All religions are false.

Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
All religions are false.

There's no way out of it, they have to be. This post will resonably show it has to be so. The idea is-get them to realize it.

To accomplish this feat via super intellect I will use the interpretation of "The Old Seers. (OK now you can dismiss the "super Intellect part )

We find - Christianty (messiahism) is not a religion, it is an understanding of one's own self. It is a recognition of a person's charcteristics of which "all" people have by the nature of "being", with love (a prime mover)on one side,  and hate (a prime mover) on the other.  Bear in mind, I am referring to the basics under which we all relate to one another. Love and carring, hate and contempt, is the two basics our relationships are based upon. One of these sets of characteristics is ChristianityHumanism and the other is not.  (Bear with me, I'm just setting the basis for other info)

Hypothetically speaking, (because there are those who doubt our info) lets say that we are correct. If Chritianity is strictly an understanding of the self, then what good would it be to consider it a religion, unless one makes a religion of himself, herself, their self, itself, otherself-insert here. Wouldn't this then negate any super human inventer of the material universe, becasue he, she , it, is not needed. With proper information of the self (basically psychiatry) one can then reason their relations with others on their own using the two standards mentioned. If one can condition the self according to these two standards what need is there for a religion, and/or a religious clergy. If there is a super human guy running things ---then giving us intellect causes us to eliminate any need for him---becasue we can think, understand the self, and decide which side opne cares to be on. If one chooses the human side (be aware, we have a different understanding of human then the world has) that would make a "good person". That would mean that the super human eliminated hisself out of the works. According to conventional religious reasoning, the effects should be, a person accomplishing this feat would no longer need the super guy. Logic dictates then, that it would only be the bad guys that need the super guy. Logic also dictates that there can't be a super guy because one can make this decision on their own. Logic also dictates that if one can make this decision (which is the basis of religion to begin with) then there can't be any such person as "the super guy", becasue he eliminated hisself form the works.

Proper information eliminates the superguy, did you notice that. The religions cannot solve the world problems because they have the wrong understanding of "human". (that's acccording to us). If they don't have the proper understanding of 'Human" then they don't have the proper understanding of Christianity. The object of religion is to control people until such time as the super guy tells someone how we can live in peace here, right. OK, enter-the Old Seers. We say that in essence, if you all want to live in peace you have to change the mental presence you're under. That comes out in  understanding the the mental presence one is in and it's opposites. Logic dictates ( back to logic again) that if mental presence amounts to a specific set of personal charateristics, and those charateristics are understood then one can willfully make the change. If that mental change brings peace to the peoples then there is no super guy. If we. the old Seers are correct we can surely say that we did not consult with any super guy anywhere or from anywhere. And, if our info brings peace to the world then all other religion have to be false, would this not be the case. The Old Seers do not belong to any religion of any making, and not about to start any either,  therefore we know there is no super guy operating in the universe. We can plainly see we exist on our own. If one is an independent thinker, that eliminates a need for a super guy, right. No one needs a super guy to be a good guy. All one needs is the right infor.

Case in point. Whilst watching a debate between a Mr Dawkins and a clergyman I noticed--Mr Dawkins said that he can be a good guy without Christina pricipals, or something to that effect. Well no he can't, becasue the very principals he needs to be a good guy "are" Christian pricipals. I'm not attempting to be negatively critical of Mr Dawkins--there is another point to look at here. (Mr Dawkins can be a good guy becasue he can natually be so if he chooses) The debate is on youtube if you are interested. I would not expect Dawkins to undertstand  what Christian principals are because he doesn't claim the be Christian. However, lets look at the other guy, the clergyman. You'll notice he didn't point out to Mr Dawkins that what he needs is Christian/human principals to be a good guy. Why, becasue the clergyman doesn't understand Christian principals from Adam either, and they're the same thing. If the Clergyman could not point out these facts to Mr Dawkins then he can't possibly be Christian. Had the clergyman pointed out this fact Dawkins would have lost the debate hands down, right then and there. What we can determine is, Dawkins can be a good guy without any help from a super guy. So can everyione else.

So, Why this post.

I've been going over the Cathoilic interpretation of things and noticed the saying---"The Vatican infallibally says/states/dictates, this that and the other, and over and over the infalibility factor is stressed. Hog pucky. They are not infallibale. If us Old Seers can point out what you need to live in peace here and they can't, they aren't infallable, and I can damn well tell you we aren't either. I cannot even imagine someone being infallable. It brought to mind the extent that people are duped by authorities of all types. Those in authority don't realize the extent they have been duped by past generations.

Our interpretaion of Creation stands correct. It is the key to understanding the book in a different context. If anyone wishing to disbeleive that it's ok with us, make up your own mind.

However--the main point is, there are now two different basics of interpretaion of creation that are now existing. One goes in it's direction and one in the other. Our is spiritual/personal based and their is material/superfical based. If they are acting on their idea of God and it be true then they should have seen both, they didn't. That means they cannot possibly be infallable, if so, they would have seen it, or it would have been given them as false by their super #1. In all the centuries past they have had no clue to another interpretational basis. There fore they have to be false. That means there cannot possibly be a super human anyone anywhere in the universe. We know, that if/when they challenge this recent interpretaion the more they will learn and the more silent they will become. If we can't challange it no one can either, other then just not accepting it and bypass it.They'll know without a doubt that they are wrong. The Old Seers know that no religion and no person can infallibale.  From then on it's all up to "you". It's coming time to count sheep. Smiling

For re-emphasis sake--The universe contains only two things, material, and spiritual/mental. It can be understood that the mental  consist of material patterns, and may be material but that isn't known as yet, and if so, the universe then, contains only material. That's quite alright with us, we don't care.

Considering (if it turns out to be true) that the universe contains only material and spiritual, that leaves only two basic premisis for interpreting anything. That means that biblical creation can be only interpreted leaving one to be correct and the other false. If, Creation is a spiritual undertaking (we say it is) then religions have to be bogus, and there's no way around that, they should have known that and being they didn't would mean that the super guy in the sky --isn't. The very fact of Human/Christianioty shows clearly that there is no superhuman anyone. Anyone understanding the "self" can be a good guy if they elect to be.

So, what's the problem on planet earth. Well, from what we see the world is opersting on bad guy principals not good guy pricipals. Who'd a thunk it. Thjis is another insight that religions are bogus, they can't fix something if they don't know what wrong with it. It turns out that "they" are also the bad guys helping run to this scharade. Ahhh yes, God indeed does work in mysterious ways.  It's all about people.

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: 15473
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 That wha simply another

 That wha simply another spin on the same old arguments. I agree, all religions are bogus becuase there are no god/s, there are simply humans that create gods and religion for their  own sense of false comfort.

"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: 12909
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian, as usual, adds

Brian, as usual, adds nothing to the conversation.
I particularly like his foolish claim that comfort can somehow be false. lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
etically speaking,

etically speaking, christianity is absolutely a religion because it offers a permanent solution to a fundamental existential/ontological problem. whether or not that solution is efficacious is an emic question.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
OK OK

I have to get to an online dictionary to understand what the deuce you're getting at. English please. Smiling

For claification of item in the OP. Concerning -all religions are false. Well, all of you know that, but what this is about is---- it can be proven to religions, or religious peoples. Atheistism thus far has said they're fales, but where's the proof. Now we have that, and there's no way out for them.

So, we entered the era of two biblical interpretaions, each contradicting the other. Not ever in history has this been done.

Which specific Christianity are you referring to, theirs or our. There can only be one. Thats the same as saying --one is a false person. Is the person of their Christianity true or false. Their truth is based on a superhuman someone. Ours is based on people. Ours leads to understanding one's own self, and that's the essense of Christianity, a remake of one's self via specific information of one's self, or, person.

They say their knowledge is by "Devine Revelation".

Our is---we figured it out

Which do you prefer?

As presented in the OP, Christianity is nothing more then the knowledge of the self. If I don't believe in myself is it a religion, or, am I myself the religion. As best we know religion hinges on belief, so, no belief no religion. Now, that's according to us, and we may be dead wrong. At a future time (we know) it will be the masses that will determine all truth and all falsehoods. Knowing that is why we listen to and confer with "people".

A large poart of our biblical interpretaion was brought about by confering with people outside the group. We cannot take all the credit.

To repeat- If our interpretaion is correct (we leave it to others for the final decision) then the superhuman spy in the sky cannot possibly exist, and proves that someone in the past (ancient times preferably) conjured it up from total ignorance of natural law.

If, in being correct I can assure all that we did not arrive at this interpretaion by devine revelation or any other super means. It was found by hard study and group application of known factors and factors found from study. There was originally no intent by any of The old Seers to interpret the book for any cause. It was completely inadvertent up to a point of realization that we were on to something,---and them it became a study as a matter of curiosity. We can find NO superhuman connection in the works anywhere at anytime. Therefore then- considering that no such being was needed to find this interpretaion, and being that it was found by common ordinary people, proves without a doubt that there is no such super human existing in the universe, people are--along with everything else.

The first job any doubter has is to prove us wrong, which we predict will be impossible. If anyone finding it correct  takes on the job of handing it off to someone else like we are handing it off to you. Anything one needs to know can be found on this site, or the site posted in my signature section below.

Now, I have another job given to me by Iwbiek to figure out what he's saying by all the high kaflootin wordings. I hope next time he posts something he'll lower his IQ a tad so I can understand him. So, off to an online dictionary. ( I hope he wasn't swearing at me. Smiling

 

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i'm sorry, but "emic" and

i'm sorry, but "emic" and "etic" are the appropriate terms for what i want to communicate. we use them in the social sciences all the time, and religious studies is a social science. i see no reason to use a "layman's term," which would only cloud my meaning. if you're not familiar with the terms, google is your friend. no shame in it (i wasn't born understanding this terminology either).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No problemo

iwbiek wrote:
i'm sorry, but "emic" and "etic" are the appropriate terms for what i want to communicate. we use them in the social sciences all the time, and religious studies is a social science. i see no reason to use a "layman's term," which would only cloud my meaning. if you're not familiar with the terms, google is your friend. no shame in it (i wasn't born understanding this terminology either).

I looked it all up and I'd say you're right--I think. If I hang around here long enough I'll be well educated.

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
No problemo

iwbiek wrote:
i'm sorry, but "emic" and "etic" are the appropriate terms for what i want to communicate. we use them in the social sciences all the time, and religious studies is a social science. i see no reason to use a "layman's term," which would only cloud my meaning. if you're not familiar with the terms, google is your friend. no shame in it (i wasn't born understanding this terminology either).

I looked it all up and I'd say you're right--I think. If I hang around here long enough I'll be well educated.

Knowledge is a deadly desease in the body of ignorance.

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Be aware

Religions may claim we Old Seers have been inspired by the Devil. OK, if that were true then the Devil is the only leader on the planet that's being truthful.

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: 15473
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Religions may

Old Seer wrote:

Religions may claim we Old Seers have been inspired by the Devil. OK, if that were true then the Devil is the only leader on the planet that's being truthful.

Bla bla bla, even Asians and Japan have their histories of making claims of "evil spirits", and I could give a crap less if you want to call it "Devil" or "Satan" or "evil spirit" it is all made up crap. You might as well be arguing for the existence of Yoda and Darth Vader. 

There is no cosmic sky wizard vs a super natural ground villian. There are merely superstitious human beings. 

"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: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Apparently

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Religions may claim we Old Seers have been inspired by the Devil. OK, if that were true then the Devil is the only leader on the planet that's being truthful.

Bla bla bla, even Asians and Japan have their histories of making claims of "evil spirits", and I could give a crap less if you want to call it "Devil" or "Satan" or "evil spirit" it is all made up crap. You might as well be arguing for the existence of Yoda and Darth Vader. 

There is no cosmic sky wizard vs a super natural ground villian. There are merely superstitious human beings. 

You didn't read the OP.

OR, go here.

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

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
What you're not

Old Seer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Religions may claim we Old Seers have been inspired by the Devil. OK, if that were true then the Devil is the only leader on the planet that's being truthful.

Bla bla bla, even Asians and Japan have their histories of making claims of "evil spirits", and I could give a crap less if you want to call it "Devil" or "Satan" or "evil spirit" it is all made up crap. You might as well be arguing for the existence of Yoda and Darth Vader. 

There is no cosmic sky wizard vs a super natural ground villian. There are merely superstitious human beings. 

You didn't read the OP.

OR, go here.

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

not understanding 'Brian, is there are two specifically different interpretations of the book existing at this time, which wasn't previous to the early 1990s. Only one can be true. The recent proper/true Christianity does not rely on, or have, a super human entity operating the universe. The recen interpretaion does not find any such entity in the book. True Christianity depengs soley on one's understadnigfn of one's own self, which is "self control" rather then beign controlled by othere, such as, religions and/or govenments. A Christian is one who has elected to be under control of the natural self by understand ing the characteristics that one in in posession of, and that make up one's person. A Christian is a natural person rather then being made by the mandates of authorities and religions into what "they" determine one is to be.

 There are two specific sets of characteristics that all are made up of by nature itself, the anaimal and the human characteristics. Onlr the Humane characterisrins "are" Christianity. Anyone can be a humane entity if they elect to be once they understand the pricipals of their person. It's simple psyciatry. Proper Chriatianity can only be if one is an "Atheist", whereunder one puts the self under control of the self instead of relying on outsiders to deem what a person is. Christianity in it's proper form requires "Feethought" and no being a puppet to others. If you go back to my some of my previous posts you'll find I point this out in several ways. I stated plainly, that if the world is to ever be at peace all peoples will have to take a walk through Atheisim "first". A Christan is one controlled from the interior rather then the exterior. There's nothing in being properly human that requires any control from any one else, be it other entities or group of entities, or any non-existing superhuman (magic sky guy) anyone anywhere. Any Atheist can be a Christian. The "humanist" movement has been trying it for as long as they have existed----they just don't recognise it as Christianity. Consideringn there is only two possible interpretsaons of the book,  "one" is what thy're looking for. They're main problem is--they don't understand that human  pricipals cannot be combined with civilization. Civilizations depend on the animal mind, the two (human and animal) do not go together as they are opposits.

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Only one can

Old Seer wrote:
Only one can be true.



that's a logical fallacy big enough to throw a cat through...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Are you saying

iwbiek wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
Only one can be true.

that's a logical fallacy big enough to throw a cat through...

The humanity you posses is not true. Christianity =  ones humanity toward others, and also on a personal level. Can you go against that, if so, you're proposong to be inhuman. One cannot be anything other then, Humane, inhumane, or neutral. The "humane" is what makes one human, the inhumane makes one animalistic.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12909
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Subjective malarky.

Subjective malarky.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That can be sed

Vastet wrote:
Subjective malarky.

only "after " you've studied what we present. Did you go the the website and take an appreciable amount of time for understanding. If not, you can make no proper determination.

Q- Is biblical creation the creation of the material universe, or it it spiritual/mental. To the apostles it was something spiritual/mental, to religions it's material creation. Only one can be true.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12909
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"only "after " you've

"only "after " you've studied what we present."

I don't have to study squat. I've already had this discussion with you. I won.

"One cannot be anything other then, Humane, inhumane, or neutral. The "humane" is what makes one human, the inhumane makes one animalistic."

You make a significant number of errors here. In no particular order:

You assume ethics are objective, when they aren't.
You create a false trichotomy which doesn't even contain real, rational descriptions.
You presuppose a difference between animals and humans, and there isn't one, Humans are animals.
I could probably go on but I have no interest in doing so at this time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
go

Vastet wrote:
"only "after " you've studied what we present." I don't have to study squat. I've already had this discussion with you. I won. "One cannot be anything other then, Humane, inhumane, or neutral. The "humane" is what makes one human, the inhumane makes one animalistic." You make a significant number of errors here. In no particular order: You assume ethics are objective, when they aren't. You create a false trichotomy which doesn't even contain real, rational descriptions. You presuppose a difference between animals and humans, and there isn't one, Humans are animals. I could probably go on but I have no interest in doing so at this time.

to the website.

"Is", biblical creation a material happening, or a mental happening? If it's mental then religions are false. Why didn't they know? Only one can be true, not both. The Psycho Smurfs say it's mental. It's the contents of person, any and everyone's person.  Smiling

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12909
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Biblical creation is a

Biblical creation is a story. It never happened. It cannot have happened. Not as written.

There is no distinction between material and mental. Tens of thousands of studies have proved this. We are now at the point of being able to watch someone think, and predict what they are thinking about to an accuracy above 90%. The long held theistic notion that you are a reflection of some bullshit spiritual mumbo jumbo has been thoroughly discredited. You are a 100% material being.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
If you're

Vastet wrote:
Biblical creation is a story. It never happened. It cannot have happened. Not as written. There is no distinction between material and mental. Tens of thousands of studies have proved this. We are now at the point of being able to watch someone think, and predict what they are thinking about to an accuracy above 90%. The long held theistic notion that you are a reflection of some bullshit spiritual mumbo jumbo has been thoroughly discredited. You are a 100% material being.

taking my posts as an attack, be assured there has been no intent on my part to do so. Smiling

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


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Simple situation-

You're walking down the street encountering a person with his dog coming your way. This is a guy you'd like to smack in the face because you don't like him. So, you smack him in the face. Q- Are you doing this becasue you are human or inhuman. If I understand you correctly you would say "human". The dog in turn bites your ankle for smacking his friend. Q- is the dog being human or inhumn, or, it's being just an animal and that's what animals do. Q #2-- was the dog just being human--or---

What sayeth ye.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12909
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't think you're

I don't think you're attacking and I don't intend on attacking you. I simply get frustrated when people use nonsensical terminology and make incredible leaps of logic to come to irrational conclusions. Especially when it happens repetitively.

Q- Are you doing this becasue you are human or inhuman.

Neither. I'm doing it because I want to. Though this scenario is impossible. There is noone on the planet who could inspire me to punch them in the face if I saw them walking down the street. I don't enjoy fighting, and I enjoy even less the consequences of fighting. I'm actually fairly good at it, but that doesn't make it enjoyable. I'm only liable to punch someone in the face if they are threatening or endangering me.
I'm also smart enough to know that beating someone up is never going to solve anything, especially if you are the aggressor.
I'm MUCH more likely to kill someone than punch them. While still unpleasant and distasteful, at least a threat has been permanently removed. Instead of simply being antagonised.

Q- is the dog being human or inhumn, or, it's being just an animal and that's what animals do.

Again, neither. The dog is instinctively protecting its pack, as any social animal would under the vast majority of circumstances. The term human has no correlation to the act of one animal defending another. Such happened millions of years before there were even apes, let alone humans. Calling it human is insulting.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
There's no

Vastet wrote:
I don't think you're attacking and I don't intend on attacking you. I simply get frustrated when people use nonsensical terminology and make incredible leaps of logic to come to irrational conclusions. Especially when it happens repetitively. Q- Are you doing this becasue you are human or inhuman. Neither. I'm doing it because I want to. Though this scenario is impossible. There is noone on the planet who could inspire me to punch them in the face if I saw them walking down the street. I don't enjoy fighting, and I enjoy even less the consequences of fighting. I'm actually fairly good at it, but that doesn't make it enjoyable. I'm only liable to punch someone in the face if they are threatening or endangering me. I'm also smart enough to know that beating someone up is never going to solve anything, especially if you are the aggressor. I'm MUCH more likely to kill someone than punch them. While still unpleasant and distasteful, at least a threat has been permanently removed. Instead of simply being antagonised. Q- is the dog being human or inhumn, or, it's being just an animal and that's what animals do. Again, neither. The dog is instinctively protecting its pack, as any social animal would under the vast majority of circumstances. The term human has no correlation to the act of one animal defending another. Such happened millions of years before there were even apes, let alone humans. Calling it human is insulting.

intent to imply that you would smack someone becauue you don't like them, it meant as a hypothetical. Are you saying that there is no such things (instances) that are humane or inhumane. If that be the case then that means the dictionary should not have definitions for these words. These words discribe a mental condition that can be recognised by any person.

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:iwbiek

Old Seer wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
Only one can be true.

that's a logical fallacy big enough to throw a cat through...

The humanity you posses is not true. Christianity =  ones humanity toward others, and also on a personal level. Can you go against that, if so, you're proposong to be inhuman. One cannot be anything other then, Humane, inhumane, or neutral. The "humane" is what makes one human, the inhumane makes one animalistic.




"humanity" is nothing more than an idea, and a highly subjective one at that, but you and i both know that's not what i was referring to. you were saying either your interpretation or the traditional interpretation of the bible was exclusively true, which is logically untenable. neither interpretation could be true. both could be true. both could be true to a certain degree (which would also make both false to a certain degree). no one has to have done your research on the texts to apply logic to your statements. an illogical statement is an illogical statement, regardless of the context.


ultimately, the whole question of biblical interpretation doesn't matter a fart in the wind to me, as i don't recognize the bible as any sort of authority over anything--not even itself, since we have no reason to believe the texts were ever meant to be anthologized like that. they contradict the shit out of each other, and some of them are so incongruous it's just plain bizarre (song of songs, ecclesiastes, revelation). probably these were chosen just because the majority of the community accepted their purported authorship.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The only way

one can know is to study it as we did. If not, one cannot say it's wrong.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12909
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Are you

Old Seer wrote:
Are you saying that there is no such things (instances) that are humane or inhumane.

Yes.

Old Seer wrote:
If that be the case then that means the dictionary should not have definitions for these words.

Science has little bearing on language. There are at least hundreds of terms in the English language that have absolutely no meaning. There are hundreds more that attempt to define something we are as yet incapable of defining. And there are hundreds more that completely rely upon the presupposition of a god or gods. Finally, there are yet hundreds more that reflect human ego and arrogance. The terms humane and inhumane fall under this category.

The terms arose in a time where nearly everyone on the planet thought we were greater than animals, an entirely different classification of life. A divine classification. A classification that was proved wrong. The language hasn't caught up. Might be it never will. Everyone who speaks a language has a say in its evolution. You don't need to be a scientist. Most English speakers aren't scientists, but they still have a voice in how English evolves.

In order to see these terms replaced by more accurate ones, we will require at least 30% of the entire English speaking population to put significant effort into changing it. As much as the terminology annoys me, there are bigger fish to fry. If I won't put in the effort, even though I have motive, it is unlikely there is anything like enough people who care enough to make a change.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:one can know

Old Seer wrote:

one can know is to study it as we did. If not, one cannot say it's wrong.




but one can say that the statement "either our view is right or the traditional view; it cannot be both" is fallacious because it is. logic does not require additional information.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12909
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Indeed. 2 + 2 = 4. The

Indeed. 2 + 2 = 4. The details are irrelevant to the equation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree.

Vastet wrote:
Old Seer wrote:
Are you saying that there is no such things (instances) that are humane or inhumane.
Yes.
Old Seer wrote:
If that be the case then that means the dictionary should not have definitions for these words.
Science has little bearing on language. There are at least hundreds of terms in the English language that have absolutely no meaning. There are hundreds more that attempt to define something we are as yet incapable of defining. And there are hundreds more that completely rely upon the presupposition of a god or gods. Finally, there are yet hundreds more that reflect human ego and arrogance. The terms humane and inhumane fall under this category. The terms arose in a time where nearly everyone on the planet thought we were greater than animals, an entirely different classification of life. A divine classification. A classification that was proved wrong. The language hasn't caught up. Might be it never will. Everyone who speaks a language has a say in its evolution. You don't need to be a scientist. Most English speakers aren't scientists, but they still have a voice in how English evolves. In order to see these terms replaced by more accurate ones, we will require at least 30% of the entire English speaking population to put significant effort into changing it. As much as the terminology annoys me, there are bigger fish to fry. If I won't put in the effort, even though I have motive, it is unlikely there is anything like enough people who care enough to make a change.

Excellant. What you have here is a problem that we ran into quite often. In one instance--people-what does it mean. At one point we had to define what "we" ment by "people". It got reduced to "an entity that posseses intelligent or cognative abilty. We decided we wouldn't have it mean male or female, or material, human or inhumane etc. Technically we decided (for our own use) it's a person of some type that has extended use of intellect. So then, someone asks-what is a person, and--you can imagine form there. You've brought up sometheing that we've encountered quite extensivly. What is exactly what, and "who is to say what is exactly what.

We came across the very same as you when it comes to human. It's an attempt to place the self or "people" above a dog, cat or what is termed"animal". But, lets have a look at the (this is bringing back memories of the past when we smufers encounterd this stuff) term "Animal". We find that may not be correct either. Animal as best we could make out discribes something that has movement. That means that your idea of "we are animals" is correct, that I've always understood. So, if a dog is an animate, what makes it a dog---body type. All these names merely mean different body types.  That's where we ran into troubles with the term Huan, what is it. In some terminology it means people, in anoither it means a type of body, in another a state of mind. So, what fits the bible. Being the book is dealing with the spiritual (and there actually may be no such thing as spiritual) we use it in that sense so we know what we are refering to. But mostly we have to resort to common usage and understandings.

We had no choice but to resort to dictionary definitions on many things. IE the term God. At the total end we find it means force, becasue thats what the common usage leads to, or, something that rules. In the last several months I've been putting a study on religions which I've haven't done before. I'm amazed at how they can arrive at thier conclutions as I haven't dealt with religious things for quite some time. I was raised in a religion and about 1964 I gave up on it and haven't pondered it much since. Our study of the book was not a study of religion, rather, what does it say and mean. We didn't have religion in mind. 

We're not trying to promote a religiom, we're trying to get rid of religion. That's why I stress---is creation a material or spritual undertaking, IOW, start were we did. Iwbeik stated it well. it doesn't make any difference if we're right or wrong, even tho we say ours is correct. That's for the individual to decide for themself. BUT, the interpretaion proves religions wrong, and that's what's needed to get rid of it. Bear in mind, religions exist on --they can't be wrong. That's what makes creation important. If there are two ways to interpret it--there's one they didn't see. If they cannot be wrong they should have seen it and deemed it right or wrong a very long time ago. Being they didn't  shows clearly that they are bogus. Thats the difference between theirs and ours. If they say they operate on divine revelation (no matter which or all religions) that can't be true. How are they going to explain this to their congregation. The material interpretation (theirs) says one thing. The spiritual/mental says another.

That's where all the word wrangling comes in. How do we tell someone else. What words does one use to get the points understood. In you post you brought up the problem, which we already understood.  OK, The only thing we can go by is the common use of words (language). It isn't what Vastet means or says what means what, it's what a congregation will say from what they understrand the meanings are. I understand you--they don't. We have to present it in their terms. You and I or any other atheist can argue to no end the words needed or what they may or may not mean--that's the business of Atheists. But a congregation can't.

It may turn out that all religions are taken away by a mere misinterpretaion of particular book. The proof exists that they're wrong, and, according to them they can't be wrong.  What will the followers say or think. Thats' what we're after, not what Atheists think. We know what Atheists think/know.

When I say Christianity = Human it may not mean much to you or any Atheist, but, it may mean a hell of alot to a religion person. If Christianity = human which in our analysis it does---how did the Clergy miss it--they sure did. They don't see it that way, but what else could it be. What is a Creationist to make of a spiritual creation, they can deny it, but they can't get it past JCs followers who say it's something invisible, and we knew what they must mean by that.

 

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