Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim. OP/ED

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim. OP/ED

Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim, OP ED.

To those who have rightfully left behind the idea of a disembodied super hero in the clouds, this is for the people who still insist the case must be.

There are multiple levels in which, what is merely in reality our projection of our own desires, in which the people who insist such is the case, that do not logically follow. Scientifically is a no brainer for those who have left all sorts of sky daddy claims who have accepted the reality that this is all there is.

BUT for those who still insist there must be some divine "creator" "inventor" or "cause" who has unlimited power, I have yet to see any credible argument, even outside science and merely on a moral level. Outside the lack of evidence, this is albatross that looms large for any human arguing the divine anywhere around the world in every country.

No one likes to be held back by force. Everyone strives to gain resources and questioning how things work is how we better understand the resources we use, it even tells us long term, how to cooperate with each other or dominate a hurdle in our way. Our delusions often get us stuck in our wishful thinking and predilections and if one looks at human history, no matter one's label today, they can look back at the ancient past to something they don't buy personally and say "I cant believe they bought that".

Now, the common concept of a god is that it is the apex, nothing is higher and it is the final "ref" if you are watering him down, or the final "law maker" whom you cant remove from office. In evolution in every species, there is a drive to be on top. Being on top means more resources, and more opportunity to reproduce. That is science however. I want to deal with the simply moral bankruptcy of any god claim.

"I am being oppressed" is the cry from the Muslim, the Jew and the Christian. It is even a battle between Indians in Cashmere. It is the battle between Buddhists in Tibet vs the Buddhists of the communist party in China.

Why do humans cling to a belief that puts them as the subordinate? For the same reason your mom and dad cant do anything wrong, even if they do lots of things wrong in reality. It is why we side to that we are sold and that which brings us comfort, even if what is sold to us is false. God/god belief works, not because invisible friends are real, but humans like the idea of being protected, like we evolved having our parents protect us.

 

OUTSIDE THAT THOUGH, the worst part of god claims is the moral aspect. Once you set up your god as the apex, it cannot fall. In reality all life falls and all humans die. What makes the god/God concept broken isn't just about the lack of scientific evidence. It is the idea that someone else determines our fate and good or bad, we have no say, and this entity, give it any name you want, owes us no explanation. In reality in the civil west that type of thinking does not fly. Our current election in America has both parties questioning and blaspheming both Romney and Obama. I am quite sure neither wants the other to gain absolute power, and I agree.

So how does one mentally square an unmovable apex power with the way we want to live in reality? How does one worship a a God you cant debate with or impeach or remove from office if it fucks up? If a God cannot make mistakes, then the title "all powerful" is a broken concept. But even beyond that immoral considering the fans of such claims say he is our "all powerful" protector.

Yet there has never been one period in human evolution that has not had violence or war or death, not to mention everyone dies. It seems like tons of drama a dictator wants to merely bring attention to themselves. It does not seem like a compassionate plan. When a child gets murdered, they are with God. If a child gets saved God was watching. But children worldwide die by the millions every year by disease, famine, war and crime. It seems a bit inept or malicious.

Skeptics know the real reason bad things happen, this is not a question for them. This is for anyone who claims Jesus, or Allah or Yahweh or even "Karma".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok, very good

But, can you explain how Atheism will solve the problem.    Smiling


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok, very good

But, can you explain how Atheism will solve the problem.    Smiling


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:But, can you

Old Seer wrote:

But, can you explain how Atheism will solve the problem.    Smiling

What problem? Nature, evolution, and the universe long term dont give one shit about you or I. In 5 billion years there wont be a record of us, and the universe will continue without us.

THERE IS NO MAGIC SUGAR PILL SOLUTION, There is no invisible Jesus or Allah, there is no magic man in a white robe. There is no man in a red leotard re arranging the neurons in your head to get you to do naughty things.

You are born, you live, then you die. You want a magic super hero to solve your problems. No, all we have our brains, and if we use those instead of clinging to bullshit myths, we can find real solutions to real problems. Not my problem if you don't want to face reality.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I somewhat agree

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

But, can you explain how Atheism will solve the problem.    Smiling

What problem? Nature, evolution, and the universe long term dont give one shit about you or I. In 5 billion years there wont be a record of us, and the universe will continue without us.

THERE IS NO MAGIC SUGAR PILL SOLUTION, There is no invisible Jesus or Allah, there is no magic man in a white robe. There is no man in a red leotard re arranging the neurons in your head to get you to do naughty things.

You are born, you live, then you die. You want a magic super hero to solve your problems. No, all we have our brains, and if we use those instead of clinging to bullshit myths, we can find real solutions to real problems. Not my problem if you don't want to face reality.

 

So what you're saying is---we're stuck with what we've got. No, I don't want a magic super hero to solve any problems---I want "us" to solve the problem. The Pope and others are looking for the magic monster. So, from this, as you are saying is--there's no hope. Our future generations are stuck in this tangle until we annihilate ourselves--is that correct?.

You're making a judgment upon me that doesn't apply. There is "no" magic man. Don't judge me by thr Theist label you see attached, I didn't put it there and "it" doesn't apply.

So then, why be sad or worried---let's eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die---right. I can see that, but then, what about our kids?

Atheists still haven't shown a solution to the world problem. What manner of instruction can I be given.    Smiling

 

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:[So what

Old Seer wrote:

[So what you're saying is---we're stuck with what we've got. No, I don't want a magic super hero to solve any problems---I want "us" to solve the problem. The Pope and others are looking for the magic monster. So, from this, as you are saying is--there's no hope. Our future generations are stuck in this tangle until we annihilate ourselves--is that correct?.

You're making a judgment upon me that doesn't apply. There is "no" magic man. Don't judge me by thr Theist label you see attached, I didn't put it there and "it" doesn't apply.

So then, why be sad or worried---let's eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die---right. I can see that, but then, what about our kids?

Atheists still haven't shown a solution to the world problem. What manner of instruction can I be given.    Smiling

 

Not meaning to derail the discussion, interupt, or hijack the thread. But what do you see as the solution, Old Seer ? Is it in your Old Seers Corner thread ? I haven't read all the way through that yet.

Not playing devil's advocate nor am I pretending that my lack of belief in god shall solve all of the world's problems. But do you have an alternative ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:But, can you

Old Seer wrote:

But, can you explain how Atheism will solve the problem.    Smiling

You're a fucking idiot. Obviously if atheism is correct then we need to know that in order to rationally adress the problem. Any problem solving mission starts with accurately assessing the situation. If the reality happens to be that all of existence is a product of idiotic crude forces like natural selection, then obviously that information is at least somewhat relevant to how we handle the problem. No god or any other supremely intelligent being created us so there's no reason to assume that our existence is a great thing.

Old Seer wrote:
So what you're saying is---we're stuck with what we've got. No, I don't want a magic super hero to solve any problems---I want "us" to solve the problem. The Pope and others are looking for the magic monster. So, from this, as you are saying is--there's no hope. Our future generations are stuck in this tangle until we annihilate ourselves--is that correct?.

You're making a judgment upon me that doesn't apply. There is "no" magic man. Don't judge me by thr Theist label you see attached, I didn't put it there and "it" doesn't apply.

So then, why be sad or worried---let's eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die---right. I can see that, but then, what about our kids?

Gee, I dunno, how about not creating kids that have to go thorugh the same fucking gulag you did? I know, too rational, can't compute.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You,ve made a mistake here

Manageri wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

But, can you explain how Atheism will solve the problem.    Smiling

You're a fucking idiot. Obviously if atheism is correct then we need to know that in order to rationally adress the problem. Any problem solving mission starts with accurately assessing the situation. If the reality happens to be that all of existence is a product of idiotic crude forces like natural selection, then obviously that information is at least somewhat relevant to how we handle the problem. No god or any other supremely intelligent being created us so there's no reason to assume that our existence is a great thing.

Old Seer wrote:
So what you're saying is---we're stuck with what we've got. No, I don't want a magic super hero to solve any problems---I want "us" to solve the problem. The Pope and others are looking for the magic monster. So, from this, as you are saying is--there's no hope. Our future generations are stuck in this tangle until we annihilate ourselves--is that correct?.

You're making a judgment upon me that doesn't apply. There is "no" magic man. Don't judge me by thr Theist label you see attached, I didn't put it there and "it" doesn't apply.

So then, why be sad or worried---let's eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die---right. I can see that, but then, what about our kids?

Gee, I dunno, how about not creating kids that have to go thorugh the same fucking gulag you did? I know, too rational, can't compute.

I'm not a Theist, Deist, Atheist, or Christian. You just trapped yourself. We are right, animalism rules the day and is a the problem, you just proved it---try again. The Theist label you see attached to my posts does not apply. I see you are glued into what the problem is. Throw out the animal and you will be like me---a different person. I know you, but you don't know me.

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
And

Your anger and post is not rational. Bear in mind--I reserve the right to be an animal just as well as the next guy. Before you try fixing anything fix yourself first. I don't need any fixing any more. Operating as a rational animal won't cut it.

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
There is already a solution

It's referred to as Humanism. But Humanism and civilization cannot be combined. Civilization operates on the animal premise and creates hypocritical outcome as you see in the world today. To use Humanism in it's exactitude would automatically destroy civilization, which has to be done first before nay solution will be effective. Also, Humanism and animalism cannot be combined as a solution. The animal has to be put aside (not in force). The concept of "human animal" is an impossibility as one is not the other. Only one will do the trick.

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:It's referred

Old Seer wrote:

It's referred to as Humanism. But Humanism and civilization cannot be combined. Civilization operates on the animal premise and creates hypocritical outcome as you see in the world today. To use Humanism in it's exactitude would automatically destroy civilization, which has to be done first before nay solution will be effective. Also, Humanism and animalism cannot be combined as a solution. The animal has to be put aside (not in force). The concept of "human animal" is an impossibility as one is not the other. Only one will do the trick.

Define what you mean about destroying civilization.

Are humans not social and pack species ?

Even if our present day situation were to come to an end, wouldn't it likely be possible that another civilization would arise to take it's place ?

What's that famous line in the song by the Who ? : "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Not that I am in agreement with all of the methods and screwed up things going on in our current society, but I fail to see how ending civilization could solve the problem or why humanism and society can not co-exist.

Call me ignorant I guess.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Excellant.

harleysportster wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

It's referred to as Humanism. But Humanism and civilization cannot be combined. Civilization operates on the animal premise and creates hypocritical outcome as you see in the world today. To use Humanism in it's exactitude would automatically destroy civilization, which has to be done first before nay solution will be effective. Also, Humanism and animalism cannot be combined as a solution. The animal has to be put aside (not in force). The concept of "human animal" is an impossibility as one is not the other. Only one will do the trick.

Define what you mean about destroying civilization.

Are humans not social and pack species ?

Even if our present day situation were to come to an end, wouldn't it likely be possible that another civilization would arise to take it's place ?

What's that famous line in the song by the Who ? : "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Not that I am in agreement with all of the methods and screwed up things going on in our current society, but I fail to see how ending civilization could solve the problem or why humanism and society can not co-exist.

Call me ignorant I guess.

1-Destroying civilization. The solution and civilization cannot exist together, because civilization is the problem. The solution is for all to put away the animal as the main co-existent factors and replace it with the singular human, or humane. The very ideas on which civilization exists are that same factors that cause the problems. The main factor is "superiority" which causes contention for position above others which in turn causes enmity between competitors. The winning competitors are the ones that run things creating a class system of greaters and lessors, and no one is happy with being a lessor. The process never creates mental peace within social entities.. There's always a mental war under way. The solution is humanism which is opposite animalism, but, operating under humanism destroys animalism of which civilization is dependent. Politics cannot exist without animalism and is the same thing. There-fore the more animalistic ones are the ones running the world, and today we can see the result. Animal mentality cannot produce any other result. You are familiar with the idea of--- crazy is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, well, might I point to civilization. There has never been (and can be) a civilization that can work. The same goes for economies and monetary systems.  If humanism and animalism are combined the animal wins, because within the animal is aggression, and the aggression will over-ride and subordinate the human within ones own self continuously create one to be animalistic. Once one is aware of these factors he can override the effects and remain on the human side. And, in doing so creates the self into a different personality and society. In civilization it's the most animalist that win the day and become dominate----promoting the animal as the solution---which in turn cannot work out at the end---as we see happening today. The predators once again won, and are now running things to the detriment of all----world wide.   The results seen today are proof that we are correct.

2- Yes- people (<---Notice I didn't say human) are social entities, but that doesn't make one human alone. Wolves have a human side also, and sociology belongs on the human side. You'll notice the wolves have the same social outcome people do. That is because societies so far equate life from the animal entity just as the wolf. Add intellect and the problem is multiplied. As in the wolf society the animal entity gets the right of way. Civilization exists on this "right of way". Give the human entity the right of ways and ---poooof you have a different world. Politicians and the other elites get the right of way as it is---correct.

3- No- Once civilization is seen as the problem by the masses they have no choice but to get rid of it. It would be loonecy to continue when knowing it cannot solve itself. Humans don't harm each other---animals do. With understanding---once it's gone it won't be allowed back. Once it's removed those who wish to be destructive will do so--to their own removal---referred to as Armageddon. When that begins to happen get away from them. (That's for the future happenings)

4- The new boss---understood.  I have the experience of siting with two waitress friends  back in about 1989. After the grill shut down they were having one for the road home at the bar. They were discussing one,s new boyfriend. They compared the old one with the new such as "same guy different body".   Why izzit that we know that we are not the bod but still can't get it figured out. We say it's because civilization keeps people blind as to what one really is. Without keeping the mind swayed toward the body/material civilization could not exist.

5- There is human society and there is animal society. Humanism and society can exist. It is not necessary for there to be civilization for a society to exist. The wolves aren't civilized but they still have a society. The same with the buffalo and the chicken.  The wolf, buffalo and chicken don't have the intellect to figure out how to be human---we do. People that run societies don't know the difference either. Now somebody does. It's been a while getting here---but it's here.  And this time someone made sure the know-how is going to stay.  Smiling

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:So what you're saying

Quote:
So what you're saying is---we're stuck with what we've got

CONTEXT.

YES AND NO.

YES in the sense that life is finite. Yes in the sense that the planet will die, and the sun, and even atoms decay.

But no, in the sense that when we stop clouding our lives with superstition and whims of personal fancy and fantasy and face reality as it is, while the ride wont go on forever, we can do better by giving up on myth and superstition. I think the world is better off now that we know the earth rotates around the sun and is not flat. I think we are better off knowing the sun is not a god. I think we will also be better off giving up on bullshit claims of virgin births and surviving rigor mortis and claims of 72 virgins in fictional after life's that don't exist.

We are not stuck in our ability to observe and test. And the future is unknown as far as what we can or will discover. But that cannot be done clinging to childish fantasies that are nothing more than political clubs that serve to divide humanity.

What makes you so desperate to need a super hero? Life had it's ups and downs before you were born and will have ups and downs after you die. The universe and life in it are not a product of an inventor, but the manifestation of uncognitive processes and natural conditions. Much like a hurricane does not need an ocean god, or any god to occur.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Civilization operates

Quote:
Civilization operates on the animal premise

BINGO! WE ARE NOT ABOVE NATURE, WE ARE NOT ABOVE EVOLUTION, WE ARE NOT ABOVE DOING EITHER GOOD OR BAD, BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF NATURE!

The sooner you realize that and the sooner you realize how fragile life is and how non magical it is, you will realize how stupid humans usually are in thinking they are special. 5 million people die each year, from everything, disease, famine, crime, car accidents, natural disaster, war, EVERYTHING. And even babies born outnumber the people who die every year. LIFE IS NOT SPECIAL.

This is what we have that you dont, HUMILITY! If every human drove a car that had a hair trigger nuclear bomb on the bumper, most would drive more carefully. Our problem is as a species is that we do think we are special, WE ARE NOT! Evolution was around before both you and I were born, and it will go on even after our species goes extinct.

Of course we operate on the animal level because we are PART of evolution, not above it. Our collective problem is that we did evolve with brains to comprehend this fact, but still act like tribal dumbass children, even now that we know better. So if our brains are supposed to give us an advantage, I'd say sticking to superstition is a dumb fucking way to show it.

So if you want to say we act like children beating each other up in a schoolyard, I AGREE, and if your argument is "it doesn't have to be that way" AGAIN,  I AGREE. But sticking in a mythological super hero invented in an ignorant past FOR all of our species, wont solve shit.

Adults worldwide, if their god is a state, or they worship a god, these are the morons who do not accept that we are not above nature. These are the morons who drive that car with the nuke on the bumper as if in a demolishion derby.

We will compete and kill for resources always. Until we realize that, our cooperation as a species cannot be maximized and our conflict will not be minimized. We are no different than any other species and to think such is absurd and dangerous and puts bullshit utopia fantasy above our collective common existence.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I greatly respect your input

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Civilization operates on the animal premise

BINGO! WE ARE NOT ABOVE NATURE, WE ARE NOT ABOVE EVOLUTION, WE ARE NOT ABOVE DOING EITHER GOOD OR BAD, BECAUSE WE ARE PART OF NATURE!

The sooner you realize that and the sooner you realize how fragile life is and how non magical it is, you will realize how stupid humans usually are in thinking they are special. 5 million people die each year, from everything, disease, famine, crime, car accidents, natural disaster, war, EVERYTHING. And even babies born outnumber the people who die every year. LIFE IS NOT SPECIAL.

This is what we have that you dont, HUMILITY! If every human drove a car that had a hair trigger nuclear bomb on the bumper, most would drive more carefully. Our problem is as a species is that we do think we are special, WE ARE NOT! Evolution was around before both you and I were born, and it will go on even after our species goes extinct.

Of course we operate on the animal level because we are PART of evolution, not above it. Our collective problem is that we did evolve with brains to comprehend this fact, but still act like tribal dumbass children, even now that we know better. So if our brains are supposed to give us an advantage, I'd say sticking to superstition is a dumb fucking way to show it.

So if you want to say we act like children beating each other up in a schoolyard, I AGREE, and if your argument is "it doesn't have to be that way" AGAIN,  I AGREE. But sticking in a mythological super hero invented in an ignorant past FOR all of our species, wont solve shit.

Adults worldwide, if their god is a state, or they worship a god, these are the morons who do not accept that we are not above nature. These are the morons who drive that car with the nuke on the bumper as if in a demolishion derby.

We will compete and kill for resources always. Until we realize that, our cooperation as a species cannot be maximized and our conflict will not be minimized. We are no different than any other species and to think such is absurd and dangerous and puts bullshit utopia fantasy above our collective common existence.

And of course we are products of nature. Everything comes from the big bang--if that turns out to be the way things got here. You're over-looking the "human". It's not all about animal, we have the human side too- right. You're not showing us anything new here. In our group we are scientists too. Evidence is evidence. Atheism has one thing we agree on (among others) and that's the present religious perspective needs to be done away with, and that is our prime goal. But---you can't do it your way. Animal begats animal and is unsolvable---nature doesn't mean or make it to be solved. We merely need to put it away, and it won't be easy. If we want to solve the problem it's "we the people" that have to solve it. we need to walk away from polititians and leaders and let then sulk in their own misery instead of us paying the price for their mental conditions. So far floks are stuck with what's given them and how they are trained from birth. Invoke human concepts and refrain from the animal---it's a choice---and when one understands the choice he/he can become their own person rather then some kind of machine to do the work so the elites can get knocked out of their high towers and do their own work and no longer suck the blood of the masses and put them on a battlefield for their profits and mistakes.

On this team there's no super hero to look to. We're on our own. And we suggest everyone else do the same.

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Gosh Brian

I don't need a super hero, and don't believe in such. You're thinking I'm one of those normal Christians. Not so. You need to seach my posts to understand.    Smiling

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


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I don't need

Old Seer wrote:

I don't need a super hero, and don't believe in such. You're thinking I'm one of those normal Christians. Not so. You need to seach my posts to understand.    Smiling

More "you have to look DEEPER into my POSTS to GET IT". How typical.

You say you are not a theist, but by definition if you believe in one or more gods you are a theist.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If you believe in yourself

then you would also be a Theist. My understanding of God is people (because people are the power in this world, not)?. That makes you a Deity. Belief and religion are the same thing. One's religion is what one believes, and then what is extracted from that is also one,s God/Way. God and Way are one and the same. What one's way is -is what one,s life is directed by. It is nothing more then what one's meaning of life is. There is a Human "way" and there is an animal "way" Once you understand that you must choose. Or, one can say people cannot be a Deity. That's OK with me. I don't need one to exist within a belief. Negativity is blinding. Then- if I believe that people are God would people be a deity. And if so then, anyone believing in people would have a Deity, would they not. What sayeth ye.    Smiling

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
So-

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

I don't need a super hero, and don't believe in such. You're thinking I'm one of those normal Christians. Not so. You need to seach my posts to understand.    Smiling

More "you have to look DEEPER into my POSTS to GET IT". How typical.

You say you are not a theist, but by definition if you believe in one or more gods you are a theist.

You want me to enter everything all over again, is that it. That's a heck of a lot of typing. I don't think I can accommodate that idea. But- I do understand the problem. I tried searching out my posts and that turns out to be a heck of a job. But I still can't retype everything.  Smiling

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I tried

Old Seer wrote:
I tried searching out my posts and that turns out to be a heck of a job. But I still can't retype everything.  Smiling

 

           That's okay.  What's to regret, anyway ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re:: Hopes this helps you Old Seer ::

 

Old Seer wrote:
[That's]  a heck of a lot of typing.

  Old Seer so you arent called upon to that extra chore.  In one post I cant remember when you said, "in this case Israel is God". In another you said emphatically '".. you'll find that the only conclusion one can extract is----people are what it refers to as God. You, me, and everyone else .. "', (quote, unquote).

 

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Old

danatemporary wrote:

 

Old Seer wrote:
[That's]  a heck of a lot of typing.

  Old Seer so you arent called upon to that extra chore.  In one post I cant remember when you said, "in this case Israel is God". In another you said emphatically '".. you'll find that the only conclusion one can extract is----people are what it refers to as God. You, me, and everyone else .. "', (quote, unquote).

 

Quote:

Yes- In one instance that comes to mind is when the Israelites pursued an enemy-- it says, and God pursued the enemy. It was actually the Israeli  army doing the pursuing.

Also in another instance the prophets are referred to as God. But remember, there's no such reference in the Hebrew language as "God". God, is strictly a European application. We found that the Euro application merely refers to a phenomenon not understood, such as lightening or natural happenings. The Euros then apply their term which leads to a massive misunderstanding of the Hebrew mentality. In Hebrew it applies to people and in Euro it applies to anything they don't understand. This is why Galileo and others had such a problem with the religious leaders---it was their way or the highway because they had no explanations or proof of their biblical interpretations. and, That's why I'm having such a problem explaining things here. I keep being mistaken for an English Christian. There's no proper christian religions in operation on the planet at this time. what exists is a Euro version of things. I can see now why everyone is having troubles understanding my posts. I'm trying to change Christianity to Humanism, but our understanding of Humanism isn't quite like the humanist movement but very similar. Actually, I should be reviewing the Humanist stance before I comment to much on their ideas because I may not be as understanding as I should be. I'm going to spend time on it so i don;'t get things mixed up and make wrong quotes. I think they include the term 'human animal", I'm not sure. But the humanists are very close to right as we can see.

Yes---floks are God. (people) the overall total analysis is that people are God. It is we (people) that are doing all the in and output and determinations as to what is what.  after all is said and done it is "us" that are doing the thinking and making all the claims whether it's government, or religious, or personal---it is us. No mater who is making a/the claim it is a person that makes the final idea regardless of whether it be true or false. But you'll notice how it's always a person or a people that make determinations. So---tha makes any God separate of us moot. There's no d Deity that can be responsible for what's going on here. It's people all the way around. so if any is looking for God it can only be found in one's own person and collectively---others. So lets zip back to Nimrod and his cronies. Consider the Hebrews. Their God is an invisible something that cannot be pictured or seen as anything material and they inheirt his idea from previous generations. Nimrod is an Adamite and institutes civilization negating any god that was before him, and he becomes god. That is, he determines what is good and evil. so, while the original good and evil that one encountered in life remains he merely adds his own. It is that way still today.  If you remove central government< (for instance) you will still encounter good and evil, but on a natural setting. When central government is instituted you are designating "people" to decide for you what is good and evil. The problem with that is, they can describe good and evil to their advantage such as the current wall street mess. God is that which has power over ones life. It can be the self or it can be others. And it is also those things we can do nothing about accept to live with the consequences. Be aware, that the mere presence of "being" has consequences. No one of us made it that way---it came with the big band and things after. But what runs civilization is people. If you give power in your life to them----they become God. Sorry about that but---that's life---as they make it---mostly.     Smiling

But, here again I've hijacked another thread, so I should get back to my own. I will post the Schematics over again tomorrow from another thread to make it easier to understand. My Son and oldest Daughter love that one, and they want me to repost it on Old Seers thread. It may be late or the next day--I have to run a friend home tomorrow 150 miles away so I'll be in late.

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


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:then you

Old Seer wrote:

then you would also be a Theist. My understanding of God is people (because people are the power in this world, not)?. That makes you a Deity. Belief and religion are the same thing. One's religion is what one believes, and then what is extracted from that is also one,s God/Way. God and Way are one and the same. What one's way is -is what one,s life is directed by. It is nothing more then what one's meaning of life is. There is a Human "way" and there is an animal "way" Once you understand that you must choose. Or, one can say people cannot be a Deity. That's OK with me. I don't need one to exist within a belief. Negativity is blinding. Then- if I believe that people are God would people be a deity. And if so then, anyone believing in people would have a Deity, would they not. What sayeth ye.    Smiling

No, I would not. Just because you decided to define God as people does not mean I am using that definition, or worship myself.

The common definition of God is the one I am atheistic towards. Your word play here is not convincing in the slightest. I am not omnipotent, omnipresent, or anything like that. I have actual physical evidence that I exist. No faith nessecary thank you very much.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:ThunderJones

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

I don't need a super hero, and don't believe in such. You're thinking I'm one of those normal Christians. Not so. You need to seach my posts to understand.    Smiling

More "you have to look DEEPER into my POSTS to GET IT". How typical.

You say you are not a theist, but by definition if you believe in one or more gods you are a theist.

You want me to enter everything all over again, is that it. That's a heck of a lot of typing. I don't think I can accommodate that idea. But- I do understand the problem. I tried searching out my posts and that turns out to be a heck of a job. But I still can't retype everything.  Smiling

This is just cop-out to avoid explaining yourself, and maintaining your wanna-be enigmatic aura. You can explain your views on an issue, or a specific part of your beliefs without writing out a novel. Everyone else here does this, what makes you special, and why should we not expect you to explain yourself if you want to be taken seriously?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
One more thing.

The writings of John. I'm taking this off the top.

In the beginning (creation) was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

Adam is a personage that was the Adamites. The Adamites were a people. The word is Adam, as Creation is the making of Adam----It says Adam was God. That means---people are God. We're not saying that one need to believe in the book, but this reference is undeniable--- the Hebrew God is "people". However-that is not so today. They are as anyone else on the earth at this time. They lost the knowledge of God. The Euros never had it. It also means that the Apostles understood people to be God.   Be bek Friday.

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:...and

ThunderJones wrote:
...and why should we not expect you to explain yourself if you want to be taken seriously?

 

  Because it's much easier to remain a moving target ?   ...because to bring his mysterious beliefs under close scrutiny would cause them to collapse ?   You know, the same old bull shit.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
...because to bring his mysterious beliefs under close scrutiny would cause them to collapse ?
 


What he said (Old Seer) seemed quite plausible to me, for society to evolve each individual would have to evolve and in that sense we are god it’s up to us.


How can society be anything else other than what each individual is en masse. We get the society we deserve and it can’t be any other way. 
 

People don’t want to distance themselves from society because it entails enduring loneliness and ostracism. 
 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote: .....for

Mr C O Jones wrote:
.....for society to evolve each individual would have to evolve and in that sense we are god it’s up to us.

 

  Looks to me that a huge swath of these "gods" spend most of their time and energy trying to destroy each other simply because it's their nature to do so.


 

Mr C O Jones wrote:
How can society be anything else than what each individual is en masse. We get the society we deserve and it can’t be any other way. 

 

         I agree.
 

Mr C O Jones wrote:
People don’t want to distance themselves from society...

 

               I'm not like those people.

 

Mr O C Jones wrote:
....because it entails enduring loneliness and ostracism. 
 

 

             Oh, I much prefer solitude.  Generally speaking, the company of other humans is something I absolutely detest.

 

                                         (  "Hell is other people" Jean Paul Sartre, 1905-1980 )

     

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote:How can

Mr C O Jones wrote:
How can society be anything else other than what each individual is en masse. We get the society we deserve and it can’t be any other way. 
 
ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I agree.


Exactly.  Anything else is just reform it’s got to be deeper than that, real change starts at grass roots level.


 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones

Mr C O Jones wrote:


Exactly.  Anything else is just reform it’s got to be deeper than that, real change starts at grass roots level.

 

And what sort of changes would you like to see take place ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The writings

Old Seer wrote:

The writings of John. I'm taking this off the top.

In the beginning (creation) was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

Adam is a personage that was the Adamites. The Adamites were a people. The word is Adam, as Creation is the making of Adam----It says Adam was God. That means---people are God. We're not saying that one need to believe in the book, but this reference is undeniable--- the Hebrew God is "people". However-that is not so today. They are as anyone else on the earth at this time. They lost the knowledge of God. The Euros never had it. It also means that the Apostles understood people to be God.   Be bek Friday.

You going to back that up with the actual information (quotes?) you draw these conclusions from or are you just going to make assertions and vaguely sidestep questions as usual?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I don't need

Old Seer wrote:

I don't need a super hero, and don't believe in such. You're thinking I'm one of those normal Christians. Not so. You need to seach my posts to understand.    Smiling

Don't jerk me around. There is a reason you have "theist" under your name. If you believe in any god by any name you believe in a disembodied cognition, I could care less what the fuck you want to call it or what sect of whatever religion you want to call it. It is still a belief that a thinking being can exist without a body or brain that is non material. You are in the same boat as any Jew or Muslim or any Christian of any sect. You are in the same boat as Sikhs and Hindus. Superstition is superstition and there never was any such thing as a disembodied cognition.

"I am not like the others"

YES YOU ARE, you have the same amount of evidence for your pet deity as any other human has now or has had in our species history, which is exactly ZIP ZERO ZILTCH!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:And

harleysportster wrote:
And what sort of changes would you like to see take place ?


I’m an atheist brought up by two atheists who never had time for the Good Book.

I don’t believe in change in the sense you are implying and my philosophy will fit onto a postage stamp. 

Other than the law we should steer away from as much dogma as possible, read as much as you like but the philosophy you adopt for yourself should be one that generates as little insecurity and negative emotion as possible.  In other words keep it simple.

 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones

Mr C O Jones wrote:

harleysportster wrote:
And what sort of changes would you like to see take place ?


I’m an atheist brought up by two atheists who never had time for the Good Book.

I don’t believe in change in the sense you are implying and my philosophy will fit onto a postage stamp. 

Other than the law we should steer away from as much dogma as possible, read as much as you like but the philosophy you adopt for yourself should be one that generates as little insecurity and negative emotion as possible.  In other words keep it simple.

 

There was no implication only a question. As for your philosophy, I am in agreement with you.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote:the

Mr C O Jones wrote:
the philosophy you adopt for yourself should be one that generates as little insecurity and negative emotion as possible.

 

Right, so the baby fucker should adopt a philosophy where rape is ok so he can feel all fuzzy. If your aim isn't to find a phisosophy that's actually got something to do with reality then you're a waste of intelligence.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 says the person whose

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

Says the person without the balls to debate the subject.


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Right, so the

Manageri wrote:
Right, so the baby fucker should adopt a philosophy where rape is ok so he can feel all fuzzy. If your aim isn't to find a phisosophy that's actually got something to do with reality then you're a waste of intelligence.


And you expect a baby fucker to have a philosophy that has something to do with intelligence?  In the moral universe of a baby fucker rape is ok and makes him feel good so why would he stop doing it?  If he had some idea of an objective morality he wouldn’t be a baby fucker.  As we all live in our own subjective realities of course it’s ok for him to make himself feel good by fucking babies, which is why he’s beyond redemption and should be executed.  This argument is guaranteed 100% watertight.
 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Manageri

Manageri wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 says the person whose philosophy promotes the removal all sentient life from earth.... 

Says the person without the balls to debate the subject.

Oh that reminds me, I've gotta reply to your last post. I'll get to that soon, I promise!

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Mr C O Jones wrote:Manageri

Mr C O Jones wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Right, so the baby fucker should adopt a philosophy where rape is ok so he can feel all fuzzy. If your aim isn't to find a phisosophy that's actually got something to do with reality then you're a waste of intelligence.


And you expect a baby fucker to have a philosophy that has something to do with intelligence?  In the moral universe of a baby fucker rape is ok and makes him feel good so why would he stop doing it?

So every immoral person is incapable of figuring out he's doing something wrong? If I get drunk and rape someone then it's not possible for me to feel guilty afterwards, the mere fact that I did it means I can't possibly have any philosophical objection to my own behaviour?

The only way that could work is if I was such an asshole that I could make myself believe only my needs have value and everyone else is there just to be used. Are you saying this is an ideal philosophy that we should all strive for?

Quote:
If he had some idea of an objective morality he wouldn’t be a baby fucker.  As we all live in our own subjective realities of course it’s ok for him to make himself feel good by fucking babies, which is why he’s beyond redemption and should be executed.  This argument is guaranteed 100% watertight.

By this logic the people executing the baby fucker because they think he's an asshole are no more correct than a bunch of baby fuckers executing a non-baby fucker because they think not fucking babies is somehow an asshole thing to do. You really think those two factions have equally meritorious ethical justification for their actions?


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry (maybe)

Manageri wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

But, can you explain how Atheism will solve the problem.    Smiling

You're a fucking idiot. Obviously if atheism is correct then we need to know that in order to rationally adress the problem. Any problem solving mission starts with accurately assessing the situation. If the reality happens to be that all of existence is a product of idiotic crude forces like natural selection, then obviously that information is at least somewhat relevant to how we handle the problem. No god or any other supremely intelligent being created us so there's no reason to assume that our existence is a great thing.

Old Seer wrote:
So what you're saying is---we're stuck with what we've got. No, I don't want a magic super hero to solve any problems---I want "us" to solve the problem. The Pope and others are looking for the magic monster. So, from this, as you are saying is--there's no hope. Our future generations are stuck in this tangle until we annihilate ourselves--is that correct?.

You're making a judgment upon me that doesn't apply. There is "no" magic man. Don't judge me by thr Theist label you see attached, I didn't put it there and "it" doesn't apply.

So then, why be sad or worried---let's eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die---right. I can see that, but then, what about our kids?

Gee, I dunno, how about not creating kids that have to go thorugh the same fucking gulag you did? I know, too rational, can't compute.

I'm won't respond to animalistic postings. You know the difference>

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That was

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The writings of John. I'm taking this off the top.

In the beginning (creation) was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

Adam is a personage that was the Adamites. The Adamites were a people. The word is Adam, as Creation is the making of Adam----It says Adam was God. That means---people are God. We're not saying that one need to believe in the book, but this reference is undeniable--- the Hebrew God is "people". However-that is not so today. They are as anyone else on the earth at this time. They lost the knowledge of God. The Euros never had it. It also means that the Apostles understood people to be God.   Be bek Friday.

You going to back that up with the actual information (quotes?) you draw these conclusions from or are you just going to make assertions and vaguely sidestep questions as usual?

Actual information. I won't respond to your posts any further until I encounter you as a proper human being. Have fun making fun.

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:You really

Manageri wrote:
You really think those two factions have equally meritorious ethical justification for their actions?

 

     I represent a third faction that advocates the destruction of all factions. 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Actual

Old Seer wrote:

Actual information. I won't respond to your posts any further until I encounter you as a proper human being. Have fun making fun.

 

  Have fun remaining behind a smoke screen of lame excuses.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You're making a

Manageri wrote:

Mr C O Jones wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Right, so the baby fucker should adopt a philosophy where rape is ok so he can feel all fuzzy. If your aim isn't to find a phisosophy that's actually got something to do with reality then you're a waste of intelligence.


And you expect a baby fucker to have a philosophy that has something to do with intelligence?  In the moral universe of a baby fucker rape is ok and makes him feel good so why would he stop doing it?

So every immoral person is incapable of figuring out he's doing something wrong? If I get drunk and rape someone then it's not possible for me to feel guilty afterwards, the mere fact that I did it means I can't possibly have any philosophical objection to my own behaviour?

The only way that could work is if I was such an asshole that I could make myself believe only my needs have value and everyone else is there just to be used. Are you saying this is an ideal philosophy that we should all strive for?

Quote:
If he had some idea of an objective morality he wouldn’t be a baby fucker.  As we all live in our own subjective realities of course it’s ok for him to make himself feel good by fucking babies, which is why he’s beyond redemption and should be executed.  This argument is guaranteed 100% watertight.

By this logic the people executing the baby fucker because they think he's an asshole are no more correct than a bunch of baby fuckers executing a non-baby fucker because they think not fucking babies is somehow an asshole thing to do. You really think those two factions have equally meritorious ethical justification for their actions?

bad name/reputation for other Atheists. I find Atheists can be human just like me. I won't respond to any of you're posts until I recognize a human presence.

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You're making a

Manageri wrote:

Mr C O Jones wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Right, so the baby fucker should adopt a philosophy where rape is ok so he can feel all fuzzy. If your aim isn't to find a phisosophy that's actually got something to do with reality then you're a waste of intelligence.


And you expect a baby fucker to have a philosophy that has something to do with intelligence?  In the moral universe of a baby fucker rape is ok and makes him feel good so why would he stop doing it?

So every immoral person is incapable of figuring out he's doing something wrong? If I get drunk and rape someone then it's not possible for me to feel guilty afterwards, the mere fact that I did it means I can't possibly have any philosophical objection to my own behaviour?

The only way that could work is if I was such an asshole that I could make myself believe only my needs have value and everyone else is there just to be used. Are you saying this is an ideal philosophy that we should all strive for?

Quote:
If he had some idea of an objective morality he wouldn’t be a baby fucker.  As we all live in our own subjective realities of course it’s ok for him to make himself feel good by fucking babies, which is why he’s beyond redemption and should be executed.  This argument is guaranteed 100% watertight.

By this logic the people executing the baby fucker because they think he's an asshole are no more correct than a bunch of baby fuckers executing a non-baby fucker because they think not fucking babies is somehow an asshole thing to do. You really think those two factions have equally meritorious ethical justification for their actions?

bad name/reputation for other Atheists. I find Atheists can be human just like me. I won't respond to any of you're posts until I recognize a human presence.

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:....I won't

Old Seer wrote:
....I won't respond to any of you're posts until I recognize a human presence.

 

  As you are committing to a self-imposed communication blackout it would make sense for you to simply become a lurker on this forum and refrain from further interaction.  Your presence here is becoming redundant.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:ThunderJones

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

The writings of John. I'm taking this off the top.

In the beginning (creation) was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

Adam is a personage that was the Adamites. The Adamites were a people. The word is Adam, as Creation is the making of Adam----It says Adam was God. That means---people are God. We're not saying that one need to believe in the book, but this reference is undeniable--- the Hebrew God is "people". However-that is not so today. They are as anyone else on the earth at this time. They lost the knowledge of God. The Euros never had it. It also means that the Apostles understood people to be God.   Be bek Friday.

You going to back that up with the actual information (quotes?) you draw these conclusions from or are you just going to make assertions and vaguely sidestep questions as usual?

Actual information. I won't respond to your posts any further until I encounter you as a proper human being. Have fun making fun.

Excuses, excuses.

Mocking your intellectually vapid and asinine posts which never have any real substance is not me being an improper human being.

Why don't you actually post that 'actual information'. No, I don't mean post four paragraphs of rambling smokescreen. Actual hard evidence, quotes, something!

Too bad you won't, because it (your evidence for your beliefs) doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
On becoming a human being . . . .

ThunderJones wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

 

You going to back that up with the actual information (quotes?) you draw these conclusions from or are you just going to make assertions and vaguely sidestep questions as usual?

Actual information. I won't respond to your posts any further until I encounter you as a proper human being. Have fun making fun.

Excuses, excuses.

Mocking your intellectually vapid and asinine posts which never have any real substance is not me being an improper human being.

Why don't you actually post that 'actual information'. No, I don't mean post four paragraphs of rambling smokescreen.

 

  Old Seer,  As any neutral party would observe, people are having a very difficult time following what you are saying.

 With your permission I will cut and paste part of what you said in another part of the forum, in hopes of a grasping of its' meaning. I assume you dont mind and it will help you out as I indicated already. Though I may be making a mistake, I wouldnt draw any conclusions from this but that this well may afford you an opportunity, I'd take it.

  Old Seer Shared ..

Old Seer wrote:
.. The only intelligent God would be us. .. There must be a brain first for a person to form within. Once the person is formed then Poooof- there's God. To begin with this particular person need not be very intelligent or originally have any intelligence at all.  We think intelligence forms long after the brain is formed and the brain is the means to allow intelligence to develop. This is a speculation of course, but seems a logical process. But- we don't see intelligence as a human thing, it merely is a means to understand what a human thing is. [Smurfdom] We say intelligence is a neutral that can be used to figure out something/anything.

 But there again, what we referring to is God as "us". But, Gad can also be construed to mean the forces that create regardless of what or means or process may be. but in this case God can be understood to be the natural forces that create material. But the description is moot because it is of no human value because we cannot use such a description of God because it is fixed and cannot be changed.. We can't change material (except by miracle if that's possible) but we can change ourselves/mentality.

God is the creator of being. Ok what this means is there is/was some means that a being/person was created in the brain. What that process or or ability is can be construed as God the creator.  But to us that power or process is unknown. Maybe we are merely a product of the brain and it's the functions of the brain itself that creates or allows one to exist. "person" could be a natural outcome of the brain.. We are created in both the animal and the human, but it is the Christian/Adamite God/way that creates the human. What that means is that Christianity/Adam is the one side of ones creation that human is attributed to. The other side is what is referred to as Satan or animal. But there is a slight difference between Satan and a Lion. A Lion is natural and cannot control if it be a Lion or not. Satan is a liar that says "I'm Human" when not (wolf in sheep's clothing), --a purposeful deception which takes one to be intelligent to understand to be a purposeful deceiver

..The Christian God/Way then is then Creator of "human" being. I need to add human here because JC represents the one side (singular) of one's/everyone's being. Everyone has it.

 

 ~ Dana

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not interested

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:
...and why should we not expect you to explain yourself if you want to be taken seriously?

 

  Because it's much easier to remain a moving target ?   ...because to bring his mysterious beliefs under close scrutiny would cause them to collapse ?   You know, the same old bull shit.

in explaining myself. I'm forwarding an interpretation of the Bible. Why does this need any explaining of me. I'm not asking anyone to explain their self. How would any explanation of yourself help the situation any more then an explanation of myself. You don't know anything about me---how do you make all these assumptions. I'm not a Christian, why makes you think I am. Interpreting the book doesn't make a Christian. You're diving off the high board with no water in the pool. It's not a matter of "who" says what, it's a matter of "what" is said as to whether it is true or not. I'm not in the "who's who" idea. Judge what's said---not the who. Why is it my fault if someone can't analyze simple statements.  If one doesn't care for these interpretations so be it. I don't care. These interpretations are for those interested. If the book doesn't interest you---let it be. If I interpret the book to mean people are God and if you disagree---so disagree. I posted examples of how the book refers to people as God in accordance with someone asking. What's the problem.

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer Hello Again

   You need to take a break and stop and acknowledge why frustrations are mounting instead of this responding that you are doing. There is a time and a season for nearly everything, this is not the time for that conversation. I bothered to cut and paste this as a way for you to clarify and cut some of the frustrations people are feeling by addressing some key points. I noticed you did seem to reply to me with no trouble so  reply to what "I" cut and paste. Do you now understand why I did this in the first place for you ?