Atheism...........

[James_S_Saint]

So do we as a race decipher what is actual and what is not?

You will have to “decipher” that question for me if you want my response.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

You will have to “decipher” that question for me if you want my response.

How do we tell the difference between fact and fiction.

 

[James_S_Saint]

How do we tell the difference between fact and fiction.

Well, I don’t know what you use them for, but I am of the mind that our senses, eyes, ears, and such, and our mind with all emotion and instincts, are just for such a purpose.

We do it by observing, “clarifying and verifying” what seems relevant to our harmony such as to create a greater harmony more resistant to demise.

Do such more each day and eventually you find that of which there can be no doubt. In that discovery, you then know “fact” versus “fiction”.

By clarifying and verifying what “Atheism” really means, I know fact versus politics.

 

[Touchstone]

Yes, you probably do, but then I find Atheists who are clearly in full knowledge of their intent and merely trying to make any anti-Christian assertion they can get away with to be a bit offensive, especially on a philosophy forum which is specifically a subject of the love of real truth and not politicizing.

As far as being ignorant, I have far too often proven that each atheist is merely stubbornly defending a stance and has no interest in real truth. This doesn’t mean that one can’t be found…somewhere.

But if you are going to define the word, not with politics of what you would want people to believe, but what is actually true and in practice, then “Atheism” is merely a political party.

I would be interested in finding an Atheist online who is truly humble to real truth, but so far, I haven’t and I have seriously looked. They are each warriors for their cause and not at all interested in finding real truth.

Prove me wrong. I would be glad to find out that I am because I have no interest in a world of nothing but politicians and their drones.

You have a gift for irony, Your post here is vivid example of the “political” stance you claim to decry. And it’s not just benign “politics” you are advancing here, but something Orwellian in nature, the idea your mission here is for “real truth”, combatting the “merely stubborn” arguments of those who disagree with you.

There’s nothing more “political” than complaining that those who disagree with you have “no interest in real truth”; this is the apotheosis of the ad hominem attack, the personalization of the conflict, taking the dispute away from the realm of ideas, and politicizing them, demonizing the person and not focusing on ideas.

I think you will find wide agreement in the words of atheists here (and Catholics and others, too) that people should be advanced the basic dignity of a sincere intent to find the truth, and to know it. Truth is difficult and there are apparently innumerable ways to become mistaken and confused, but for all the poor thinking I see on the part of Catholics here (and atheists here are not perfect on this score, by any means), I affirm their basic integrity as people seeking truth in a sincere and sober way. Thinking about all the atheist posts here I’ve read, I think that affirmation of the dignity of others as truth seekers is pervasive, even if the criticism of the ideas that get put out there is withering at times.

Even in your case, I believe you are interested in seeking the real truth, even though your ideas strike me as being particularly confused, and worse, intensely “politicized”. Your words are inordinately concerned with “political” dynamics – the intent, attitudes and personal motivations of others rather than the quality of their ideas.

However that has happened, it’s unfortunate and ironic. Your words here expemplify – vividly – the very thing you claim to hate.

-TS

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Well, I don’t know what you use them for, but I am of the mind that our senses, eyes, ears, and such, and our mind with all emotion and instincts, are just for such a purpose.

We do it by observing, “clarifying and verifying” what seems relevant to our harmony such as to create a greater harmony more resistant to demise.

Do such more each day and eventually you find that of which there can be no doubt. In that discovery, you then know “fact” versus “fiction”.

By clarifying and verifying what “Atheism” really means, I know fact versus politics.

I don’t agree, the senses are easily confused. Besides if you look at the cosmos with just our senses, i.e. without equipment, they don’t actually tell us very much about “real truth”.

I’m not sure where you are going with the fact v politics but Touchstone seems to be on the ball in that respect.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Quite the contrary…

You have a gift for irony, Your post here is vivid example of the “political” stance you claim to decry. And it’s not just benign “politics” you are advancing here, but something Orwellian in nature, the idea your mission here is for “real truth”, combatting the “merely stubborn” arguments of those who disagree with you.

Your reduction of me as merely someone who attacks anyone who disagrees with me is another example of ad hominem behavior that you profess to hate. The reality is that when I disagree, I have a reason. When I express my reason, the argument begins. When I see that the opponent is merely insisting on using word definitions (in your particular case) so as to ensure his opponent would surely be wrong rather than accepting that perhaps a word confusion has misled many into wrongful presumption and he makes no effort to clear up the confusion, then I see merely a politician making a stand against his proclaimed enemy who he wants to ensure remains an enemy to be defeated, not made humble to the real situation.

There’s nothing more “political” than complaining that those who disagree with you have “no interest in real truth”; this is the apotheosis of the ad hominem attack, the personalization of the conflict, taking the dispute away from the realm of ideas, and politicizing them, demonizing the person and not focusing on ideas.

I think you will find wide agreement in the words of atheists here (and Catholics and others, too) that people should be advanced the basic dignity of a sincere intent to find the truth, and to know it. Truth is difficult and there are apparently innumerable ways to become mistaken and confused, but for all the poor thinking I see on the part of Catholics here (and atheists here are not perfect on this score, by any means), I affirm their basic integrity as people seeking truth in a sincere and sober way. Thinking about all the atheist posts here I’ve read, I think that affirmation of the dignity of others as truth seekers is pervasive, even if the criticism of the ideas that get put out there is withering at times.

Oh there certainly is something “more political” and that is called “blame shifting”. It is the art of displaying that the other person is to blame for the disagreement while proclaiming serious innocence of oneself and especially his party while “kissing-up” to his associates.

The issue on this topic is “Atheism”. If I state an opinion of what Atheism really is, you turn it into an “attack of persons”, yet what else could it be? If you are an Atheist and anyone says anything that you do not wish to be believed, how are they not attacking you as a person of that group?

This topic is NOT about me, yet you have proclaimed attack on me as an individual. As is SO very typical, you “blame shift” your own guilt onto others. In psychology this is called “projecting” and is associated with self-deluding and paranoia. But in a political arena, it is merely an attempt to escape and divert attention to the opponent.

I stuck with the subject. You made a personal attack (again).

However that has happened, it’s unfortunate and ironic. Your words here expemplify – vividly – the very thing you claim to hate.

Yes, you are so sadly innocent in having to shift blame onto the other guy and reveal his hatred…tsk tsk.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t agree, the senses are easily confused. Besides if you look at the cosmos with just our senses, i.e. without equipment, they don’t actually tell us very much about “real truth”.

I’m not sure where you are going with the fact v politics but Touchstone seems to be on the ball in that respect.

Yes, politicians online are usually “on the ball”, lusting to jump at the first sign of opportunity to egress.

But if you will note, I also included using your mind, not merely possibly confused senses. But possibly confused or not, what else do you have?

Your proposal is that we cannot know truth. And in the sense of a holy and total truth, I would agree. But that hardly is the issue. I cannot agree that no truth can ever been known. If that were the case, why bother to try at all? And if you are not going to even try, why even open your eyes? What do you think they are for??

 

[James_S_Saint]

Tell you what…

If you want to know the real truth of this topic, sign onto an Atheist website temporarily (and without setting up the members to the situation) as a Christian and open a tread with an OP identical to this one except on “Christianity…” and watch what you get in response.

But further, as the responses are easily predictable, imagine that you are really a Christian and see if those responses don’t seem more than just a little offensive.

Isn’t it by experimentation that truth is revealed?

 

[survive]

Atheist (A’-thE-ist) n One who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic (ag-nos’-tik) nA thinker who disclaims any knowledge of God.
Deny (di-nI’) v1.To declare untrue; assert the contrary of; contradict.2. To refuse to believe; reject. 3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow; disown. 4. To refuse to grant; withhold.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

Religion surveys generally distinguish the categories of “atheist” and “agnostic”, regardless of who sponsors, conducts or designs them.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Atheist (A’-thE-ist) n One who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic (ag-nos’-tik) nA thinker who disclaims any knowledge of God.
Deny (di-nI’) v1.To declare untrue; assert the contrary of; contradict.2. To refuse to believe; reject. 3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow; disown. 4. To refuse to grant; withhold.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

Religion surveys generally distinguish the categories of “atheist” and “agnostic”, regardless of who sponsors, conducts or designs them.

You will notice the original post specifically stated that people misunderstand it due to one line definitions… as above.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Yes, politicians online are usually “on the ball”, lusting to jump at the first sign of opportunity to egress.

But if you will note, I also included using your mind, not merely possibly confused senses. But possibly confused or not, what else do you have?

Your proposal is that we cannot know truth. And in the sense of a holy and total truth, I would agree. But that hardly is the issue. I cannot agree that no truth can ever been known. If that were the case, why bother to try at all? And if you are not going to even try, why even open your eyes? What do you think they are for??

I think we can know things, but to for us to know we must be able to demonstrate truth. The scientific method springs to mind as a good example of how we can go about this.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I think we can know things, but to for us to know we must be able to demonstrate truth. The scientific method springs to mind as a good example of how we can go about this.

The scientific method merely assumes logical and rational thought to be included and to be the following thoughts. The scientific method or more generally, demonstration, is a very good way indeed, but is it the only way?

Rational thought is actually required regardless of any other method. Rational thought is contrary to the concerns of politics and thus is not strongly supported, and in fact even blocked.

Secularism depends entirely on diversity which depends entirely on confusion which depends entirely on mis-understanding which depends entirely on deception. Rational thinking makes Secularism impossible.

Thus in a Secular society, rational thought is the enemy. But that means that in reality even true Science is also an enemy and must be kept hidden (as it actually is). In its place are the preachers for fascination and urgency distracting attention to their chosen enemies and using Atheists to drone their incentives through any resistance.

It’s all a political game having nothing to do with seeking real knowledge -“philosophy”.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Secularism depends entirely on diversity which depends entirely on confusion which depends entirely on mis-understanding which depends entirely on deception. Rational thinking makes Secularism impossible.

Thus in a Secular society, rational thought is the enemy. But that means that in reality even true Science is also an enemy and must be kept hidden (as it actually is). In its place are the preachers for fascination and urgency distracting attention to their chosen enemies and using Atheists to drone their incentives through any resistance.

It’s all a political game having nothing to do with seeking real knowledge -“philosophy”.

I don’t agree, can you justify that please.

secularism

1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t agree, can you justify that please.

secularism

1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Well, to “justify” or prove anything I have to have a clear understanding of what you already believe to be true. I can “try” to explain, but I have to expect doubt in everything I say because I don’t know what other things you doubt.

Secularism proposes that if 90% of the population was Christian, then Christians ethics and morality would rule. The laws would be based on Christian understanding and/or faith. This would make the USA a Christian specific nation with all of the same enemies as any Christian nation.

Thus, in order to not be so prejudice, the population must be more diverse. If the population was only 25% Christian, 25% Jewish, 25% Islamic, and 25% other, then the nation could claim “no prejudice” and apply laws to all of the population without blame and without justified civil war.

But of course to do that, the Secular regime must establish and keep the population diverse. If at any time, the population were to begin to “see the light” of any of the religions, then the government would have to step in and break them up again, else the population would grow too strong and overtake that government.

As long as the population can be kept in turmoil and confusion, blaming, and fighting amongst each other, the government is safe. This requires Satanism (that IS Satanism).

Such a government becomes filthy rich as it taxes conflict (attorneys) and the constant rebuilding and struggling each individual makes against their neighbor. They must buy protections, insurances, attorneys, accountants, doctors, technology, and so on, just to make it through each year.

This wealth feeds the ability to ensure that the population never gains more influence than the government. The government is the top priority with its own agenda and concerns regardless of what the people want or need. Of course, this is extremely anti-American by America’s original concept.

But to ensure such happens, people must not all see any one particular light or truth, they must each be striving in different directions. This is what prevents them from all agreeing on anything - “we will agree to disagree”. They must be blinded to what they are doing. This is done through lust and fear (sex, drugs, disease, and war on the “terrorists”).

Of course the problem is that each person really has the same basic needs as the others, but must be kept in passionate confusion which causes them to not be able to see those needs. But that plays toward a greater dependence on that same government and thus creates even more strength of the government.

Anything that causes harmony among the population becomes the enemy of the state because in harmony, people do not need the state to do any more than arbitrate a few indecision situations. The government would become the server to the population rather than the population existing solely to maintain the government (Socialism).

So at all cost, conflict must be maintained (eternal Hell). But you cannot simply ask for people to do non-sense things that create conflict, you must cause them to believe passionately in what they want.

This means that people must be inspired to want for non-sense things and believe in non-sense concepts in every possible direction. That means “no morals” and “no actual reasoning” but serious passion to love this or that and hate this or that else the government would collapse into submission to the populous. And it must be able to be directed to ensure diversification. This is the new function of the Media (the 4th branch of the government).

If you look carefully at the last 40 years of US history, and especially if you are a real psychologist, you see that is exactly what has been happening.

But to have government people serving this diversity incentive, they must be people who do not believe in anything concerning any of the religions - the atheists.

They must manufacture atheists who truly hate religion and love the freedom of no morals (willing to do anything the government might need). Every atheist need not be the same and in fact must not be, else some things that government wants to get done, they would have no one to do it for them.

How do you manufacture atheists but to send out messages of the righteousness of it, stir up their passions, get them online and promoting their cause (just like every other religion).

In the long run, because it is merely an effort to gain and maintain control of others, rational thinking cannot be allowed. The rancher cannot tell the cows that they are being bred solely to be slaughtered and consumed for no purpose other than to feed the rancher.

There is a ton more evidence supporting the reality of this, but as I said, I don’t know of what you are already aware. But anyone discussing such things must immediately be declared “a paranoid conspiracy theorist crackpot”, else someone might listen and wake up (“Neo, The Matrix has you”).

 

[James_S_Saint]

Btw, Prof John Nash introduced this idea back around 1945 in his paper named “F_ck You Buddy” and was socially cursed for about 35 years until he was granted the Nobel prize for economics even though his gaming theory was originally intended for social war efforts. In his paper, he explained how beneficial it is to always betray the other guy before he has a chance to betray you.

Everything you have seen going on in the US since that time has been directly due to his paper being presented to the US Army strategic defense back at that time as they use gaming theory to model how to best get people to behave in a manner that produces the highest economic currency. Self interest, the “Me generation”, is fundamental requiring high divorce rates, insecurity, disease, lusting, and a constant feeling of dissatisfaction.

You can watch a report on this named “The Trap; What ever Happened to Our Freedom”, a BBC broadcast in 3 parts. The movie named, “A Beautiful Mind” was so as to remove the social curse that had been instituted prior.

That place upon the mountain where Jesus was tested by the Devil is this same topic. The US Senate chose the other route - wealth and domination over all of the Earth.

The passionate politics of Atheism is merely one of the needed results of the strategy.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Well, to “justify” or prove anything I have to have a clear understanding of what you already believe to be true. I can “try” to explain, but I have to expect doubt in everything I say because I don’t know what other things you doubt.

I doubt that for which there is not evidence.

Secularism proposes that if 90% of the population was Christian, then Christians ethics and morality would rule. The laws would be based on Christian understanding and/or faith. This would make the USA a Christian specific nation with all of the same enemies as any Christian nation.

It seems that you are mistaking secularism for democracy…

1. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Thus, in order to not be so prejudice, the population must be more diverse. If the population was only 25% Christian, 25% Jewish, 25% Islamic, and 25% other, then the nation could claim “no prejudice” and apply laws to all of the population without blame and without justified civil war.

See above

But of course to do that, the Secular regime must establish and keep the population diverse. If at any time, the population were to begin to “see the light” of any of the religions, then the government would have to step in and break them up again, else the population would grow too strong and overtake that government.

The population chooses the government???

As long as the population can be kept in turmoil and confusion, blaming, and fighting amongst each other, the government is safe. This requires Satanism (that IS Satanism).

Ok, your going off in a weird tangent here.

Such a government becomes filthy rich as it taxes conflict (attorneys) and the constant rebuilding and struggling each individual makes against their neighbor. They must buy protections, insurances, attorneys, accountants, doctors, technology, and so on, just to make it through each year.

And now were into capitalism???

This wealth feeds the ability to ensure that the population never gains more influence than the government. The government is the top priority with its own agenda and concerns regardless of what the people want or need. Of course, this is extremely anti-American by America’s original concept.

I am not a fan of capitalism so we are in agreement, though i don’t see what any of this has to do with atheism??? In fact are not all the capitalists fundamentalist christians?

But to ensure such happens, people must not all see any one particular light or truth, they must each be striving in different directions. This is what prevents them from all agreeing on anything - “we will agree to disagree”. They must be blinded to what they are doing. This is done through lust and fear (sex, drugs, disease, and war on the “terrorists”).

still not sure what this has to do with atheism?

Of …t.

…

Anything that causes harmony among the population becomes the enemy of the state because in harmony, people do not need the state to do any more than arbitrate a few indecision situations. The government would become the server to the population rather than the population existing solely to maintain the government (Socialism).

Well that’s not socialism???

So at all cost, conflict must be maintained (eternal Hell). But you cannot simply ask for people to do non-sense things that create conflict, you must cause them to believe passionately in what they want.

This means that people must be inspired to want for non-sense things and believe in non-sense concepts in every possible direction. That means “no morals” and “no actual reasoning” but serious passion to love this or that and hate this or that else the government would collapse into submission to the populous. And it must be able to be directed to ensure diversification. This is the new function of the Media (the 4th branch of the government).

…

If you look carefully at the last 40 years of US history, and especially if you are a real psychologist, you see that is exactly what has been happening.

Still don’t know what any of this has to do with atheism?

But to have government people serving this diversity incentive, they must be people who do not believe in anything concerning any of the religions - the atheists.

So bush was an atheist??? Are you serious???

They must manufacture atheists who truly hate religion and love the freedom of no morals (willing to do anything the government might need). Every atheist need not be the same and in fact must not be, else some things that government wants to get done, they would have no one to do it for them.

So you see only one source of morals??? Have you every heard of a small thing called empathy???

Also how can one have “free will” when they have imposed moral guidelines??? Don’t think you really thought about that one eh???

How do you manufacture atheists but to send out messages of the righteousness of it, stir up their passions, get them online and promoting their cause (just like every other religion).

It’s not a cause??? It seems you don’t actually know what atheist means?

In the long run, because it is merely an effort to gain and maintain control of others, rational thinking cannot be allowed. The rancher cannot tell the cows that they are being bred solely to be slaughtered and consumed for no purpose other than to feed the rancher.

To play Devil’s advocate, I really don’t see where your “Fox Mulderesque” conspiracy theories serve any purpose in promoting the message of the one true God?

There is a ton more evi
dence supporting the reality of this, but as I said, I don’t know of what you are already aware. But anyone discussing such things must immediately be declared “a paranoid conspiracy theorist crackpot”, else someone might listen and wake up (“Neo, The Matrix has you”).

Well if that cap fits???

Again, can you explain what any of this has to do with the fact that atheism means… anyone without theistic belief, not some that believes there is no god.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I doubt that for which there is not evidence.

You doubt that for which you do not SEE the evidence with your limited abilities.

Again, can you explain what any of this has to do with the fact that atheism means… anyone without theistic belief, not some that believes there is no god.

You had asked for me to explain my statements about Secularism.

To you (or what you wish others to believe, true or not) is “Atheism == anyone without theistic beliefs”. What Secularism has to do with that is that for Secularism to reign, it must have a large group of people with dubious morals if any from which it can pick the ones to do what is required even though no one in the population would have allowed for it. Theism institutes moral behavior with limits.

In witchcraft this is called a “friendly” represented by a black cat.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

You doubt that for which you do not SEE the evidence with your limited abilities.

I can now only conclude you have not even been reading my posts, i refer you back to page two of this thread…

“I don’t agree, the senses are easily confused. Besides if you look at the cosmos with just our senses, i.e. without equipment, they don’t actually tell us very much about “real truth”.”

You had asked for me to explain my statements about Secularism.
To you (or what you wish others to believe, true or not) is “Atheism == anyone without theistic beliefs”. What Secularism has to do with that is that for Secularism to reign, it must have a large group of people with dubious morals if any from which it can pick the ones to do what is required even though no one in the population would have allowed for it. Theism institutes moral behavior with limits.

In witchcraft this is called a “friendly” represented by a black cat.

You do realise that if “morals” are only that which god imposes on you, then morals are meaningless, this mean that the theist has no concept of empathy but only the threat of punishment.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You do realise that if “morals” are only that which god imposes on you, then morals are meaningless, this mean that the theist has no concept of empathy but only the threat of punishment.

No. I don’t realize that. It appears as a typical naive proclamation made out of ignorance and the passion to rebel against religions (politics).

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

No. I don’t realize that. It appears as a typical naive proclamation made out of ignorance and the passion to rebel against religions (politics).

Then i guess we can end this here… thanks and take care.