ATHEISM IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS

[Ouroboros]

Those who have Found Gawd and Found Jesus think that they looked, they found, Atheists looked, but they DIDN'T find.  Not that they found out the reality and truth, or at least what is NOT reality and Truth™, but that they can show the Atheist what They found, which is what they're called to do.

 

They don't think anyone can find anything other than what THEY found, and since they didn't find it for so long, they figure you're just not there yet; not to mention Ha Ha, I found Him, you didn't, and you're going to hell.

 

My brother can beat up your brother, my God is bigger than your No God. Nyah Nyah Nyah

100786[/snapback]

Right. It's like a boy holds a pebble in his hand, and forgets about it. Later he discovers that he had the pebble in his hand and he exclaims: "Hey, I found a pebble!"

 

Then he calls his friend, "Do you have a pebble?... No? But you should have one! You should find the pebble in your hand too!"

[Mythra]

Daniel: there are 990 Gods that you do not believe in. There are 991 Gods that we don't believe in. Seems like a relatively minor difference we have going here.

[The Silent One]

That is to say... what else would throw me so headlong into sin accept that belief that, "God does not exist, and there is no consequence."

100710[/snapback]

 

You must be functionally retarded if you ever thought that "HEY! I'M CONVINCING MYSELF THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST! I CAN GO OUT AND DO WHAT I WANT!!!"

 

Cause ONLY someone with no brain activity would think that. No one here thinks they can do whatever they want, we have ethics. Believe it or not (Knowing you it'll be not cause you're a fucking moron), disbelief does NOT mean people are morally bankrupt. I'm more ethical and moral than a good chunk of the Christians I've met. I've never cheated on taxes, I don't steal, I'm non-violent, I usually avoid swearing in public (especially if there are women or children present), I give to charity and to anyone I see in need, I try not to break any laws, and so on.

 

Danny, you're either making this shit up completely, or you're a miracle of nature - because no one as stupid as you should be able to breath on their own.

[Fweethawt]

Well, umm...

 

Besides MQTA and Han, did anyone else like the article?

 

[Mythra]

Ain't gonna bullshit ya, fwee. I didn't get much out of it. Either it's too deep, or I'm too shallow.

 

Too many esoterics and ethereals for my pea brain.

[Cerise]

I didn't really like the article. What the author doesn't seem to understand is that although many Christian Churches were craptastic in their treatment of people in general, the Churches were usually just an outward reflection of a rather craptastic religion in the first place.

 

I hate being told that I'm really not against Christianity, just "The Church" or the "Religious Right". Because I am against Christianity. I think it's a childish religion that does more harm than good.

 

Atheists are not the God haters you have been warned against by the religions. The Atheists see fundamental religion and our corporate government as the true enemies of mankind. The enemy of mankind is also the enemy of your God.

 

I really can't mesh with the assumption that just because I can do "good" or "wise" or "right" things I must automatically be on the side of God. And that those who don't do "good" or "wise" or "right" things must automatically be enemies of God. I think the rampant asshattery of biblegod negates pretty much any claim that morons, degenerates, and assholes can't be followers of God.

[Fweethawt]

I didn't really like the article.  What the author doesn't seem to understand is that although many Christian Churches were craptastic in their treatment of people in general, the Churches were usually just an outward reflection of a rather craptastic religion in the first place.

I'm not exactly sure as to how you arrived at your opinion about the author by reading this piece. Quite often (in other writings of his) he attempts to word his writings in such a way that they become sort of a mental "nudge" to encourage people to think instead of sounding like a rabid atheundimentalist.

 

He knows quite a bit about the craptasticity of the religion, Cerise. It may not be apparent in this particular writing, but he does.

 

I hate being told that I'm really not against Christianity, just "The Church" or the "Religious Right".  Because I am against Christianity.  I think it's a childish religion that does more harm than good.

I think a lot of people who are reading that article are missing the point where he explains how atheism is philosophy.

 

Atheism is a philosophy! It is a way of thinking, a way of researching and arriving at an honest conclusion! It is not only a way of thinking; it is also a way of living. Atheism is not just a philosophy. Atheism is philosophy. Atheism equals philosophy. All true Atheists are philosophers. All true Atheists are lovers of and seekers after truth.

Prior to making those statements, he gives us the original meaning of the word 'philosophy'.

The literal Greek meaning of the word, philosophy, is “The Love of Wisdom.”

 

So, with that, along with the next quote from the article that I'm going to make, he wasn't telling you that you're not against Christianity. He explained how philosophy existed prior to the religion, and how philosophy (love of wisdom) was LATER demonized by the church. (see below)

 

Western Atheism was not born as a revolt against God, the church, or its teachings. Neither was it started because of the tyranny and suppression of truth by the religions. In fact, Atheism is a rather late nametag given this philosophy by the church. When religion found itself unable to refute the findings and conclusions of these men of wisdom and science, it began at once to demonize them.

 

Cerise, if it wasn't for the Church/Christianity/Religion initially lashing out against philosophy (love of wisdom), then, and only then, would you NOT be against it (Christianity) today. They made the first move.

 

I really can't mesh with the assumption that just because I can do "good" or "wise" or "right" things I must automatically be on the side of God.  And that those who don't do "good" or "wise" or "right" things must automatically be enemies of God.

I think he worded that part as such so as to "snap" some people out of their religiously induced stupor in order to get them to realize that, "Hey, if we're not careful, you might just get what you want (theocracy), and you won't be safe either. " Most of them weren't the last time, so let's not let it happen again.

 

 

I think the rampant asshattery of biblegod negates pretty much any claim that morons, degenerates, and assholes can't be followers of God.

I haven't the slightest clue as to what you just said here. If you need me, I'll be curled up over there in the corner untying my brain, thank you.

 

[Fweethawt]

Ain't gonna bullshit ya, fwee.  I didn't get much out of it. 

Either it's too deep, or I'm too shallow.

Or you're above it.

 

Too many esoterics and ethereals for my pea brain.

Okay. I caught the "pea brain" part.

 

I have no idea what those other two words mean.

[MQTA]

Daniel:  there are 990 Gods that you do not believe in.  There are 991 Gods that we don't believe in.  Seems like a relatively minor difference we have going here.

100818[/snapback]

is that a real number? 991 altogether?

[Fweethawt]

is that a real number?  991 altogether?

Not at all. There's more. he was just making a point.

[Cerise]

I'm not exactly sure as to how you arrived at your opinion about the author by reading this piece. Quite often (in other writings of his) he attempts to word his writings in such a way that they become sort of a mental "nudge" to encourage people to think instead of sounding like a rabid atheundimentalist.

 

I'm not saying your fellow isn't subtle. And just how am I supposed to magically know from this writing you've given us what he's like in his other writings?

 

I think a lot of people who are reading that article are missing the point where he explains how atheism is philosophy.

 

Maybe that's because atheism isn't really a philosophy?

 

Prior to making those statements, he gives us the original meaning of the word 'philosophy'.

 

So, with that, along with the next quote from the article that I'm going to make, he wasn't telling you that you're not against Christianity. He explained how philosophy existed prior to the religion, and how philosophy (love of wisdom) was LATER demonized by the church. (see below)

 

He was telling me that atheism is a christian's best asset as a little alarm clock or measuring stick upon which to gage one's TRUE "enemies against god". I didn't really sign up for that.

 

Cerise, if it wasn't for the Church/Christianity/Religion initially lashing out against philosophy (love of wisdom), then, and only then, would you NOT be against it (Christianity) today. They made the first move.

 

Yes, but you can't seperate those three things. You can't put the Church in a box and smack it and say "bad church" without looking at the religion it's tied to. And I can't help but feel like your buddy is trying to seperate these things.

[daniel_1012]

The bible also says that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud, that Pi is 3, that the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it... it's not anything but your stupid little fairy tale.

 

FUCK OFF.

PROVE IT!  PROVE IT!  PROVE IT!  PROVE IT!  PROVE IT!  PROVE IT!  PROVE IT!  PROVE IT!

 

Can't do it?  No surprise there.

You're goin' to Hell, buddy, since you aren't supposed to say people are fools.

 

You fucking robot.

That's because you were already brainwashed.

 

Dumb fuck.

Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot's on line 2 again, he won't hang up.

 

Danny boy, you're a liar and you're just plain stupid, and that's all you'll ever be, apparently.  The sooner you finally get banned, the better.

100640[/snapback]

 

If this were not the Lion's Den, I would say clearly.. you are the only one acting ban-worthy.

[Skankboy]

f this were not the Lion's Den, I would say clearly.. you are the only one acting ban-worthy.

 

Thank you Daniel, for once again adding nothing to the discussion...

 

[The Silent One]

If this were not the Lion's Den, I would say clearly.. you are the only one acting ban-worthy.

101106[/snapback]

 

I'd say he's just fed up with your dancing, Daniel. We ask you questions, you throw out "I'VE PROVEN IT!" and refuse to show us where.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

If this were not the Lion's Den, I would say clearly.. you are the only one acting ban-worthy.

101106[/snapback]

 

 

[Vulgaris Prime]

If this were not the Lion's Den, I would say clearly.. you are the only one acting ban-worthy.

101106[/snapback]

 

Boo.

 

Fucking.

 

Hoo.

 

What I do is no different than what you do, except I don't dodge questions, lie, or continually run away from threads whenever I'm trapped. And I don't tell everyone else that they're TEH EVIL SINNER HEATHENS GOING TO HAYL.

 

Can you claim that? Fuck no. So shut your fucking mouth and get out.

[Asuryan]

Daniel:  there are 990 Gods that you do not believe in.  There are 991 Gods that we don't believe in.  Seems like a relatively minor difference we have going here.

100818[/snapback]

 

You made your point wonderfully.

The only problem is that he won't answer. Ever.

I mean, look at that post there:

 

"The bible is the truth."

"Prove it."

"You're rude!"

 

 

So much for an answer that has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the post. He dodged absolutely everything, he's starting to be more than a bit annoying, and he doesn't even realize how what he's doing makes he seem much like a nice little rabbit, trying to escape a swarm of playful cats. Each time he jumps forward to escape and dodge, we're all over him and swat him with our cute but painful widdle clawed pawsies. Then we let him go and jump again to another thread, then resume the chase and assault him again, clawing and biting and scratching just for the fun of it. Meeow!

 

However, even if he would've been asked "Could you please prove it with facts, instead of quoting?", he would've simply decided to ignore the post. It's not the first time he does that.

So, well... I already know what he will answer to you, IF he will, mythra.

"Yeah, 990 gods. But they're not true. The 991 one is the only real god. And I know that because: Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so!" or "I've experienced it in my life, only that conveniently I can't explain it to you at all."

 

[Fweethawt]

I'm not exactly sure as to how you arrived at your opinion about the author by reading this piece. Quite often (in other writings of his) he attempts to word his writings in such a way that they become sort of a mental "nudge" to encourage people to think instead of sounding like a rabid atheundimentalist.

I'm not saying your fellow isn't subtle. And just how am I supposed to magically know from this writing you've given us what he's like in his other writings?

Oh, I see what your doing here. That was sarcasm, wasn't it?

 

Sarcasm is my playing field, young lady.

 

You stay out.

 

 

I think a lot of people who are reading that article are missing the point where he explains how atheism is philosophy.

Maybe that's because atheism isn't really a philosophy?

It stopped being called philosophy once the church decided to call it atheism.

 

Since the "wisdom" that the "philosophers" of that time were figuring things out about the world around them that didn't coincide with church doctrine, the church made them their enemy and labeled them "atheists".

 

Prior to making those statements, he gives us the original meaning of the word 'philosophy'.

 

So, with that, along with the next quote from the article that I'm going to make, he wasn't telling you that you're not against Christianity. He explained how philosophy existed prior to the religion, and how philosophy (love of wisdom) was LATER demonized by the church. (see below)

He was telling me that atheism is a christian's best asset as a little alarm clock or measuring stick upon which to gage one's TRUE "enemies against god". I didn't really sign up for that.

I like that. Yeah. An alarm clock. That sounds good.

 

For the most part, most believers "Gods" promote peace, love, happiness, and joy because most believers don't live according to biblical teachings. When they live according to those teachings is when you get the opposite effect. (theocracy)

 

So yeah, atheism (philosophy) knows enough about the past and how history tends to repeat itself that I don't think they'd really mind being called alarm clocks when it comes to warning people about getting their wishes granted (theocracy).

 

Cerise, if it wasn't for the Church/Christianity/Religion initially lashing out against philosophy (love of wisdom), then, and only then, would you NOT be against it (Christianity) today. They made the first move.

Yes, but you can't seperate those three things. You can't put the Church in a box and smack it and say "bad church" without looking at the religion it's tied to. And I can't help but feel like your buddy is trying to seperate these things.

For one, he's not my buddy. Our e-mail correspondence consisted of three messages. I wrote him asking for permission to post his writing(s) elsewhere, he responded with a couple of things for me to comment on, I replied, and I haven't heard from him since.

 

I don't see where he is trying to separate those things as much as he is trying to separate the thinkers from the fold -- in a gentle way.

[Amanda]

Well, umm...

 

Besides MQTA and Han, did anyone else like the article? 

 

100837[/snapback]

 

Fwee, I thought the article was exceptional! I marked the website and plan to read more later. I have a great respect for what Atheism has contributed to ALL societies! However, I have a question about Atheistic thinking/concepts.

 

It seems to me that Atheism recognizes everything within the realm of our five senses. True, courageously, Atheism has broken the boundaries of many previous belief structures to dare find truths, denying what was to be divinely accepted by tradition. Also, Atheism uses logic and reason to go beyond what we can perceive right in front of us... yet it still seems to remain in these boundaries of being only according to information of our five senses. I'm curious to know if Atheism can therefore consider theories that transcend these barriers too, or do they just consider aquisition of concepts outside of our senses as invalid?

 

[Antlerman]

I certainly had atheistic tendencies, of disbelief.  That is to say... what else would throw me so headlong into sin accept that belief that, "God does not exist, and there is no consequence."  But, in my heart I always knew He existed, even when I would deny it.

100710[/snapback]

Daniel I am trying hard not to use a harsh word to you here. I'll refrain for the moment to ask you for an intelligent response: I have disbelief in your god myth, but it does not at all follow in my mind that "there is no consequence" to anything I do. I am a rational atheist (as opposed to an emotional atheist which is what I suspect you were more like - you were just rebelling emotionally against some belief had never really confronted rationally), and yet others respect me and I respect them. How do you think this is possible if my rejection of your god myth means I have no belief in consequences for my own actions? I challenge you to answer that intelligently.

 

I’ll repeat the question one more time: How can I be a moral person, both in my own eyes and in the eyes of those who know me, if I am totally rejecting a belief in your diety? Answer that question intellegently, and I will happily engage in you a dialoge about your god system. You want to pursuade me don’t you? Let’s start here.

 

Thanks!

[Antlerman]

Well, umm...

 

Besides MQTA and Han, did anyone else like the article? 

 

100837[/snapback]

 

Fwee, I thought the article was exceptional! I marked the website and plan to read more later. I have a great respect for what Atheism has contributed to ALL societies! However, I have a question about Atheistic thinking/concepts.

 

It seems to me that Atheism recognizes everything within the realm of our five senses. True, courageously, Atheism has broken the boundaries of many previous belief structures to dare find truths, denying what was to be divinely accepted by tradition. Also, Atheism uses logic and reason to go beyond what we can perceive right in front of us... yet it still seems to remain in these boundaries of being only according to information of our five senses. I'm curious to know if Atheism can therefore consider theories that transcend these barriers too, or do they just consider aquisition of concepts outside of our senses as invalid?

 

103688[/snapback]

Hi Amanda,

 

A good question. For myself I would say I am open to anything being possible. But I don't have much confidence in concepts that have emotional subjectivity as their source. I would certainly be open to communication from another dimension if it became possible, but it would only be genuinely valuable if it was something that could be confirmed - not by faith, but by unbiased evaluation. Visions through drugs, or meditation, or dancing, or spirit communications are historically un-testable and disputable, and therefore of little value to anyone other than the person experiencing it. So I really don't see useful knowledge coming from those sorts of means.