One thing people need to understand about all old organized religions, is that they were products and tools for governance. They were ways in which governments could more easily control and manage people. So when you hear about fallen angels, you are mostly hearing about those who dared rebel against the governing powers, against the big G.
In the same respect, we can see these people as whistleblowers and those who share forbidden knowledge of the methods of the elite with We The People. Should I be feared because I share the methods of mind control that perpetually enslave us, by speaking truth to power, sharing fire with the people?
This post isnt shitting on religion by the way.
I believe religion is crucial. I highly value the Christian mythos for instance. It contains so many lessons on how to become a better human being. Its just that we have to learn how to read these books, to know how to differentiate between the mind control and the soul food contained in them.
The word religion is derived from the word "religare", which means to "bind to", and I think the best of us are bound to some sort of code of ethics and morality, whether it be from a mainstream religion or our own ways. We all have limits, things we wont do, rules and such, and this makes every decent human being a religious one in the true sense of the word.
Any person that simply says "religion is bullshit", hasnt actually studied any.
They are most likely just reacting to the popular caricature of the unconscious interpretations of old organized religions, friends and family who merely go to church, sing a few songs and feel superior to others for it, and that is a very stupid way to judge the religion itself. Atheists do it all the time, by focussing on the ignorant multitude, those walking contradictions who have probably read the whole Harry Potter book collection, but havent even read half their Bible.
Dont let Atheists fool you, especially by their religion of scientism with its complicated rhetoric and alluring "miracles". They are the most lost of all, and the ones who truly represent the fallen.
With love,
Doc
I realized that MOST people are just fucking sheeps and ARE happy being fucking sheeps.
The moment you ask them to QUESTION, whether religion or science (that is used now by corporations to manipulate, breakfast is the most imp meal and such BS!) - people's 'complacency' is shaken and they will attack YOU who probably would have been considered an angel in those good times.
Those who want truth and true path will find it one way or the other (given their pursuit is genuine).
For most part, I believe that most people are happy to be told what truth is and what to do and follow and pray and eat and fuck and go to school and watch movies and talk about TV series and game of thrones is the greatest thing in universe and send your kids to IVY college and WHATEVER bullshit you can sell them - they will buy as long as you promise them their complacency!
How many who follow any religion now do you think are the decendents of those that actually stoned or killed those that were propogating that very religion? Think about it!
I have an article on how 'science is keeping us stupid' so I agree with you - they are the worst than religion mongers!
Just my take on the subject.
Your article was flawless!
You are saying that atheists are refuting or reacting towards a caricature of religion while what you are presenting about atheists is a caricature of atheism and is taking it to meanings that are much broader than what it actually is.
Why aren't you taking the same etymological approach that you took towards the word religion and apply it to theism and atheism respectively, so you know what you are talking about, at least as far as definitions go?
The first thing you have to realize is that the
-ismsuffix doesn't imply a full-fledged philosophy, but mere agreement or connection with something, in this case a principle or a claim about reality.When we look at theism it means the belief in a god or gods. This term doesn't imply any philosophical predispositions besides the attitude towards a very simple claim - the existence of a god or gods. A theist believes that a deity exists, but the philosophy they might follow would be highly dependent on their religion and other values and ideas. Christianity, Islam, spiritualism, Buddhism and deism are all different forms of theism and the people from each group would disagree on a lot of other topics besides the existence of a god, including the definition of what god is.
When looking at the term atheist, the first thing to examine is the prefix
a-which means without. So therefore an atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods and the term comes with no additional information about that person. People can be atheists for all kinds of reasons but asserting that you somehow know anything else about their values or beliefs in regard to other claims is baseless and a stereotype at best. Atheism is not a religion, nor a philosophy, it's simply the lack of belief in a deity. Different atheists have different values and different reasons to not believe the claim that a god exists. The only thing that unites them is the rejection of this particular claim and nothing more.Sure, many atheists are fond of science and the scientific process, but this doesn't mean that an appreciation of science is required and/or necessary for one to be an atheist and it's certainly not part of the meaning of the word. There are people who don't care much about science, but still find the claim that a god exists ridiculous and thus reject it based on no real inquiry and scientific investigation, they just feel like it.
I personally consider myself an atheist and you can read why I feel this label applies to me here (you're more than welcome to comment on there why you find my position inconsistent or unacceptable too) and I don't understand what do you know about me, my values and my behaviors just based on this term to basically posit that I'm part of the most evil group of people out there. Why do you think that's at all justified and do you think it's a good thing you are handling people you don't know that way?
"Any person that simply says 'religion is bullshit' hasn't actually studied any."
I've got to take exception with this claim, because virtually every atheist I know was brought up in some sort of faith-based community. Often they abandoned that community when it became clear that things were not lining up they way that they should. Claiming atheists haven't studied religion when prominent atheists like Matt Dillahunty and Dan Barker spent decades involved in study with their respective religions, came to the conclusion there was no evidence for the existence of a god, and stopped believing, just doesn't work.
There may be some people who are atheists because they were brought up in non-religious households and the God seed never took root, but I believe you'll find the percentage of people who actively studied and participated in one or more religions and concluded a movement like Secular Humanism was far more beneficial than belief in and worship of a deity to be much larger. :)
Saying that religion is bullshit, and not choosing to believe in a god are not the same thing. Religion not only exists, but it gives people fulfilment. You cant call religion bullshit because that is a blanket statement. One would have to have examined alll religions and determined that they are bullshit, which is also subjective. Its dismissive and disrespectful to millions of people whos lives are fuller because of their faith. Some people are just overly skeptical, too left brained, and cannot have faith in anything, and the rates of suicide, dying alone, drug abuse, among people with little faith is a tell of something isnt it? Faithful people are better people. They may be more gullible, but they will give you the benefit of the doubt. Thats what faith is. We want to marry a faithful person, not a skeptical person. There are also religions which are highly logical such as Illuminism. Tell me that is a bullshit religion. No one will, because they are instead focussed on literal interpretations, too far left brained that they dont have the imagination to understand allegory, poetry and myth.
Most people who claim mainstream religions dont even truly understand them. But some of us have gnosis. If anything I respect agnostics, because they are not so full of shit and unreasonable. They just say that they dont know. Atheists insist that there is no god, which is just as unprovable as those who say there is one. They are just miserable fucks.
You have to realize that highly scientific types are destructive by nature. The scientific method itself is about trying to disprove things. It is highly skeptical and destroys things. This is not a good mind to have, and this is why those types are more likely to die alone, have drug and drinking problems, suffer higher rates of depression and commit suicide. They are generally more miserable people. Now that is what I call some bullshit.
(Apologies in advance for the wall of text...this is a long reply).
There's a difference between asserting "There is no god!" and asking, "Where is the proof for the god you believe in?". Claiming there is no such thing as a god would be silly, because it's impossible to know for certain. That's Agnosticism: a lack of knowledge. "Does God exist? I don't know."
Atheism, on the other hand, is a belief claim. "You believe a god (or gods) exists? What proof convinced you?" Requesting proof is not the same as declaring a believer is wrong or that there is no God, it's just laying the burden of proof on the one making the positive claim.
Richard Dawkins, one of the most vocally outspoken atheists of the modern era, proposed a 7-point scale in his book The God Delusion. If 1 was "Absolutely certain without a shred of doubt that a god exists" and 7 was "Absolutely certain without a shred of doubt that no gods exist", Dawkins ranks himself at a 6. That's important: Dawkins isn't saying there's no such thing as god, he's saying the evidence for the existence of a god is inadequate to convince him. Dawkins, like any good scientist, is willing to change his mind, he just lacks the proof required for him to do so.
The scientific method is not about disproving things, it's about testing claims which are testable in a manner others can replicate to rule out false positives. I have a hypothesis, I make a prediction, I test my hypothesis multiple times, and when I am satisfied I have come to the right conclusion, I publicize the results so others can repeat my experiments, examine my results and theirs, and refine the conclusion as needed. It'a s self-correcting process, guaranteed to ensure the best conclusions are drawn from the best evidence.
Skepticism is healthy, not destructive. A skeptical person simply wants to believe true things. There's a difference between 'skepticism' and 'being close-minded'. A skeptic, when confronted with a person claiming the ability to turn lead into gold, says, "Really? Can you show me?" and will proceed with belief claims from there. A close-minded person, on the other hand, would call bullshit without waiting for the evidence. That isn't to say the close-minded person is automatically wrong, but a skeptic is at least willing to lend the benefit of the doubt, weigh the evidence, and see where that takes him or her.
Finally, socially-isolated individuals, no matter their belief or non-belief in a deity, tend to have higher rates of depression, substance abuse problems, and chances of dying alone. Atheism alone is no predictor of these things, since many non-believers lead highly productive and enjoyable lives, but atheists who go public with their beliefs often suffer heavy losses to their social support groups like family, friends, and (obviously) church as a result. We see similar problems when people convert from one religion to another; leaving one group to join another makes for a less-distressing overall change since it's exchanging one safety net for another, but just ask a former Jehova's Witness or Mormon about the cost of conversion even to another Christian religion: being cut off from one's parents, siblings, or children is no joke. Muslims who convert to any other faith (or no faith at all) literally risk death in some parts of the world. Losing one's safety net in general commonly results in depression, suicide, and substance abuse--one's religion or lack thereof plays little part in this aspect of human psychology, but belief isn't a switch one can turn on and off at will. If a person loses faith or belief in anything, it can be shattering. Take away the community's support or the way of life they have always known and it is literally life-threatening if they can't find shelter somewhere. Anyone would be miserable under those conditions, theist or otherwise. :)
There's not any actual empirical EVIDENCE for the existence of dark energy. Is there any reason I shouldn't just say "Hypothesis is bullshit?"
You're free to say and believe whatever you like, @tvulgaris. Anyone can say the dark energy hypothesis is correct or incorrect even while entirely ignorant of what the hypothesis claims and the mathematics underlying it, but this isn't a stance a rational individual would take.
The question a rational person would ask is: "Am I knowledgeable enough about cosmology, and/or physics, and/or astronomy to understand the dark energy hypothesis, claim it's bullshit, and then then provide a plausible alternative, with new evidence, that fits the facts as we currently know and understand them but negates some or all of the currently-accepted dark energy hypothesis?"
If the answer to that question is yes, then the Nobel committee would likely want a word with you, and you could find yourself a great deal wealthier and more famous in the coming decade.
If the answer to that question is no, it's probably best to admit you don't know enough about the matter to warrant a concrete belief one way or another, and that people who work in those fields are better-suited to work at determining the validity of the hypothesis.
Is dark matter bullshit? I don't know, chances are you don't either, and there's nothing wrong with not forming an opinion on the matter if there is insufficient evidence to do so. :)
I certainly don't, which was much my point- but it was the process of hypothesis itself I wanted to juxtapose to the experience of religious faith- dark energy was a useful example as the math underpinning it ISN'T empirical evidence. There's absolutely nothing empirical supporting the hypothesis YET- which a doctrinaire mind can quickly construe as bullshit. My question was leading.
Maybe you haven't run into the very many people (there's a lot in my age cohort) who label themselves "atheists" but for whatever personal reason have taken on an anti-theistic jihad, every bit as irrational as the most stupidly blinded fundamentalist- I suppose Doc has, I know I have. This is not to generalize, because I have atheist (or at least very well-read agnostic) friends I'll spar with, or just hang out with, and this is no cause for animosity.
I'll take it "on faith" those anti-theists are the people he's addressing...
I love it that you put out your own content again. Actually your posts are the only thing I come here for everyday right now!
I would love to see what you have to say about victim-mentality. Because with all the conspiracy-stuff it is easy for people to get trapped in that kind of mindset. I know it's important to open people's eyes but I also see a certain danger in it. Focusing too much on the oligarchy having control over people and opressing them doesnt necessarily take power away from those mislead leaders.
Doesnt really have anything to do with what you wrote in that article, I just wanted to ask you for you opinion on this for a while now.
I know you are all for bringing light to the Darkness and therefore also bringing focus on "negative" stuff, but i'd really like to read something from you about how to utilize that knowledge constructively.
That was actually well-presented, but I don't think you've been very thorough- but then, spurring conversation may be the point, and well-done, sir!
I disagree on certain points, but that may be due to you not explaining your opinion fully enough.
I DON'T believe that religions are products of authoritarian mindsets of governance whether "civil" or "clerical", but they certainly have been co-opted as tools for the nearly-exclusive use by such mentalities, to the point of substantial rewrites of various scriptures, and certainly lots of "authorized" commentaries. If these mentalities WERE the source, I'd suggest re-examining every single one of those "so many lessons on how to become a better human being"- which, I might add are typically nearly identical in every developed scriptural religion.
I'd also argue the best of us AREN'T bound by moral codes because their very existence embodie(d)(s) those moral codes- not that they couldn't (can't) "sin" , but that "sin" simply cannot exist in their internal universes.
I'd also differentiate real honest, thoughtful people who won't bring themselves to believe in a Supreme Being- even though, from cosmology down to the Plank level, data point after data point fills in a completely entangled picture unbound by time, from the rabid anti-theists . Theirs is just another attempt at mind-control through "reason" (always incomplete) and scientism .
I made the distinction of "organized religion" which supports exactly what you wrote, in that, it means the state organizing, which, in the case of Christianity, was an oral tradition with very little and scattered written gospel.
First caveat- I do not call myself a Christian.
A religion really becomes a religion THROUGH organization, though, and that starts with very small groups, or even just one expanding group (in more modern times of effective communication over long distances)- I understand your aversion to the state's subversion of that, as I agree with you, but long before Constantine got involved with the early Christian church, there was a developing orthodoxy, nebulous and unwritten as it mostly was, the most important organizing principle of all for any religion- not much gets past your individual sphere of influence if you don't enunciate some base of philosophy that is communicable. To defuse any of the "by faith alone" rejoinders, I'm using the word philosophy in the most basic sense. In other words, ALL religions are organized. Somehow. The sticking points should be HOW they're organized, and to what end.
O Big Bang não diz absolutamente NADA sobre como o Universo "começou", ou "surgiu". Ele apenas diz como o Universo OBSERVÁVEL evoluiu do espaço-tempo zero até aqui. Mas espaço-tempo = 0 para o Universo observável não significa espaço-tempo = 0 para TODO o Universo. Espaço-tempo = 0 indica apenas que o Universo Observável estava do tamanho de uma singularidade. Nada mais pode ser dito além disso. Nem o Big Bang nem a ciência afirma NADA sobre o Universo como um todo.
PRa provar que existiu "início" do espaço-tempo você teria que encontrar o centro do Universo. Mas ele não existe, o Univrrso é uniforme e homogêneo em todas as direções. Não existe "centro-início" do espaço-tempo.
Especulações sobre o "antes do Big Bang" são um prato cheio para os sobrenaturalistas. Como sempre o sobrenatural se revelando como um simples apelo à ignorância. Ou seja, tudo o que a ciência não sabe explicar "expliquemos" metendo o sobrenatural no meio.
é absurdo acreditar no nada. Se você acreditar no nada você vai arranjar um problemão pra explicar como tudo surgiu do nada. Então porque você acredita no nada?
É IMPOSSÍVEL TODAS AS COISAS TEREM VINDO DO NADA ...
MAS É TOTALMENTE POSSÍVEL DEUS TER VINDO DO NADA E CRIADO TODAS AS COISAS ? Fala sério!
E esse nada que você tem fé nele veio de onde? Porque que eu saiba nunca ninguém provou que um dia não tinha nada.