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 (3/15/2012 11:09:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

I wonder about the fragmentation in the abrahamic faiths in relation to others. Like egyptian, babylonian, celtic, did those faiths fragment also. And to be precise, so fast?


The Egyptians had a King. The Kingdom was divided in an upper and lower Kingdom and all that. Nations have a tendency to fragment was well. Think American Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. The power of a state will do a lot to uphold the integrity of a religion. The combination in this regard is a natural one. I am uncertain if there is any faith that was not held together by something such as a city state. Some faiths may be held together by sentiments which are anarchist and if they were it suggests that unless there was a paradigm shift when the government they so passionately hated goes bye bye what then would keep it going? The pagans faiths did not do well in the modern era. Was this because they were unfit or did they die out due to some injustice?



MrBukani -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 11:18:17 AM)

When you look at old pagan/polytheistic europe you see gods as symbols of power like fertility, war, love, etc.
I dont think they fragmented much in their history.
They were not pussies saying god wills it. They just said I want your fuckin women riches and land.
We say these days religion started most wars blablabla. But its still the same reason as why vikings raided. Riches.

One God just makes more sense from a philosophical standpoint.
Like I say my god is nature.
Simple pimple.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 11:22:04 AM)

So what do atheists want to know? Maybe one burning question is why if God is an intrinsic attribute of the universe, why must the continued existence of religion be defended? Why isn't God like gravity? where God just works.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 11:24:47 AM)

I'm thinking that maybe atheists get lost in a forest of unanswered philosophical questions and for it lose sight of reality.



MrBukani -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 11:29:24 AM)

I guess the old persistant question, what is the meaning of life.
You fuck it feels good.
You eat it tastes nice.
You run you go fast.
I dont think we should dig too deep, life is to enjoy.
Anyway you can still call me an atheist. Nature is there, its not something you have to believe. Although I do started callin it god cause it suits me. I hold it in great respect. And I love being controversial. And I can answer to all believers yes, when they ask me do you believe in god. So we have more common ground.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 11:30:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

One God just makes more sense from a philosophical standpoint.
Like I say my god is nature.
Simple pimple.


The problem with this argument is that nature clearly does not have what it takes. The nature model suggests cycles that you can never escape from. Problems are never solved. Not now and not in the future.



MrBukani -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 11:36:50 AM)

If we dont solve our own problems, nature will do it for us and whipe us out. End of cycle.
So I cant agree there.



Moonhead -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 2:45:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

It looks like Moonhead is taking me to school.

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy Retrieved 15 March 2012

The term theodicy has no universally agreed upon definition, but usually refers to an attempt to resolve the evidential problem of evil and reconcile God's traditional characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience (all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing) with the occurrence of evil in the world.


On Terry Gilliam what I got was that he is a member of the Monty Python comedy troupe. I gather from what you are saying is try not to blunder in such a way that all one need do is make a reference to a Monty Python skit to undermine my credibility.

The Gilliam reference is a line God (the great Ralph Richardson) has in Time Bandits. He's asked why we need to have evil and dismisses the question airily: "Oh, I think it's something to do with free will..."



mnottertail -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 2:51:33 PM)

It is not uncommon to caught unawares in English humour or irouny, for us yanks.

It's a bleedin' certainty, innit?




Moonhead -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 3:26:21 PM)

Aye. It's grim oop north...



mnottertail -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 3:41:19 PM)

gruesome.   embrace the U.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 7:02:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

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



Nicely put :)



xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/15/2012 10:29:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

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



Nicely put :)

Yeah, see, second time he's said that - he's got the disease: he want's everything to stand still for him.

You can't stop it, everybody tries that at some point - nothing stands still, ever - it's the nature of things, it's the flaw that generates reality; the grain of sand in the oyster shell, the ripple in the pond. It's not things, it's amplitude and frequency.

Perfection is the absence of change, the absence of change is entropy. When life stops moving and changing, it's not life anymore, it's death.

You can't stop the music, so you better learn how to dance.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/16/2012 1:54:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani post 102

Find me an atheist suicide bomber.


The war on terrorism according to its critics is fundamentally absurd. Its critics are right. It suffers from the same problem as the war on hypocrisy. It is fundamentally self-destructive. Our goals need to be better justified and more specific. The generality of our approach creates unintended consequences that eat away the pillars of civilization like a strong acid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani post 127

If we dont solve our own problems, nature will do it for us and whipe us out. End of cycle.
So I cant agree there.


Get out an anthropology book and see how cultures whose religion is based on nature progress. They don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani post 125

You fuck it feels good.
You eat it tastes nice.
You run you go fast.
I dont think we should dig too deep, life is to enjoy.



xssve -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/16/2012 2:04:12 AM)

quote:


Get out an anthropology book and see how cultures whose religion is based on nature progress. They don't.
Define progress.



MrBukani -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/16/2012 2:40:36 AM)

I dont think any culture was truly based on nature. But for the sake of argument.
The scythians gave us trousers, cannabis, mudbaths and rode horses like the wind. Besides that their jewelry was of exquisite refinement.
That is progress.
Otherwise I would still walk in a dress and just drink beer...
Naw I rather smoke one and walk around in levis.
And chinese culture, is that based on nature more then deities or not?



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/16/2012 3:50:10 AM)

There is this belief that arguments that are replete with counter examples are valid. Counter examples are persuasive only when the theory being scrutinized is consistent.



BenevolentM -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/16/2012 4:04:53 AM)

In other words, you managed to find what are perhaps a collection of counter examples. And what is this supposed to convey?



MrBukani -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/16/2012 4:07:31 AM)

Well to progress we must look at nature.
Like DaVinci did.



Kainundeva -> RE: Benevolent's Taxonomy of Atheism (3/16/2012 4:11:52 AM)

now let´s think of nature deities... japanese shinto.
not only that japan was cultural advanced over a long period, it is now one of the leading economy nations. and still doing that with nature religion.
and if you take power as such... look at this little country and then think pearl harbor and how hard they fought in WWII.

of course you could see monotheism if you really look into it... the tenno is the living god, sun of amaterasu.
but something like that you have in all nature religions. the chosen one, the leader.

define nature religions... even the american indians believed in manitou, as the spirit that is in everything... and that is a clear parallel to the christian god, which is defined as being in everything, and everything is part of him. is christianity a nature religion then?




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625