Re: What use does an atheist have for deities?

[PureX]

Why do you assume I ignore the good that religion does? I am aware that churches become shelters during and after storms. I am aware church groups sponsor feeding and sheltering the homeless.

However, the truth of the European witch hunts and the Spanish Inquisition and the years-long Catholic-Protestant wars is unquestionable. I don't have to revisit every couple of years with unbiased eyes. Truth doesn't change.





You are on this forum and you don't see Creos and Fundies and Cultists posting? Are you kidding?





What does that have to do with religion?
How is our greed causing us to fall behind the other nations of the world in terms of science?

 

[PureX]

Why do you assume I ignore the good that religion does? I am aware that churches become shelters during and after storms. I am aware church groups sponsor feeding and sheltering the homeless.

However, the truth of the European witch hunts and the Spanish Inquisition and the years-long Catholic-Protestant wars is unquestionable. I don't have to revisit every couple of years with unbiased eyes. Truth doesn't change.

While you completely ignore the countless millions of humans who have found solace, purpose, and hope in religion when it was otherwise unavailable to them. And you also ignore the fact that witch hunts and inquisitions were not caused by faith in God, they were caused by fear and the lust for power due to a lack of faith in God. Just because people call themselves religious does not mean that they are. Or that what they do is the result of their being religious. All it means is that they use the excuse of religiosity to cover up their lack of it, and their desire to use abuse others because of that lack.

You are on this forum and you don't see Creos and Fundies and Cultists posting? Are you kidding?

I don't see them have any effect on the course of science, no. What I see effecting the course of science is corporate greed suppressing scientific inquiries and solutions to protect their profits.

 

[wellwisher]

At one time, the Church was a central part of both religious and secular life. What that meant was even the atheists, were an active part of the Church, not due to faith, but due to practical and social considerations.

If one wanted to move up the social ladder, in a society dominated by the Church, it was easier to do so, by being part of the Church's cultural elite. One only had to pretend to be of faith, to open up a path for power and prestige. This explains much of the atrocity in the Church. They were many atheists, who had no faith, but who nevertheless achieved positions of power, in a Church, grounded on faith.

An analogy is the Democrat party in America. The Democrats party is the party of big government and government jobs. In spite of this connection, the Democrats do not agree with the Constitution, which is the foundation of the very Government they dominate. They achieve positions of power and prestige throughout a system, while trying to undermine its very foundation. For example, free speech is undermined by PC, the second Amendment is always under attack, the Electoral college is a target, etc.

The actions of early atheists, in positions of power in the Church, led to many of the atrocities of the Church, that later generations of atheists, would blame as coming from people of faith. As a parallel, the Democrats attempted a coup This is Unconstitutional. They were caught and they now blame Trump and Republicans for lawlessness, with the help of fake news propaganda.

The Atheist sabotage the Church, internally, by bringing their own beliefs into the Church, instigating intrigue and lawlessness. As the prestige of the Church, declined, it was not the best path up the social ladder. Like rats abandoning a sinking ship, the atheists left the Church, to looked for new ships to infect; science.

 

[ecco]

While you completely ignore the countless millions of humans who have found solace, purpose, and hope in religion when it was otherwise unavailable to them.

What do you mean solace and hope "was otherwise unavailable to them"? Atheists find solace and hope all the time without religion.

Solace and hope are available with or without religion.

And you also ignore the fact that witch hunts and inquisitions were not caused by faith in God, they were caused by fear and the lust for power due to a lack of faith in God.

Nonsense. That is nothing more than apologetics. If people believe in God and do things in His name your opinion on why they did it is meaningless.

Just because people call themselves religious does not mean that they are. Or that what they do is the result of their being religious. All it means is that they use the excuse of religiosity to cover up their lack of it, and their desire to use abuse others because of that lack.

More of the same nonsense. Just because you don't approve of some of the things Christians do does not give you, or anyone else, the right to decide who is and who is not a Christian.

I don't see them have any effect on the course of science, no. What I see effecting the course of science is corporate greed suppressing scientific inquiries and solutions to protect their profits.

Previously you stated it differently...

I do, however see significant evidence to suggest that our greed is causing us to fall behind the other nations of the world in terms of science.

I asked for examples. You provided none.




In any case, there are probably children in "religious fundamentalist" families who will never have the opportunity to choose careers in science.

On a broader front, the denigration of science by these same people also affects other children.

 

[ecco]

If one wanted to move up the social ladder, in a society dominated by the Church, it was easier to do so, by being part of the Church's cultural elite. One only had to pretend to be of faith, to open up a path for power and prestige. This explains much of the atrocity in the Church. They were many atheists, who had no faith, but who nevertheless achieved positions of power, in a Church, grounded on faith.

Care to name a few. Care to provide evidence that they were atheists.

I suppose you are going to try to make the argument that the people conducting the Inquisitions were not good Spanish Catholics but rather, atheists.

I suppose you are going to try to make the argument that the people responsible for burning thousands of witches in Europe were atheists.

The Atheist sabotage the Church, internally, by bringing their own beliefs into the Church, instigating intrigue and lawlessness. As the prestige of the Church, declined, it was not the best path up the social ladder. Like rats abandoning a sinking ship, the atheists left the Church, to looked for new ships to infect; science.

The word "kool aide" comes to mind, but I'm not sure I'm allowed to use it.

 

[Father Heathen]

I understand that's the best you can do to cover your embarrassment.

So you really believe that Anton LaVey, The Chruch of Satan, The Satanic Bible, etc. are things that *I* made up? Yeah, I'm not sure I'm the one who should be embarrassed here.

 

[ecco]

So you really believe that Anton LaVey, The Chruch of Satan, The Satanic Bible, etc. are things that *I* made up? Yeah, I'm not sure I'm the one who should be embarrassed here.

Did you mention Anton LeVey in any of your posts? Maybe I should be a little embarrassed because I wasted time in this discussion with you.


However, I am not embarrassed that I had never heard of Anton LaVey's little cult or its silly beliefs. I'm sure there are many other cult beliefs that I have never heard of with all sorts of silly beliefs.

The idea of Satanists who do not worship Satan is as nonsensical as Christians who do not worship God.

None the less, you are the one who was posting about atheistic Satanists. If you made those posts for the sake of injecting a little light humor, at my expense, into the conversation, OK. If you actually believe in what you were posting, then yes, you should be embarrassed - very embarrassed.

 

[PureX]

What do you mean solace and hope "was otherwise unavailable to them"? Atheists find solace and hope all the time without religion.

Solace and hope are available with or without religion.

I suppose you probably believe that, but I don't. I don't think most atheists have ever really been tested. I also don't think solace, purpose, and hope are nearly as easy for people to regain, once lost, as you seem to imagine. I think it's just convenient to your ego to imagine that you're immune to such a 'weakness'.

 

[Father Heathen]

Did you mention Anton LeVey in any of your posts? Maybe I should be a little embarrassed because I wasted time in this discussion with you.

I didn't mention him because I've foolishly assumed that you might've been somewhat informed on the topic you were attempting to debate.

However, I am not embarrassed that I had never heard of Anton LaVey's little cult or its silly beliefs. I'm sure there are many other cult beliefs that I have never heard of with all sorts of silly beliefs.

If you're not knowledgeable, then leave the discussion to those who are.

The idea of Satanists who do not worship Satan is as nonsensical as Christians who do not worship God.

It's not my belief system. I only mentioned atheistic satanism as an example. The fact that you've never heard of it or think it's silly is wholly and completely irrelevant.

None the less, you are the one who was posting about atheistic Satanists. If you made those posts for the sake of injecting a little light humor, at my expense, into the conversation, OK. If you actually believe in what you were posting, then yes, you should be embarrassed - very embarrassed.

Yes, I'm sure the whole forum is laughing at me for referencing something that everyone here has been familiar with but you. Never mind the fact that RF has a DIR dedicated to it. Boy, is my face red.

 

[Darkstorn]

Ecco. I say this out of love: Stop. Embarrassing. Yourself. You lost that one.

 

[ecco]

I suppose you probably believe that, but I don't. I don't think most atheists have ever really been tested.

Do you suppose atheists lead charmed lives and never suffer setbacks and losses just like everyone else?

I seldom agree with what you write. But your posts are usually well thought out and well written. However, stating that "most atheists have ever really been tested" is nonsensical, ignorant, thoughtless, and ridiculous.

I also don't think solace, purpose, and hope are nearly as easy for people to regain, once lost, as you seem to imagine.

If they are using religion as the basis, perhaps you are right. Many religious people question their faith when they lose a loved one. They feel God abandoned them and they abandon God.

Atheists don't have that problem. We recognize that life sucks sometimes. We also know we have to overcome whatever happens.

I think it's just convenient to your ego to imagine that you're immune to such a 'weakness'.

What weakness are you referring to? Are you saying that it is weakness that causes people to seek out God when things get tough?

Here again, it sounds like you think atheists suffer fewer losses than folks like you.

 

[ecco]

I didn't mention him because I've foolishly assumed that you might've been somewhat informed on the topic you were attempting to debate.

If you're not knowledgeable, then leave the discussion to those who are.

It's not my belief system. I only mentioned atheistic satanism as an example. The fact that you've never heard of it or think it's silly is wholly and completely irrelevant.

Yes, I'm sure the whole forum is laughing at me for referencing something that everyone here has been familiar with but you. Never mind the fact that RF has a DIR dedicated to it. Boy, is my face red.

As I already acknowledged, if you made those posts for the sake of injecting a little light humor, at my expense, into the conversation, OK.


But you avoided addressing If you actually believe in what you were posting.

 

[ecco]

Ecco. I say this out of love: Stop. Embarrassing. Yourself. You lost that one.

I already acknowledged that.

 

[Father Heathen]

As I already acknowledged, if you made those posts for the sake of injecting a little light humor, at my expense, into the conversation, OK.


But you avoided addressing If you actually believe in what you were posting.

It's not my belief system to defend. I was merely providing it as example of what the OP was asking for. Is it goofy? Maybe? But that's beside the point, and it certainly didn't warrant such a kneejerk reaction.

 

[ecco]

It's not my belief system to defend. I was merely providing it as example of what the OP was asking for. Is it goofy? Maybe? But that's beside the point, and it certainly didn't warrant such a kneejerk reaction.

Pointing out that something "goofy" is nonsensical is not a kneejerk reaction. Whether these were your own ideas or those of some other crackpot, really makes no difference.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am hardly a Christian, @paarsurrey , but I feel confident that for many or most Christians the cross has no terror conotations, but is rather a symbol of necessary sacrifice and transcendence.

"Cross is a symbol of terror/cruelty"
I quote from a friend here:

"THE CROSS
I grew up in a Lutheran Church, where great emphasis was put on the crucifixion and resurrection. I was never quite sure of what they were trying to get at, so I just forgot about it. One day, years later, I read the bible all on my own, and I got a very different message than that which I was taught.

Everywhere around the world you see crosses on churches. Its a great symbol and easy to recognize. but the cross is more than just a neat symbol, it is the actual device used by the Roman Government to terrorize and control the masses by means of painful and humiliating execution.

The crucified were nailed to a cross in full view of the public and then left to die an agonizing death. Imagine the effect that this would have on friends and family. It would have been horrific and powerful tool. Thousands were crucified at the hands of the Romans. Just another day at the office for them. I don’t know which is worse, Crucifixion or Impalement.

If the method of the day had been a guillotine, would there be guillotines up on those roofs? How about if they executed people by hanging, would there be a hangman’s noose on front of the bible instead of a cross? How about a firing squad, would people then use the phrase, “the guns of Jesus?” What if he were drawn and quartered, or died on the electric chair … and so on.

The cross being an instrument of Government Power, adds a political flavor to the story of Jesus. Would his death carry the same weight if Jesus had fallen off of a cliff out in the wilderness? How about if he was bitten by a poison snake and died? If it were so important for him just die, so that he could come back to life again, then any death would have done. Drowning, eaten by a wild animal, or even Cancer. Any death would have done, but, he needed more than just to die. It had to be at the hands of the government, and it had to be during the busiest time of the year when the ‘Most’ numbers of people would hear, and hopefully talk about it, the Passover Festival."
Jesus Exists

Regards

 

[Etritonakin]

From the advaita perspective in Hinduism, the bodies in which we live and the world which we inhabit are illusory. In one's true nature there is no birth, death, creation, destruction, etc. This true nature, Atman, is immortal, and is the same as Brahman, the highest form of existence/reality.

I agree that we are composed of that which is immortal, but we -as individual personalities -specific arrangements of that which cannot be destroyed -are subject to destruction/disarrangement.
Our personal identity may cease to exist -unless somehow recorded and made invulnerable.

You cannot deny that "you" were born -or that "you" will die -or that whether or not you remember yourself later is dependent upon another capable of "re-membering" you.