RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/14/2012 11:12:52 PM)

The belief in God rests on a foundation that is far more grounded than many presuppose. I am astonished how many centuries atheism has been given a free pass.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/14/2012 11:31:02 PM)

quote:

Matthew 7:21 New American Standard Bible

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.


The relationship between secularism and atheism was well understood even in ancient times. Merely professing belief in God with the lips is not enough.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 12:18:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

Matthew 7:21 New American Standard Bible

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.


The relationship between secularism and atheism was well understood even in ancient times. Merely professing belief in God with the lips is not enough.


Although, some faiths believe that man is "saved" through faith, alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Romans 10:9

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;





Peace and comfort,



Michael



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 12:25:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

It is theoretically impossible to have a perfectly level playing field and not embrace atheism as your core belief; consequently, what you wrote is nonsense.


I did say perfectly level. There is room for secularism. The Masons may have gotten it right to the greatest extent to which this is possible to do. Atheism must be expressly rejected out of theoretical necessity, however.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 12:40:06 AM)

Atheism from a theoretical point of view says that we are God or if not God we are capable of becoming God. This removes the God variable from the equation.

DaddySatyr to understand the contradiction you will need to review what I wrote previously on hypocrisy. We do not fully know the mind of God. That is the problem. This creates a fundamental limitation. The logic drives atheists crazy. Atheists think of themselves in the driver's seat. God and not man is in the driver's seat, however.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 12:56:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Atheism from a theoretical point of view says that we are God or if not God we are capable of becoming God. This removes the God variable from the equation.

DaddySatyr to understand the contradiction you will need to review what I wrote previously on hypocrisy. We do not fully know the mind of God. That is the problem. This creates a fundamental limitation. The logic drives atheists crazy. Atheists think of themselves in the driver's seat. God and not man is in the driver's seat, however.


I've read the whole thread. I just know that there are some "sects" that believe that works need not be joined with faith for salvation. I've heard it preached, specifically, that way. They use the verse I gave and Acts 16:31 as the most common "reasons" for that belief.

I don't know that I believe either "side", entirely. I know how I live my own life and I am not comfortable telling people that my way is the only way. I leave that to the zealots; be they theist or atheist.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 1:07:18 AM)

Think of God as the brakes in your automobile. Atheists do not want brakes. They want speed.

quote:

You peer out in the pitch darkness of night, see nothing, and conclude that you are safe, because there is nothing out there. How do you explain this in terms of evolutionary theory? Your power of reason told you this?

BenevolentM Hypocrisy or Obsession page 11 post 212



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 1:11:39 AM)

There is a reason why the Church needed to remain intact. It needed to remain intact so that the message would not get diluted and corrupted.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 1:16:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I am not comfortable telling people that my way is the only way. I leave that to the zealots; be they theist or atheist.


It seems reasonable that the Masons felt the same way and felt that it is improper to dictate the particulars, but with atheism we are confronted with a divide by zero sort of problem.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 1:52:31 AM)

I'm attempting to be general here. Religion presents us to some extent provides us with a confusing mess. The notion of balance is more prevalent in the Eastern traditions than in the Western traditions. You have to strike a balance and to achieve this balance an appeal to free will is needed where some things are left up to the individual. Why? Because we just do not know what people should do in any one circumstance with precision. This inevitably results in moral contradiction, i.e. hypocrisy. When you think you know it all, then hypocrisy constitutes a violation of law or no violation at all because it is not against the law.



Kainundeva -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 2:07:24 AM)

the state HAS to be secular because if he is not, he has to choose which religion it supports... and that leaves the other religions second class.

now back to discussion:

i think there are two main classes of atheists:

1. people who are not sure if there is a god and just don´t care
2. people who are sure there isn´t a god and will prove it.




BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 2:20:12 AM)

A belief in God implies that one cannot be entirely dogmatic as law is concerned. You can be more certain about some things than others, that is it is not a level playing field. Atheism on the other hand has no theoretical difficulty with the free exercise of dogma as ironic as this might seem.

For God sake practice your faith even if you cannot get it a hundred percent right. What is important above all is that you try.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 2:36:32 AM)

The free exercise of dogma is a sign that the actors are atheists and have only given lip service to their faith if they have professed a faith.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 3:06:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kainundeva

the state HAS to be secular because if he is not, he has to choose which religion it supports... and that leaves the other religions second class.


This is certainly the conventional wisdom, the so-called pillar of present day Western society. It is deceptively false, however. I will not merely claim that it is false, I will provide argument.

Such a government is a theocracy by necessity since atheism is a religion. Atheism is inconsistent with all religions. There is inconsistency and there is inconsistency. This is a strong inconsistency much like a rejection of hypocrisy with solidarity is a strong inconsistency. We can live with the weak inconsistencies.

Secularism is not the solution to the problem. There is another solution candidate which is known as compromise which I believe is the road that was taken by Freemasonry. Modern politics, in the United States at least, is broken.

Failure to strive to achieve a balance is a sign as well that the actors are atheists and have only given lip service to their faith if they have professed a faith.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 3:23:19 AM)

I made a distinction in my previous, post 94, between compromise and balance since compromise alone is not enough. The outcome has to make actual sense. It cannot be compromise for compromise sake. What this implies is our politicians need to become philosophers who examine the situation carefully and not just morons who managed to get elected.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 3:32:49 AM)

What I am saying is that all the rubbish the government has been spewing out is the direct consequence of atheism having taken root. What many do not realize is that mere profession of faith is insufficient. You actually have to at least try to live it regardless of whether or not full compliance is feasible. Though full compliance may not be achieved the effect felt collectively as a people is significant.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 3:59:26 AM)

I need to spend more time on those concepts I have presented here more carefully before I formally publish them. It is not my desire to err. Consider this a beta test. What I am doing is many things so what I wrote in post 59 for example does not convey the whole story since the ways of God are mysterious. It seems reasonable that this is a point God is making.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 4:12:11 AM)

Needless to say some of what I am saying is in the raw. People can be squeamish about such things.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 4:47:05 AM)

The naysayers obviously employ Benjamin Disraeli's maxim, "The duty of an opposition is to oppose." It is clear that I will need to find a way to obliterate Benjamin Disraeli's maxim and stump on it. Actually, what I wrote is a rebuttal. Anyone who upholds such a principle is an atheist. The counter is obvious, "Ok, we are atheists." Scientists might be able to get away with attempting to do this. Government on the other hand would be in hot water if it tried. The scientific community won't try to do this collectively, maybe as individuals, because it means, at least in the United States, their funding would vanish. It is one thing for everyone to know a thing and another for it to be proven.

Atheism is theoretically incapable of accommodating other religions. With atheism you only get atheism. Outside of a communist country, what country would regard such a stance as acceptable? During the Cold War, the Russians had a saying. They were becoming more like us and we were becoming more like them.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 5:11:46 AM)

Why did this happen? It is obvious why.

quote:

When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you.

Friedrich Nietzsche



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875