The fool says in his heart "there is no God"

reply to post by depth om


I would trust my instincts more than any kind word anybody says, be it a priest, Jesus, god, bishop, etc... They don't live in my shoes. I live for myself first, therefore I can give all of myself to anybody who needs it.

Originally posted by blueIII
Do you have a link where i could read about them?

it'll take a bit of digging and i'll be out for the weekend... but i'll find it
wait, i just did... and i had completely even butchered the phonetics

The Pirahã have no concept of God or religion. They believe in spirits, though these are not the same kinds of spirits in other cultures. These "spirits" can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things.

en.wikipedia.org...

see? no supernatural concepts

there's plenty of further reading on them in the entry.

-
Has this been proved?

It would be possible that a powerful being could easily plant thoughts in you or send you a thought or idea.

it's just logical. a small child doesn't believe in anything that it hasn't been educated in. s/he doesn't understand anything until they are taught it. they are blank slates

do you think living your life by the bible, is the best way to please god,

"The fool says in his heart "there is no God""

if you really want to please god according to the bible, to exactly what Kind david did...

as he was a was a man after god's own heart.....

…”he raised up unto them David to be their king: to whom also he have testimony and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine-own heart, which shall filfull all my will.” (Acts 13:22)

….”David did that which was right in the eyes of the lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life….” (Acts 13:22)

King David was as close to perfect as it gets in God’s eyes, a roll model for us….so let’s look at what king David did to be a man after God’s own heart.

David kills Goliath with his sling, beheads him and carries the head back to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:53-7)

David and Saul have a contest to see who can kill the most people for god
(1 Sam 18:6-7)

David Kills 200 Philistines and brings their penis foreskins to Saul to buy his daughter (1 Sam 18:25-7)

He acts like he is crazy, scribbles on the gates of Gath an lets spit run down his beard on front of Israel’s enemies in the hopes that they would take him in and protect from Saul (1 Sam 21:21)

David smites the Philistines with a great slaughter (1 Sam 23:2-5)

David vows to kill any who piss against the wall (1 Sam 25:22, 34)

David smote the land and left neither man or woman alive (1 Sam 27:8-11)

David had many wives (1 Sam 30:5)

David orders one of his men to kill the messenger who claimed to have killed Saul at Saul’s request (2 Sam 1:15)

David curses Joab, his family and all of their descendants forever
(2 Sam 3:27-9)

David has several of his solders killed then cuts off their hands and feet then hangs their bodies up for decorations (2 Sam 4:6-7)

David tells his men that whoever kills the lame and the blind will be his chief and captain (2 Sam 5:8)

David smites the philistines again with a great slaughter (2 Sam 5:19, 25)

David dances naked before god and everybody (2 Sam 6:14, 20-2)

David kills 2/3 of the Moabites makes the rest slaves then cripples al their horses (2 Sam 8:2-4)

David kills and tortures thousands of people (2 Sam 8:6, 14)

David commits adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:22-5)

David saws, hacks and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities
(2 Sam 12:31)

David put his concubines in prison as punishment for being raped
(2 Sam 20:3)

David sacrificers the seven sons of Saul to God then has their bodies hung up for all to see (31:6-9)

David orders that a beautiful virgin be found to sleep with him to keep him warm (kings 1:1-4)

If you want to please God then you need to be just like king David

Kill, kill and Kill again some more, perform torture adultery and have lots of wives and girlfriends, and human sacrificer’s.


[edit on 053030p://am3054 by andre18]

We are all men and women "of" God. If your child murders that does not make you a murderer.

I can say it, and I'm not a fool.

I believe in something bigger than all of us, but it isn't a god or a divine being. I believe whatever it is, isn't aware of its own existence.

And did you ever consider that the reason most societies on this planet have worshipped something bigger than themselves is because doing so allows people to place the responsibility for their actions on someone else. How many tyrants said they were alive because their victims had sinned?
Genghis Khan rode down children and raped women because 'they had sinned'.
Hitler believed his role was to eliminate the followers of 'false gods' and make way for his God's followers.
Early white settlers believed their 'dignified' religion granted them superiority over the 'wild, black savages' of Africa, or the Aztec people.

Belief in an all powerful, intelligent god is a way for people to alleviate their own guilt and place the blame on someone else, as well as have an excuse to commit the most gruesome actions 'for the ultimate good'.

reply to post by blueIII


I found you post well put blueIII. All I'll say on the matter is we won't know until we get there in the afterlive what it's all about, if anything, so lets not worry about it.

Peace be yours

reply to post by MajorMalfunction



Ah but turn that fine little microscope on yourself.

Yeah, thanks. What is that supposed to mean?

Being quite a bit older than most of the people in this thread so far's I know, and having been in and out of different forms of therapy and support groups for most of my adult life, as well as being completely honest with myself and frequently doing introspection and self-assessment, I dare say I already have turned the microscope on myself.

Now how about you take your own advice?

reply to post by MajorMalfunction


Ok since you asked. Here is analysis based off of your response on this and responses I have seen you make.

You can go to help groups etc, etc, etc, etc and still be completely in the dark about yourself (or good at fooling yourself *not saying if you are or arent don't care to know you better*) and age has little to do with it as well, anymore than standing in a forrest makes you a tree.

*Note* (i have seen more than enough "older" people act like complete and utter children for that statement to have any sort of weight to it with me).

As far as the evidence shows, there is no god.

Sure as the evidence as you wish to see it.
I have done my research and most the time I see grey areas and so has LOTS of other people. In otherwords definintive proof has NOT been brought about as yet so its open for a person to decide what they want to believe.

Arrogance? Hubris? Do you not believe you know the answer to that question you argue so often in, the TRUTH of the matter? Doesn't it give you the mental pass you need to make the statements you make?

And how is relegating ALL spiritual beliefs to faerytales with skyfaeries, magic cupcakes, spagetti monsters, (take your pick) NOT arrogance? Especially considering your arguments really only work for the Abrahamic (or crotchity old man type or active) views on that stuff.

Yes a great many religious claims can be falisified but there is still a great big grey area in human knowledge.

And last but not least calling people fools for believing in what you call "sky faeries" (which you have in a mocking half arsed way *read passive aggressive attack strategies*).

So yea. I stand by my statement. Or modify it slightly (maybe) "Time to clean off the microscope lens" or ???.
Either way. Yea. Check yourself.

And furthermore I do keep a mental microscope (I believe everyone should) on myself ma'am, why not just say "I know you are but what am I?" it's easier.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by MajorMalfunction

 

I have done my research and most the time I see grey areas and so has LOTS of other people. In otherwords definintive proof has NOT been brought about as yet so its open for a person to decide what they want to believe.

You appear to have missed the point of the title of this thread. It states pretty clearly the proposition that a person is NOT open to decide what they want to believe. That is, unless they are a fool. MajorMalfunction was responding in kind to that.

It is incumbent on the person who declares a proposition to offer proof. BlueIII did not. MajorMalfunction merely stated the obverse in hopes of challenging BlueIII to offer some proof.

Arrogance? Hubris? Do you not believe you know the answer to that question you argue so often in, the TRUTH of the matter? Doesn't it give you the mental pass you need to make the statements you make?

Again, MajorMalfunction was criticizing the initial statement since it was made categorically and without any proof. That, in conjunction with his evaluation of those who didn't share his view as fools, showed that the initial poster was arrogant and full of hubris. It appears to me that MajorMalfunction was justified.

Yes a great many religious claims can be falisified but there is still a great big grey area in human knowledge.

This statement would even further seem to bring into question the inital poster's assertion that non-believers are fools.

And last but not least calling people fools for believing in what you call "sky faeries" (which you have in a mocking half arsed way *read passive aggressive attack strategies*).

I agree that MajorMalfunction may have let her annoyance with gratuitously being called a fool cause her to respond in kind. However, it would seem that for you to be fair, you should have criticized BlueIII equally.

So yea. I stand by my statement. Or modify it slightly (maybe) "Time to clean off the microscope lens" or ???. Either way. Yea. Check yourself.

I'm surprised that, as articulate as you are, you would stoop to ad hominum attacks.

And furthermore I do keep a mental microscope (I believe everyone should) on myself ma'am, why not just say "I know you are but what am I?" it's easier.

I'm sure you meant for this statement to be meaningful, but you may have left out a few words, since, although it sounds is if it has meaning, on analysis it appears to be gibberish.

Occam

reply to post by Occam


Firstly, I will say that yes, in my opinion, BlueIII is a fool. Just another of MANY scripture flingers that expects the world to bow down to his stubborn belief in a book. And yes his post was an attack.

But. MajorMalfunction’s responses in this and other threads is hardly without fault and that is what I was addressing. It’s all well and good to battle against those that ignorantly attempt to force their views upon everyone.
But to attack those with the very weapons (statements such as "Your stupid/ignorant/ a fool to believe this") that you decry them using is in my mind is completely ignorant. She has responded to this post and like I have said EVERY post I have seen her respond in with a “Oh yea, well I’m right and you’re the ignorant heathen fool.” which rings in my head of pure childishness.

And last but not least calling people fools for believing in what you call "sky faeries" (which you have in a mocking half arsed way *read passive aggressive attack strategies*).

Such statements as this is common for her (as far as I have seen). I was addressing that.

And furthermore I do keep a mental microscope (I believe everyone should) on myself ma'am, why not just say "I know you are but what am I?" it's easier.

I'm sure you meant for this statement to be meaningful, but you may have left out a few words, since, although it sounds is if it has meaning, on analysis it appears to be gibberish.

Allow me to point out her response to my earlier response then.

Now how about you take your own advice?

Which smacks of “I know you are but what am I?” to me at least.
Considering the fact she doesn’t and really can’t know that I scrutinize my every thought and action. I am impulsive yes that seems to be a given. But doesn’t mean I don’t I don’t look at myself and ask “Ok, why did think/feel/act that way?”
And as a response to “You need to turn that fine little microscope on yourself.” It is boiled down a response of “I know you are but what am I?”.


As fo the ad hominum attack you say I did, I was merely standing by my statement that she needed to turn the microscope that she has on them on herself, seeing as to I see her making the same type of claims (just the opposite of them) as those she attacks.

And it seems to me (could be wrong) that you are making excuses for her actions. I make no excuses for myself (especially not myself) or anyone else.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

And it seems to me (could be wrong) that you are making excuses for her actions.

Possibly, however, one person's excuse is often another's rational explanation.

Occam

reply to post by Occam


Allow me to quote you.

I agree that MajorMalfunction may have let her annoyance with gratuitously being called a fool cause her to respond in kind. However, it would seem that for you to be fair, you should have criticized BlueIII equally.

Does not your party call those of his grain lets see "primitives, ignorant, sheeple, fools, etc"?
Your doing for her as other of his grain will do for him. TOo bad neither side is really in "the right" though both actively try to claim it.

Oh. AND! I couldn't say much about BluIII's foolishness that hasn't already been said.


To clarify. All your statements have said to me was "Yes, she was wrong. BUT he and others did it first and alot. So thusly its ok." And I think that line of "logic" is wrong.
That my friend is an excuse in my book.
To take the extreme example, if someone stabs your mother is it then alright (and aplaudable) for you to stab theirs?

See where I am going with this?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by blueIII
The fool says in his heart, “there is no God.” (David in Psalms (ch53))

I have to have laugh at that very notion.
You subscribe to a belief system that relies on faith rather then facts and you think I am the fool ! LOL
The only Wise thing to do is to let the evidence or the lack of it lead you to your conclusions.

reply to post by MajorMalfunction



How can you disprove anything in the bible?

reply to post by Nostradamouse


i can tackle this quite easily

the earth revolves around the sun
there isn't a canopy of water above the sky
the planets don't revolve around the earth
the earth is round
there's no evidence of a global flood
there's no evidence of jews being enslaved in egypt
there's no credible evidence that jesus existed
the whole of genesis

need i go on?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



Ah my good friend madness. Ever stuck to the "Earth is not flat" (which is a "No duh really? You don't say!" topic) thing I see.

The following is not in the bible to the best of my knowledge.
But seeing as to how I am not Christian I could be wrong. Just someone who was forcefed that erm stuff as a youngster.

the earth revolves around the sun
there isn't a canopy of water above the sky
the planets don't revolve around the earth
the earth is round

[edit on 12-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


read your bible, all of the things i mentioned are in there.
the sun stops in the sky because the people that wrote the bible thought it went around the earth
the canopy of water thing is in genesis
same as planets revolving around the earth (well, all celestial bodies do in the bible)
and the earth is called a disc, a circle, a 2 dimensional object, in the bible.

If you were an observer in the scene that is described, the eye actually would have seen the sun stopping in the sky. There is a canopy of water above us. I am near certain there is no seperate word in hebrew for sphere. Translation affects truth, the source(original) needs to be studied first, and from that, the translations. I'm going to look further into the celestial contradictions.

Originally posted by depth om
If you were an observer in the scene that is described, the eye actually would have seen the sun stopping in the sky.

so? divinely inspired word shouldn't read from the observer's point of view, should it?

There is a canopy of water above us.

...no, there isn't a canopy of water above us.
unless you're going to count some particles of water vapor as a canopy of water

I am near certain there is no seperate word in hebrew for sphere.

odd... you'd think god would have given them one while he was inspiring them to write...

i'll double check on it.

Translation affects truth, the source(original) needs to be studied first, and from that, the translations. I'm going to look further into the celestial contradictions.

alright, crack open genesis and get back to me
it gives a detailed description of the way things are set up.