This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Aggressive Atheism

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by JGMetalhead, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. Prismatic Sphere

    Prismatic Sphere We Carouse

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    In A Bowl Of Chili
    No, suppose you give us your ideas on what faith is. If faith is not force, then what is it, my expert guru of impractical knowledge???
     
  2. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    fixed but um... faith is belief, imagine that

    force is tieing my shoes, the engine in my car, the energy of said car when its moving, volcanoes, the ocean tide

    now Im sure no way in hell would lack of government or religion rear the ugly face of force... nah
     
  3. Schnappi

    Schnappi das kleine Krokodil

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Komm aus Ägypten, das liegt direkt am Nil.
    Athiesm is ridiculous, the simple fact so called athiests enter "athiest" in religion rections on forms and questionaires rather than "none" proves how much the understand about the principal of religion.
     
  4. razoredge

    razoredge Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    not a bad point, it could be viewed as hypocritical that by saying athiest you are commiting to some form of faith. I either say non-believer or athiest or if Im feeling really prickly anti-christ.

    Believers in or those that toy with "Satan" for what ever purpose no one could guess but anyhow they are basically saying they believe in the whole ancient folklore deal. I like the morals of the story in all kinds of folklore including some thats in the bible but I still view it as folklore written by elders for a few purposes I have already beaten into the ground.
     
  5. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,341
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    Excellent post.
     
  6. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the "Holy Bible" is folklore,
    razoredge said something i agree with o_O
     
  7. Prismatic Sphere

    Prismatic Sphere We Carouse

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    In A Bowl Of Chili
    What it all boils down to gentlemen is bicameral theory(a theory which I happen to agree with complete conviction).

    Bicameral theory states that until 3000 years ago essentially all human beings were void of consciousness. Man along with all other primates functioned by mimicked or learned reactions. But, because of his much larger, more complex brain, man was able to develop a coherent language beginning about 8000 B.C. He was then guided by audio hallucinations. Those hallucinations evolved in the right hemisphere of the brain and were "heard" as communications or instructions in the left hemisphere of the brain to be acted upon(the bicameral or two-chamber mind). In effect, human beings were super-intelligent but automatically reacting animals who could communicate by talking. That communication enabled human beings to cooperate closely to build societies, even thriving civilizations.

    Still, like all other animals, man functioned almost entirely by an automatic guidance system that was void of consciousness: They could not introspect and had no internal idea of themselves. They had no subjective sense of time or space and had no memories as we know them. They were nonconscious and innocent. They were guided by "voices" or strong impressions in their bicameral minds -- nonconscious minds structured for nature's automatic survival-- until about 1000 B.C. when he was forced to invent consciousness to survive in the collapsing bicameral civilizations.

    The hallucinated voices became more and more confused, contradictory, and destructive. Man was forced to invent and develop consciousness in order to survive as his hallucinating voices no longer provided adequate guidance for survival. As the "voices" lost their effectiveness, they began falling silent. And without authoritarian "voices" to guide and control its people, those societies suddenly began collapsing with no external cause. As the bicameral mind broke down and societies collapsed, individuals one by one began inventing consciousness to make decisions needed to survive in the mounting anarchy and chaos. On making conscious and volitional decisions, man for the first time became responsible for his actions. Also, for short-range advantages and easy power, conscious man began discovering and using deceit and treachery -- behaviors not possible from nonconscious, bicameral minds. ...Before inventing consciousness, man was as guiltless and amoral as any other animal since he had no volitional choice in following his automatic guidance system of hallucinated voices.
    As the "voices" fell silent, man began contriving religions and prayers in his attempts to communicate with the departed gods. Thus man developed the concept of worship, heaven, angels, demons, exorcism, sacrifice, divination, omens, sortilege, augury in his attempts to evoke guidance from the gods -- from external "authorities". So inevitably, some deceptively claimed to "hear" what others could no longer, and thereby established their indisputable authority.

    Despite religion, conscious minds caused the gradual shifts from governments of gods to governments of men and from divine laws to secular laws. Still, the vestiges of the bicameral mind combined with man's longing for guidance produced churches, prophets, oracles, sibyls, diviners, cults, mediums, astrologers, saints, idols, demons, tarot cards, seances, Ouija boards, glossolalia, fuhrers, ayatollahs, popes, peyote, Jonestown, born-agains.

    Consciousness allows a person to make his or her own decisions rather than relying on nature's bicameral process that automatically follows learned customs, traditional rules, and external "authorities". Today, man's survival still depends on his choice of beneficially following his own consciousness or destructively following the voices of external "authorities".

    While the bicameral mind exists in all people, it can be controlled or dominated by a special mode of consciousness developed not through mother nature but volitionally by each individual being. That mind control or domination can be exercised by an individual over himself and others. Or an individual can allow that mode of consciousness in others to control or dominate his or her bicameral mind.

    The bicameral mentality lures people into searching for "sure-thing" guidance from "higher authorities", rather than using their own consciousness for making decisions and determining their actions. Thus, in their search for prepackaged truth and automatic guidance, people seek "higher authorities": religion, politics, true-believer movements, leaders, gurus, cults, astrology, fads, feelings, and even forms of poetry, literature, mass media, medicine, nutrition, and psychology. The bicameral mind seeks outside sources that will tell it how to think and act.

    Like all who feel the desire to manipulate and control others, anyone can exploit the automatic bicameral mind in others by setting up "authorities" for influencing or controlling that bicameral mentality seeking external guidance.

    Essentially all religious and most political ideas today survive through those vestiges of the obsolete bicameral mind. The bicameral mind seeks omniscient truth and automatic guidance from external "authorities" such as political or spiritual leaders -- or other "authoritarian" sources such as manifested in idols, astrologers, gurus. Likewise, politicians, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, professors, doctors, journalists and TV anchormen become "authoritarian voices"

    Today the major worldwide sources of external "authority" are the philosophical doctrines of religion (along with the other forms of mysticism and "metaphysics") combined with political doctrines such as Socialism, Fascism, and Marxism. All such doctrines demand the surrender of the individual's ego (sense of self or "I") to a collective, obedient faith toward the "authority" of those doctrines. In return, those doctrines offer automatic answers and lifetime guidance from which faithful followers can survive without the responsibility or effort of using their own conscious minds. Thus, all current political systems represent a regression into mysticism -- from conscious man back to bicameral man.

    But, in reality, no valid external "authority" or higher power can exist or ever has existed. Valid authority evolves only from one's own independent, conscious mode of thinking. When that fact is fully realized, man will emerge completely from his bicameral past and move into a future that accepts individual consciousness as the only authority. ...Man will then fully evolve into a prosperous, happy individual who has assumed full responsibility for his own thinking and life.

    The discovery that consciousness was never a part of nature's evolutionary scheme (but was invented by man) eliminates the missing-link in human evolution.

    In conclusion, as long as people want to be led; as long as people look to/for leaders, that will only attract those powermongers who will seek to cheat and exploit them.
     
  8. Prismatic Sphere

    Prismatic Sphere We Carouse

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    In A Bowl Of Chili
    Fixed.
     
  9. Silver Incubus

    Silver Incubus Dead Hands Justin

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    (Near) London, Ontario, Canada
    Not believing in supernatural gods is ridiculous? Believing you have a friend with magical powers is ridiculous, not the other way around. Once again I will state that

    ATHEISM is the LACK OF BELIEF. IN other words, no belief in a higher power.
     
  10. Silver Incubus

    Silver Incubus Dead Hands Justin

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    (Near) London, Ontario, Canada
    Faith
    –noun1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

    2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

    3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

    4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

    5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

    6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

    7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

    8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

    As described Faith is no more then an abstract noun with nothing tangible and it is because of this that it Technically never existed.

    Faith is an abstract Noun like Law, Morality, Confidence, Love etc.
     
  11. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    +1
     
  12. Prismatic Sphere

    Prismatic Sphere We Carouse

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    In A Bowl Of Chili
    One other thing that I feel needs to be cleared up here:

    The questions "Who Created Existence" and "Why of the Universe" are ancient, mind subverting gimmicks of positing invalid, intellectually untenable questions that have no basis in reality. That false-question maneuver has been used by theologians and other mystics for centuries. The gimmick works by taking an invalid or meaningless idea and then cloaking the idea with specious but profound-sounding phraseology. That phraseology is then used as an "intellectual" prop to advance false, irrational concepts or doctrines. Consider, just for the hell of it, the "Who Created Existence" and the "Why of the Universe" questions so often used by poets and theologians to advance the God or higher power concept. On closer examination, one realizes with glaring finality, that invalid questions such as "who made the universe" are meaningless and unprofound. For that type of infinite-regression question (of who created the creator and so on back) answers nothing and is anti-intellectual. Such a question cannot or need not be answered once one realizes that existence exists.
    On realizing that by nature existence simply exists, one then realizes that the "Who Created Existence" and "Why of the Universe" questions cannot or need never be answered because no causal explanations are needed for existence or the universe. Existence is axiomatic, self-evident. It just exists; it always has and always will exist. Nothing created it and no causal explanation is needed or valid. For, what is the alternative? No alternative is possible unless one accepts the contradiction that existence does not exist.


    Another thing that pisses me off---

    When theists shift the burden-of-proof onto us. That because they claim that there is a god, that we must somehow prove there is not. A negative cannot or need not be proven. Again, we have an arbitrary, anti-intellectual standard that people just openly accept. But that proving-a-negative ploy is intellectually untenable and undermines the real protector of honesty, which is: the burden of proof always rests on the one making an assertion or accusation.

    So until you sorry-ass, deluded theists can prove your delusions are real, you lose.
     
  13. Kara-Shehr

    Kara-Shehr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The fact that you're generalizing, is ridiculous. Surely you're not using a vague blanket statement you just whipped up to make a case against the comprehension skills of atheists.


    The only way all Atheists can be grouped together is that they all have come to the conclusion that there is no God/Gods. Saying they all have a poor understanding of religious ideals and the definition of religion itself all together is simply a biased and ignorant view of human diversity.

    Case in point, there are some dumb atheists out there and some intelligent ones as well. The same can be said for religious folk. Some smart, some not so smart. The intelligence of each atheist and religious person will differ, just because they all hold on to one ideal does not create a lack of discern uniform throughout said groups.
     
  14. Kara-Shehr

    Kara-Shehr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Good post PS.
     
  15. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,341
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    The "bicameral theory" is about as laughable as any religious book interpretation of history could possibly be construed.
     
  16. Prismatic Sphere

    Prismatic Sphere We Carouse

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    In A Bowl Of Chili
    I don't see how. It's one of the only theories out there that rejects any and all religio-oriented, authoritarian concepts. I would read it again.
     
  17. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,341
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    What's laughable is suggesting that man, supposedly previously incapable of designing new systems, reaches an impass and magically assumes the ability to do so.
     
  18. Prismatic Sphere

    Prismatic Sphere We Carouse

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    In A Bowl Of Chili
    I don't think there's anything magical about rejecting a seemingly magical process of thought, and scientifically more separated and ineffective brain structure and the necessary, subsequent honest integration of reality.

    When you can finally understand and conceptualize man's advent of deception to achieve his goals, I think the rest becomes pretty clear.
     
  19. Dak

    Dak mentat

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    24,341
    Likes Received:
    2,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Among the Horrors
    You just ignored the massive problems with your chosen theory by responding "well its better than the other kind of magic".

    No one currently here is arguing that religion isn't a tool of control.
     
  20. monoxide_child

    monoxide_child New Metal Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    could you explain in detail exactly how you came to the conclusion that bicameral theory is somehow "majic"
     

Share This Page