CrackerJax
New Member
Nobody is more materialistic than the church.....
I Have A ? For You Religious People.
- Thread starter fairyweed
- Start date
Brazko
Well-Known Member
I Disagree,
I realize this is Not it, This is Not all there is to Life, and Matter in itself is Non existent, so I would be a Fool to Place my Entire Belief/Being in It,
I Concur, I seriously doubt You would Feel Lonely w/o God, but He Sure is #1 on Your Shit List...
, 
iS this A True or False Question....
CrackerJax
New Member
Maybe paris Hilton could give the church a run for it's "money", but it'd be close............
DubsFan
Well-Known Member
Are you an athiest that would protest an 80 year old cross on a hilltop?
If you don't believe in god or say christianity than it has no meaning. It's pieces of wood that means something to someone else.
You may not be one of these athiest. But I see no Jews or Muslims protesting these symbols. Only athiests. Your very belief system says these mean nothing so why do your brothers pursue their destruction?
I'm not saying you're one of them. I'm trying to understand.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
No, I would not protest an 80 year old cross on a hilltop.
It's not the cross that bothers me. It's what the message behind the cross does to the mind.
Jews and Muslims do not protest other religious idols, artifacts or symbols (well they do but not nearly as much as atheists) because they have their own stories with their own prophecies. As an atheist, I sit in a place where there are no stories, my position is that ALL of these stories are EQUALLY as bad for the mind. They all do the same thing, which is close it and cripple a persons ability to think correctly, sensably, logically, rationally. Instead they have faith things will turn out right, or hope their prayers are answered.
Just for an example...
This stuff has people, my age, believing that dinosaurs walked with man a few thousand years ago...
That statement in and of itself is enough to simply blow anyones mind. (I would think!)
HOW THE FUCK COULD THAT EVEN BE POSSIBLE YOU ASK???
The short answer;
RELIGON.
Basshead
Well-Known Member
From what I understand is reasonable to an extent. Although you still call religion a fairy tale, and you also refer to something which is a personal belief, or a testimony, you call it AN ARGUMENT, which seems to give me the impression you approach this with a sense of conflicting, or judgement. Lighten up on the Church People man. Church people = regular people. How much bad, and how much good has come from regular people? There are misanthropes out there, they just don't like people for what people have done. and if you talk to them , they'd probably say something reasonable.. .
In the New Testament Jesus does say he is here for those who need to be saved, or those who need to be reborn. He says that he's not here for someone who is naturally righteous. If you already have pure righteousness in your soul, heart, and spirit, then you have no need for Jesus. Is what the Bible says, but most churchgoing folk won't tell you this.
Which leads me to my next point, sure we all are set in on the best intentions. But who - REALLY - is perfectly righteous, from our very first breath onward until today? Not everybody needs religion, not everybody needs the Christian Religion. But I do. and I highly recommend it when I feel it necessary. I've fucked up, majorly, in my lifetime, and I was reborn once I understood the Christian Language. Maybe not everybody, but it makes me feel much better.
Also in the stated paragraph you refer to yourself in relation to materialism, and atheism. While you may not be materialistic in your atheism, and I may not be materialistic with my religion, we are probably a minority in our practices. Lets face it, hedonism just feels good because it eases suffering. The buddhists have these noble truths about sufferings. . . But we have to be careful not to let the Bad Spirits fool us into selfishness. Everyone wants to feel good and be happy, Everyone also knows that selfishness causes detriment.
“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” - Jimi
One minute we are enjoying ourselves, the next minute we find ourselves in hell. What an Atheist would refer to as a lack of Equlibrium, a religious person would call a demonic influence.
Back to talking about oneself personally, I will add to the practice. I personally suggest and promote my own religion. I don't shove it down people's throats or tell them they will burn in hell for rejection. Which is common practice in religion. We all just got to reach the collective understanding that was lost. Please realize that the religion itself means no harm. Its some(alot) of the people and what they do in and with the religion. Those people who do bad in religion would have been bad without it as well, and vice versa for "Mad Scientists". Science is made to benefit humanity and build an understanding of Nature. But if you watch Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, he clearly shows that There is a crisis that emerges from industrial and technological advances in science if we don't utilize it with care(pollution, advanced weapons, toxic waste - etc) - and he also states, that in many cases - we haven't. I haven't went and joined the E.L.F. and started hating on industrial engineers, yet.
CrackerJax
New Member
No one blames the ordinary German citizen for WW2 directly, but it couldn't have happened without them. religion falls into the same category, although with a different equation.
No one directly blames the flock, but one has to wonder if the church could continue the craziness without them.
No one directly blames the flock, but one has to wonder if the church could continue the craziness without them.
Brazko
Well-Known Member
Excellent point CJ.
, to remove yourself from the building, does not remove you from the Grace of God or Christ, if that is who you truly serve.. For a building is just that, The People are the ones who are the Church
P
PadawanBater
Guest
gtfo with this spam! You're just making yourself look stupid by showing you don't have any idea how the theory works.
smoker toker
Active Member
Agreed... the building in itself means nothing, the cross in itself, means nothing. I personaly believe in god heaven and jesus, but everything else is what we as human beings make of it. God gave people free will, and it was people who wrote the bible, and that IS fact that a human wrote the bible. A human, who dispite how fiathful he might've been, still has an opinion.
Faith in god is whatever people make it to be... If you're an athiest so be it, but understand that you are the minority in the world, and understand that religion, whether or not you agree with it, exists so long as there are people. Nothing will change that, and like all of us, ya just gotta learn to deal.
Logically though? At the end of the day, we all die. Out of every belief out there... one of us is right...
... hahaha.. the rest of us are fucked and I'm gonna be sittin in hell saying "Mother fucker should've rolled with the Hindus" rofl (no offense to any Hindus out there 
)
Smoker Toker 
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
It looks like "Freedom of religion" can't keep you haters from trying to destroy religion, but that's your right.
If you really didn't care about religion or simply didn't believe in it, you wouldn't waste your time bashing it, you'd ignore it.
At least have the balls to state your purpose/agenda - is is NEO-MARXIST FASCISM
(the new religion of the left)?
Dr. Sanity (link)
</B>
"Thursday, January 18, 2007
NEO-MARXIST FASCISM
Iain Murray at The Corner asks, Is Affluence the Root of All Evil?
The new moralists of the left have erected a secular religion as fundamentalist and rigid as any in its belief system. Those who understand the etiology and purpose of postmodern rhetoric will recognize that the agenda of this book is to promulgate (whether consciously or unconsciously) the same old tired anti-capitalistic, anti-consumer slogans of socialism and communism under the new trappings of multiculturalism, political correctness, and radical environmentalism
(three of the four pillars of the 21st century's socialist revival )
It just so happens, that these tenets represent three of the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world have developed and are using to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history.
Because, even Karl Marx believed that wealth was a good thing. He was only delusional in thinking that socialism would be able to deliver the goods more efficiently and "fairly" than capitalism. Reality proved him terribly and catastrophically incorrect.
It is said that the only way to make a small fortune as a Marxist is to start with a large one--and this truth has been proven repeated all over the world where Marxist ideas have been applied to national economies.
Thus, Marx's decendents have been faced with a terrible ethical dilemma. Their ideology of choice is complete crap and is unable to deliver any of the material goods it promises--so what to do? Simple! You make one tiny little ethical change, and instead of touting that wealth is good, you convince people that wealth--and everything that is necessary to create it--is bad!
The new ethics of the neo-marxists have taken their beloved Marxist theory several steps further into the realm of delusion; dismissing wealth as anything worthwhile, since they aren't capable of producing it anyway. Meanwhile, the radical environmental wing of the party aggressively asserts that technology is bad and inherently evil because it destroys the earth.
All in all, in their anti-capitalist fervor, they have managed to conclude not only that wealth itself is bad; but producing wealth is bad, and that producers of wealth are bad. This has enormous implications, especially for the poor saps in the proletariat class (everyone but the revolutionary leaders and the damn capitalists).
But not to worry! Those benevolent leaders will tell you the best way to live as they control all that evil technology for you (just like they did in the old Soviet Union, for example; one of the worst polluters and destroyers of the environment in history); and as they control what makes that technology possible--the human mind.
They will heroically manage whatever wealth does come from your mind and work, for the happiness of all!
Siggy observes in his recent post on "The Patron Saints of Fascism" :
One truth that the left must deny with rabid ferocity is the fact that the greatest human advances--social, cultural, political and economic-- have all come about as the result of the human mind set free to explore every possibility and every potential.
Happiness , contrary to any and all propaganda, is hidden within the free and joyful exploration of your own potential. Look at any growing child learning about his or her world if you want confirmation of this.
Any psychologist worth his or her salt could tell you that happiness is not tied either to wealth or poverty per se; but is only a by-product that comes about when individuals take responsibility for their own lives; and when they are able to pursue thoses lives, relationships and goals freely, without undue interference from the state or collective.
In other words, in a politically and economically free environment, an individual retains responsibility for his or her own happiness. When the state and those who rule the state say they will take responsibility--then beware.
Happiness is not a gift that any economic or political system can bestow on you or guaranntee. The best any state or society can do with regard to happiness, is to strike down as many barriers that prevent a person from pursuing it in their own unique, individual way. The state can no more dictate what will make you happy, than it can dictate what would please your palate.
Nevertheless, as the Clare Boothe Luce once wisely quipped, "Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable."
At least under capitalism you can be comfortably unhappy. Under the benevolent fascism of the neo-marxists, you will be given endless opportunities to be miserably unhappy.
The neo-marxist fascists--the people who claim to know what is best for you and how to make you happy--will tell you that it is capitalism, materialism, wealth, money, affluence that is the root of all evil; but affluence is only a product of the human mind. As SC&A have remarked many times, utopia cannot be arrived at without the imposition of tyranny. When you try to control affluence--no matter how "good" your intentions might be--you must first enslave the human mind.
And there is no worse evil than that."
If you really didn't care about religion or simply didn't believe in it, you wouldn't waste your time bashing it, you'd ignore it.
At least have the balls to state your purpose/agenda - is is NEO-MARXIST FASCISM
(the new religion of the left)?
Dr. Sanity (link)
Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life
</B>
"Thursday, January 18, 2007
NEO-MARXIST FASCISM
Iain Murray at The Corner asks, Is Affluence the Root of All Evil?
So argue the new moralists of the left, especially the anti-consumer greens. A new book entitled The Challenge of Affluence: Self-Control and Well-Being in the United States and Britain since 1950 advances the idea that consumer choice, affluence and progress have brought us to a moral abyss. Prof. Christie Davies of the British think tank The Social Affairs Unit savages the thesis:
British sobriety was built at an earlier time of increasing affluence, indeed alcohol consumption fell in the last decades of the nineteenth century because the men's beer money was diverted into consumer goods. The problem today is that it has been diverted back again. Yet the worst of all alcohol problems, one that knocked several years off life expectations, was produced in the old Soviet Union - a land of rising money incomes, no consumer goods, high levels of personal saving, no advertising and a population that got fat on bread and spuds, stank of rank tobacco and rolled drunk in the snow. But according to Offer, it's all the fault of capitalism and advertising...
Offer does not suggest how we (and in their different ways the unhappy Americans and the shrinking childless peoples of Eastern and Southern Europe) get out of the pit of affluence but his snide remarks about Conservative politicians imply he likes leftist solutions incorporating the evils of social justice. Sensible people know that it is only through a return to a society based on our old loyalties, traditional values and primordial commitments that a solution could be found. Maybe there is no solution at all but this is the only path with any promise at all. You certainly won't solve the crisis by letting the economy collapse and setting up committees on happiness.
Offer does not suggest how we (and in their different ways the unhappy Americans and the shrinking childless peoples of Eastern and Southern Europe) get out of the pit of affluence but his snide remarks about Conservative politicians imply he likes leftist solutions incorporating the evils of social justice. Sensible people know that it is only through a return to a society based on our old loyalties, traditional values and primordial commitments that a solution could be found. Maybe there is no solution at all but this is the only path with any promise at all. You certainly won't solve the crisis by letting the economy collapse and setting up committees on happiness.
The new moralists of the left have erected a secular religion as fundamentalist and rigid as any in its belief system. Those who understand the etiology and purpose of postmodern rhetoric will recognize that the agenda of this book is to promulgate (whether consciously or unconsciously) the same old tired anti-capitalistic, anti-consumer slogans of socialism and communism under the new trappings of multiculturalism, political correctness, and radical environmentalism
(three of the four pillars of the 21st century's socialist revival )
It just so happens, that these tenets represent three of the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world have developed and are using to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history.
Because, even Karl Marx believed that wealth was a good thing. He was only delusional in thinking that socialism would be able to deliver the goods more efficiently and "fairly" than capitalism. Reality proved him terribly and catastrophically incorrect.
It is said that the only way to make a small fortune as a Marxist is to start with a large one--and this truth has been proven repeated all over the world where Marxist ideas have been applied to national economies.
Thus, Marx's decendents have been faced with a terrible ethical dilemma. Their ideology of choice is complete crap and is unable to deliver any of the material goods it promises--so what to do? Simple! You make one tiny little ethical change, and instead of touting that wealth is good, you convince people that wealth--and everything that is necessary to create it--is bad!
The new ethics of the neo-marxists have taken their beloved Marxist theory several steps further into the realm of delusion; dismissing wealth as anything worthwhile, since they aren't capable of producing it anyway. Meanwhile, the radical environmental wing of the party aggressively asserts that technology is bad and inherently evil because it destroys the earth.
All in all, in their anti-capitalist fervor, they have managed to conclude not only that wealth itself is bad; but producing wealth is bad, and that producers of wealth are bad. This has enormous implications, especially for the poor saps in the proletariat class (everyone but the revolutionary leaders and the damn capitalists).
But not to worry! Those benevolent leaders will tell you the best way to live as they control all that evil technology for you (just like they did in the old Soviet Union, for example; one of the worst polluters and destroyers of the environment in history); and as they control what makes that technology possible--the human mind.
They will heroically manage whatever wealth does come from your mind and work, for the happiness of all!
Siggy observes in his recent post on "The Patron Saints of Fascism" :
The new religion of the left, anti-Americanism, was founded for one reason and one reason only: to counter the incoming high tide of truth. Revolutions today aren’t about marxist or socialist agendas. Today’s revolutionaries cannot hide the truth any longer. Today’s revolutions are about power.
Today’s revolutionaries need to upend free societies, capitalism and market economies. That is what people want, from Africa to South America to Eastern Europe because those are the ideas that have liberated and empowered billions of people. The war of ideas is over and the socialist agenda has been soundly defeated on every front. The high tides of freedoms and the aspirations of free men can no more held be back than the high tides of the oceans. Todays’ leaders of ‘the revolution’ will be forgotten. Their proved excesses in death, destruction and the curtailing of human rights have guaranteed their legacy- and the legacy of their supporters.
[...]
The religion of the left is as bereft of ideas as it is of political integrity. The sloganeering of ‘No to Terror! No to War!‘ is as relevant as saying ‘No to Cancer! No to Radiation!‘
[...]
In fact, the most self absorbed and materialistic are the leaders of the most tyrannical regimes in Africa and the Arab world, where greed, corruption, excess and deceit are the defining adjectives of those regimes. Those levels of greed, excess, corruption and self serving attitudes rival the most fanatical religious extremists in their tenacious expressions by citizens of all strata in those countries- and these are the leaders the left reveres.
This is the new fascism; the latest postmodern ploy; the socialist dead-enders' last ticket to power over the masses. Their latest motto is: No to capitalism! No to the human mind! Happiness, they claim, can be found only in a lack of affluence--i.e., in poverty. This attitude is extremely convenient for them ideologically, particularly since that is precisely what the new socialists will create: poverty for all.Today’s revolutionaries need to upend free societies, capitalism and market economies. That is what people want, from Africa to South America to Eastern Europe because those are the ideas that have liberated and empowered billions of people. The war of ideas is over and the socialist agenda has been soundly defeated on every front. The high tides of freedoms and the aspirations of free men can no more held be back than the high tides of the oceans. Todays’ leaders of ‘the revolution’ will be forgotten. Their proved excesses in death, destruction and the curtailing of human rights have guaranteed their legacy- and the legacy of their supporters.
[...]
The religion of the left is as bereft of ideas as it is of political integrity. The sloganeering of ‘No to Terror! No to War!‘ is as relevant as saying ‘No to Cancer! No to Radiation!‘
[...]
In fact, the most self absorbed and materialistic are the leaders of the most tyrannical regimes in Africa and the Arab world, where greed, corruption, excess and deceit are the defining adjectives of those regimes. Those levels of greed, excess, corruption and self serving attitudes rival the most fanatical religious extremists in their tenacious expressions by citizens of all strata in those countries- and these are the leaders the left reveres.
One truth that the left must deny with rabid ferocity is the fact that the greatest human advances--social, cultural, political and economic-- have all come about as the result of the human mind set free to explore every possibility and every potential.
Happiness , contrary to any and all propaganda, is hidden within the free and joyful exploration of your own potential. Look at any growing child learning about his or her world if you want confirmation of this.
Any psychologist worth his or her salt could tell you that happiness is not tied either to wealth or poverty per se; but is only a by-product that comes about when individuals take responsibility for their own lives; and when they are able to pursue thoses lives, relationships and goals freely, without undue interference from the state or collective.
In other words, in a politically and economically free environment, an individual retains responsibility for his or her own happiness. When the state and those who rule the state say they will take responsibility--then beware.
Happiness is not a gift that any economic or political system can bestow on you or guaranntee. The best any state or society can do with regard to happiness, is to strike down as many barriers that prevent a person from pursuing it in their own unique, individual way. The state can no more dictate what will make you happy, than it can dictate what would please your palate.
Nevertheless, as the Clare Boothe Luce once wisely quipped, "Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable."
At least under capitalism you can be comfortably unhappy. Under the benevolent fascism of the neo-marxists, you will be given endless opportunities to be miserably unhappy.
The neo-marxist fascists--the people who claim to know what is best for you and how to make you happy--will tell you that it is capitalism, materialism, wealth, money, affluence that is the root of all evil; but affluence is only a product of the human mind. As SC&A have remarked many times, utopia cannot be arrived at without the imposition of tyranny. When you try to control affluence--no matter how "good" your intentions might be--you must first enslave the human mind.
And there is no worse evil than that."
CrackerJax
New Member
No one is saying you can't practice ur religion.
More and more ppl see it as nonsense in todays world... that's all.
More and more ppl see it as nonsense in todays world... that's all.
DubsFan
Well-Known Member
Quick background:No, I would not protest an 80 year old cross on a hilltop.
It's not the cross that bothers me. It's what the message behind the cross does to the mind.
Jews and Muslims do not protest other religious idols, artifacts or symbols (well they do but not nearly as much as atheists) because they have their own stories with their own prophecies. As an atheist, I sit in a place where there are no stories, my position is that ALL of these stories are EQUALLY as bad for the mind. They all do the same thing, which is close it and cripple a persons ability to think correctly, sensably, logically, rationally. Instead they have faith things will turn out right, or hope their prayers are answered.
Just for an example...
This stuff has people, my age, believing that dinosaurs walked with man a few thousand years ago...
That statement in and of itself is enough to simply blow anyones mind. (I would think!)
HOW THE FUCK COULD THAT EVEN BE POSSIBLE YOU ASK???
The short answer;
RELIGON.
I'm a struggling Catholic. Went to Catholic school 1st - 8th grade. I also was an alter boy. If I were to go back to Church it would be a Catholic Church.
My second grade teacher, a Nun was passionate about Dino's dude. To a retarded extreme. I personally don't know anyone in my world of Catholosism or Christianity that thinks the world is a few thousand years old.
I also had sex ed by 7th grade, condoms and cucumbers dude! In the 5th grade, in an effort to keep us away from harmful drugs they brought in the PD to show us crack pipes, needles...everything except the drug itself. It's not all closed minded marching orders.
I barely showed up to high school. I'm succesful. My only education is from my Catholic school. They were struggling financially when I was there 20 years ago but now have a four year waiting list.
I don't believe everything in the bible. I know Earth is billions of years old. I don't know what God is.
I cannot wrap my brain around The Big Bang. Something does not come from nothing. Even the "emptiness" that people talk about. Emptiness is something. Somebody either provided the space for the big bang or we really are in a giant ant farm.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Does your opinion of the meaning of life have anything to do with your belief in God?
ie, do you believe if there was no ''meaning'' as defined by a religion or a God, life would be meaningless and there wouldn't be any point?
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Could have been another universe like our own, there could very well BE other universes, how would we know, we can't see that far into space, we can see the edge of space, where no more stars are, but beyond that, light has not reached that far yet, so we can't see anything.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
No, I do support the big bang theory. The evidence points to it being correct, more correct than anything else presented so far.
If there are other universes, what created them or how they were created is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. There will always be an infinite regress, no matter what you believe. If you believe God created everything, well, what created God? What created that? What created that... If the big bang happened, what happened before that? What happened before that happened..?
What we need to do is look at what reality tells us, the best way to do that is by using science, as that is exactly what it's for. It's got fail proofs in it's design that won't allow for mistakes to slip through the cracks of scrutiny and criticism.
It's a GIANT leap to go from the evidence we DO HAVE about how the universe began to "magic man done it".
fish601
Active Member
look at reality you said?
this guy did
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
think about this
The laws of physics are extremely fine tuned to permit the existence of matter, much less, the existence of biological life forms. For some of these physical laws, a change of as little as 1 part in 1037 (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) would prevent the universe from ever containing any kind of life.
did that happen by chance?
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."