Part of what I've been

Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Part of what I've been

reading.

This is atributable to my input as "Atherists have an affiliation to deal with what us true". And this is why an Anatheist would tie up the supreme court if one were to become a justice (as they are refered to). There's no way an Atheist such as us Old Seers could be on the supremen court----we can't deal with untruths and make up. The whole system is hypocritical and based on assumtions.

 

From the site I'm on.

Since in the old world everything revolved around deities, people without clearly defined deities were atheists, and atheists (we know since Machiavelli) are awful subjects to dupe. The Romans even went so far as to execute people on account of their atheism, "a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned," wrote Cassius Dio (67.14).

This is one point we've been trying to emphasis. Todays Western religions claiming to be Christian are merely Druids. All they did was attach their religion to a book they (still) know little about, and what is considered Christianity ---isn't.

Notice how the Romans found it hard to dupe an atheist, which is a direct understanding that civilized societies are required to be "dupes".

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

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15462
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:reading.This

Old Seer wrote:

reading.

This is atributable to my input as "Atherists have an affiliation to deal with what us true". And this is why an Anatheist would tie up the supreme court if one were to become a justice (as they are refered to). There's no way an Atheist such as us Old Seers could be on the supremen court----we can't deal with untruths and make up. The whole system is hypocritical and based on assumtions.

 

From the site I'm on.

Since in the old world everything revolved around deities, people without clearly defined deities were atheists, and atheists (we know since Machiavelli) are awful subjects to dupe. The Romans even went so far as to execute people on account of their atheism, "a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned," wrote Cassius Dio (67.14).

This is one point we've been trying to emphasis. Todays Western religions claiming to be Christian are merely Druids. All they did was attach their religion to a book they (still) know little about, and what is considered Christianity ---isn't.

Notice how the Romans found it hard to dupe an atheist, which is a direct understanding that civilized societies are required to be "dupes".

 

Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong, but "they were really Druids" doesn't change shit. If you form a club and you have deities and you worship those deities, doesn't matter what they spun off of or the fact you don't like their brand of interpretation. That is the "true Scotsman fallacy".

 

Still amounts to worship of the unproven based on a naked assertion, just like Allah and Vishnu and Thor. Humans make up all god claims.

 

And I also fail to see how having an atheist on the supreme court would hurt. We need a counter balance to the attacks on intrusions of religion on lawmaking, especially attempts on trying to turn science classes into bullshit bible lessons. 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12893
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Brian misuses the no true

^ Brian misuses the no true scotsman fallacy (in more than one way, I might add). lol. The easiest fallacy to understand and apply, and he just can't do it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I can't really comment

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

reading.

This is atributable to my input as "Atherists have an affiliation to deal with what us true". And this is why an Anatheist would tie up the supreme court if one were to become a justice (as they are refered to). There's no way an Atheist such as us Old Seers could be on the supremen court----we can't deal with untruths and make up. The whole system is hypocritical and based on assumtions.

 

From the site I'm on.

Since in the old world everything revolved around deities, people without clearly defined deities were atheists, and atheists (we know since Machiavelli) are awful subjects to dupe. The Romans even went so far as to execute people on account of their atheism, "a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned," wrote Cassius Dio (67.14).

This is one point we've been trying to emphasis. Todays Western religions claiming to be Christian are merely Druids. All they did was attach their religion to a book they (still) know little about, and what is considered Christianity ---isn't.

Notice how the Romans found it hard to dupe an atheist, which is a direct understanding that civilized societies are required to be "dupes".

 

Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong, but "they were really Druids" doesn't change shit. If you form a club and you have deities and you worship those deities, doesn't matter what they spun off of or the fact you don't like their brand of interpretation. That is the "true Scotsman fallacy".

 

Still amounts to worship of the unproven based on a naked assertion, just like Allah and Vishnu and Thor. Humans make up all god claims.

 

And I also fail to see how having an atheist on the supreme court would hurt. We need a counter balance to the attacks on intrusions of religion on lawmaking, especially attempts on trying to turn science classes into bullshit bible lessons. 

very effectivly on your post. You would have to understand our interpretation. At this time it seems you haven't.

Just one thing. An athrist justice would eventually run into problems with the sysyem. The systems in place don't exist on truth anymore then religions do. An
Atheist would be more likely base decisions on fact or science--the rest of the court does not. The constitution is not necessarily based on facts but rather preferences, and in certain instances based on the same superstitions that have come down through the ages. 

Us Old Seers see atheism as a fledgling undertaking at this time and it's unaware of where it's going to lead to. We are very well aware of the total eventual outcome. There are more "untruths" then just --there's no God. There's alot connected to that statement that have yet to be comprehended. An Atheist justice would encounter these anomolies in reasoning. The reason the justices at this time aren't aware of these future problems is becasue they haven't had to deal with the untruths, where-as, an atheist justice would encounter them. They would never be able to sustain the argument and get tied to a post. The systems are hypocritical, and hypocracy has no desision to make. If an Atheist justice is to go by truth and fact---there's very little truth to go on.

 

 

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

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth