The Birth of God and the Beginning of the New Dawn

At the end of the day all anyone religious is doing is personifying the chaos of the universe and hoping that if they ask really nicely, chaos won't kick them in the head; then of course there are the #birds who think a being personified as love and compassion would be alright with them acting contradictory to its "teachings" because they're done in its name.

Tl;dr people suck and are dumb. "God" was created to answer questions we didn't have answers for: order amidst the chaos. Anything more than that is a people problem. There's no need to "kill" God, people just need to examine existence for themselves, and stop being #ty to each other.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Ghost147

I stand by my comments

It would seem that the rejection of reality and the embracement of ignorance is an all too common stance lately on ATS.

Just FYI, I star your posts Ghost147 at least 19 in 20 times.
But humans only understand a tiny fraction of how things work..

There is room for other opinions, and in fact EVERYTHING we now
know may someday be proven wrong.. and that's OK.. science
can handle that... which why it's infinitely superior to any
and all religion.

But today's science may be tomorrow's superstition.. it's happened
many times in the past.

Proclaiming that when others have a different opinion on something,
that "that" is whats's wrong with ATS and the world ... boo hiss..
that's abominable.

Kev

Lets kill Zeus at least, we gotta spill some blood to be forgiven for our sins...right?

a reply to: AlienView

If anyone sees the need to attack anothers belief system or
even their explanation for existence? The only acceptable
reason for doing that is because they themselves have
one that makes better sense. And if they don't, that could
also be viewed as hateful and warlike. I don't see anyone here
offering anything except crack pipe opinions.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Still, none of that explains the self loathing and the group mindset of looking forward to (prophecised) and praying gleesfully for total destruction of society as we know it, that is instilled in the Abrahamic religions.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
Just FYI, I star your posts Ghost147 at least 19 in 20 times.
But humans only understand a tiny fraction of how things work..

There is room for other opinions, and in fact EVERYTHING we now
know may someday be proven wrong.. and that's OK.. science
can handle that... which why it's infinitely superior to any
and all religion.

But today's science may be tomorrow's superstition.. it's happened
many times in the past.

I do not deny any of that. In fact, I've often had to explain it to others in a similar way as you are now.

Opinions are a great way to bring up much needed issues at times, however, I haven't been responding to a simple opinion, the member was stating claims and definitions which simply are not accurate, and so I provided the necessary information to show how those claims and definitions are not accurate. So, his opinion was based off of a false premise and misunderstandings, there is no harm done correcting these falsifications.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
Proclaiming that when others have a different opinion on something,
that "that" is whats's wrong with ATS and the world ... boo hiss..
that's abominable.

Again, it wasn't a matter of opinion. The member had made specific claims that were based off of an inaccurate description of a specific topic.

Despite several thorough responses to those misunderstandings, which clearly showed what the actual definition of an Atheist is, as well as other claims, the member continued to refuse to accept what the definition really was.

That rejection of reality is what I was referring to in my response, not that he had an opinion in general.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: AlienView
If anyone sees the need to attack anothers belief system or
even their explanation for existence? The only acceptable
reason for doing that is because they themselves have
one that makes better sense. And if they don't, that could
also be viewed as hateful and warlike. I don't see anyone here
offering anything except crack pipe opinions.

Why must the only acceptable reason to respond is to pump out ones own explanation?

If someone is saying something as a fact, and that fact has intrinsic errors within it, then does that not justify a response to correct those errors?

a reply to: AlienView

84% of the population of the Earth has a faith. Very, very few of them will ever kill someone.

By far, the majority of killings of human beings, now or in the past, have not had a religious motive.

Of the thousands of wars throughout human history, only very few had a religious component. The biggest wars (those with the largest number of combattants and casualties) had people of the same religion on opposite sides; i.e: religion played no part in the slightest.

The assumption you made at the start of your post is obviously false and irrational.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AlienView
84% of the population of the Earth has a faith. Very, very few of them will ever kill someone.

True.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AlienView
By far, the majority of killings of human beings, now or in the past, have not had a religious motive.

True.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AlienView
Of the thousands of wars throughout human history, only very few had a religious component. The biggest wars (those with the largest number of combattants and casualties) had people of the same religion on opposite sides; i.e: religion played no part in the slightest.

True, Although I don't recall the where the citation of this information was. Perhaps you could supply it? I remember there was a discussion on the matter here on ATS a while back that explained it well.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AlienView
The assumption you made at the start of your post is obviously false and irrational.

True.

I can agree to all of that

You know, as unlikely as it sounds, religion is not that much different then science, albeit science has much more context and perception then religion could ever offer or desire. If it weren't for religion, the context of fear of death and pain would of gone out the window a long time ago.

Maybe it just another type of evolution, but more of a social one...Monkey sees, Monkey does...Monkey hears, Monkey listens... Monkey speaks, Monkey says.

Learning from other mistakes, writing or telling stories of events or accidents that happen until they became more explainable and understood over time instead of God deciding who lives or dies 24/7. It probably why every religion obsessed with life, death, and rebirth, and where they become so obsessed with morals of the story, much like how Christians brag about Jesus dying

As for the Abraham Faiths, other then populace, clan and breeding control factors, life was just harsh and unforgiving for their times, much like how they depicted the O.T God. It conformity really, nothing more. I mean look at the Black Plague, they thought they were being punished by God, when really they should of just cleaned their streets. Hence "Cleanliness is close to Godliness", that should be the germphobs mantra there.

Bet Jesus was yelling his ass off in Heaven, saying "You Idiots are forgiven, because you guy didn't learn anything". Strict Master disciplinary stuff/or #, mortal man can't comprehend.

"Who more the fool, the Fool, or the one who follows him"...Ever wonder why God punishes and threaten the Devils followers so easily...But never the Devil.

originally posted by: Specimen
If it weren't for religion, the context of fear of death and pain would of gone out the window a long time ago.

I'm not quite sure that is true. A person doesn't need religion to be afraid to die or to have pain inflicted upon them. There is a perfectly natural explanation for that fear, and that is survival.

Let's try to focus on the 'concept' I am trying to convey:

AlienView said:

".......In the beginning was the word and the word was with God - And how well does Man understand words?

Would anyone deny that reiligion has been and still is being misused as an excuse for domination of Man by Man ?
- 'they' try to kill and control Man in the name of God - put simple I'm accusing them of being hypocrites of the
highest order who really should fear God - for any real godlike concept or entiry would put a quick end to their
deviltry - the fact is Man often worships the Devil in the name of God.

A 'New Dawn' as I envision it would be like a rennaisance to the mind - a focus on the future - an escape from
religious dogmatism - an evolutionary break with the past - an awareness of an unfolding future that refuses
to be sucked back into the cesspool of Human history. I even started a new religion to further these concepts
- It is called 'Sciencefictionalism' the religion of the future - Of course it is hypothetical but does require some
faith - faith in the future. To a Sciencefictionalist whether God exists or ever did exist is irrelevant - What is
important to the Sciencefictionalist is that God, an unfolding intelligence, rules existence, Man's consciousness
and God's can not be separated - We become responsible for the universe and world we exist in.

See:
SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Religion of the FUTURE
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Ghost147

If someone is saying something as a fact, and that fact has intrinsic errors within it, then does that not justify a response to correct those errors?

Your retort isn't even in the same context as my reply.

a reply to: Ghost147
Your ignorant and stupid. I gave an opinion, and stood by it instead of arguing quit being a douche

a reply to: Ghost147

O for the most part yes, religion isn't needed for an explanation of the fear of death since it would of been innate, even though they are literary and artistic renditions that could give context of pain and suffering that would of been published, shared, or forced down the viewers throat ... Like the Book Of Job for example, he was a loyal servant of God, but God throw a # storm and a Behemoth his way for his unmoving piety.

Or how the Moral of Jesus being Crucified, offer a little perception in that direction...What did anybody learn from Jesus dying, or what is the lame excuse for believing Jesus that is used to join the little reindeer gang...He died for my Sin, which ain't really got a moral to the story.

But there is such a thing called, or believed to exist, named " Dumb Luck".

"The Gods have shown me mercy this day", i.e.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Still, none of that explains the self loathing and the group mindset of looking forward to (prophecised) and praying gleesfully for total destruction of society as we know it, that is instilled in the Abrahamic religions.

Well.. since you are so interested in this topic.. and it IS an interesting topic,
why don't you educate me as to your favorite line of reasoning?

It's worth an entire book's worth of word's I'd say..

I imagine I have other words to chip in.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Well personally, I believe the self loathing and self destruction is imposed by the mindset that some are chosen by the one and only god and others are not and remain unworthy.

The "chosen" become an increasing elite group who find it more and more necessary to indoctrinate the masses of unworthy and bothersome "little people" into believing themselves unworthy and inferior.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
Then wouldn't the thought that he would send us to eternal torment for choosing the wrong religion be insulting him? That's calling him cruel and demented by human standards. By God standards it's calling him the epitome of evil. ..........
...
.

Thank you for this very reasonable thought

a reply to: Rex282
Your welcome and thanks

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

If someone is saying something as a fact, and that fact has intrinsic errors within it, then does that not justify a response to correct those errors?

Your retort isn't even in the same context as my reply.

Perhaps I read it wrong. Could you explain how it doesn't apply to your post? I still believe it does.

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Ghost147
Your ignorant and stupid.

I've presented information about a topic and backed it up, how is that ignorant?

IQ is 147 (usually not considered 'stupid')

originally posted by: Gnosisisfaith
a reply to: Ghost147
I gave an opinion, and stood by it instead of arguing quit being a douche

You can have your opinion all you want, that doesn't make it valid; nor are the claims within your opinion.

I corrected those claims, that's all. I'm sorry your offended by facts.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Ghost147

O for the most part yes, religion isn't needed for an explanation of the fear of death [and pain]

Alright, I thought that is what you were inferring. I'm glad we agree