don't u think we r such an incredible creation? have u ever thought about what runs our body ??? what keeps our bod breathin when we r asleep what keeps our heart pumpin our brain workin,what is our energy source (a car uses a battery etc). my personal belief is that we r all a piece of god/creator like a star shattering into a billion pieces and everything we do we do it for the experience. it is no coincedence that we have FREE WILL (even though religion and government say u cant use it!). i also believe what someone was saying about quantam physics.
i have read the cwg trilogy, it's pretty amazing. another book that shares the same beliefs is a book called "Ramtha" the white book, published by JZK publishing. it will blow your mind and explain a lot of what u experienced.
hello stunty, so you believe this is the only reality, isn't it possible that there r other such realities on other dimentions? mind blowing but just because we don't see them, doesn't mean they r not there. our eyes only see what our brain believes! i'm not judging anybodies beliefs or religion, i'm just asking the question "isn't anything possible"
Yes! I believe anything is possible. More than our tiny little minds can comprehend. Does that answer your question?
Actually amigo IT'S NOT... It turns out that the word atheism means much less than i had thought. It is merely the lack of theism [...] -Basic atheism is NOT a BELIEF. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic , though popular usage has ignored the latter [...] -Freedom From Religion Foundation. If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way (common conformist sleepwalkers ...=)~ ). Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god'. From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God,(hence its the end result of someone with a LACK of belief not a belief itself) not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God, But thats the only part that I thought i felt i needed to respond to. GROWW ONN-peace o u t
I think not. 'If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God.' Yea, I think I'll stick with the traditional definition. you can't change the rules to suit your argument, that would make us as bad as the Mormans. The way I see it is you either shout about it or you don't. Keep shouting brother, I could be wrong. But then again I don't belong to a faith which will probably get everyone killed!!!!
Hey buddy lol just like i said before people confuse the term what kind of people? ordinary common people lol people that go about doing things from the surface without any insight or getting the info profoundly or mainstream b/s hence the word "nigger n nigga" authentic black brothers n sisters would argue the death of that word and what it truly means to them being the rightfull people to use it yet mainstream dictionarys go about what THEY think the word means, Stick to the root word the ORIGINAL greek word and then come back lol dont make me write out what the word and the prefix mean on here lol PEACE GROWW ONN-peace o u t Edit-(lack of belief not belief!)
I can see what your trying to say. I disagree with your interpretation but then again there are plenty of voices in this thread who disagree with mine. If you are correct in your interpretation then it raises quite an alarming question. 'When cheering your team on as they play their arch rivals for the 2002 Grasscity cup, a game which you belive your team will win due to differences in both teams performance through the season. Do you believe your opponents shall loose the game or is it simply a lack of belief in the possibility of them winning?? You see my problem with this. The last thing I need is paradoxes of a sporting nature haunting my thoughts as I try to sleep at night. Here's something for you to ponder HighAztec. Would the nature of existence be better explained viewed from the perspective of a photon traveling through space at the speed of light? Your ok mate.
Great analogy Friend ....it makes perfect sense to me a intricate intriguing complex mentality is what makes us all grow so i wouldnt mind using it everywhere i go...and after pondering ur statement i came up with its better to live a bland common life filled with truth than to live a life of excitment/adventures that are all based on lies but thats my view on it ..some people would and do live their lives co-existing with whats not really there ..truth wise lol. this next thing imma write is just for everyone to ponder: When you belive you can , you can What you impress on your mind, you inevitably become. It is a psychological law that whatever you desire to accomplish you must first impress upon your subconscious mind. Your inner thoughts can cause you to be rich or poor, loved or unloved, happy or unhappy, attracttive or unattractive, POWERFULL or weak. Relentless, repetitive self-talk is what changes your self-image. You affect your subconscious mind with verbal repetition. Constant repetition carries conviction. When you chnage your values to change your behavior start thinking of yourself as becoming the person you want to be. Self-suggestion makes you master of yourself. What you conceive yourself to be, you become. GROWW ONN- peace o u t One more thing u DO bring up great points i respect and ponder assidiously on Stunty but when u mix it up with insults and derogatory comments you yourself make other people turn away which sucks if ur trying to get a point across if u didnt bring up such great points ur insults themselves would of turned me away...and i wouldnt hear what ur all about wich means ur points would of gone unnoticed using myself as other people aswell.
and i ask u why would we get everyone killed? because we dont stick to the status quo or follow the norms? the way i see anarchy might kick in but eventually humans will restore everything to a natural state of peace and not label it religion or thank some deities on what THEY accomplished the way i see it is humans are capable of great things you should determine ur own morality, not let someone else impose theirs on you. So its like we do great things such as try n keep the peace and instead of saying shit were pretty good we say thanks to god, u get it? It is better to decide for yourself what is Right or Wrong - what can benifit or harm yourself and others - than to simply accept the teachings of an arbitrary authority. As an aethiest , I believe that this is the only shot we get at life. I belive we have the potential to make the world a better place - free from superstition, fear of the unknown, irrational persecution and harmful dogma. Do we want our children and grand-children to grow up in a world governed by ancient commandments that must be obeyed simply because a priest says so? We must teach them WHY it is wrong to harm others, not just say "you shouldn't do that - Baby Jesus can see you" . A child should be able to truly understand the REASON why any particular action is wrong, not just accept that it is wrong because somebody (parent , priest or god) declares it to be so. GROWW ONN-peace o u t Edit- So just because we choose not to follow religion doesnt mean we can expect total chaos and a hectic world my point is its the way it is because of US not because we follow sum religious rule that if we questioned would mean the death of human peace we uphold everything thats righteous but label it religion or thank religion rather than thank each other for being the people that we are.
Quote 'I believe that this is the only shot we get at life. I belive we have the potential to make the world a better place - free from superstition, fear of the unknown, irrational persecution and harmful dogma. Do we want our children and grand-children to grow up in a world governed by ancient commandments that must be obeyed simply because a priest says so? We must teach them WHY it is wrong to harm others, not just say "you shouldn't do that - Baby Jesus can see you" . A child should be able to truly understand the REASON why any particular action is wrong, not just accept that it is wrong because somebody (parent , priest or god) declares it to be so' Amen to that brother.
stunty,i totally agree,people in general do that,but not necessarily religious people. humans created pain and limitations not god. i'm a religious person, not sure what religion though lol. i believe alot of different things from different religions. I am a big believer in angels, and i enjoy exploring the spiritual side of existence. i can understand your way thinking,as harsh and judgemental as it may be, i do understand. I have to apolagize for my post earlier, i took it personally and maybe i shouldn't have, i did have a few rips before i posted that and was rilled up.i just don't understand how u can put people down for their religion, we are all people. i don't consider you a waste of space because you don't believe in a greater being than us. It's comments like that that are degrading and hurtful. Some very good posts here.certainly Gets a person thinking. But nothing could ever change my mind. i believe we all have a purpose here. a plan. And it is satisfying for me to believe in that.
I was wondering this on the way to school today. If say there was a time machine invented, and then people went back in time and proved that there was no such person as jesus, would christianity be ended then, or would christians just denigh it? I was talking about this to a religious girl on the bus, and she then told me to my face that since i dont believe in god, that i will never be happy and never have a purpose in life, and hell not much offends me, but that sorta hurt, cause she, i dunno, its crazy that people devote their selfs to a book? i dunno... mindless rambling
I don't believe there is a god.... "believe" being the key word here. I honestly don't think that people can proof the existence or the non-existence of God. And if anybody follows a religion because they "know" it to be true, then they're lying to themselves. I am an atheist as a matter of belief, not of knowledge. I believe everyone in theory, if they really think about it, is agnostic (you cannot prove the existence of God). You can still be a Christian and believe there is no proof that he/she exists, but instead be a Christian because you have faith that it is true.
lol that signature fucking kicks ass D9_THC lol i was am will be laffin my ass off for a minute (slang for a while) HAHAHAHAH beaver...classic GROWW ONN-peace o u t
I haven't read the whole thread but here is something I want to point out: 1) The nature of everything is nothingness. By this I mean nothing exists until it is created. I do not have a house until I build a house. There are no cars until someone invents a car. Likewise there is no God until someone proves a God. The burden is on the theists, not us atheists. 2) Realize that humans have a very limited mind. We have no concept of infinity, and we have no concept of external dimensions. In our present dimension we have yet to prove how something can come out of nothing (i.e. big bang). We have proved evolution is possible. This means the only thing holding us back from full proving that God is completely unnecessary is That we cannot explain what triggered explanation. Since we cannot truly understand the concept of infinity, we are left with an unanswerable question of creation, the big bang, or what have you. This goes along with the question of 'did god have a mother?' Realize that if you believe god created everything you are claiming that something came out of nothing, for god did not have a mother so god created himself out of nothing. If god can create himself out of nothing why can't energy create itself out of nothing? The argument of god has the exact same fallacies as the argument of the big bang, so why add the extra step of god - it just adds more complications! Just because we are not intelligent enough to explain how something can be created out of nothing, why should we create a ‘God' with the same problem to appease our fallacies? Another possibility is that someone is simply calling that initial spec of energy that triggered the big bang god - but no one would define that as a theistic god, so what good is it? At this point you should understand that the concept of God has all the same fallacies as energy creating himself. Whether it is a god that triggered evolution or a god that created everything as is, you have the same issue of god creating himself out of nothing. If you do not understand this reread from the beginning more carefully. So now, you may ask "so if god and 'big bang' have the same fallacies, why choose the big band over god"? This is because God adds a whole nother amount of problems. The only other problems of atheist are questions of "Intelligent Design" and "Religious intervention" both of which will be addressed in a bit. So what problems does God add? There are many, different ones that come up with each preaching. I cant touch on all the specifics, so I will just touch on a few major ones that are universal to god, as opposed to specific dogmas: 1) God is written in humanistic terms. God has an ego, he wants to be praised. Ego is a result of lack of intelligence. You do not have 'true' intelligence so you want to be compensated by an artificial feeling of intelligence and a feeling that you are better than others. Most 'supergeniouses' I know are not egotistical. They know they are smart, so they do not need to be told so. Socrates was humble, and even was Jesus (I consider him a wise man in no way connected to god). God is not humble. He wants to be praised, like any other typical human. If he is supreme and all-knowing he should have no ego. How ironic is it that Socrates was more humble than god? 2) Punishment and reward system? This entire system is absurd. All the rabbis I know are poor, all the thieves I know are rich. A doctor that saves lives but denies god is less rewarded than a minister who praises god everyday but 'slips occasionally' and molests boys? Geez... God knows the minister is only human. His sin will get forgiven with some praise and boosting of god's ego. All this of course is down in the afterlife. How convenient! God chooses not to implement any control in this world, but rather he says all our 'rewards' for the afterlife, where we will have 70 virgins! 3) Proving more on point 1, god is sexist. The bible is sexist, the torah is sexist, as is Islam. Not of course it makes more sense that this is God's 'secret plan' than to say that the reason god is sexist is because the MAN that wrote the scriptures back in the day was a part of a society that discriminated against women. It sure is interesting how God is influenced by the standards society implements. Or actual, its probably just part of his plan since we cant actually understand his rational. Doesn't anyone else see how god is always just a cop out? Since you cant explain why I shouldn't eat pork, or should go to temple you simply say that I can not understand god, since he is on such a high level. Sound like a cop out to me. After all I can understand god, since he is merely human. God is written in such humanistic terms (See above). Gee... Perhaps god is written in hemistich terms, since he was - after all - made by a human. I can go on for hours, but I have other shit to deal with so I will address the two common fallacies attributed to atheism. 1) Intelligent design. Theists argue that we are so well structured. If we are well structured why do woman not lay eggs? Animals that lay eggs have much higher birth rates, lower fatality rates for the mother, less pain to the mother and so forth. Why cant design just be driven by evolution? Computers evolve. If I said that god created the new Pentium 4 technology, everyone would say I am crazy. Everyone accepts without a thought that technology evolves. Bill gates creates a computer. It is successful. It evolves. Survival of the fittest. Windows is better fit for people than Linux is. So more people buy windows. Windows ‘survives' and is able to further itself. Obviously the two are somewhat different, but not that much different. A person with some unique quality can better gather food than his neighbor. His neighbor dies, he breads. His traits are past on. These are the fundamentals of both technology and evolution. How come we can only accept one of the same? 2) But wait. There is a 1 in 99999999999999999999999999999999999999 chance that we would evolve into our current state of being, doesn't that mean some higher power must have been guiding us? Hell no! So if instead of evolving to live on a 0 degree earth, we evolved in a 1000 degree earth we would have completely different structure, since other features would allow us to cherish. Why do you not think we cannot recognize ‘aliens', they are of a completely different structure. While it might be unlikely for us to evolve to our present state, if something else changes we would merely have evolved differently. Instead of being homoerectus, we might be bacteria. Who knows? Also keep in mind statistics can be altered to suit anyone's needs. Nazi's have more than enough statistics to show why Jews are inferior – do you accept it and go kill your Jewish neighbor? I sure hope not. 3) But what about our morals? If there is no god, how can we all have morals. Why should I not go about killing my neighbor? #1 we do not have any universal morals. Islamics who kill people are praised get 70 virgins, Jews who kill people rot in hell. Kamikaze pilots were revered for killing enemies. Palestinians are condemned. Where are our universal morals? At this point, it seems much more likely that our morals are different because they are determined by society, rather than a universal god. Or perhaps this same god wants one group of his people to kill another group of his people. This doesn't seem that far fetched relative to the whole God issue. #2 morals evolve. We start out in an anarchy (remember, the nature of everything is nothingness). Then I realize that I do not want my food to be stolen by my neighbor, so we make a truse. I don't steal his stuff, he doesn't steal mine. I don't kill his wife, he doesn't kill mine. I don't rape his dog, he doesn't rape mine. And so forth. This becomes ‘formalized' into a sense of a social contract. Since humans are so corrupt and try to violate these contracts, we mutually appoint some individuals who enforce these. Since we all have equal shares to our rights, we all have equal representation. This is how it was in Athens, when everyone had an equal vote as to whether or not Socrates should be put to death. This is a great system, but since humans are selfish they end up becoming corrupt which puts us in our present day. Doesn't this seem like a more rational explanation than to say “God gave us morals, in which we should not do onto our fellow man what we would not want done onto ourselves. Yet within these morals, he gave every man different desires – so what one mine might want done onto himself, he can do to someone else even if it goes against the victims morals.†Yeah. That really sounds like our kind, loving, fair, rational god. 4) But what about divine intervention. Moses spoke to a burning bush, God spoke to 3 million (is that the right number?) Jews at Mount Sinai. God also spoke to Jesus and his posy. And later he even spoke to Muhammad. What is going on here, it is all in black and white, what is so hard to understand? Well. It is a bit more involved than that. There are two rational approaches to be taken, both of which are more logical than the theistic approach. #1 It is strongly likely that this god was falsely interpreted. For mosses saw the burning bush that was both burning yet not being consumed. This must be God! Nope. There is a natural scientific phenomena known as the St. Elmo Fire. It generally occurs in areas of large amounts of phosphorus. Deserts have loads of phosphorus. Anyway, somehow there is a reaction to the phosphorus in which it gives off a glowing look. A burning look. The phosphoric glow appears to burning, yet since it is not really burning it does not consume. Also think about how often people trip on LSD and have a religious intervention. They claim to have seen god, yet usually the god they have seen is merely an illusion. Their mind is distorted and they label some object as god. Also examined mount Sinai. A cave and a valley. Caves echo. Valleys echo. There is no reason the acoustic of Sinai wouldn't have produced a booming result. If you are at the peak of the valley, the sound will boom. You might falsely interpret that as god, rather than a loud man that is echoed through a cave and boomed trough a valley. #2 Keep in mind the bible and Koran are built on the old testament. The old testament relies on oral tradition. Basically the torah was not written down for years and years after it was ‘given'. Rather it was passed down verbally from generation to generation. How is it so difficult for each generation to enhance a story. They were only human! Everyone enhances stories. Look at American heritage. Benjamin Franklin was a womanizer, yet we cherish him as morally perfect. Do you really think Paul Bunion carried a huge tree on his should which he used as an axe? I don't think so. It seems more realistic that the story was exaggerated. Who knows, in 100 years someone might hear a story that Bill Gates is a god that innovated capitalism, created modern technology and gave billions to better charities. After all, just think about how many aspects of our heritage are this way? Furthermore, isn't it convenient that Jesus spoke to god only in the presence of a couple others? What about the fact that Moses went up to mount Sinai unsupervised and came back a while later with the tablets having no proof that he didn't just write them? I can keep going, but I have to go study some economics for a test. Take this in objectively. Be ready to accept the fact that if you are convinced you will refute god. Get beyond the point that humans need to have some purpose in life. Our lives are meaningless and a means to an end, for after all we are merely a more intelligent animal. We will die just like any other organism, and then we will rot. We will not go to an afterlife and we will not be rewarded by god. It sucks, but it is true. Would you rather be true to yourself or live a lie to artificially appease yourself? I choose the prior. Religion is the opiate of the masses (credit to Karl Marx), I do not use opium. I do not take drugs, because drugs fuck up your mind. Religion does the same. Drugs kill, so does religion. Drugs are addictive and provide an artificial happiness, so does religion. What's the difference? Why are drugs bad, and god is not? Why doesn't the DEA start cracking down on ministers and rabbis? They sure would be doing more justice that way, and they sure as hell would save more lives. Comments and criticism are welcomed. Sorry about mistakes, I typed it quickly and didn't proof read. Bare with me, it is 4 full pages in MS word anyway.
yeah man i agree with almost all of that.. you should really do some independant research on drugs though, instead of accepting the government's various propaganda as fact. i use various drugs pretty often, but i havent fucked up my mind, become addicted, OR died.. this is because the leading cause of drug overdoses is ignorance, not the drugs themselves. www.erowid.org open your mind a little.. after all, in a fundementally meaningless existence, why should we hide behind human created barriers? i pursue enjoyment and insight.. and if i happen to find these with drugs, what difference does it make? really..