the fool is right.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth...Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim."
- Gustave Le Bon, 1896
Does God Suffer From Vanity?
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
the fool is right.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth...Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim."
- Gustave Le Bon, 1896
Tikutka,
Do you know what Russia was like pre-revolution/pre-atheistic for anyone below the aristocrcy and merchant class?
Which God-fearing countries are paragons of virtue, equality, fraternity?
Most believers and non-believers enjoy debate and argument, as with politics, the arts, etc. Intellectual stimulation (hopefully).
Grant.
Do you know what Russia was like pre-revolution/pre-atheistic for anyone below the aristocrcy and merchant class?
Which God-fearing countries are paragons of virtue, equality, fraternity?
Most believers and non-believers enjoy debate and argument, as with politics, the arts, etc. Intellectual stimulation (hopefully).
Grant.
Quote from tikutka:
For a single man atheism is OK,but for a nation it's a way to nowhere.Just look what happened to USSR,the most atheistic country,where even the churches were destroyed.
I have a question for atheists here.What makes you guys spend your valuable time(on trader's forum) to prove that there is no God.I can understand Christians here,'cause in Bible it clearly says that every Christian should speak out the God's word as frequently as possible.Please be honest,you have the special mission created by the Satan(just kidding).
some of us feel it is our duty to stamp out superstition in america for the good of the country.
i have always thought that education alone could overcome religious superstition but am not sure anymore.
the idea of a satan is the product of an ignorant superstitious mind. it does not exist.
Jeremiah 44
Disaster Because of Idolatry
44:2 "This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You saw the great disaster I brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Today they lie deserted and in ruins
44:3 because of the evil they have done. They provoked me to anger by burning incense and by worshiping other gods that neither they nor you nor your fathers ever knew.
44:4 Again and again I sent my servants the prophets, who said, 'Do not do this detestable thing that I hate!'
44:5 But they did not listen or pay attention; they did not turn from their wickedness or stop burning incense to other gods.
44:6 Therefore, my fierce anger was poured out; it raged against the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem and made them the desolate ruins they are today.
Heed God's threat, or you'll suffer.
According to the Bible, no other gods are so vicious.
Yes, I have read the delineation of types of atheists concocted by the atheists, which puts a turnip in the status of being an atheist. To say that a turnip is an atheist, simply because it is "without" God is to reduce the argument to blather.
The reality is that once someone has formed a concept of God, they then spontaneously make a decision to believe in God, disbelieve in God, or suspend belief in God for lack of information. Thus we really have only 3 conditions for a person who understands the concept of God. A theist who believes in God, an agnostic who suspends belief for lack of ability to form a belief, and atheists who willingly believe in non God. The type of non belief of atheists is an active component in their mind, which requires a belief system in place to hold that belief in non God. The decision to worship empiricism as the be all and end all, which results for them in non God, is not the same as the status of a turnip who never had the ability to hold a concept of God in their mind, or a human being who is of diminished capacity to be able to form a concept to hold a belief in. For the atheists, non God is not a passive condition, but an active condition by choice, a working belief system of non God.
It is a bit like comparing a virgin who she doesn't like sex with men, with a dried up hag who hates men based on abuse by men in her past, who says she doesn't like sex with men. Not really a valid comparison, because the virgin has no basis in sexual experience with men to come to her conclusion. Yes, they both say they don't like sex with men, but from an entirely different experience set. What the two women don't have in common defines them much more than the common feature of both saying they don't like sex with men. Consequently, the strong and weak atheist stuff is little more than a linguistic mind game, that has no practical value in normal adult life.
I think it is intellectual dishonesty actually that I view here by those who use the excuse of non God as a ground state of their belief system, as the most atheists are failed theists, and are trying to speak as if they are not actually failed theists raging against their past history.
They are not simply "without a belief in God" they are by their own volition adopting a belief system of non God.
It is not a coincidence in my opinion that the atheists are not content in their non God condition, they seem to make it quite clear that they have issues with theists. They don't like the beliefs of theists, as they abundantly make that clear thread after thread.
It is one thing to have legitimate complaints with organized religion or organized anything that practices a political process of telling others what to think and do with their lives, it is another to take issue with what a person does in the privacy of their own home.
You of all people, if consistent, should be the champion of the right to believe anything as long as it doesn't impact others and their rights, and to be able to do so without ridicule from others.
However, when we are dealing with unresolved childhood issues, as are most atheists of the militant type who post here, their inner unresolved feelings of failure at theism make themselves apparent in the aggressive manner they attack theists or God, etc.
The reality is that once someone has formed a concept of God, they then spontaneously make a decision to believe in God, disbelieve in God, or suspend belief in God for lack of information. Thus we really have only 3 conditions for a person who understands the concept of God. A theist who believes in God, an agnostic who suspends belief for lack of ability to form a belief, and atheists who willingly believe in non God. The type of non belief of atheists is an active component in their mind, which requires a belief system in place to hold that belief in non God. The decision to worship empiricism as the be all and end all, which results for them in non God, is not the same as the status of a turnip who never had the ability to hold a concept of God in their mind, or a human being who is of diminished capacity to be able to form a concept to hold a belief in. For the atheists, non God is not a passive condition, but an active condition by choice, a working belief system of non God.
It is a bit like comparing a virgin who she doesn't like sex with men, with a dried up hag who hates men based on abuse by men in her past, who says she doesn't like sex with men. Not really a valid comparison, because the virgin has no basis in sexual experience with men to come to her conclusion. Yes, they both say they don't like sex with men, but from an entirely different experience set. What the two women don't have in common defines them much more than the common feature of both saying they don't like sex with men. Consequently, the strong and weak atheist stuff is little more than a linguistic mind game, that has no practical value in normal adult life.
I think it is intellectual dishonesty actually that I view here by those who use the excuse of non God as a ground state of their belief system, as the most atheists are failed theists, and are trying to speak as if they are not actually failed theists raging against their past history.
They are not simply "without a belief in God" they are by their own volition adopting a belief system of non God.
It is not a coincidence in my opinion that the atheists are not content in their non God condition, they seem to make it quite clear that they have issues with theists. They don't like the beliefs of theists, as they abundantly make that clear thread after thread.
It is one thing to have legitimate complaints with organized religion or organized anything that practices a political process of telling others what to think and do with their lives, it is another to take issue with what a person does in the privacy of their own home.
You of all people, if consistent, should be the champion of the right to believe anything as long as it doesn't impact others and their rights, and to be able to do so without ridicule from others.
However, when we are dealing with unresolved childhood issues, as are most atheists of the militant type who post here, their inner unresolved feelings of failure at theism make themselves apparent in the aggressive manner they attack theists or God, etc.
Really? God does not exist? That's quite the blanket statement. I don't suppose you have supporting evidence?
What I find even more disturbing is your mixing of God and religion. Must they always be in tandem? Perhaps that is the problem to begin with. Is God mans problem, or is it religion? And which claims to speak for the other? Is your lack of faith a result of something God did, or didn't do? Could it be that your spiritual ignorance in thinking religion and God are one has caused you pain? God gets a bad rap as a result of mans creation....religion. Think on that if you will.
I think you got it backwards. You need evidence to prove that something exists. If people question its existence, the burden of proof is on those who claim its existence.
Otherwise, I believe in a Unicorn-in-a-flowerpot. Do you have any evidence that a Unicorn-in-a-flowerpot doesn't exist?
vhehn,
By way of background, I was raised as a Roman Catholic who believed in God and prayed as a young child until I reached early adolescence. From that point onward, I became an atheist (or agnostic for those with delicate sensibilities).
I worked for 3 years in Saudi Arabia in the early to mid 90s. The bank that employed me was, by far, the best and most considerate employer I ever had. During that time, I worked with a number of very decent people. (And some not so decent people, as in any other workplace.) From time to time, I was able to engage some of my Saudi colleagues in religious discussion. Not with just anyone, mind you, because if the person was so inclined, I could have found myself in quite a bit of trouble. One of them even gave me a translated Koran as a keepsake. These Saudi colleagues were all self-proclaimed true believers who prayed 5 times a day, including at the workplace. Admittedly, some were more devout than others, as evidenced by their conduct and manner of speech. Even so, not a single one of them would even consider the possibility that their beliefs may not be valid. Their religious views were so deeply ingrained into their belief system at a very young age that they simply dismissed, out of hand, any alternative possibilities.
Since I was living at the time in a country whose inhabitants' lives closely revolved around their religious beliefs, I was not overly surprised by the impasse in our debates and discussions. However, I must say that I am a bit surprised that we find ourselves at a similar impasse with such a large proportion of posters right here at home in a supposedly secular society.
I envy you your faith.
Your assertion is utter nonsense, but I envy you your faith nonetheless.
This is perhaps one of the sadest and most disturbing posts here.
"Stamp out?"
I enjoy atheists who examine religions and their own thoughts and come to the conclusion that religion is not for them. I appreciate the reasons why and the fact that they sometimes need to voice their opinion about religion or justify their reasons for not believing in a god or gods.
But the sentiment quoted above smacks of the worst kind of fascism. The fascism prevalent in the world circa 1930's.
This miliant type of atheism is what gives atheism a bad name (presently and historically) and should be openly rejected and rebuked by other fellow atheists. Atheism is about self-introspection and reason. It should in the least be at its core, the exact opposite of what it accuses religion of.