This is a bit naughty..
but i seriously couldn't resist. In some respects I'm extremely agnostic, in others my creative intuition and instincts very much point towards many things greater than myself, and i believe so does science.
I think it's all in the interpretation. Although this one below is a bit arrogant for me it's getting close :P
in any case you can laugh. As you can find a point in any banter and many a true word said in jest.
[video]yjO4duhMRZk[/video]
-Reptilian
Last edited by reptilian; 12-20-2009 at 09:15 PM.
as much as I agree there is a need for atheism for natural balance, and in some cases, sanity.. I must put forward the notion, as the gent in this video puts eloquently; The theists may lash out aggressively but the atheists must not, illiciting a double standard , created in such a way to explicit identical behavior, the notion of mine being, if theism is such a terrible emotionally decrepit aggressive rancid thing, then why are atheists complaining or even carrying out the same standard of behavior - to me their actions are identical - and by claiming foul on a double standard, the implied identifiably would separate them only in message, and not behavior.Originally Posted by reptilian
How can that not be to any honest man alarming?
I feel as if, such a delusion of mine could derive it into a scenario of bad men claiming the other bad men do it, so they must be able to be emotionally intolerant too.
This is kind of ironic, because if either of them followed the basic principles set out in the bible, mans ego would surely be restrained and imprisoned by this so called evil of religion. Mans own evils would truly be ensnared with god like delusional fear, and maybe in this case - that fear was a good thing - that protected man from his own delusion.
That is, that he is right..
It , be it a delusion, seems crystal clear to me that a man who would call foul on an aggressive theist , as an atheist, is not only looking for a fight, but seeking the same goal - to imprison the other with their truth or smiting righteousness . But the fear for me is, the meaning of God is telling us more about ourselves, than it ever will about this silly notion of God - I guess, they don't call it the unknown god for nothing.
Because all it teaches is that those who are emotionally aggressive are unbalanced individuals unable to deal with diversity, or themselves, or worse both. I would on a miserable day argue that, the emotional aggressiveness, if it was even proven to be there was no God, would bear the same weight. And indeed, those actions be as needless and fruitless as each-other, if not completely avoidable.
Can animosity really result in peace? Some would argue yes, but if there was peace, there would be no need for it? Idealist thinking? No just lack of co-operation and self righteousness . I'm sorry, I'm guilty too, even us agnostics believe we are 'right' - such madness? [b] Indeed in summary I feel God teaches us much, about us, we listen not , only ridicule eachother it seems - sweet irony - for that be the lesson. (biblical voice turns off *chuckle*).
Just a.. very long thought.
I must reconsider this as the most unnecessarily elaborate way of calling moron on us all :>
It was however quite a ride for me none the less... I learn't I've not got the foggiest clue how to solve this fallacial archetype any better than anyone else. Perhaps that is a lesson in itself.
One might dare to suggest the idea of God is a very irrational, or perhaps, non linear term. Most scientists would agree with that, interestingly.
In Contrast perhaps an emotional reaction has something to be admired, perhaps there is a time and place for it all - but whos time, and what place?
[video]_f-TMSbQ8mk[/video]
A
I don't think the actions of theists and atheists are identical at least not in the political sphere. Sure they both might make aggressive arguments, but the political actions seem completely different to me. For example atheists are not banding together politically to attack freedom of speech. Theist groups on the other hand have pushed for and won new draconian "hate speech" laws which restrict the freedom of speech all throughout Europe. A person can now be prosecuted for speaking badly of religion. There have already been political prosecutions under these new laws in the Netherlands and the UK where you live. Atheist groups are not trying to restrict access to condoms in aids ridden countries, they're not forcing women to cover up their faces when they walk down the street, they're not trying to control women's reproductive systems, etc. Sure there are individual atheists who have done mean things. You can perhaps argue that "Hitler was an atheist" or "mao was an atheist" but those dictators were individuals who did not claim to be doing their evil in the name of atheism. This contrasts with religious groups who do claim to be doing their evil in the name of their religion.
Religious thought is asking for special preferential treatment (legal and otherwise) which rational or scientific thought does not enjoy. Aggressive atheists are not trying to ban religious speech we're just trying to make sure that it is treated exactly the same as any other form of thought. It does not deserve any special protection from critical examination.
Surely emotion and aggression have their place. If people did not get emotional how would they muster the strength and motivation to remove the tyrants who would prey upon them ? I think emotion and aggressiveness should be used in line with reason and humanist principles. In other words protecting diversity should not be as important as protecting human rights. The worship of diversity is not a good reason for western culture to make room for the parts of Islamic culture that restrict our basic rights yet this is what is being done. The only way to stop it is to make a fuss I think.
-Reptilian
Last edited by reptilian; 12-20-2009 at 11:53 PM.
It is believing that is important,even if it is in nothing, that's still believing.
Everyone needs something to wrap their mind around to make them feel more complete.
You could not even walk across the room without it being embedded in your belief system.
I think that if you except any title of religion or lack there of, you put up walls.
If you deny any title you will stay on the quest for truth, and that is the most important.
You could be athiest if you wish, but I would at least put a door in one of those walls.
J
Until all the whirled hear;)
I think reptilian and I share the same many of the same views. I believe as technology and science increase + the stigma of being a 'non-believer' lifts.. religion will drift off into history where it belongs, and mankind can move forward.
I agree, it might have been a necessary step in the evolution of mankind or our collective conscience, but lets be done already.
Well said Outlander
J
Agreed.
It seemed to me that any civilisation that had so far lost its head as to need to include a set of detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilisation in which I could live and stay sane.
- Wonko The Sane
OH YA......this is going to be amusing. Gonna keep an eye on this thread. Just waiting for the first Holy Roller to come in with a big bag of stones.
"If you know not the name of a thing, all knowledge of that thing must perish."- Roman Maxim of Law
"It is folly to punish your neighbor by fire when you live next door"-Publilius Syrus
Posting Permissions
Welcome!
Sort by Content
Friends
Support Us!
World News
Sponsors
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Adv Reply
Threadstarter
