Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by lutherf

When I read things like this I have to ask myself, from a scientific perspective, if every culture on the face of the planet has developed some level of cognizance regarding a spiritual aspect of life could such a manifestation really be a "malfunction"?

This is a very legitimate question, Lutherf. Unfortunately, it's 2 a.m. where I live and I have to work tomorrow. I'll come back to this subject later, as time permits.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Almost seems like there is some sort of fear about an "atheist movement" going on here.

Are they impoverishing my countrymen by exporting their prosperity?

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

LOL! The logic behind Fennica's assertion that the "killings cannot be contributed to atheism" must be difficult for a true believer. After all, if atheism -- and not totalitarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union -- is responsible for the killings, then Christianity must be responsible for the bombing of abortion clinics and the killing of abortion doctors.

Is that your position?

Thank You, Nope that's not my position ... that's actually my point ... I guess the sarcasm of supplying such data is missed, not that I won't use it to to demonstrate the very point you are making. I have a 9 page thread of democide and links to lead to the point you are making. However lets not neglect when debating ... the rational atheists supposed and the "irrational" faithers supposed behind such acts. It would seem they are both quite adept at killing. Just a lead to hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by michael h

Are they impoverishing my countrymen by exporting their prosperity?

Not as far as you know.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Not as far as you know.

I do know, I guess since we can't attribute a negative group attribute to them ... then there is nothing to fear.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

LOL! The logic behind Fennica's assertion that the "killings cannot be contributed to atheism" must be difficult for a true believer. After all, if atheism -- and not totalitarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union -- is responsible for the killings, then Christianity must be responsible for the bombing of abortion clinics and the killing of abortion doctors.

Is that your position?

No, I think he's just saying that any belief structure can result in mass killings and it's silly to try and point the finger at on group or another.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

You mean paraphrase of the year?

Arthur C. Clarke - Wikiquote

No. It was the specific wording Blue Doggy used that amused me.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

So it is your position that a graduated tax system is a form of discrimination and persecution which is any way comparable to what is still occurring with blacks and other minorities in this country even today? Really?

Well, in the sense that it IS a form of discrimination - YES!!!

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

But now that you bring it up, do you think that if a charitable organization like Planned Parenthood makes that possible for indigent women, that there is anything inherently wrong with it?

So long as this "charitable organization" gets is money from voluntary contributors, no, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Or if a country or state decides to pay the cost of abortions in lieu of likely having to pay a far greater cost to support that child that they shouldn't do so?

That violates the getting money from voluntary contributors requirement for their to be nothing wrong with it. Countries or States do not get their money on their own; they have to take it from individuals.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Absolutely. I think that the financial liability of any unwanted pregnancy should be half the cost of an abortion unless the man voluntarily wishes to provide support. If the woman decides on her own to have the baby, the financial responsibility should be entirely hers minus that sum.

OK. Good I guess except how do you arrive at the determination that a man ought to pay for 1/2 the cost of an abortion he does not want? (Just for the record, my step-daughter is a wacko "home delivery nurse" where she goes to a person's house and delivers babies. Some of them are given up for adoption for no cost to the donor ... just to reveal your false alternative, why not pay for 1/2 the cost of "home delivery nurses?"

Originally Posted by lutherf

Thanks! Same to you.

Mine might look big but it's a 20# Halibut which, in the grand scheme of things, isn't all that big.

As far as the evangelical atheists.....it's absolutely hilarious some times. They fight, scrap and claw at even the slightest insinuation that they might be wrong and as far as being tolerant of other faiths...fageddaboutit!

It's still a sweet fish! Mine is a medium sized redfish I caught on the Outer Banks a few years ago. Very fine eating lol.

And yes, you have the evangelical atheists pegged.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Oh dear. You do realize the context of this quote, I hope. (This is not Jefferson's original text, by the way, but a compromise version.) These words were part of the Declaration of Independence directed at England's King George. They specifically reject the idea of absolute monarchy and put forth the idea of constitutional democracy. The reason that the US calls itself a Republic is because that is the opposite form of government from absolute monarchy.

I understand the historical context pretty well. I also understand that the historical context and what those words have come to mean are two different things. The early American slaves had little interest in the colonialist’s beef with the British Crown but they saw in the first words of the Declaration their ticket to emancipation.

Defenders of the status quo, such as John Randolph and John C. Calhoun were forced by the Declaration to contend that the proposition ‘all men are created equal’ was false. There is no record of it but they may even have appealed to the Declaration’s original context as a means to deny rights to blacks [not implying that you would].

Or maybe that Jefferson’s words were some sort of rhetorical flourish which were never intended to be taken literally. But the historical fact is they were taken literally and the rest---as they say, is history.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Furthermore, class, the intellectuals and elists of the time were predominantly deists. They accepted the idea that there was some kind of creative force in nature. Bear in mind, the intellectuals of the time had no knowledge of Darwin's explanations for how life developed on earth. But, being an authentic intellectual, Jefferson also called upon his fellow citizens to question even the belief in a god. (I have links for all these assertions, which I'll provide on request).

I think I dispensed with your context objection in my previous paragraphs. Regarding Darwin: We should be thankful Jefferson and co. had no knowledge of Darwin’s theory since there is absolutely nothing in it that would lead one to think that all men were created equal.

Indeed, the theory implies just the opposite and the original full title of Darwin’s book makes no bones [pun intended] about it: The Origin of Species by Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwinism may make for an excellent hedge against religious thought but it becomes, frankly dangerous, when applied to governmental philosophy. Though survival of the fittest makes for a pretty fair economic theory. So, if Darwin is off the table, what else do atheists have to offer as a political movement?

Originally Posted by matrixx8

Are these words mystical? Not by the standards of the time. Remember, Western civilization had only recently emerged from the Dark Ages. It should come as no surprise that this period was referred to as the Age of Reason.

Again, I would argue that what is more important is what those words have come to mean. And what they have come to mean is precisely this: all men are endowed with rights by their Creator. The Constitution only enumerates those rights and it is the proper role of a legitimate government to protect them.

A dreadfully unscientific and yet eminently enlightened set of propositions that would make Thomas Jefferson very proud, I would think.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

You mean paraphrase of the year?

Arthur C. Clarke - Wikiquote

I don't think you actually read what I wrote. LOL. I used Clarke's words, yet reversed "technology" and "magic" as it seems to pertain to this thread. I used the idea of if a = b, then b = a. In short, I was just having some fun. Porras got it as did the other gentleman.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Thank you for the kind words.

Before I respond, I would like to point out that I have enjoyed many of your political posts. In that regard, we seem to be in agreement about many of the social and economic issues facing the USA today.

As for my reference to mysticism, you should reread the definition I gave. There are three different usages of the term mysticism. You seem to be referring to the first one, while I am clearly referring to the second definition: , “any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining an intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths through meditation.” My concern is not what individuals choose to believe (I would defend their right to believe whatever they want, as long as they do not impose irrational values on others). My concern is the credibility of so-called knowledge for which there is no observable evidence. That is the very essence of mysticism.

The information I presented is not about "good and evil", as you seem to imply (such terms are not universal). The evidence shows (and there is much more than I have presented here) that totalitarian forms of social organization rely, not on the scientific method whereby individual minds compete to determine and verify the facts of reality, but on a dogmatic system dictated by secular priests who rule by force, with the State as the Supreme Being. Like organized religion, the rulers of such societies impose dogmatic beliefs on their citizens. Failure to comply with such dogma will not result in going to hell, but in going to Siberia or the torture chamber. Truth is no longer subject to evidence; it is what the Great Leader says it is -- Orwell's 2 and 2 is 5.

You suggest that my “sources” for the post to which you refer are inaccurate or unreliable. Do you believe that the information contained in Science, Politics and Gnosticism by Eric Voegelin is misleading? Or that in Harold Bloom’s American Religion: The Emergence of Post-Christian Nation. Do you also doubt the academic integrity of Nikolay Berdyaev’s study of the religious roots of Russian Communism? I used these sources because I have no reason to think they are unreliable. Unfortunately, just saying that this information is wrong does not make it wrong. I could provide you with a whole reading list on the subject. Perhaps you can link some academic sources that criticise the above references? If you disagree with the evidence I presented, it is up to you to refute it. (I understand that mysiticism in religious writings is viewed differently than in academic papers on the subject. My interest, however, is not in what mystics claim mysticism to be, but how independent scientists regard it in relation to empirical evidence.)


You might be interested in knowing the scientific explanation for such "states of mind".

Ah, pay no attention to this poster's hyperbole in regards to what you are referencing.

Actually, I agree with the definition, number 2, the act of insight, Truths, being obtained from something other than thought, memory, images, and so on. Some call this act meditation. But it is nothing more than an "inward lookingness" in which there is no separation between the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought. Without the burden and baggage of the past, which is memory, thought, images, only then can one look to see if there is anything beyond ordinary consciousness. Because if the ordinary consciousness looks, or tries to look to the timeless, the limitation of thought,which is time, can never see that which lies beyond. Now, this isn't theory, as one can see this in oneself. Every human has the capacity to see this, upon deep self observation.

And my prior point, was that from this thing, this sacredness that IS when the mind is quiet, from this evil cannot arise. And that of course was my objection to the idea that human brutality could arise from what I know as mysticism. If evil does arise from mysticism, IMO, there is no mysticism in that case. It is a delusional brain at work.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Inspiration is no mystery in this era of scientific inquiry. Why do you consider it odd that people can come up with relatively new ideas? That's one way the human brain works. It's a survival mechanism, which has produced a useful by-product. As a writer an translator, I come up with new ideas all the time. The scientific method only comes into play when the "new" idea has to be tested. Oh -- and by the way -- you forgot to mention that most inspirational ideas do not result in revolutionary inventions. So, maybe luck or chance is also a factor?

I do not consider it odd, the creation of new ideas. A new idea, by definition cannot come from the old, the past, or from memory. How can the old, be new? Therefore any new idea does not arise from memory, from thought working. Thought is the response of memory. You can only think of what you already know. And what you know is memory. Memory is always of the past, of the old. Can the old ever see the new?

Or, must the old be mute, in order to see the new? Follow me here. What I consider to be myself, this individual, is nothing more, psychologically than a huge collection of memory, as I have had 60 odd years of it. I have learned intellectual things, personal things from experience, and I have learned my culture, my role in it, and so on. And this accumulation of experiences, is what meets the world, each day. It is what LOOKS when I talk face to face with other people. Now, if I am talking to a person who has chided me, hurt my feelings, in the past, with that memory and many others, I interact with this person. Don't we all do that? This is a fact. It is not some theory. It is a fact because one can see this, observe this, in oneself. I am not concerned with theory, I want to stay in the realm of commonality among humans. And observation will yield that commonality, the fact of the matter.

So with this self, this accumulation of memory, from which thought arises, as thought is the response of memory, from this I interact with you. But in doing this, I am reacting to the past, not the now, the new. And perhaps you have changed. Perhaps you have seen the error of you ways, and you are no longer a huge bore. (not you personally)But my self is not giving you any chance. I am looking at you through the past. And the past is dead. How stupid is this? Yet do not we all live in this manner?

So, we want to change that. We want to change it, because we SEE that the new can never arise from the old. But how can one change oneself? Isn't that rather ludicrous? And if you think you can change the self, what is doing the changing? Is the thing trying to change, not the very same thing it is trying to change? So, this is impossible. For the self to change itself. Oh, it can impose rules and such, which we do, some of us, but that only creates more disorder and conflict within oneself and society.

This reminds me of a poem I heard many years ago. "There was a young man who said though. It seems that I know, that I know. But what I'd like to see, is the I that knows me, when I know, that I know, that I know. "

In so far as science, I think major discoveries, that are not dependendent upon the old, the memory, come from something not of ordinary consciousness. I think the great works of art have come from this same thing. Everyone has access to it, although some have more access, while never being aware of it. But they are not aware of IT, because they are not looking, in an inward looking manner.