to become Atheist. They can see the god no god but that won't change their minds. It's the family,friend, and social bonds that they need.

OK. Back to the Adam thing for a bit of clarity. You are correct-there are many interpretations. But there are many interpretations from the material standpoint of interpretation. Considering that the universe contains only two basic things, the material and the spiritual. There may be proof someday that what is termed the spiritual may be found to be material, But so far that hasn't been done. The material is interpreted from the understanding and knowledge of physics. The spiritual is interpreted form the mental sciences. There is nothing else to consider but those two in the interpretation of anything.  The Adamites were  the first psycho dudes. They sat down and studied themselves and came up with an understanding of themselves. They got today,s psycho dudes beat all to heck. OK don't believe that---but our Psycho dudes can see it plainly. From the spiritual stand point it's a different story. From the spiritual it goes only one way only. At the end of it all one understands the self and everyone else---no one can hide, all are seen. Lie and we,ll know it. One goes back to being Adam---and that's the purpose of the book.

Ok then---which of the interpretations is correct---the nudie doodies, or the childlike character that is Adam.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
TonyZXT wrote:This thread is

TonyZXT wrote:

This thread is a perfect example of why I wish (like many others have stated) that this forum was more active.  Back then Freethinking Anonymous was actually active, and you didn't have to worry about Theists who want to deliberately come and hijack your thread.  

The same old tactics theists always use, not to win an argument, but to obfuscate, and derail a subject, are what's going on here.   Stalin, Hitler... really Old Seer, that all you got?  Weak sauce, old refuted rehashed and regurgitated garbage... and the theist's last bastion... REVISIONIST HISTORY.  

On other forums I've been on, posters that regularly hijack and derail threads are warned... eventually banned if it's necessary and they're clearly continuing to do it on purpose.  Mods tend to close threads and encourage the OP or other posters to start a fresh, un-hijacked thread to get the OT back on track.  Point being, there are things that can easily be done about it.

 

To the original topic, I do unfortunately think things have stagnated.  Years ago the media was paying attention to the Four Horsemen making waves.  Now they don't seem to be as active in the spotlight.  The last real attention I saw was when Hitch passed (may Joe Pesci save his soul) but much of that was portraying him as a malcontent.  Since the height of the movement the fundies have further hijacked the Republican party, and the political conversations in this country.  They've gotten way, way more brazen and vocal.  It seems to be reaching a fever pitch where they feel emboldened to say anything they damn well please, be it about rape victims, gays, women, or retards (Anne Coulter's words.)   I really think we've lost ground worse than ever before.

The problem, as I see it, is we don't have an answer for this hijacking.  Honestly I see an easy opening to make a documentary showing how fucking ludicrous the right has gotten.  Sam Harris had it right, when he talked about moderates.  Moderates are the key.  They unknowingly shield the extremists by taking offense any time someone's faith is questioned.  If a film could raise the consciousness of the moderates to see just how far the extremists have gone, I think things might start to change.  Moderates need to be aware of how far they've gotten into every area of gov't and the legal system, and just how fucking hateful they are now being out in the open.  Saying things nobody would have dreamed of saying in public just 5 years ago, then in the wake of the backlash several others (even political candidates in races) actually stand up to defend their insane positions.  Right now moderates seem to brush it off, or be halfway unaware or this trend.  If you guys as Atheists are not fully aware of how bad it is, just subscribe to Right Wing Watch Blog on Youtube.... The Young Turks is another good one.  I'm here to tell you it's BAD!  The crazy is coming in a torrent, worse than I ever thought it would get this fast.

Right now, I think non-believers and even religious people that believe in Separation of Church and State need to be more active than ever.  Unfortunately I don't see that.  I do see people that are bored of slogging through the same old mire of fundie BS, creationism, hatred etc.   IMHO We need to brainstorm on how to refresh and re-energize the movement.  

 

We are not of any political party,movement,religious body or church, and not affiliated with any organizations or groups of any kind, or any political thought or direction of endeavour. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Attn -- Old Seer from Dana

 OS ---   You've been very active on the board in the last 48 hrs. May I suggest you talk to Aussiescribbler.

Old Seer wrote:

Aussiescribbler wrote:

My approach is nothing new. I'm just following the example of one of my heroes, Wilhelm Reich, who put forward much the same kinds of ideas in his 1953 book The Murder of Christ : The Emotional Plague of Mankind.

http://www.howtobefree-theblog.blogspot.com.au/


I can't use a dictionary fast enough but.  You're so dadburnt intelligent I can't make a comment .

 

However---Consider Biblical creation. Is it a material construction or a spiritual construction. From a stand point of physics it doesn't make sense. OK, now look at the alternative.

Welcome aboard.

 

 Never say die Old Seer:

   Well of course you can. What many on this board miss is, as with other boards is 'like things'. Where a person is speaking in his own words; and an-other is speaking in their's, can find much agreement if done so without missing overlapping concepts. Not to say there is ever total agreement. Perhaps if you referenced your Psycho dudes, you might see some of those 'like things'.

  ps -- I think jcgadfly wanted a follow up cut and paste a link or his comments to your own thread. That way it (the thread itself) is fuller; we must't stray from this original OP. I know jcgadfly would appreciate the effort.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:TonyZXT

Old Seer wrote:

TonyZXT wrote:

This thread is a perfect example of why I wish (like many others have stated) that this forum was more active.  Back then Freethinking Anonymous was actually active, and you didn't have to worry about Theists who want to deliberately come and hijack your thread.  

The same old tactics theists always use, not to win an argument, but to obfuscate, and derail a subject, are what's going on here.   Stalin, Hitler... really Old Seer, that all you got?  Weak sauce, old refuted rehashed and regurgitated garbage... and the theist's last bastion... REVISIONIST HISTORY.  

On other forums I've been on, posters that regularly hijack and derail threads are warned... eventually banned if it's necessary and they're clearly continuing to do it on purpose.  Mods tend to close threads and encourage the OP or other posters to start a fresh, un-hijacked thread to get the OT back on track.  Point being, there are things that can easily be done about it.

 

To the original topic, I do unfortunately think things have stagnated.  Years ago the media was paying attention to the Four Horsemen making waves.  Now they don't seem to be as active in the spotlight.  The last real attention I saw was when Hitch passed (may Joe Pesci save his soul) but much of that was portraying him as a malcontent.  Since the height of the movement the fundies have further hijacked the Republican party, and the political conversations in this country.  They've gotten way, way more brazen and vocal.  It seems to be reaching a fever pitch where they feel emboldened to say anything they damn well please, be it about rape victims, gays, women, or retards (Anne Coulter's words.)   I really think we've lost ground worse than ever before.

The problem, as I see it, is we don't have an answer for this hijacking.  Honestly I see an easy opening to make a documentary showing how fucking ludicrous the right has gotten.  Sam Harris had it right, when he talked about moderates.  Moderates are the key.  They unknowingly shield the extremists by taking offense any time someone's faith is questioned.  If a film could raise the consciousness of the moderates to see just how far the extremists have gone, I think things might start to change.  Moderates need to be aware of how far they've gotten into every area of gov't and the legal system, and just how fucking hateful they are now being out in the open.  Saying things nobody would have dreamed of saying in public just 5 years ago, then in the wake of the backlash several others (even political candidates in races) actually stand up to defend their insane positions.  Right now moderates seem to brush it off, or be halfway unaware or this trend.  If you guys as Atheists are not fully aware of how bad it is, just subscribe to Right Wing Watch Blog on Youtube.... The Young Turks is another good one.  I'm here to tell you it's BAD!  The crazy is coming in a torrent, worse than I ever thought it would get this fast.

Right now, I think non-believers and even religious people that believe in Separation of Church and State need to be more active than ever.  Unfortunately I don't see that.  I do see people that are bored of slogging through the same old mire of fundie BS, creationism, hatred etc.   IMHO We need to brainstorm on how to refresh and re-energize the movement.  

 

We are not of any political party,movement,religious body or church, and not affiliated with any organizations or groups of any kind, or any political thought or direction of endeavour. Smiling

I didn't hijack the thread. I made a comment to be helpful but it taken the other way. The hijacking came from the other side. I only gave advice or insights. Smiling

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:jcgadfly

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

However---Atheism offers  them nothing   

Reality isn't nothing to me.  It doesn't have to be nothing to you.

 

But--- that puts us back to who,s realty and what is it based on. To give them "there's no God" is going no where. I agree that God doesn't exist as they say. But that doesn't do anything for them---you have to prove it. From our observation post both sides are in the same fault---unidirectional mindsets. Their religion allows social bonds which is one reason they believe what they do---it gets and keeps them together. Their congregation causes an emotional experience which they need for contentment. Atheism doesn't create what they need and in the attempt to institute the "no God' idea will dissolve the social bonding they need leaving no house to go to. The "no God" direction gives them no place to go. No matter what reality they have, true or false, it serves their purpose of social cohesion. If Atheism doesn't provide an alternative to church going then it's asking them to socially hang in mid air. Your part in this reality struggle needs to be--the reality that they have a reality that's not yours or is false, and live with it---we do. There seems to be no objective to Atheism other then the removal of the belief in a God. If we see this correct---Atheism is to bring peace to the world because religion is the fault for the world being the way it is. That's not reality as we see it. The world is the way it is because of the pursuit of material gratification, god or no god. That's a mental condition of everyone not just the religious.

The old "If you don't have a God you don't have meaning to your life" argument? Are you that intellectually bankrupt that you can't bring meaning to your own life? I don't think you are but I feel bad that you do think you are.

It's about them. I'm not a theist even though somebody labeled me as one. I don't believe there is a "god" per sec. I merely understand the forces that are around me and that are greater or lesser then myself. I'm with Adam and their mental makeup.  And that's nothing other then belief in "the self". The term "god" isn't even on the Hebrew language. By logical deduction Adam had no concept of "god", and the God term relative to the book is strictly a European attachment, and under the circumstances  Alpha Smurf would be an Atheist in the eye of the Pope, and in turn that would also mean "Adam" is an Atheist. I'm attempting to give you all an understanding of them. It's "them" you're dealing with in so far as making any changes in their beliefs. A person is made up of beliefs or has beliefs that they need or find useful. If you want to change their beliefs you want to change their persons----so what are they supposed to change to (see---I'm back to about them, not me). Atheism has nothing for them to go to. The "no God" idea is of no value to them. You have to give them an understanding in the value of "no God". So- if it's about stop the killing, Stalin said there,s no God and believed such, and killed over 26000000 floks. Atheism has no record of ---no killing.

So here we are again----You've gone the same way as past religions. You all say that because someone doesn't go along with your beliefs they are intellectually bankrupt. That manner of mind is what caused Stalin, past religions and government powers to kill the people they did. So, from our perspective, if Atheism becomes the norm, and all they that are considered intellectually bankrupt could be deemed a public threat and get the Stalin treatment.  Think about that ---we see it.    Smiling

So if it doesn't fit with what your created religion says why do you use the old Christian arguments to attack atheism? Stalin, for example, did not kill anyone in the name of atheism. He killed them because they were threats to his power.

 I accused you of intellectual bankruptcy not because you disagree with my position but because you used the "you need something greater than yourself to give your life meaning" argument and stopped looking for your purpose to your life.

I'm not arguing, I'm stating what we see. I'm not looking for any meaning of life-I've already acquired it's meaning to me. I don't look, I encounter. You all keep thinking I'm them. I'm not. It looks as though you think we think as you , not so. This is why we are hard to understand. Those who claim to be Christian (which they,re not) think I'm you. Heck of a fix right. Well no, we let others be as they may. We have no fixation to change anyone. If what we convey changes no one then so be it. God to us is one lording it over others---we don't do that, that's the concept of Europeans. We don't believe in lording it over others so----we don't believe in God. Such a god can only exist if one makes them self that way.    That's why the world is the way it is. Cease lording it over each other and God goes away. In the Smurf world god went away. So---we are not like you or they. Advantage happens as a course of nature. When one seeks the advantage he goes against nature---then he created himself as god to be greater then nature which is unnatural and a mere invention.  We could claim that all of you are intellectually bankrupt. We won't because it would not be true. We see high levels of intellect in progress here. But consider---- the Menza society---- only the top 2% of the geniuses (at least perceived as so) in the world are admitted. But---can they solve the worlds problems---nope. So, so much for intellect. Amount of intellect isn't the question. The question is---what's stifling any amount of intellect. It is the median use of intellect and the direction guided, or constructed. All, bar none are under greater forces then them selves---it applies to all, and understanding/recognizing those forces is necessary.

OK--Stalin. But, did he not shut down religion and kill all or any possible that were religious. I say it's so. Anti religion was a key component in his government. 

Civilization creates people from it's perspective of reality. If that reality is constructed by those that rule for their ideas to be imposed on the people who's reality does one go by. If they constructed the reality for their advantage then there reality is a lie. If the existence of god is a lie (and is as we know it)  then the god no god is moot. You have to find all the lies you're under, and there,s many of them. Maybe you find it hard to understand us because we know the lies and you don't.  In this case if we convey truth (that's hypothetical) the truth may be construed as a lie.  You've got one of the false realities recognized. Now you may need to find the others.  Smiling

 

You can say it's so (Stalin killing in the name of atheism) all you want - doesn't make it real. You might as well blame his mustache for the homicides.

As for the type of theist you are - you lost me at Alpha Smurf. You don't want to be compared to a Christian - stop using their arguments and phrasing them as "we vs. you" as they do. What I did was make you vs. me. - still is.

So, you want me to think your way then. We understand "what " Christianity is, they have some good stuff as well as anyone else.  I 'm not going to get into a "you verses me". I'm not a competitor. Adam is the basis of the Hebrew religion and the formation of Hebrews original religion. It's the one thy fell away from, Adam and Christianity are the same, except Christianity has changes and additions. We have not adapted to the changes---that leaves us Adamites not Christians. I'm not a Theist. I just explained as to why. Adam was just Adam and had no concept of any God. Neither do we.

  At one time there were people in England who called themselves Adamites. Their idea of Adam was nudism. So, the migrants from Africa to the Tigress Euphrates area, threw off their lion skins and pooof became Adam?  ?  ?. Now- I point this out to show how ridiculous the Euro mind is when connected to the book. They conjured up a religion from this passage in Genesis---and they were naked and not ashamed. So what do we (sorry Alpha smurf is Alpha smurf. It was a team effort and we go by the book--give credit to whom credit is due. If I go the "I" then I'm the greatest intellectual that ever lived. The Menza floks are fools and pikers, stupid and ignorant. But-we know better, we take no pride in our intellect.

 Naked and not ashamed is they were as children-innocent, they had nothing to hide, they weren't liars, cheats, and dishonest, predators upon each other----nothing to hide from reach other---notice--in the OT --the child will sit next to the lion. That means a child like entity (Adam and Christianity alike require a return to a childlike mental condition) the person will no longer be a predator( the main tenant of civilization) and return from where they came--- to the beginning. Adam is not the physical, he is the mental. Now, that's the Smurfs interpretation of one mere passage from the book. There are only two possible interpretations of that passage. One---the Smurfs---2- the Euros. which do you prefer. If you prefer theirs you're stuck with what you got, and you want me to have the same so I match your interpretation because it fits yours. Not gonna happen, We're right.  Now--if we're right---you've been had by your own mental direction.

Or-- if all of you here studied the book so well ---why didn't you see this---Why. It is an alternative to the one you have---why didn't you see it. Why didn't the pope see it, why didn't the president of the US see it, why didn't all your high kaflootin academic type see it----because----because---you all think the same. You are all hiding and ashamed to show yourselves.

 Now--show another interpretation if possible, or make the choice---which is correct. (I'll leave it up to you) only---only one can be correct. Don't tell me about it---tell each other. If ours is correct then we also have the rest correct. No competition here, don't need it.

 

No - I want you to think. End of.

As I said before, there are as many interpretations as there are readers. They can't all be right. They can all be wrong. No need for even one to be correct. You seem to have found one that you know must be right.  Good luck to you on that.

I'm still waiting on you to tell me why atheists have no purpose to their lives and can't bring in one of their own..

I didn't say Atheists have no reason to live. You're applying that from someone's religious point of view--it's not ours. Their reasons are no different then anyone else,s. I refered to---if you were  to change their minds Atheism has no place for them to be. Ok---my home town. It's a community of church goers going back to the old country, as they call it. What they have in common is the commaradery developed by being centered on their church. If, one turns to Atheism ---where to go. They're practically on their own. No social interaction, Then you have to realize that they will come under the judgement of their former peers, would this not be the case. Being that they already accept their surroundings they have no reason to become Atheist. And, if I know my home town correctly they wouldn't care about god or no god, They are content the way it is. Now turn that around and you have an all Atheist community and one joins a religion. The one joining the religion would have the same problem. When I visit my mother she questions her religion extensively, the brothers do the same---but they're not about to become Atheist. They can see the god no god but that won't change their minds. It's the family,friend, and social bonds that they need.

OK. Back to the Adam thing for a bit of clarity. You are correct-there are many interpretations. But there are many interpretations from the material standpoint of interpretation. Considering that the universe contains only two basic things, the material and the spiritual. There may be proof someday that what is termed the spiritual may be found to be material, But so far that hasn't been done. The material is interpreted from the understanding and knowledge of physics. The spiritual is interpreted form the mental sciences. There is nothing else to consider but those two in the interpretation of anything.  The Adamites were  the first psycho dudes. They sat down and studied themselves and came up with an understanding of themselves. They got today,s psycho dudes beat all to heck. OK don't believe that---but our Psycho dudes can see it plainly. From the spiritual stand point it's a different story. From the spiritual it goes only one way only. At the end of it all one understands the self and everyone else---no one can hide, all are seen. Lie and we,ll know it. One goes back to being Adam---and that's the purpose of the book.

Ok then---which of the interpretations is correct---the nudie doodies, or the childlike character that is Adam.

I apologize for not wanting to own your false dichotomy.

In my view they're both wrong. I told you - one interpretation doesn't have the privilege of being correct but they can all be wrong.

You insist one is right - state your justification.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Old Seer

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

However---Atheism offers  them nothing   

Reality isn't nothing to me.  It doesn't have to be nothing to you.

 

But--- that puts us back to who,s realty and what is it based on. To give them "there's no God" is going no where. I agree that God doesn't exist as they say. But that doesn't do anything for them---you have to prove it. From our observation post both sides are in the same fault---unidirectional mindsets. Their religion allows social bonds which is one reason they believe what they do---it gets and keeps them together. Their congregation causes an emotional experience which they need for contentment. Atheism doesn't create what they need and in the attempt to institute the "no God' idea will dissolve the social bonding they need leaving no house to go to. The "no God" direction gives them no place to go. No matter what reality they have, true or false, it serves their purpose of social cohesion. If Atheism doesn't provide an alternative to church going then it's asking them to socially hang in mid air. Your part in this reality struggle needs to be--the reality that they have a reality that's not yours or is false, and live with it---we do. There seems to be no objective to Atheism other then the removal of the belief in a God. If we see this correct---Atheism is to bring peace to the world because religion is the fault for the world being the way it is. That's not reality as we see it. The world is the way it is because of the pursuit of material gratification, god or no god. That's a mental condition of everyone not just the religious.

The old "If you don't have a God you don't have meaning to your life" argument? Are you that intellectually bankrupt that you can't bring meaning to your own life? I don't think you are but I feel bad that you do think you are.

It's about them. I'm not a theist even though somebody labeled me as one. I don't believe there is a "god" per sec. I merely understand the forces that are around me and that are greater or lesser then myself. I'm with Adam and their mental makeup.  And that's nothing other then belief in "the self". The term "god" isn't even on the Hebrew language. By logical deduction Adam had no concept of "god", and the God term relative to the book is strictly a European attachment, and under the circumstances  Alpha Smurf would be an Atheist in the eye of the Pope, and in turn that would also mean "Adam" is an Atheist. I'm attempting to give you all an understanding of them. It's "them" you're dealing with in so far as making any changes in their beliefs. A person is made up of beliefs or has beliefs that they need or find useful. If you want to change their beliefs you want to change their persons----so what are they supposed to change to (see---I'm back to about them, not me). Atheism has nothing for them to go to. The "no God" idea is of no value to them. You have to give them an understanding in the value of "no God". So- if it's about stop the killing, Stalin said there,s no God and believed such, and killed over 26000000 floks. Atheism has no record of ---no killing.

So here we are again----You've gone the same way as past religions. You all say that because someone doesn't go along with your beliefs they are intellectually bankrupt. That manner of mind is what caused Stalin, past religions and government powers to kill the people they did. So, from our perspective, if Atheism becomes the norm, and all they that are considered intellectually bankrupt could be deemed a public threat and get the Stalin treatment.  Think about that ---we see it.    Smiling

So if it doesn't fit with what your created religion says why do you use the old Christian arguments to attack atheism? Stalin, for example, did not kill anyone in the name of atheism. He killed them because they were threats to his power.

 I accused you of intellectual bankruptcy not because you disagree with my position but because you used the "you need something greater than yourself to give your life meaning" argument and stopped looking for your purpose to your life.

I'm not arguing, I'm stating what we see. I'm not looking for any meaning of life-I've already acquired it's meaning to me. I don't look, I encounter. You all keep thinking I'm them. I'm not. It looks as though you think we think as you , not so. This is why we are hard to understand. Those who claim to be Christian (which they,re not) think I'm you. Heck of a fix right. Well no, we let others be as they may. We have no fixation to change anyone. If what we convey changes no one then so be it. God to us is one lording it over others---we don't do that, that's the concept of Europeans. We don't believe in lording it over others so----we don't believe in God. Such a god can only exist if one makes them self that way.    That's why the world is the way it is. Cease lording it over each other and God goes away. In the Smurf world god went away. So---we are not like you or they. Advantage happens as a course of nature. When one seeks the advantage he goes against nature---then he created himself as god to be greater then nature which is unnatural and a mere invention.  We could claim that all of you are intellectually bankrupt. We won't because it would not be true. We see high levels of intellect in progress here. But consider---- the Menza society---- only the top 2% of the geniuses (at least perceived as so) in the world are admitted. But---can they solve the worlds problems---nope. So, so much for intellect. Amount of intellect isn't the question. The question is---what's stifling any amount of intellect. It is the median use of intellect and the direction guided, or constructed. All, bar none are under greater forces then them selves---it applies to all, and understanding/recognizing those forces is necessary.

OK--Stalin. But, did he not shut down religion and kill all or any possible that were religious. I say it's so. Anti religion was a key component in his government. 

Civilization creates people from it's perspective of reality. If that reality is constructed by those that rule for their ideas to be imposed on the people who's reality does one go by. If they constructed the reality for their advantage then there reality is a lie. If the existence of god is a lie (and is as we know it)  then the god no god is moot. You have to find all the lies you're under, and there,s many of them. Maybe you find it hard to understand us because we know the lies and you don't.  In this case if we convey truth (that's hypothetical) the truth may be construed as a lie.  You've got one of the false realities recognized. Now you may need to find the others.  Smiling

 

You can say it's so (Stalin killing in the name of atheism) all you want - doesn't make it real. You might as well blame his mustache for the homicides.

As for the type of theist you are - you lost me at Alpha Smurf. You don't want to be compared to a Christian - stop using their arguments and phrasing them as "we vs. you" as they do. What I did was make you vs. me. - still is.

So, you want me to think your way then. We understand "what " Christianity is, they have some good stuff as well as anyone else.  I 'm not going to get into a "you verses me". I'm not a competitor. Adam is the basis of the Hebrew religion and the formation of Hebrews original religion. It's the one thy fell away from, Adam and Christianity are the same, except Christianity has changes and additions. We have not adapted to the changes---that leaves us Adamites not Christians. I'm not a Theist. I just explained as to why. Adam was just Adam and had no concept of any God. Neither do we.

  At one time there were people in England who called themselves Adamites. Their idea of Adam was nudism. So, the migrants from Africa to the Tigress Euphrates area, threw off their lion skins and pooof became Adam?  ?  ?. Now- I point this out to show how ridiculous the Euro mind is when connected to the book. They conjured up a religion from this passage in Genesis---and they were naked and not ashamed. So what do we (sorry Alpha smurf is Alpha smurf. It was a team effort and we go by the book--give credit to whom credit is due. If I go the "I" then I'm the greatest intellectual that ever lived. The Menza floks are fools and pikers, stupid and ignorant. But-we know better, we take no pride in our intellect.

 Naked and not ashamed is they were as children-innocent, they had nothing to hide, they weren't liars, cheats, and dishonest, predators upon each other----nothing to hide from reach other---notice--in the OT --the child will sit next to the lion. That means a child like entity (Adam and Christianity alike require a return to a childlike mental condition) the person will no longer be a predator( the main tenant of civilization) and return from where they came--- to the beginning. Adam is not the physical, he is the mental. Now, that's the Smurfs interpretation of one mere passage from the book. There are only two possible interpretations of that passage. One---the Smurfs---2- the Euros. which do you prefer. If you prefer theirs you're stuck with what you got, and you want me to have the same so I match your interpretation because it fits yours. Not gonna happen, We're right.  Now--if we're right---you've been had by your own mental direction.

Or-- if all of you here studied the book so well ---why didn't you see this---Why. It is an alternative to the one you have---why didn't you see it. Why didn't the pope see it, why didn't the president of the US see it, why didn't all your high kaflootin academic type see it----because----because---you all think the same. You are all hiding and ashamed to show yourselves.

 Now--show another interpretation if possible, or make the choice---which is correct. (I'll leave it up to you) only---only one can be correct. Don't tell me about it---tell each other. If ours is correct then we also have the rest correct. No competition here, don't need it.

 

No - I want you to think. End of.

As I said before, there are as many interpretations as there are readers. They can't all be right. They can all be wrong. No need for even one to be correct. You seem to have found one that you know must be right.  Good luck to you on that.

I'm still waiting on you to tell me why atheists have no purpose to their lives and can't bring in one of their own..

I didn't say Atheists have no reason to live. You're applying that from someone's religious point of view--it's not ours. Their reasons are no different then anyone else,s. I refered to---if you were  to change their minds Atheism has no place for them to be. Ok---my home town. It's a community of church goers going back to the old country, as they call it. What they have in common is the commaradery developed by being centered on their church. If, one turns to Atheism ---where to go. They're practically on their own. No social interaction, Then you have to realize that they will come under the judgement of their former peers, would this not be the case. Being that they already accept their surroundings they have no reason to become Atheist. And, if I know my home town correctly they wouldn't care about god or no god, They are content the way it is. Now turn that around and you have an all Atheist community and one joins a religion. The one joining the religion would have the same problem. When I visit my mother she questions her religion extensively, the brothers do the same---but they're not about to become Atheist. They can see the god no god but that won't change their minds. It's the family,friend, and social bonds that they need.

OK. Back to the Adam thing for a bit of clarity. You are correct-there are many interpretations. But there are many interpretations from the material standpoint of interpretation. Considering that the universe contains only two basic things, the material and the spiritual. There may be proof someday that what is termed the spiritual may be found to be material, But so far that hasn't been done. The material is interpreted from the understanding and knowledge of physics. The spiritual is interpreted form the mental sciences. There is nothing else to consider but those two in the interpretation of anything.  The Adamites were  the first psycho dudes. They sat down and studied themselves and came up with an understanding of themselves. They got today,s psycho dudes beat all to heck. OK don't believe that---but our Psycho dudes can see it plainly. From the spiritual stand point it's a different story. From the spiritual it goes only one way only. At the end of it all one understands the self and everyone else---no one can hide, all are seen. Lie and we,ll know it. One goes back to being Adam---and that's the purpose of the book.

Ok then---which of the interpretations is correct---the nudie doodies, or the childlike character that is Adam.

I apologize for not wanting to own your false dichotomy.

In my view they're both wrong. I told you - one interpretation doesn't have the privilege of being correct but they can all be wrong.

You insist one is right - state your justification.

 

If it adds itself up it has to be right. Truth adds up, the false doesn't. If you run the entire book from the spiritual it begins to add itself together after a few things are clearly seen.. But if you aren't willing to look and study then you won't know. If you start now with our interpretation it will be take you about a year, with a little help maybe 6 months. but if you don't look ---you don't. There's only two interpretations possible--take your pick . Does it make sense Adam is running around the river bank nude which is an interpretation from the superficial/material mind---or--- does it denote the childlike entity we say it is. Is a child embarrased to run naked---nope. So the child is unashamed. So "unashamed" equates to childlike. It's got nothing to do with physically naked. I'll bet that isn't good enough, right. So, what does positive reasoning tell you. The intent of the book is to show us ourselves so we can understand ourselves and know what gets us into trouble with each other. Somebody knew long before they were civilized. It's a book of of the mind not the body, about how people think and the consequences. The whol;e history of the hebrews as any other people are a detailed consequence of their history, for their good and for their evil.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm just fine.

danatemporary wrote:

 OS ---   You've been very active on the board in the last 48 hrs. May I suggest you talk to Aussiescribbler.

Old Seer wrote:

Aussiescribbler wrote:

My approach is nothing new. I'm just following the example of one of my heroes, Wilhelm Reich, who put forward much the same kinds of ideas in his 1953 book The Murder of Christ : The Emotional Plague of Mankind.

http://www.howtobefree-theblog.blogspot.com.au/


I can't use a dictionary fast enough but.  You're so dadburnt intelligent I can't make a comment .

 

However---Consider Biblical creation. Is it a material construction or a spiritual construction. From a stand point of physics it doesn't make sense. OK, now look at the alternative.

Welcome aboard.

 

 Never say die Old Seer:

   Well of course you can. What many on this board miss is, as with other boards is 'like things'. Where a person is speaking in his own words; and an-other is speaking in their's, can find much agreement if done so without missing overlapping concepts. Not to say there is ever total agreement. Perhaps if you referenced your Psycho dudes, you might see some of those 'like things'.

  ps -- I think jcgadfly wanted a follow up cut and paste a link or his comments to your own thread. That way it (the thread itself) is fuller; we must't stray from this original OP. I know jcgadfly would appreciate the effort.

That's why Alpha smurf chose me for this---I have extreme patience. Another could probably explain this better That's what happens when one gets to know one's self but not likely have the patience. There are times I almost pull a Gunny Hartman, but holy Jesus I sure better not do that.

How forums work will get me confused at times as to who is posting what. OK I'll head on over there. But tomorrow

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:You have to

Old Seer wrote:
You have to do better thinking and understand the context of the post.

 

Did you just use the people-don't-get-my-stuff-cuz-they're-stupid line ?

Crap. Now I'm bored again. 


 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:jcgadfly

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

However---Atheism offers  them nothing   

Reality isn't nothing to me.  It doesn't have to be nothing to you.

 

But--- that puts us back to who,s realty and what is it based on. To give them "there's no God" is going no where. I agree that God doesn't exist as they say. But that doesn't do anything for them---you have to prove it. From our observation post both sides are in the same fault---unidirectional mindsets. Their religion allows social bonds which is one reason they believe what they do---it gets and keeps them together. Their congregation causes an emotional experience which they need for contentment. Atheism doesn't create what they need and in the attempt to institute the "no God' idea will dissolve the social bonding they need leaving no house to go to. The "no God" direction gives them no place to go. No matter what reality they have, true or false, it serves their purpose of social cohesion. If Atheism doesn't provide an alternative to church going then it's asking them to socially hang in mid air. Your part in this reality struggle needs to be--the reality that they have a reality that's not yours or is false, and live with it---we do. There seems to be no objective to Atheism other then the removal of the belief in a God. If we see this correct---Atheism is to bring peace to the world because religion is the fault for the world being the way it is. That's not reality as we see it. The world is the way it is because of the pursuit of material gratification, god or no god. That's a mental condition of everyone not just the religious.

The old "If you don't have a God you don't have meaning to your life" argument? Are you that intellectually bankrupt that you can't bring meaning to your own life? I don't think you are but I feel bad that you do think you are.

It's about them. I'm not a theist even though somebody labeled me as one. I don't believe there is a "god" per sec. I merely understand the forces that are around me and that are greater or lesser then myself. I'm with Adam and their mental makeup.  And that's nothing other then belief in "the self". The term "god" isn't even on the Hebrew language. By logical deduction Adam had no concept of "god", and the God term relative to the book is strictly a European attachment, and under the circumstances  Alpha Smurf would be an Atheist in the eye of the Pope, and in turn that would also mean "Adam" is an Atheist. I'm attempting to give you all an understanding of them. It's "them" you're dealing with in so far as making any changes in their beliefs. A person is made up of beliefs or has beliefs that they need or find useful. If you want to change their beliefs you want to change their persons----so what are they supposed to change to (see---I'm back to about them, not me). Atheism has nothing for them to go to. The "no God" idea is of no value to them. You have to give them an understanding in the value of "no God". So- if it's about stop the killing, Stalin said there,s no God and believed such, and killed over 26000000 floks. Atheism has no record of ---no killing.

So here we are again----You've gone the same way as past religions. You all say that because someone doesn't go along with your beliefs they are intellectually bankrupt. That manner of mind is what caused Stalin, past religions and government powers to kill the people they did. So, from our perspective, if Atheism becomes the norm, and all they that are considered intellectually bankrupt could be deemed a public threat and get the Stalin treatment.  Think about that ---we see it.    Smiling

So if it doesn't fit with what your created religion says why do you use the old Christian arguments to attack atheism? Stalin, for example, did not kill anyone in the name of atheism. He killed them because they were threats to his power.

 I accused you of intellectual bankruptcy not because you disagree with my position but because you used the "you need something greater than yourself to give your life meaning" argument and stopped looking for your purpose to your life.

I'm not arguing, I'm stating what we see. I'm not looking for any meaning of life-I've already acquired it's meaning to me. I don't look, I encounter. You all keep thinking I'm them. I'm not. It looks as though you think we think as you , not so. This is why we are hard to understand. Those who claim to be Christian (which they,re not) think I'm you. Heck of a fix right. Well no, we let others be as they may. We have no fixation to change anyone. If what we convey changes no one then so be it. God to us is one lording it over others---we don't do that, that's the concept of Europeans. We don't believe in lording it over others so----we don't believe in God. Such a god can only exist if one makes them self that way.    That's why the world is the way it is. Cease lording it over each other and God goes away. In the Smurf world god went away. So---we are not like you or they. Advantage happens as a course of nature. When one seeks the advantage he goes against nature---then he created himself as god to be greater then nature which is unnatural and a mere invention.  We could claim that all of you are intellectually bankrupt. We won't because it would not be true. We see high levels of intellect in progress here. But consider---- the Menza society---- only the top 2% of the geniuses (at least perceived as so) in the world are admitted. But---can they solve the worlds problems---nope. So, so much for intellect. Amount of intellect isn't the question. The question is---what's stifling any amount of intellect. It is the median use of intellect and the direction guided, or constructed. All, bar none are under greater forces then them selves---it applies to all, and understanding/recognizing those forces is necessary.

OK--Stalin. But, did he not shut down religion and kill all or any possible that were religious. I say it's so. Anti religion was a key component in his government. 

Civilization creates people from it's perspective of reality. If that reality is constructed by those that rule for their ideas to be imposed on the people who's reality does one go by. If they constructed the reality for their advantage then there reality is a lie. If the existence of god is a lie (and is as we know it)  then the god no god is moot. You have to find all the lies you're under, and there,s many of them. Maybe you find it hard to understand us because we know the lies and you don't.  In this case if we convey truth (that's hypothetical) the truth may be construed as a lie.  You've got one of the false realities recognized. Now you may need to find the others.  Smiling

 

You can say it's so (Stalin killing in the name of atheism) all you want - doesn't make it real. You might as well blame his mustache for the homicides.

As for the type of theist you are - you lost me at Alpha Smurf. You don't want to be compared to a Christian - stop using their arguments and phrasing them as "we vs. you" as they do. What I did was make you vs. me. - still is.

So, you want me to think your way then. We understand "what " Christianity is, they have some good stuff as well as anyone else.  I 'm not going to get into a "you verses me". I'm not a competitor. Adam is the basis of the Hebrew religion and the formation of Hebrews original religion. It's the one thy fell away from, Adam and Christianity are the same, except Christianity has changes and additions. We have not adapted to the changes---that leaves us Adamites not Christians. I'm not a Theist. I just explained as to why. Adam was just Adam and had no concept of any God. Neither do we.

  At one time there were people in England who called themselves Adamites. Their idea of Adam was nudism. So, the migrants from Africa to the Tigress Euphrates area, threw off their lion skins and pooof became Adam?  ?  ?. Now- I point this out to show how ridiculous the Euro mind is when connected to the book. They conjured up a religion from this passage in Genesis---and they were naked and not ashamed. So what do we (sorry Alpha smurf is Alpha smurf. It was a team effort and we go by the book--give credit to whom credit is due. If I go the "I" then I'm the greatest intellectual that ever lived. The Menza floks are fools and pikers, stupid and ignorant. But-we know better, we take no pride in our intellect.

 Naked and not ashamed is they were as children-innocent, they had nothing to hide, they weren't liars, cheats, and dishonest, predators upon each other----nothing to hide from reach other---notice--in the OT --the child will sit next to the lion. That means a child like entity (Adam and Christianity alike require a return to a childlike mental condition) the person will no longer be a predator( the main tenant of civilization) and return from where they came--- to the beginning. Adam is not the physical, he is the mental. Now, that's the Smurfs interpretation of one mere passage from the book. There are only two possible interpretations of that passage. One---the Smurfs---2- the Euros. which do you prefer. If you prefer theirs you're stuck with what you got, and you want me to have the same so I match your interpretation because it fits yours. Not gonna happen, We're right.  Now--if we're right---you've been had by your own mental direction.

Or-- if all of you here studied the book so well ---why didn't you see this---Why. It is an alternative to the one you have---why didn't you see it. Why didn't the pope see it, why didn't the president of the US see it, why didn't all your high kaflootin academic type see it----because----because---you all think the same. You are all hiding and ashamed to show yourselves.

 Now--show another interpretation if possible, or make the choice---which is correct. (I'll leave it up to you) only---only one can be correct. Don't tell me about it---tell each other. If ours is correct then we also have the rest correct. No competition here, don't need it.

 

No - I want you to think. End of.

As I said before, there are as many interpretations as there are readers. They can't all be right. They can all be wrong. No need for even one to be correct. You seem to have found one that you know must be right.  Good luck to you on that.

I'm still waiting on you to tell me why atheists have no purpose to their lives and can't bring in one of their own..

I didn't say Atheists have no reason to live. You're applying that from someone's religious point of view--it's not ours. Their reasons are no different then anyone else,s. I refered to---if you were  to change their minds Atheism has no place for them to be. Ok---my home town. It's a community of church goers going back to the old country, as they call it. What they have in common is the commaradery developed by being centered on their church. If, one turns to Atheism ---where to go. They're practically on their own. No social interaction, Then you have to realize that they will come under the judgement of their former peers, would this not be the case. Being that they already accept their surroundings they have no reason to become Atheist. And, if I know my home town correctly they wouldn't care about god or no god, They are content the way it is. Now turn that around and you have an all Atheist community and one joins a religion. The one joining the religion would have the same problem. When I visit my mother she questions her religion extensively, the brothers do the same---but they're not about to become Atheist. They can see the god no god but that won't change their minds. It's the family,friend, and social bonds that they need.

OK. Back to the Adam thing for a bit of clarity. You are correct-there are many interpretations. But there are many interpretations from the material standpoint of interpretation. Considering that the universe contains only two basic things, the material and the spiritual. There may be proof someday that what is termed the spiritual may be found to be material, But so far that hasn't been done. The material is interpreted from the understanding and knowledge of physics. The spiritual is interpreted form the mental sciences. There is nothing else to consider but those two in the interpretation of anything.  The Adamites were  the first psycho dudes. They sat down and studied themselves and came up with an understanding of themselves. They got today,s psycho dudes beat all to heck. OK don't believe that---but our Psycho dudes can see it plainly. From the spiritual stand point it's a different story. From the spiritual it goes only one way only. At the end of it all one understands the self and everyone else---no one can hide, all are seen. Lie and we,ll know it. One goes back to being Adam---and that's the purpose of the book.

Ok then---which of the interpretations is correct---the nudie doodies, or the childlike character that is Adam.

I apologize for not wanting to own your false dichotomy.

In my view they're both wrong. I told you - one interpretation doesn't have the privilege of being correct but they can all be wrong.

You insist one is right - state your justification.

 

If it adds itself up it has to be right. Truth adds up, the false doesn't. If you run the entire book from the spiritual it begins to add itself together after a few things are clearly seen.. But if you aren't willing to look and study then you won't know. If you start now with our interpretation it will be take you about a year, with a little help maybe 6 months. but if you don't look ---you don't. There's only two interpretations possible--take your pick . Does it make sense Adam is running around the river bank nude which is an interpretation from the superficial/material mind---or--- does it denote the childlike entity we say it is. Is a child embarrased to run naked---nope. So the child is unashamed. So "unashamed" equates to childlike. It's got nothing to do with physically naked. I'll bet that isn't good enough, right. So, what does positive reasoning tell you. The intent of the book is to show us ourselves so we can understand ourselves and know what gets us into trouble with each other. Somebody knew long before they were civilized. It's a book of of the mind not the body, about how people think and the consequences. The whol;e history of the hebrews as any other people are a detailed consequence of their history, for their good and for their evil.   Smiling

You are enamored of this false dichotomy aren't you? Now you want to add in seafood by throwing in red herrings. But I will answer you question with what I've said twice before. Neither of your interpretations make sense - oh look, that's a third interpretation. Do you see your fallacy yet?

But hey let's get back to the fall. Whether you choose to look at it as physical nakedness or spiritual innocence. My point stands: Whichever way you look at the story God took it from them because he (if you buy the story at all) rigged the test to fail.

Using your interpretation - how is losing spiritual innocence to gain discernment a bad thing? The story claims it is and you seem to like the story.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:danatemporary

Old Seer wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 OS ---   You've been very active on the board in the last 48 hrs. May I suggest you talk to Aussiescribbler.

Old Seer wrote:

Aussiescribbler wrote:

My approach is nothing new. I'm just following the example of one of my heroes, Wilhelm Reich, who put forward much the same kinds of ideas in his 1953 book The Murder of Christ : The Emotional Plague of Mankind.

http://www.howtobefree-theblog.blogspot.com.au/


I can't use a dictionary fast enough but.  You're so dadburnt intelligent I can't make a comment .

 

However---Consider Biblical creation. Is it a material construction or a spiritual construction. From a stand point of physics it doesn't make sense. OK, now look at the alternative.

Welcome aboard.

 

 Never say die Old Seer:

   Well of course you can. What many on this board miss is, as with other boards is 'like things'. Where a person is speaking in his own words; and an-other is speaking in their's, can find much agreement if done so without missing overlapping concepts. Not to say there is ever total agreement. Perhaps if you referenced your Psycho dudes, you might see some of those 'like things'.

  ps -- I think jcgadfly wanted a follow up cut and paste a link or his comments to your own thread. That way it (the thread itself) is fuller; we must't stray from this original OP. I know jcgadfly would appreciate the effort.

That's why Alpha smurf chose me for this---I have extreme patience. Another could probably explain this better That's what happens when one gets to know one's self but not likely have the patience. There are times I almost pull a Gunny Hartman, but holy Jesus I sure better not do that.

How forums work will get me confused at times as to who is posting what. OK I'll head on over there. But tomorrow

Ah, yes the "I know myself so i must know everything else" game. Your smurf must give you the patience you take from others.

How does the saying go "Run to those who seek the truth and run from those who claim they have found it."?

This is where you turn into one of these again and say I'm trying to force you to think as I do.

.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
TonyZXT wrote:This thread is

TonyZXT wrote:

This thread is a perfect example of why I wish (like many others have stated) that this forum was more active.  Back then Freethinking Anonymous was actually active, and you didn't have to worry about Theists who want to deliberately come and hijack your thread.  

This thread is in general convo.  If a Freethinking Anonymous thread is hijacked, someone please alert me via private message.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:TonyZXT

Sapient wrote:

TonyZXT wrote:

This thread is a perfect example of why I wish (like many others have stated) that this forum was more active.  Back then Freethinking Anonymous was actually active, and you didn't have to worry about Theists who want to deliberately come and hijack your thread.  

This thread is in general convo.  If a Freethinking Anonymous thread is hijacked, someone please alert me via private message.

 

I have a feeling I could get blamed for it. My initial post was a comment toward the subject matter of the OP. The highjacking came after that. I'm not the one that took it off topic. It seems the highjacking take place after someone shows up to try and kick someone's guts out.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Sapient

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:

TonyZXT wrote:

This thread is a perfect example of why I wish (like many others have stated) that this forum was more active.  Back then Freethinking Anonymous was actually active, and you didn't have to worry about Theists who want to deliberately come and hijack your thread.  

This thread is in general convo.  If a Freethinking Anonymous thread is hijacked, someone please alert me via private message.

 

I have a feeling I could get blamed for it. My initial post was a comment toward the subject matter of the OP. The highjacking came after that. I'm not the one that took it off topic. It seems the highjacking take place after someone shows up to try and kick someone's guts out.

Sorry if you perceived our disagreement as an attempt to kick your guts out. Not intended. Perhaps you need a stronger peritoneum?

Apologies as well for contributing to the hijacking by answering the Old Seer.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 737
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok Ok here we go again

jcgadfly wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Sapient wrote:

TonyZXT wrote:

This thread is a perfect example of why I wish (like many others have stated) that this forum was more active.  Back then Freethinking Anonymous was actually active, and you didn't have to worry about Theists who want to deliberately come and hijack your thread.  

This thread is in general convo.  If a Freethinking Anonymous thread is hijacked, someone please alert me via private message.

 

I have a feeling I could get blamed for it. My initial post was a comment toward the subject matter of the OP. The highjacking came after that. I'm not the one that took it off topic. It seems the highjacking take place after someone shows up to try and kick someone's guts out.

Sorry if you perceived our disagreement as an attempt to kick your guts out. Not intended. Perhaps you need a stronger peritoneum?

Apologies as well for contributing to the hijacking by answering the Old Seer.

This is really getting to be a pain. Now I have to get the dictionary out and look up "peritoneum" whatever. You invented that just now didn't you, just to make me look stupid. Smiling  Smiling

Your apologie isn't needed, Sir. I just may have whatever it is you pointed out. I'll have to look it up first. Thanks.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 The atheism got boring to

 The atheism got boring to me pretty soon, after all it's just about one book from middle east. But the jokes never get old and there's another world of social atheism. The stories of religious and non-religious families in various states of disrepair and Republicanism. The Clergy project, The Ledge movie, the cult refugees, the post-religious PTSD cases and so on. And all that is just from an atheist perspective. There must be some more of cool podcast material on the religious side that we don't hear of, and I don't mean just molesting priests and anti-sexual Christian wives on power trip. There are some signs of Christian cultural tribalism that promise fascinating shit in the fan dynamics once they become aware of atheists as a legit tribe and themselves as a just another tribe. 

 The religion is boring, it's the people that make it interesting. But I thought it's just me, I haven't had religion shoved in my face for years, so I can't even take a bite off it.

 

As for Kelly, well, it's kind of a disappointment. I thought she was the type to use her head... you know how I mean it.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


TonyZXT
atheist
TonyZXT's picture
Posts: 174
Joined: 2007-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:TonyZXT

Sapient wrote:

TonyZXT wrote:

This thread is a perfect example of why I wish (like many others have stated) that this forum was more active.  Back then Freethinking Anonymous was actually active, and you didn't have to worry about Theists who want to deliberately come and hijack your thread.  

This thread is in general convo.  If a Freethinking Anonymous thread is hijacked, someone please alert me via private message.

Fully aware, I meant back in the day you could post there and actually have timely activity on your thread.  That wasn't my criticism, I understand why that is.  

My (constructive) criticism comes from the fact that mods don't prevent this stuff from happening in ALL the forums here.  Theist should be welcome to counter or discuss whatever they like, but not derail or hijack.  If it's so easy to derail (or be part of derailing a thread,) to keep things from being discussed, then why wouldn't theists continue using the tactic?  Also, isn't that a detriment to not only the conversation at hand, but the whole forum?  I mean, I've been a member of numerous forums on a wide array of subjects over the years, and on the vast majority of them, mods take action when someone is crapping all over a thread.  The only exceptions are the couple sites where the mods didn't seem to care about the forums.  This doesn't strike me as a place where people don't care, so I'm a little befuddled on why it happens here.  I understand not wanting to censor theists and I agree with that, but mods can warn people for their tactics, and/or inform them they can open a new thread to talk about the off-topic subject. If it continues the thread is usually closed and the OP is free to open a fresh thread.  If the same person comes back and purposely does it again they usually get a temporary ban.  It happens all over the internet with great success, and IMO would improve this site.  No one wants to wade through 30+ posts about x to get back to the original topic.

"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4275
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Who cares about a thread

 Who cares about a thread being hijacked after almost a year of no activity on it? Personally I often find the topic of a hijacking far more interesting than the OP, nor do I really see it as being a problem. Usually hijacking occurs after the initial conversation has run its path or the OP can easily bring it back to topic by being involved. Then again, my mind tends to work in a meandering way wandering from topic to topic anyway. For example, I find this discussion on hijacking threads more interesting than Old Seer's ramblings. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


TonyZXT
atheist
TonyZXT's picture
Posts: 174
Joined: 2007-09-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Who

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Who cares about a thread being hijacked after almost a year of no activity on it? Personally I often find the topic of a hijacking far more interesting than the OP, nor do I really see it as being a problem. Usually hijacking occurs after the initial conversation has run its path or the OP can easily bring it back to topic by being involved. Then again, my mind tends to work in a meandering way wandering from topic to topic anyway. For example, I find this discussion on hijacking threads more interesting than Old Seer's ramblings. 

Personally I find the lint I just pulled out of my belly button more interesting than Old Seer's ramblings, but that's beside the point.  If people are having a conversation, and all a theist that doesn't like that conversation has to do is come along and ramble and steer things off course, then how effective are the forums as a place to talk about atheist issues?  Now if that theist comes and discusses the topic, even if I can't stand their point of view, that's fine.  The age of the thread is really irrelevant, since it's not like a wealth of newer, better topics are coming in to keep it down the order.

"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
U were asked to state your justification, however frustrating:

U were asked to state your justification

jcgadfly wrote:

You insist one is right - state your justification.


 

 A quote from your secondary thread goes as follows:

 

Quote:
the precise wording used by the Alchemist was to: turn 'animal-man into divine being'.
Direct..reply   
Old Seer wrote:
Alchemy: As best I can make of it he's right. 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

.. There's no such possibility of "humananimal"<---that's the problem. I've been here for a year and still---no one understands. Being what people are, and how they see themselves---is the problem .. An/the 'Adamite' is : "the I AM"

 

   You think the board is not understanding you. Perhaps you could eliminate some confusion about this (if you'd think it helps) ?

 

 p.s. -- Definitions are a must. I have run into 3 separate examples of specific words that can be referring to a). a religion and or deity b.) a geographic region c.) a distinct population-- a people, in the last couple of days.