PDA

View Full Version : God Is Dead



Gold9472
01-21-2005, 05:15 PM
I believe people are beginning to see that believing in an entity that doesn't exist benefits no one, etc...

Thoughts?

EminemsRevenge
01-21-2005, 05:49 PM
I believe people are beginning to see that believing in an entity that doesn't exist benefits no one, etc...

Thoughts?

i've been busy recently...letting the Second Coming...GW of course...run da show:D

But now that i've re-learned how to hold my guitar pick....i'm back!!!...and you can be Beethoven:rolleyes:

Simply_sexy
01-21-2005, 08:25 PM
I agree Gold. I don't believe in God. Sometimes it scares me to no end that I'm death is all there is but I can't seem to have enough of my questions answered to fully get onboard with it. I've studied several religions and so far I'm just not happy with any of them...

Gold9472
01-21-2005, 08:28 PM
I agree Gold. I don't believe in God. Sometimes it scares me to no end that I'm death is all there is but I can't seem to have enough of my questions answered to fully get onboard with it. I've studied several religions and so far I'm just not happy with any of them...

To me... "Religion" is just a certain way of doing things...

God, however, is different unto itself. No one has ever proven to me that "God" exists.

Good Doctor HST
01-21-2005, 08:51 PM
I've had conflicting thoughts about this subject for the last couple of years.... Say one believes in evolutionary theory and stuff like Big-Bang or String Theory... then how did the initial molecules get out their in the first place before they all contracted and expanded rapidly?

I say there's intelligent design. However, all the different ways of portraying the Intelligent Designer (Him/Her?) are just there to make us feel better and give people a blueprint for living their life, not fearing death, etc......

Simply_sexy
01-21-2005, 09:00 PM
Exactly, Doc!!!

Ophie
01-21-2005, 09:07 PM
I've had conflicting thoughts about this subject for the last couple of years.... Say one believes in evolutionary theory and stuff like Big-Bang or String Theory... then how did the initial molecules get out their in the first place before they all contracted and expanded rapidly?

I say there's intelligent design. However, all the different ways of portraying the Intelligent Designer (Him/Her?) are just there to make us feel better and give people a blueprint for living their life, not fearing death, etc......
Smart man. :)

princesskittypoo
01-21-2005, 09:14 PM
I beleive in everything. God included. I claim to be a christian yet i play with voodoo, dabble in wiccan, and howl at the moon occationally whenever the beast in me comes out.
God's not dead he's just so big most people can't see or feel him.

PhilosophyGenius
12-12-2005, 07:10 PM
How can God die if he is God?

princesskittypoo
12-12-2005, 08:04 PM
we are god and we die.

jetsetlemming
12-12-2005, 08:29 PM
A diety's power is directly related to the people's belief in him. If God is forgotten, he might as well be dead. He isn't (except by Gold, apparently).

ThotPolice
12-12-2005, 09:15 PM
I don't think god was ever alive, but I do believe in human spirit and i think humanity has reached a point where we are all too educated to believe in higher powers, this can be a bad thing if it means a rejection of morals, that is not progress, as a humanist I think along the same lines as Christianity, witch is really, in its roots, a good way to live your life there are human truths the bible speaks of that cant be dismissed, just for me its not "don't do that because god says its wrong" it's, "don't do that it is ignorant."

I think we have devolved morally because of a rejection of church and religion, or rather the corrupt entity the church has become, I feel we need to instill morals in humanity in a secular way this is why I am humanist.

I think a more important question is; are morals dead?

PhilosophyGenius
12-12-2005, 11:39 PM
I don't think god was ever alive, but I do believe in human spirit and i think humanity has reached a point where we are all too educated to believe in higher powers, this can be a bad thing if it means a rejection of morals, that is not progress, as a humanist I think along the same lines as Christianity, witch is really, in its roots, a good way to live your life there are human truths the bible speaks of that cant be dismissed, just for me its not "don't do that because god says its wrong" it's, "don't do that it is ignorant."

I think we have devolved morally because of a rejection of church and religion, or rather the corrupt entity the church has become, I feel we need to instill morals in humanity in a secular way this is why I am humanist.

I think a more important question is; are morals dead?

I someone agree with what you said about humanity is too educated. For instance animals can see ghosts and all that where humans can't (most of of the time). And because humans have a higher degree of consiousness than animals, if we were to see ghosts and spirits all the time we'd all freak the fuck out. Which is why our "sixth sense" is blocked.

Holla!

Partridge
12-13-2005, 12:40 PM
I think a more important question is; are morals dead?

A better question: Have morals really ever existed?

And what is even meant by 'morals' and so-called 'moral decline'?

jetsetlemming
12-13-2005, 08:56 PM
A better question: Have morals really ever existed?

And what is even meant by 'morals' and so-called 'moral decline'?
Spoken like someone without a consience. Creepy, man. Morals are the rules you live by according to your personal beliefs of right and wrong. Most people have an inate sense of this, others adopt their rules from a religon or society. The moral decline is a term refering to the lowering of the societal standards of morality, making more and more "okay" by community standards.

princesskittypoo
12-13-2005, 09:16 PM
I someone agree with what you said about humanity is too educated. For instance animals can see ghosts and all that where humans can't (most of of the time). And because humans have a higher degree of consiousness than animals, if we were to see ghosts and spirits all the time we'd all freak the fuck out. Which is why our "sixth sense" is blocked.

Holla!
lol i see dead people dude! holla!!!

jetsetlemming
12-13-2005, 09:18 PM
lol i see dead people dude! holla!!!
seeing pkp say "holla" made my day. :)

Jesus
12-15-2005, 01:18 AM
i've been busy recently...letting the Second Coming...GW of course...run da show:D

But now that i've re-learned how to hold my guitar pick....i'm back!!!...and you can be Beethoven:rolleyes: False idol tsk tsk tsk

ThotPolice
12-15-2005, 01:47 AM
A better question: Have morals really ever existed?

And what is even meant by 'morals' and so-called 'moral decline'?
Well take the bush administrations spin of the war ...I believe if the majority of people had more morals they would question more, demand more answers, but no, our selfish culture allows us to put it on the way side, and allow corruption to continue, a moral decline is a statistical reality. The murder rate rises, the abortion rate rises (I am pro choice) the number of prisoners rises, suicide rises, divorce rises, war is still sold despite the educated masses. “We” don’t care. All of our institutions church, government, education, and culture have become corrupted, we have evolved scientifically technologically but morally (spiritually) we have become stagnant. Our culture celebrates selfishness and depravity, average Joe, the swan, cross fire, the apprentice, desperate housewives est. est. you believe this is a natural progression? I think we were meant for more I think the church has turned us off from that, regardless of god. Why celebrate a decline in morals it only feeds the war machine and gives corruption a base to live off of. Humanity is on a moral decline can you give me reason to believe otherwise?

rachel
12-15-2005, 01:32 PM
Here's my take on it. I'm a Christian but it took me a long time to get to that point and I still doubt all the time. But these are some questions and ideas that helped me think through the argument intelligently (rather than being told all the time "you'll never understand god, you just have to believe, etc."):




the atheist's favorite: prove God exists. My favorite counter: prove He doesn't. ... I can't prove either of these arguments - doesn't that tell us something about God's existence?
Religion is corrupt. Um, yeah, duh. That's a given. Religion was created by man, so it's not perfect and never will be. Get over it. :) Religion is meant to help you find the truth and to provide a community of believers. If it's not for you, then don't participate.
People do bad things in the name of God. Yeah, they also do bad things in the name of Muhammed, Satan, because a dog told them to. You see the point.
The world is distracted and/or too educated to believe in God. I totally agree. And I don't think it's just spiritual ideas. Look at astronomy - without satellites and fancy telescopes people figured out the earth is round and that we revolve around the sun. That's amazing to me that someone could figure that out through mostly just observation. Also, philosophers spent a lot of time in silence to ponder life's big questions. How often do we even have 5 minutes of silence? There's too much going on!
I believe in intelligent design but... This is a tough one for me too. There are things you can't deny - something created this world. The question is, should you worship that something? Does that something even want you to worship it?
Religion refutes science. Another tough one - especially for kids in school. I think science is more reliable because it can be proven. A lot of religion is based on ancient writings that may or may not be interpreted correctly. But I don't think that's a reason to refute God or religion.
Unless you're a Christian/Muslim/etc., you're going to Hell. I don't know what the answer to that one is. I don't understand the absolution (absolute-ness?) of religions. I'm not sure if it's a valid argument or not. It seems to me if you're right with God in your heart, then your fate is between you and Him.
Sorry to ramble on and on, but these things helped me when I was asking all those questions (and still help me when I continue to ask those questions :)). I don't think anyone should try to convince another person of a religion (or rejection of religion). We should be there instead to help others see why we believe what we believe. I hate religious arguments. Heheh.

911=inside job
12-15-2005, 02:12 PM
HAHAHAH!!!! i believed in god up until i was 22... then i thought about... HAHAHAH!!!!

the god scam make 911 look like nothing....

PhilosophyGenius
12-15-2005, 07:33 PM
Unless you're a Christian/Muslim/etc., you're going to Hell. I don't know what the answer to that one is. I don't understand the absolution (absolute-ness?) of religions. I'm not sure if it's a valid argument or not. It seems to me if you're right with God in your heart, then your fate is between you and Him.

That's what pisses me off. When peole say you're gonna go to hell because you don't believe there god.

My God would destroy there god.

Holla!

rachel
12-16-2005, 12:27 PM
Can you imagine if people at church said "holla!" all the time? I can just see it... The preacher makes a good point and someone in the crowd yells "holla!" It could replace "Amen" as the word people shout to show their support. :)

PhilosophyGenius
12-16-2005, 07:01 PM
Can you imagine if people at church said "holla!" all the time? I can just see it... The preacher makes a good point and someone in the crowd yells "holla!" It could replace "Amen" as the word people shout to show their support. :)

Yeah, after he says something important he goes, "If you have any more questions about life or God, feel free to holla at yo boy".

But don't they already sing "holla luya"? (or however that's spelled)

Gold9472
03-08-2006, 06:56 PM
bump

AuGmENTor
07-19-2006, 09:06 PM
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD
The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not.


Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.

The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.


THE BEGINNING

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to

form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.


http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/universe.gif

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!

A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/sun.gif compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas I If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum_a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.


THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.


THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is

"through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:


We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents. The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.


THE NEXT STEP

We have seen a practical proof of God's existence in this brief study. A flood of questions arise at this point. Which God are we talking about? Where did God come from? Why did God create us? How did God create us?

All of these and many more are answered in the same way_by looking at the evidence in a practical, common sense way. If you are interested in pursuing these things in more detail, we invite you to contact us. We have books, audio tapes, video tapes, correspondence courses, and booklets available and all can be obtained on loan without cost. Just request our catalog from:


DOES GOD EXIST? (http://www.doesgodexist.org/)
718 E. Donmoyer Ave.
South Bend IN 46614-1999



REFERENCES:
Hoyle, Frederick, The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983.
Humanist Manifesto I and 11, Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst St.,
Buffalo, NY 14215, 1985.

borepstein
07-19-2006, 09:46 PM
Well, since there are things we can not explain - love, death, basic attractions and fears - I think God as a concept is not entirely invalid.

AuGmENTor
09-25-2007, 08:00 PM
BUMP

werther
09-25-2007, 10:13 PM
If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning.

This is laughable. A fallacy and infinite regress. Who created god. Athiesm does not purport that there was no beginning. Actually first of all athiesm is not a religion. A person that labels himself an athiest simply does not believe in god. It seems they are lumping athiesm and science togethor.....hmmm perhaps the author is right about that. Science through M theory can go back before the big bang. However we still lapse into infinite regress. Both religion and science, (and I contend that they are very much different), in trying to explain the 'beginning' result in infinite regress.


At what scientists call a singularity!

Yes however the common thought among scientists today (quantum physicists) is that there is more than one universe. So our beginning is not THE beginning. Again infinite regress.

As I read the whole BEGINNING part I am confused by its utter stupidity. It starts by saying by believing in god you are excepting that there was a beginning. God created the universe and that was the beginning. With such juevenille prepubescent playground logic why can't the scientist say ...."well there was the big bang and that was the beginning".

THE CAUSE


Now this starts off with another fallacy ...circular reasoning. It is arguing god's existence by referencing quotes from the bible. If you didn't believe in Santa Claus and I started quoting from 'twas the night before christmas' would that make you believe? The rest then goes on again forgetting that if god created the universe something had to create god because as it states something cannot come from nothing. ....did god not have a beginning?

DESIGN

And could somebody tell me what god made the universe from....wait for it...NOTHING! Another fallacy and contradiction in terms.


The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance

Another fallacy; appeal to emotion.

rubbish.

AuGmENTor
09-25-2007, 10:46 PM
I don't refrence the bible to sustain my belief in a higher form of existence other than myself. That is one fucked over piece of literature IMO. Distorted by the same types of MEN who do it today to suit their needs.
Alls I need to do is stare at the night sky, and think of the distances, and the raw NUMBER of bodies (I was giong to take a stab a cellestial, but as you can see, I knew better). Or look at an oak tree, or a newborn baby. Complicated ooze? I think not. But that is just me. My version of God doesn't care if you believe in him or not. (He could also give a shit if you eat meat on friday or work a sunday.)
It seems to me that it comes down to either you believe that everything to date has happened as chaotic chance. What are the odds of that? Intelligent design for that matter seems like a long shot. But not quite as long of one as happenstance.
I freely admit that the article I origionally posted sucks the big hogs leg. I will try another tack.

werther
09-25-2007, 10:53 PM
I simply wanted to show that both arguments have there flaws. Of course my retort was filled with logical fallacies ....ad hominem. I am an idiot.

AuGmENTor
09-25-2007, 10:58 PM
I don't think that at all. On the contrary, I have quite a measure of respect for you. That's why even though your belief system does not jibe exactly with mine, I LIKE to here alternative views. They make altering your map easier.

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 12:21 AM
I simply wanted to show that both arguments have there flaws. Of course my retort was filled with logical fallacies ....ad hominem. I am an idiot.Upon rereading your original post, I beg to argue the point that you were speaking more form the heart. "Laughable" and "rubbish" are not ways YOU would choose to argue a point. They speak of your emotions on the subject. Did you think you had gotten away with the sorry ass follow up? I woulda called you on it the second I saw it, but I only skimmed as I had like 40 windows open. Lets talk about your FEELINGS. Not some self depreciating post meant to cover your tracks. You're better than that.

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 12:22 AM
I am sensing dMOLE is about to chime in....

dMole
09-26-2007, 12:31 AM
I don't refrence the bible to sustain my belief in a higher form of existence other than myself. That is one fucked over piece of literature IMO. Distorted by the same types of MEN who do it today to suit their needs.

You're fishing pretty deep here AuG- Have you ever read "Rule by Secrecy" by Jim Marrs? As I recall, it outlaid the "hijacking" of the Bible at the Council of Nicea by Emperor (err-- Caesar, since he remained pagan after declaring everyone else in the kingdom "Christian") Constantine and the Italian "Black Nobility" in AD 385 or so. Pretty well messed up my take on the Bible & most churches for good. Might have been another book, but this was a well sourced, great read about history and its manipulation through the millennia.

One thing I found growing up LDS/Mormon in UT for my first dozen years (other than a LOT of discrimination/oppression for many more years to come-- FUFMO! )- it is pretty sad when Trey Parker and Matt Stone of "South Park" fame know more accurate LDS "Church History" about Joseph Smith than a VAST majority of the self-claimed "12 million" LDS people I've talked to (the real number is just under 8 million from most impartial sources). I guess I was destined for 9/11 Truth, since asking questions about "The Church" in UT will likely get one excommunicated, an exile MUCH worse than "conspiracy nut!" I also did a stint in the "Christian" churches briefly, until I read "Rule By Secrecy." Now it all seems money and control-motivated IMO.

dMole
09-26-2007, 12:33 AM
I'm busted!

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 12:39 AM
You're fishing pretty deep here AuG- Have you ever read "Rule by Secrecy" by Jim Marrs? As I recall, it outlaid the "hijacking" of the Bible at the Council of Nicea by Emperor (err-- Caesar, since he remained pagan after declaring everyone else in the kingdom "Christian") Constantine and the Italian "Black Nobility" in AD 385 or so. Pretty well messed up my take on the Bible & most churches for good. Might have been another book, but this was a well sourced, great read about history and its manipulation through the millennia.

One thing I found growing up LDS/Mormon in UT for my first dozen years (other than a LOT of discrimination/oppression for many more years to come-- FUFMO! )- it is pretty sad when Trey Parker and Matt Stone of "South Park" fame know more accurate LDS "Church History" about Joseph Smith than a VAST majority of the self-claimed "12 million" LDS people I've talked to (the real number is just under 8 million from most impartial sources). I guess I was destined for 9/11 Truth, since asking questions about "The Church" in UT will likely get one excommunicated, an exile MUCH worse than "conspiracy nut!" I also did a stint in the "Christian" churches briefly, until I read "Rule By Secrecy." Now it all seems money and control-motivated IMO.It took you THAT long to type THAT??? What is FUFMO? Pffff, I can't believe I waited ALL THAT TIME for THAT. Nope, never read that book. Just read the bible and talked to some religious zealots. More than enough to convince me that their version of God had agenda written all over him. I know a woman who I loved, that I immediately lost all respect for (and truth be told damn near spit on) when she said that GWB was a deeply religious man who understood what needed to be done, and was just being strong enough to do it. In some ways she helped me to think outside the box about religion.

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 12:43 AM
I'm going to bed. I await your next syllable with great eagerness. Just kidding dood. you'll figure out that I fuck around alot.

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 12:47 AM
Pretty well messed up my take on the Bible & most churches for good.That's not what this thread is about. It is about God, and if you believe Him to be dead or not. You avoided the question.

dMole
09-26-2007, 01:08 AM
Hey Aug,

To answer the God thing- never met him/her/it, so I'm agnostic (again, finally, 20 years later). Truthfully, I've been more interested lately in whether Osama Bin Osman is alive or dead, since he's apparently got such an active movie career. I'd say God is either disgusted with the human race, comatose/catatonic, or dead (or would have stepped in before 9/11 and our current Oil Wars IMO).

I'm pretty against all the elite occultists like Nietzche and the others behind the scenes that brought us Hitler, Himmler, von Braun and his Paperclip cronies, (and the Brown Brothers Harriman ones at Yale that were guilty of "Trading With The Enemy" Act by financing IG Farben and the Nazi war machine). I'm pretty sure they also brought us such crowd-pleasers as the Federal Reserve Act, WWI, Pearl Harbor, Iran-Contra, Saddam Wars the Trilogy, 9/11, etc. In that sense, I guess I'm a lot more "spiritual" than some PNAC types- still having a conscience (and probably a soul too).

If you really want to drop a turd in someone's stew, go post some pro-Mormon stuff on this (FUFMO) blog- she's getting pretty militant lately:

http://utarnia.com/

"Bearing your Testimony" there really ought to get her riled, but it might be tough to get the lingo just right if you didn't grow up around it. Oh yeah, Joseph Smith came from Palmyra, NY, not Utah- WTF??!

On the slow typing, I'm helping tutor my nephew in college algebra- he's a Marine, not a scientist!
d

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 07:26 AM
On the slow typing, I'm helping tutor my nephew in college algebra- he's a Marine, not a scientist!
dWay to suck the fun out of my joke, maaaan.

werther
09-26-2007, 07:44 AM
Upon rereading your original post, I beg to argue the point that you were speaking more form the heart. "Laughable" and "rubbish" are not ways YOU would choose to argue a point. They speak of your emotions on the subject. Did you think you had gotten away with the sorry ass follow up? I woulda called you on it the second I saw it,

LOL! I was wondering when I saw you post a reply why you didn't berate me. I still stand by my post. Though I used a politicians tactics by first belittling the argument, I did address the points at hand.

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 08:06 AM
LOL! I was wondering when I saw you post a reply why you didn't berate me. I still stand by my post. Though I used a politicians tactics by first belittling the argument, I did address the points at hand.Really? You stand by it? Sounded to me like you denounced it in your very next post! Then you are officially athiest? There is nothing wrong with that. I think it doesn't matter as long as you live life as a good person.

werther
09-26-2007, 08:21 AM
at what point did I say I was an athiest? I am just against arguing for or against something using faulty logic.

My post addressed the article and pointed out some of its inherit contradictions. For me to put in 'laughable' and whatever else was in bad taste; that I admit.

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 08:25 AM
at what point did I say I was an athiest? I am just against arguing for or against something using faulty logic.

My post addressed the article and pointed out some of its inherit contradictions. For me to put in 'laughable' and whatever else was in bad taste; that I admit.Well then so what are you? Sheesh, talk about avoidance! Like pullin teeth.

AuGmENTor
09-26-2007, 08:27 AM
http://www.freewebs.com/thinkingstraight/Fallacies.htm


I got this from you. I really like it as a method of taking apart an argument.

werther
09-26-2007, 10:14 AM
Well then so what are you? Sheesh, talk about avoidance! Like pullin teeth.

I am an asshole.





ah but seriously, I suppose I am agnostic. I do not believe in a god in the typicall religious sense. There may be something 'bigger' than us, but I don't count on it.

werther
09-26-2007, 10:18 AM
I got this from you. I really like it as a method of taking apart an argument.

Hahaaa! I actually used that to take apart the post. It is typically easy to spot a fallacy, but to be able to name which one makes a rebuttal that much more potent. I used to know them all in latin but my days of reading philosophy are pretty much over.

werther
09-26-2007, 10:48 AM
I'm pretty against all the elite occultists like Nietzche and the others behind the scenes that brought us Hitler, Himmler, von Braun and his Paperclip cronies, (and the Brown Brothers Harriman ones at Yale that were guilty of "Trading With The Enemy" Act by financing IG Farben and the Nazi war machine).

Nietzsche brought about Hitler!? Nietzsche wrote about the Ubermensch (elite humans) in his stories namely 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. And Hitler did quote Nietzsche, however out of context. When Nietzsche talked about the ubermensch he meant a coming of the new intellectual in reference to Plato's philosopher kings. No longer would the philosophers sit idle in their ivory towers but come down from the mountains and lead by rational. The book 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' has a compainion book which is three times as big explaining what was meant be each 'passage'. It is apparent that Hitler did not understand what Nietzsche meant by ubermensch, or he simply bastardized what his writings.

Nietzsche is the philosopher who took an account of God dying. He said "God is dead". He did not mean God 'the living breathing being', but rather God 'the living breathing concept'.
"Yeah I'm a devout Christian, ...I mean I swing by the church once or twice a year". -This is an instance of God is dead.

werther
09-26-2007, 10:50 AM
@rachel








the atheist's favorite: prove God exists. My favorite counter: prove He doesn't. ... I can't prove either of these arguments - doesn't that tell us something about God's existence?


that made my brain hurt.



syllogism of your argument:
1. athiest cannot prove god doesn't exist
2. thiest cannot prove god does exist
3. -therefore god exists.
-huh?

dMole
09-26-2007, 08:29 PM
Way to suck the fun out of my joke, maaaan.

I can't remember the source, but I remember hearing that someone in DC once said of Big Dick, "That guy can suck the truth right OUT of a room..."

I know- off-topic, but I still find it funny (and applicable to Watergate and 9/11 and...) Plus, Cheney is a pretty good argument towards the existence of anti-Christ(s)...

dMole
09-27-2007, 05:50 AM
Nietzsche brought about Hitler!

Hi Werther,

Have you ever researched about Helena Blavatsky & her Theosophists, the Vril Society, Thule Society, or Order of the Golden Dawn? How about Guido von List, Karl Hausehofer, Jorg Lanz Von Liebenfels, Rudolf von Sebottendorf, Master Karl Maria Wilgut, or finally Dietrich Eckert, who said in 1923, " Follow Hitler! He will dance but it is I who have called the tune! I have initiated him into the Secret Doctrine, opened his centers in vision and given him the means to communicate with the powers. Do not mourn for me, I shall have influenced history more than any other German."

My source books are not currently in my physical possession (I've got a pretty big library that isn't where my internet connection lives). Do an Amazon search for Nazis and "occult" and you'll find quite a bit.

----------BEGIN QUOTED on F. Nietzche
Nietzsche: A Precursor to Hitler?

- by Phillip D. Collins ©, July 12th, 2005
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/images/2005/h/hitlerNietzsche.jpgI recently took a college course in the history of philosophy. The instructor, who happens to be an extremely intelligent woman, was going to examine Foucault. I was eager to study Foucault and seized the opportunity. His Marxist proclivities aside, Foucault's views concerning the carceral system were certainly of merit and valuable to my research. Yet, there was another philosopher on the menu. In the halls of orthodox academia, his reputation precedes him. His name is Friedrich Nietzsche. I prepared myself for what was guaranteed to be yet another exercise in anti-Christian rhetoric.

Enraptured by his vitriolic hatred for Christianity and enshrinement of moral anarchism, academia has consistently defended Friedrich Nietzsche as one of history's "misunderstood" philosophers. Cribbing from the standard litany of apologetics, many argue that Hitler somehow "misrepresented" or "distorted" Nietzsche's ideas. Is this genuinely the case? Of course, during their migration from abstraction to tangible enactment, ideas can become contaminated by any number of factors. To be sure, internal contention amongst adherents, the personal idiosyncrasies of individual analysts, and the manifestly unpredictable nature of reality itself makes an idea's journey towards tangible enactment very problematic.

Yet, was Nietzscheism's journey toward tangible enactment so bastardized by Hitler that it was virtually unrecognizable? Was Nazism nothing like what Nietzsche had in the mind? Again, only an examination of the delicate segues between abstraction and tangible enactment can answer this question. In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671728687/ref=ase_conspiracyarc-20/102-5485159-1789706?v=glance&s=books), William Shirer recounts Hitler's frequent sojourns to the Nietzsche museum in Weimar (100). Commenting on Hitler's veneration for Nietzsche, Shirer writes:
There was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung. Had not the philosopher thundered against democracy and parliaments, preached the will to power, praised war and proclaimed the coming of the master race and the superman--and in the most telling aphorisms? (100)

Indeed, the commonalities are numerous. Perhaps the most damning of these was Nietzsche's adoration for "the magnificent blonde brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory" (Shirer 100). While Nietzsche also referred to the "masters" (i.e., noble men, rulers, etc.) as "blond beasts," this "blond brute" was something different. He was Nietzsche's superman, the Übermensch (Shirer 100).

Of course, many apologists for Nietzsche argue that the criterion for defining the Übermensch was neither racial nor hereditary. However, Nietzsche frequently espoused eugenical concepts, suggesting that he did invest significant value in race and hereditary. For instance, consider the following social mandate set forth by Nietzsche:
"Society as the trustee of life is responsible to life for every botched life that comes into existence; and as it has to atone for such lives, it ought consequently to make it impossible for them ever to see the light of day: it should in many cases actually prevent the act of procreation, and may, without any regard for rank, descent, or intellect, hold in readiness the most rigorous forms of compulsion and restriction, and, under certain circumstances, have recourse to castration ... 'Thou shalt do no murder,' is a piece of ingenuous puerility compared with 'Thou shalt not beget!!!' ... The [unhealthy] must at all costs be eliminated, lest the whole fall to pieces." (Quoted in Haller 53)

Automatically, the astute reader will recognize the traditional themes of eugenics: Malthusian demands for the prohibition of procreation amongst certain populations and mandates for compulsory sterilization. Nietzsche's tirade is also replete with contradictions. He asserts that eugenical regimentation should be implemented with no regard for "rank, descent, or intellect." Simultaneously, he insists that there is an "unhealthy" population that "must at all costs be eliminated." Why must this population be eugenically expunged? Does Nietzsche fear that such "dysgenics" would interbreed with those of healthier stock? Remember, Nietzsche's remarks are made in conjunction with procreation, inferring that he believes in some connection between hereditary and the "unhealthy."

Moreover, Nietzsche's bestowal of primacy upon the social "whole" betrays his collectivist proclivities. Hitler shared such propensities, as is evidenced by his virtual deification of the collective in Mein Kampf: "The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species" (no pagination). Sans the racialist emphasis of this statement, these words sound distinctly reminiscent of Marx's characteristic collectivism. This is no coincidence. In 1933, the Fuehrer candidly admitted to Hermann Rauschning: "the whole of National Socialism is based on Marx" (Martin 239).------------END QUOTED, from:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Nietzsche.htm

Here's a strange French secret society offshoot of Nietzche's work, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ac%C3%A9phale#The_Secret_Society

The deeper you dig, the stranger it gets...

werther
09-27-2007, 09:18 AM
There was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung. Had not the philosopher thundered against democracy and parliaments, preached the will to power, praised war and proclaimed the coming of the master race and the superman--and in the most telling aphorisms? (100)

weltanschauung for those who are wondering means 'world view'. I am pretty sure my first post in regards to Nietzsche covered this. Again this is in reference to 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' and as well 'The Geneology of Morals'. When Nietzsche would write that man should be in a constant state of war, he was again speaking of Plato's philosopher kings and meant that man should always be at intellectual war. The master race part is of course from Ubermensch, which is a horrible translation given the context. Master Race is somewhat of an emotive portmanteau with such time strung conotations. 'Overman' is more commonly used and is more fitting. The Nazis took Nietzsche's writings and twisted them to fit their propaganda model. Nietzsche did not see the Germans as a master race and wrote of them being the antithesis.

AuGmENTor
09-27-2007, 09:32 AM
You guys lost me a few posts ago. I am just sitting here drooling on myself and saying, "Da?"

werther
09-27-2007, 10:33 AM
There was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung .

I hate to paraphrase without the origins of the quote but "...if someone uses a chair as weapon, should blame and fault lie with the inventor of the chair?"



Indeed, the commonalities are numerous. Perhaps the most damning of these was Nietzsche's adoration for "the magnificent blonde brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory"

-out of context. Nietzsche was in fact referring to a lion, the king of the jungle.

other quotes by Nietzsche:


"I feel kinship only with the most cultivated French and Russian people, but not at all with the so called distinguished elite among my own countrymen, who judge everything from the principle: 'Germany above everything...'"


"Let him come to Zarathustra who has unlearned the love of his people because he has learned to love many peoples."



"I have recently been overwhelmed with anti-Semitic letteers and pamphlets; my repunance for this party (who would be only too pleased to avail itself of my name) is as pronounced as it possible could be."

werther
09-27-2007, 10:52 AM
I used to love reading/studying philosophy. I started reading when I was about twelve after finding out 'killing an arab' by The Cure was based on a book by Albert Camus called 'The Stranger'. Pretty lame start in philosophy I know, but a start none the less. Before I stopped reading essays 'religiously'
my favorite philosopher was and still is Arthur Schopenhauer.

Anyway, what I am getting at is I love to discuss this stuff. .....Let me have it!