Debunking those atheists, the smart way!

[BerberElla]

I am seriously hungover, so maybe I'm reading a few posts the wrong, but I hope no one here actually thought I was posting this article because I in anyway thought it was a super duper good arguement to use to debunk atheists lol because I wasn't. I was posting it to show it's stupidity.

 

[Mole]

I am seriously hungover, so maybe I'm reading a few posts the wrong, but I hope no one here actually thought I was posting this article because I in anyway thought it was a super duper good arguement to use to debunk atheists lol because I wasn't. I was posting it to show it's stupidity.

I am seriously sober, so I hope no one thought I was debunking atheism. On the contrary, I see atheism as the segue between the Holy Book and the Voice of God.

Atheism is simply a caesura, a little rest, between literate theism and aural theism. We all need a little rest sometimes particularly when we are making such a big change between the printed word and the spoken word.

At the moment atheism is full of sound and fury to distract our attention from the operation that is being performed on us as we shed our literate skins and prick up our ears.

We are being skinned alive while our ears are being opened to the noosphere. So naturally we need the distraction of atheism as an anaesthetic for the pain of change completely out of our control.

But tomorrow, dear Berber, we shall wake up with a hangover to match your very own as we loose our minds and come to our senses.

For atheism is merely a hiatus, a segue, a caesura. It is nothing to be afraid of. Why, when I belly up to the philosophy bar, the barmaid inquires, "What'll you 'ave love?". And I reply, "I'll have a segue on ice", or if I am in the mood I might have a hiatus or even a caesura. And the barmaid gives me a knowing look, and says, "There's nothing like a bit of atheism, love, to help the theism go down".

- Too bloody right love.

 

[INTJ123]

I am seriously hungover, so maybe I'm reading a few posts the wrong, but I hope no one here actually thought I was posting this article because I in anyway thought it was a super duper good arguement to use to debunk atheists lol because I wasn't. I was posting it to show it's stupidity.

"If people base their identity on identifying with authority, freedom causes anxiety. They must then conceal the victim in themselves by resorting to violence against others."

-Arno Gruen

 

[EcK]

"If people base their identity on identifying with authority, freedom causes anxiety. They must then conceal the victim in themselves by resorting to violence against others."

-Arno Gruen

INTJs like quotes

-Confucius (kong zi: Master Kong)

 

[Liminality]

I just find it amusing/disconcerting that people reason we live due to a rather fandango concept. We live, we die, there's no reason for it in my eyes. If there's eternity, then there's a chance for every possibility to manifest itself. So there's a really small chance life could come about, there's been a hell of a long time (never ending, eternal) for that to happen.

Endless time and non time for endless possibilities.

It all comes down to self preservation.

 

[Cimarron]

People are talking a little bit about "social pressure" or some related idea. Would humankind ever exist while free of social pressure?

 

[ilovetrannies]

Crazies gonna be crazies. And yes, the baby eating is as hilarious as it is ridiculous.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Trannies are murderers.

 

[Ulaes]

^ I know you know that I'm steering away from the original argument. I just want to get to the roots of where personal ethos come from. Surely it wouldn't pop up in your mind from out of nowhere.

how about rationality. if we do certain things, like simply opressing each other to get what we want, everything will turn into shit.
order > chaos.

oh some of my 2c on religion: it doesn't matter if a god exists, we can have no idea if one does, but we invented one anyway. the god people believe in is invented. if there really is one, its a coincidence and besides, what has prayer, religion and ritual and morality and faith got to do with it? how is it affected? its presence is irrelevent. unless it acutally came down as said do as i say or suffer puny humans... why the hell would you worship a bully?
i know that some people believe the warm feeling they have when they help people is god, but i dont know why they make this choice. they can lead charitable lives, i just don't understand why they have to tie it to God which really seems like a scientific universe-origion based idea to being with. why can't they say, 'i live for others' rather than 'i live for god'? god must be defined. perhaps rather than many or any definition, it has no definition. its seems the definition of god is up to the mental prowress of the definer. thats why these arguments will never stop. no one's logic is perfect. as soon as someone hears a smarter definition they jump onto the band wagon, well wtf were they believing in the begin with they couldn't even define it for themselves??!!!

i try to be as alturistic as i can but i dont think about god or being rewarded or punished. i just think about how ive made someones' shitty life easier . why do some people make it religious? why do they always have to tie good with god? why don't i tie good with god? anyhoo, that's generally the only god worshipping i can appreciate because it's the same as worshipping compassion. its like they've got all the right answers on the test via the wrong calcualtions. (no offense)
are people who do good things while thinking of pleasing god are still being selfish like children?
we should be like gandhi, jesus and buddha. they taught the same core thing, why is the human race so slow? a bit funny when you concider that we apparently worship these people and know their teachings off-by-heart. i guess we just want to feel good and still haven't learnt to give a shit about other people.

sorry, nvm. i dont have anything against people having a religion. i just personally can't stomach it. everyone must live and let live.

sorry again, im really tired. compassion, ftw. when i look at this later im probably going to do this

 

[Oaky]

^Personally I believe in God. I have thought about it and there is an endless logical loop about it. You stopped at one point in this loop forsaking the other side to which you made your conclusion. Anyways, because of this it comes down to other factors. I go into the spiritual aspect which in turn tells me there is a God.
I don't wish to start an argument based on the whole thing because:

1. I know exactly the process in which you think about the whole idea
2. We will get nowhere because you wouldn't comprehend what I say
3. Every point you argue will already be known to me

Your explanation is based on shallow ideas that are based on shallow logic. I don't think you'd 'get it' if I tried to explain anything to you anyway.

 

[Night]

I friggin hate this bullshit assertion - "If you don't believe in God then you have nothing to base your morals on".

Completely agree.

While not an atheist myself, I find it hard to believe that religious perspective necessarily commands a moralistic background. Or, that a/anti-thesim creates a basis for recklessness and antisocial behavior.

Morality has nothing to do with religion. Quite the contrary. Adhering to a moral stance because one wishes to avoid "punishment" isn't adopting the position at all.

Silly.

 

[Usehername]

Completely agree.

While not an atheist myself, I find it hard to believe that religious perspective necessarily commands a moralistic background. Or, that a/anti-thesim creates a basis for recklessness and antisocial behavior.

Morality has nothing to do with religion. Quite the contrary. Adhering to a moral stance because one wishes to avoid "punishment" isn't adopting the position at all.

Silly.

Actually, morals, by definition, come from God and are taught through the church. (If you're being legalistic with the definition. Colloquially it has come to mean something on par with ethics.)

 

[Charmed Justice]

Actually, morals, by definition, come from God and are taught through the church. (If you're being legalistic with the definition. Colloquially it has come to mean something on par with ethics.)

I guess I'm confused here. What do you mean?

 

[Usehername]

I guess I'm confused here. What do you mean?

I mean when people say that morals have nothing to do with religion, they're making a technical error, because the way we use the word in everyday conversation would suggest they're right, but when you research the word you'll find that morals by definition come from God and are taught through the church.

It's just being picky though because when using the everyday definition of it I'd agree with Night.

 

[Charmed Justice]

I mean when people say that morals have nothing to do with religion, they're making a technical error, because the way we use the word in everyday conversation would suggest they're right, but when you research the word you'll find that morals by definition come from God and are taught through the church.

Ok. So how does the way we use the word today differ from what you believe to be the definition that God gave it? What is the definition as you understand it?

 

[Usehername]

Ok. So how does the way we use the word today differ from what you believe to be the definition that God gave it? What is the definition as you understand it?

Well as a Christian I believe we're all created in the image of God, so I believe everyone, when being "moral" is doing it because they understand intuitively the "good/right" thing. (Lewis notes that when people get ticked when they are cut in line or whatever happened, they don't argue that they broke the rules, they argue that the other person wronged them, i.e. we all have the moral compass inside of us.)

Basically the internal moral compass, IMO, is from God anyway, but in others' opinion, is biological (which I agree with too)/from their own self/whatever. What's the difference, really?

 

[Night]

Actually, morals, by definition, come from God and are taught through the church. (If you're being legalistic with the definition. Colloquially it has come to mean something on par with ethics.)

I guess my rub is the notion that anything "coming from God" is, by definition, without meaning, as it is certainly instead divined from his "appointed" liaisons here.

Morals stem from origin stories, and serve as a means to appreciate and respect life, in accordance with their respective religious organization. As each group has their own understanding of "God", there can be no universal "moral" code.

To that end, morals are more evolutionary statements that encourage community than they are an infalliable ethology.

 

[Totenkindly]

I guess my rub is the notion that anything "coming from God" is, by definition, without meaning, as it is certainly instead divined from his "appointed" liaisons here.

Well, true. And that's where tracing the source ends... It's impossible to know how those liaisons arrived at their "divine knowledge." It's just a void.

 

[Night]

Well, true. And that's where tracing the source ends... It's impossible to know how those liaisons arrived at their "divine knowledge." It's just a void.

Yep.

Which leads some to conclude that many traditional moral nodes function as insular codes of self-service than as honest altruism.

 

[Eric B]

Yeah, eating babies is wrong. Unless God tells you to...

“And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat” (Leviticus 26:29).
“And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them” (Deuteronomy 28:57).
“And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend” (Jeremiah 19:9).

As some of our apologists shout: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!
Those are all judgments or punishments; usually where they are being defeated by invadng armies whom God allows to come against them because of their own evil. So they are left desolate, and then end up commiting those heinous actions against themselves. It is not what God commands them to do!

Misinterpretations like this are a major reason for a lot of confusion, both within Christianity, and in Bible vs atheism debates.

The rules of religions are made by humans, they may claim to be 'inspired by god', but if god is absolute and objective, and smarter than us, and not prone to pitiful human emotional outbursts... then these laws cannot possibly be the work of god.

That being said, I honestly believe that if there is a God, he's going to be *AT LEAST* as smart as I am, be *AT LEAST* as capable of understanding logical reasoning, and *AT LEAST* as loving as I am (probably alot more on all counts, infinite and all that... that and I'm not really that loving XD ).

Therefore, by definition, if I can figure it out, God already has. If I can poke holes in religious argument, then God never held those views to begin with, if he did, he's even more flawed than I am, and therefore, why should I worship someone who is beneath me?


The bible, quaran, torah, etc, all depict this 'god' (note no capitals here; it's a term not the name in this case) as being emotionally insecure, cruel, arrogant, selfish, rude, bigoted, stupid, foolish, warlike, violent, sexually deviant, etc.

Why, then, would anyone actually want to be a deitist if this is all they have to look up to for their peers? If this were a human, they would be a flawed, weak, insensitive, sorry excuse for a man, who would never go anywheres in the world, except perhaps as a tin pot dictator, and not even a particularly good one at that. Why do people desire to cling to this human expression of God? Obviously they're just anthropomorphizing him, trying to apply human attributes to something which's supposedly far beyond human, and the only reason they do this is for cultural reasons, to support their own positions and desires. To excuse their wars, their hate, their flaws.

If God is, by definition, flawless, then the laws of god would be incomprehensible to humans, and they most assuredly would not match up even remotely with our own cultural beliefs and cultural morals. One can only assume that all religions are false, to gross extent.

This is a large reason of why I consider myself a 'practicing agnostic', despite that it's an oxymoron. I am religious, but I refuse to accept this pathetic excuse of a man as being "perfect and pure", and abuse the name of God in such a manner.

I figure there's a high probability that there's either some mechanical order to things, or a designing intelligence of sorts, it's hard to prove fully, but the evidence does lean towards suggesting such. That being said, however, I can't accept man's flawed belief of the nature of god(s).

But you are holding God up to cultural morals and values in criticising the notion of Him being "emotionally insecure, cruel, arrogant, selfish", etc., and thus His ways ARE not matching up to ours.
God IS above the comprehension, and I believe the reason He comes across that way to us, is because the only way He can relate to us in our limited state is in those ways we can understand.

The truth is now we all live in the same bubble. And if you press on one side of the bubble, someone is sure to press on the other side. It's like a meteor hitting the earth - there is the initial crater but on exactly the other side of the Earth, at the antipode, there is an almost equal blast.

So if you want to make an effect on the other side of the bubble or the other side of the Earth, a good strategy is to take exactly the opposite view of the one you wish to promote. Then the literal minded will come back with the opposing view in the other side of the bubble.

So in this way distance has been abolished. We all vibrate to the same sounds in our bubble. And we can set up vibrations on the other side of the bubble simply by vibrating in this side.

And we can elaborate our vibrations into conversations.

Unfortunately most of us only know how to read an author or be professionally entertained by a celebrity. We have yet learnt to converse.

Fortunately this medium is not made for passive entertainment or for solitary reading. Like the telephone it demands participation. In this medium, like it or not, we are all participants.

And all we need to do is to let go our passive, literate habits and participate in the noosphere.

Unfortunately the God we worship today is the God of the Book, whereas the God of tomorrow is the God of the spoken word. Today we read God. Tomorrow we will hear God.

Fortunately our deep past is full of the Voice of God, just as our deep future will thrill to the sound of the Voice.

So atheism today is merely the hiatus between the Book and the Voice.

I am seriously sober, so I hope no one thought I was debunking atheism. On the contrary, I see atheism as the segue between the Holy Book and the Voice of God.

Atheism is simply a caesura, a little rest, between literate theism and aural theism. We all need a little rest sometimes particularly when we are making such a big change between the printed word and the spoken word.

At the moment atheism is full of sound and fury to distract our attention from the operation that is being performed on us as we shed our literate skins and prick up our ears.

We are being skinned alive while our ears are being opened to the noosphere. So naturally we need the distraction of atheism as an anaesthetic for the pain of change completely out of our control.

But tomorrow, dear Berber, we shall wake up with a hangover to match your very own as we loose our minds and come to our senses.

For atheism is merely a hiatus, a segue, a caesura. It is nothing to be afraid of. Why, when I belly up to the philosophy bar, the barmaid inquires, "What'll you 'ave love?". And I reply, "I'll have a segue on ice", or if I am in the mood I might have a hiatus or even a caesura. And the barmaid gives me a knowing look, and says, "There's nothing like a bit of atheism, love, to help the theism go down".

- Too bloody right love.

Interesting. where do you get that concept from? (And I know you always went by INFP. Could you really be an introverted iNtuitive (NJ) type or perhaps ISFP?)

It's true that we are in a cycle, where organized religion held the power, but then grew corrupt, and is now losing it with passion. They at first tried to keep the Book from everyone so they could interpret it alone, the way they wanted to, and once the Book became widely available to everyone, then they all splintered into different groups as everyone interpreted it for themselves. A lot of others (including the long persecuted science industry) just threw out the whole thing and went with atheism or at least agnosticism.
Of course, God once did speak directly to man, according to the revelation. I often wish it would go back that way again, because all anyone is doing with the Book is just bending it to fit their own purpose (usually material and ego benefit). And then that leads others to violently reject the Book!