Atheists/Agnostics
Options
Comments
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »imgoingtoheavenru? wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »I have agnostic tendencies, though I often think there could be a higher power out there. And some days, I think maybe there isn't. I will admit to strongly disliking the Bible ? but otherwise, I just don't see a lot of evidence of a "powerful" ? out there, though I do believe there are some forms of design in the universe. So I guess my mind is open to different possibilities, but I without a doubt think the Abrahamic ? is phony.
if the bolded ain't one of the most asinine narcissistic most prideful statements I have ever heard, I don't know what is!
You go create a universe ex nihilo if the heavens don't declare a "powerful ? "
You go create a sun ex nihilo if the sun doesn't keep you warm enough
You go create water ex nihilo since you can do better!
You go create an earth and hang it upon nothing since you have more power!
I'm waiting.......
Who created disease? Who created tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, babies being born with no eyes, babies born with cerebral palsy? Water borne diseases? Did your ? create these things? If so, he's a giant ? up.
If your ? did NOT create these things, then your ? is still a little weakling because it should be destroying the force creating these things. If your ? is UNABLE to stop these things, then how can I call it a ? ? If your ? is UNWILLING to stop these things, then it very well could be a ? and an ? .
SO in other words because the world is not the peaceful idyllic place you think ? should make it be you reject him??
Not necessarily. I would have a few questions for this "? ", before I reject it or not.
I've already rejected the phony Abrahamic ? , but if a "real" ? was to show up, I would absolutely be willing to listen to it and maybe accept it, assuming it answers my questions to my satisfaction.
So it still comes down to your satisfaction. ? any ? still has to do what you want, answer your questions with answers pleasing to you. -
NeighborhoodNomad. wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »imgoingtoheavenru? wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »I have agnostic tendencies, though I often think there could be a higher power out there. And some days, I think maybe there isn't. I will admit to strongly disliking the Bible ? but otherwise, I just don't see a lot of evidence of a "powerful" ? out there, though I do believe there are some forms of design in the universe. So I guess my mind is open to different possibilities, but I without a doubt think the Abrahamic ? is phony.
if the bolded ain't one of the most asinine narcissistic most prideful statements I have ever heard, I don't know what is!
You go create a universe ex nihilo if the heavens don't declare a "powerful ? "
You go create a sun ex nihilo if the sun doesn't keep you warm enough
You go create water ex nihilo since you can do better!
You go create an earth and hang it upon nothing since you have more power!
I'm waiting.......
Who created disease? Who created tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, babies being born with no eyes, babies born with cerebral palsy? Water borne diseases? Did your ? create these things? If so, he's a giant ? up.
If your ? did NOT create these things, then your ? is still a little weakling because it should be destroying the force creating these things. If your ? is UNABLE to stop these things, then how can I call it a ? ? If your ? is UNWILLING to stop these things, then it very well could be a ? and an ? .
What is your concept or idea of ? ?
Are you at war with your concept of ? ?
Where do these concepts originate?
My concept or idea of a ? is that of a POWERFUL being, that is active in human affairs or at least one that can be seen or proven to exist. Since there does seem to be a level of design to the world, I can say that maybe at one point, there could have been a ? .
And I wouldn't say I'm at war with my concept of ? , I'm simply saying why I have agnostic tendencies, mostly due to the state of the world and the conditions I've seen many people live in. Because of the state of the world, I'm very skeptical of any belief of a powerful ? , where is it, for example.
My concepts of ? or gods originates from what I guess are my own feelings or belief of what a ? should be, powerful, wise, active and able to be seen. Kind of like Silver Surfer riding around, helping and saving people as they need it. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »imgoingtoheavenru? wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »I have agnostic tendencies, though I often think there could be a higher power out there. And some days, I think maybe there isn't. I will admit to strongly disliking the Bible ? but otherwise, I just don't see a lot of evidence of a "powerful" ? out there, though I do believe there are some forms of design in the universe. So I guess my mind is open to different possibilities, but I without a doubt think the Abrahamic ? is phony.
if the bolded ain't one of the most asinine narcissistic most prideful statements I have ever heard, I don't know what is!
You go create a universe ex nihilo if the heavens don't declare a "powerful ? "
You go create a sun ex nihilo if the sun doesn't keep you warm enough
You go create water ex nihilo since you can do better!
You go create an earth and hang it upon nothing since you have more power!
I'm waiting.......
Who created disease? Who created tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, babies being born with no eyes, babies born with cerebral palsy? Water borne diseases? Did your ? create these things? If so, he's a giant ? up.
If your ? did NOT create these things, then your ? is still a little weakling because it should be destroying the force creating these things. If your ? is UNABLE to stop these things, then how can I call it a ? ? If your ? is UNWILLING to stop these things, then it very well could be a ? and an ? .
SO in other words because the world is not the peaceful idyllic place you think ? should make it be you reject him??
Not necessarily. I would have a few questions for this "? ", before I reject it or not.
I've already rejected the phony Abrahamic ? , but if a "real" ? was to show up, I would absolutely be willing to listen to it and maybe accept it, assuming it answers my questions to my satisfaction.
So it still comes down to your satisfaction. ? any ? still has to do what you want, answer your questions with answers pleasing to you.
In essence, yes. If the answers don't satisfy me, why should I bother worshipping it? Why worship a being that can't even prove itself to be a ? . I might as well worship and believe in the unicorn. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »imgoingtoheavenru? wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »I have agnostic tendencies, though I often think there could be a higher power out there. And some days, I think maybe there isn't. I will admit to strongly disliking the Bible ? but otherwise, I just don't see a lot of evidence of a "powerful" ? out there, though I do believe there are some forms of design in the universe. So I guess my mind is open to different possibilities, but I without a doubt think the Abrahamic ? is phony.
if the bolded ain't one of the most asinine narcissistic most prideful statements I have ever heard, I don't know what is!
You go create a universe ex nihilo if the heavens don't declare a "powerful ? "
You go create a sun ex nihilo if the sun doesn't keep you warm enough
You go create water ex nihilo since you can do better!
You go create an earth and hang it upon nothing since you have more power!
I'm waiting.......
Who created disease? Who created tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, babies being born with no eyes, babies born with cerebral palsy? Water borne diseases? Did your ? create these things? If so, he's a giant ? up.
If your ? did NOT create these things, then your ? is still a little weakling because it should be destroying the force creating these things. If your ? is UNABLE to stop these things, then how can I call it a ? ? If your ? is UNWILLING to stop these things, then it very well could be a ? and an ? .
SO in other words because the world is not the peaceful idyllic place you think ? should make it be you reject him??
Not necessarily. I would have a few questions for this "? ", before I reject it or not.
I've already rejected the phony Abrahamic ? , but if a "real" ? was to show up, I would absolutely be willing to listen to it and maybe accept it, assuming it answers my questions to my satisfaction.
So it still comes down to your satisfaction. ? any ? still has to do what you want, answer your questions with answers pleasing to you.
In essence, yes. If the answers don't satisfy me, why should I bother worshipping it? Why worship a being that can't even prove itself to be a ? . I might as well worship and believe in the unicorn.
Why should ? prove myself to you in the way you demand him to??? Perhaps with your demeanor any potential ? simply doesn't want to speak to you or worse doesn't like you.
If my child came to me and said you have to do what I say and answer me with only pleasing answers. I'm going to either ignore him or punish him perhaps ? has chosen to implement the first option for you.
As this relates to the Christian ? his goal/wish is for people to believe in him without him always having to prove himself. What he desires and what you want are at odds with each other. -
abrahamic religions are just far too specific imo.
eastern religions tend to be more open, from zoroaster, tao, buddhism, hinduism.
of course you could also find alotta "truth" in abrahamic religions, depends how you look at it.
but you could also find alotta truth in a horoscope, so there's that.
im not an atheist tho. -
NeighborhoodNomad. wrote: »
Order and consistency require conscious intelligence.
Law requires intelligence. In order for there to be Law, there must be an establisher of that Law.
Can i see a scientific model showing that intelligence is required for those Laws to exist? -
I'm atheist in the sense that ? is an idea of the most high level that a human can achieve through a morality system and code of ethics. In my research it has nothing to do with a creator who gave rise to existence itself. I don't use the European code of thinking and people get confused cause they haven't studied the root words and gain an African perspective on what they are researching when the ideologies and scientific thinking is different.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=?
The creative force that gave rise to existence which is hard to even get a grasp on it in English because the Europeans didn't understood what they were reading and trying to comprehend. I mean even in the bible, Quran, Kemetian texts, voodoo stories and etc had deep underlying degrees of describing this force through metaphysics, physics, and mathematic. We understood it is the totality of existence and so when I say I'm an Atheist I'm in aggression towards the current ideological thinking of what the creator is and how it is portrayed.
Good stuff for bringing this thread. -
Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
Except the bible isn't plagiarized it simply comes out of the same cultures that created it -
NeighborhoodNomad. wrote: »
Order and consistency require conscious intelligence.
Law requires intelligence. In order for there to be Law, there must be an establisher of that Law.
Can i see a scientific model showing that intelligence is required for those Laws to exist?
Lol so you believe order is created randomly and if not you want a scientific model showing only intelligence creates order -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
Except the bible isn't plagiarized it simply comes out of the same cultures that created it
I would say some but most nah. There are proverbs that have been taken from egyptian text which was popular in the Levant and other parts of western asia. Good information and wisdom is good everywhere.
But people have to realize Israel was not in isolation they have multiple cultures surrounding them. So of course they will have adopt other cultural phenomenon. Like El is originally Canaannite but we see it as hebrew which is a dialect. -
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
Except the bible isn't plagiarized it simply comes out of the same cultures that created it
This ? ....
Come on breh. How can you say the Bible isn't plagiarized when the only reference you have for the stories is the Bible itself? "Police aren't racist, police say. "
Anyone interested should read Bible Myths and Their parallels in other religions"
However I don't want this topic to be mired in Christian Theosophy especially since its the youngest concept of ? . -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
Except the bible isn't plagiarized it simply comes out of the same cultures that created it
This ? ....
Come on breh. How can you say the Bible isn't plagiarized when the only reference you have for the stories is the Bible itself? "Police aren't racist, police say. "
Anyone interested should read Bible Myths and Their parallels in other religions"
However I don't want this topic to be mired in Christian Theosophy especially since its the youngest concept of ? .
First of all there is no "the bible". What we call the bible is just a compendium of different stories that were all created by the people of the middle east and northern africa. the bible is the experience i.e the memory and perspective of one of these people. SO FOR example if the story of the flood is all over the middle east and the people who created the bible are also from the region and claim ancestors from UR a place in the center of the region. then it is disingenuous of anyone to say the writers of the noah story plagiarized it when that flood story authentically belongs to them.
It's just their perspective on this potential flood event. -
That's why I say plagiarized is harsh word when we see that they mixed with a plethora of different women and introduce may different people into their nation. For example one of King David's general was a Hittite and we did the MtDNA of the Jews in that cave tomb and showed their ancestry was of European and south-eastern Asian descent haplogroups. So we know from the mitochondrial dna they are Eurasians. Also, we see that have mixed with black women aka lemba tribe so they weren't one ethnic group, maybe the patriarchal side, but definitely not the female side and also we see that the Kohein patrilineal side has K markers and in their autosomal dna we see the j markers pop up so they can't be all descendant of the same man. But it shows a clear sign that this organization was a coalition of other tribes and groups. It's interesting.
-
No proof and people are liars. That's the short answer.
Doesn't have anything to do with scriptures, really. I only use scriptures to point out the hypocrisy and fallacy of people when it's warranted of their faith. For ? and giggles. But even that's rare cause it would mean I'd have to waste time actually reading all that gossip.
The most I do is respect the unknown for just that, unknown. -
This old white ? , tom campbell drop some serious ass theory into the conversation. That perhaps our reality is a virtual one.
https://youtu.be/-RMOGFaOLSQJudge_Judah wrote: »
Come on bruh lol -
NeighborhoodNomad. wrote: »
Order and consistency require conscious intelligence.
Law requires intelligence. In order for there to be Law, there must be an establisher of that Law.
Can i see a scientific model showing that intelligence is required for those Laws to exist?
I didn't thoroughly research that on a scientific level but let's just break it down to its most simplistic form; How can any atom, particle, cell, quantum anything, etc. not only come together but continue to function together as a law? Why is 32degrees freezing every single time? Why is 2+2 always 4? How is there stability? How can there even be the number 1 being that 1 is a whole/a constant collective of numbers(.0001,.0002.,.0003,etc)? Why is H2O water every single time?
How does absolute nothingness become something? How does non existence manifest itself into existence?
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
What is your concept of (a) ? (s)? Why?
And thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. I know this can be a very divisive subject... -
NeighborhoodNomad. wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
What is your concept of (a) ? (s)? Why?
And thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. I know this can be a very divisive subject...
Normally I describe ? as '? is ? ', too much farther and it seems to get blurry. I might describe ? as energy or consciousness. Or maybe the 'void'; no form, sound, or light, just pure undifferentiated potential. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »NeighborhoodNomad. wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
What is your concept of (a) ? (s)? Why?
And thank you to everyone who contributed to this thread. I know this can be a very divisive subject...
Normally I describe ? as '? is ? ', too much farther and it seems to get blurry. I might describe ? as energy or consciousness. Or maybe the 'void'; no form, sound, or light, just pure undifferentiated potential.
Interesting. Pure undifferentiated potential. I like that. -
That voice inside me says there is more to life, but let's not fool ourselfs we will not figure that ? out not in our generation or the next
-
The greatest decision I ever made in my whole short life, was becoming a biblical atheist. I became more aware, more open. My fear of death slowly diminishing. More open to different theories, gaining more knowledge of life. Life is truly the strangest thing that could of ever been imagined.....its really a mind ?
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
Except the bible isn't plagiarized it simply comes out of the same cultures that created it
This ? ....
Come on breh. How can you say the Bible isn't plagiarized when the only reference you have for the stories is the Bible itself? "Police aren't racist, police say. "
Anyone interested should read Bible Myths and Their parallels in other religions"
However I don't want this topic to be mired in Christian Theosophy especially since its the youngest concept of ? .
First of all there is no "the bible". What we call the bible is just a compendium of different stories that were all created by the people of the middle east and northern africa. the bible is the experience i.e the memory and perspective of one of these people. SO FOR example if the story of the flood is all over the middle east and the people who created the bible are also from the region and claim ancestors from UR a place in the center of the region. then it is disingenuous of anyone to say the writers of the noah story plagiarized it when that flood story authentically belongs to them.
It's just their perspective on this potential flood event.
The story of adam and eve, and the creation story period is straight lifted from the enuma elish, the babylonian creation story.
Flood stories exist in every culture, ancient mexicans had a flood story. What this means is that all over the world people experienced cataclysmic flood, it doesn't make the bible more accurate.
The bible is a group of stories , the question is who experienced them, when they occurred, did they occur, are they literal or figurative?
See the bible or the architects of the bible ? up by insisting these stories were 100% real and happened to a specific group of people at one time.
But iaint about to argue the veracity of the bible, that is belief and belief is not based on intelligence, it is based on emotion, irrationality.
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Before we can question whether or not a ? or gods or any similar entity exists, we have to first question our concept of ? .
Then we have to question whether or not we possess the perception or tools to perceive a ? .
The limitations of our accepted tools of knowledge is for a 3d material universe.
I am with LordZuko, first we must come to a definitive conclusion about what constitutes '? ' and then decide if that ? does indeed exist. If the bible is the basis of '? ', then based on the fact it has been plagiarized and bastardized the answer is no, that ? does not exist.
Except the bible isn't plagiarized it simply comes out of the same cultures that created it
This ? ....
Come on breh. How can you say the Bible isn't plagiarized when the only reference you have for the stories is the Bible itself? "Police aren't racist, police say. "
Anyone interested should read Bible Myths and Their parallels in other religions"
However I don't want this topic to be mired in Christian Theosophy especially since its the youngest concept of ? .
First of all there is no "the bible". What we call the bible is just a compendium of different stories that were all created by the people of the middle east and northern africa. the bible is the experience i.e the memory and perspective of one of these people. SO FOR example if the story of the flood is all over the middle east and the people who created the bible are also from the region and claim ancestors from UR a place in the center of the region. then it is disingenuous of anyone to say the writers of the noah story plagiarized it when that flood story authentically belongs to them.
It's just their perspective on this potential flood event.
The story of adam and eve, and the creation story period is straight lifted from the enuma elish, the babylonian creation story.
Flood stories exist in every culture, ancient mexicans had a flood story. What this means is that all over the world people experienced cataclysmic flood, it doesn't make the bible more accurate.
The bible is a group of stories , the question is who experienced them, when they occurred, did they occur, are they literal or figurative?
See the bible or the architects of the bible ? up by insisting these stories were 100% real and happened to a specific group of people at one time.
But iaint about to argue the veracity of the bible, that is belief and belief is not based on intelligence, it is based on emotion, irrationality.
Abraham was from ur in southern Babylon the genesis story or some variation of it would have been part of his culture so his descendants also having the same story should not be an issue.
And the same goes for the flood story. I did not bring up the flood to prove the accuracy of the bible. I brung it up as an example of a shared story that is shared with many people in the region. That story like the genesis story is not plagiarized it authentically belongs to the worshippers of the ? of Abraham.
Later some generations of Christians foolishly believed the genesis story was literal. Traditionally the Jewish people did not.
And emotions can be rational,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA
