reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
The reason i like the Jesus character, is because, according to how he has been described, he seemed to have tapped into a realm of "truth," a way of "seeing," a more holistic view and understanding of the world... as if it became automatic for him to be able to understand and reason, without all the complications of excess details and politics. I think the stories show that he tried to teach people the foundations of a fundamental way of viewing the world, that would be much better for everyone, and not just those in power. I also think his message was intentionally skewed, bastardized, and used to represent something he had no intention of representing... even quite contrary to his original intent. The stories were written and disseminated after his... disappearance (i say "disappearance," because no one seems to be sure whether or how he died, and many seem to believe he bypassed actual death and literally "ascended" ... but at some point, he was no longer present, and did not return, after which, people with personal agendas told his stories... and we all know men are corruptible and fallible).
I'm still an agnostic (skeptical) atheist (lack of belief) who thinks that no organized religion should insist things that aren't true (anti-theist).
However, the concept of self-knowledge (gnosticism?) and the metaphysical and/or spiritual endeavors, still seem somehow important, and i don't deny the possibility that "some type of god," some inconceivably vast and complex truth, some "higher power" could in fact exist... but there is no real evidence of such a thing in our observable environment, so i find it quite ludicrous to insist that there is.
Many "atheists" will aggressively insist that it's impossible for any type of god to exist... but i just think they're being closed-minded.
I think it's accurate to say that none of the holy books have come even remotely close to an acceptable description of what "god" could actually be, and that all the resulting dogma and doctrine is just a bunch of stuff a bunch of men with agendas concocted with the intent to control populations. But it's obvious that they used ancient and previously existing mythology to build their own versions of neo-mythology.
I will also grant that it does indeed appear that "evil men" are using various types of "mind-control" and consolidated wealth and power, to control as many people as they can... and many seem to leap right into those control schemes, quite willingly, resulting in what has been defined as "memetic parasitism," in which when a parasitic "idea" "infects" a new host, it defends itself by causing that host to reject anything that would contradict the false reality enabled by that parasitic meme.
I'm still an agnostic (skeptical) atheist (lack of belief) who thinks that no organized religion should insist things that aren't true (anti-theist).
However, the concept of self-knowledge (gnosticism?) and the metaphysical and/or spiritual endeavors, still seem somehow important, and i don't deny the possibility that "some type of god," some inconceivably vast and complex truth, some "higher power" could in fact exist... but there is no real evidence of such a thing in our observable environment, so i find it quite ludicrous to insist that there is.
Many "atheists" will aggressively insist that it's impossible for any type of god to exist... but i just think they're being closed-minded.
I think it's accurate to say that none of the holy books have come even remotely close to an acceptable description of what "god" could actually be, and that all the resulting dogma and doctrine is just a bunch of stuff a bunch of men with agendas concocted with the intent to control populations. But it's obvious that they used ancient and previously existing mythology to build their own versions of neo-mythology.
I will also grant that it does indeed appear that "evil men" are using various types of "mind-control" and consolidated wealth and power, to control as many people as they can... and many seem to leap right into those control schemes, quite willingly, resulting in what has been defined as "memetic parasitism," in which when a parasitic "idea" "infects" a new host, it defends itself by causing that host to reject anything that would contradict the false reality enabled by that parasitic meme.
was professor of general zoology at Amsterdam University, Netherlands. He was the world’s leading authority on whales. Chapter 2 of his classic work is entitled ‘Evolution and External Appearance.’ In it, he talks about a bone in whales that he calls the ‘pelvic bone,’ which is some 30 centimetres (12 inches) long, ‘but unlike the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column.’ This bone serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs. Slijper goes on to say that sometimes ‘another small bone may be attached to it.’ Being an evolutionist, he naturally interprets this smaller piece of bone as a throw-back to the femur, or thigh bone, of the whale’s evolutionary ancestor. However, he states that in these occasional cases, the bone in question is generally 2.5 cm (just over an inch) in length, and that it is sometimes ‘fused’ with the pelvic bone.
