I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day.
If you were a Taoist, channeling, divining, and manifesting (no idea what OOB is), then you were never an atheist. You simply exchanged one brand of bullshit for another. Not how I see it, but fair enough, you kinda had to be there. I'm confident that if I could write a long enough book I could demonstrate just how seemingly logical of a progression it was. That stuff is a lie, but also just real enough to be incredibly dangerous. ktttn, I'll prayerfully ponder whether there's anything more I can say or do to express the deepest sense of truth and joy I've found in Christ, hoping to maybe somehow kindle your hope. AB&C are the textbook hangups for satanists, but you're likewise one of the least abrasive and most grounded ones I've encountered. Not to flatter, but its true. And I'm no intellectual rockstar (you should meet my pastor), just walked enough hot coals to appreciate the soothing water I find holding me up as I walk with my saviour. Also I find nothing patriarchal in that I am a part of the bride of Christ. I need to be more abraisive. My attempts to scrub the jesus off you haven't succeeded yet. More fucking cursewords? Bigger flames? EDIT: I will consentually mouthfuck your pastor with my 14" studded strap-on until he quits his job and becomes a buddhist monk. Christian nuttery is more dangerous than Taoism or manifestig. You need to re read some marx dawkins or lavey, or at least a list of atheists. |
|
|
|
I questioned why he had allowed me to go through some horrible things as a very young child. One day I cried out to Him for help and he showed me that he pained by the abuse too.
If he ever tells you why he allowed for your abuse to happen despite it paining him, and what his plan with all that was, please let us know. Good question. I think the fact that I felt God WAIT... WAIT! NOW HOLDYERHORSES SLOW DOWN TH- show me that He was sad
 |
|
|
|
Stop capitalizing the 'c' in Bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
|
I haven't got a penny in fedral reserve notes. Pity might be in short supply for anyone attempting to store or transfer any wealth in USD.
Hell Ive been saying that since before I knew what btc was.
|
|
|
|
|
Good cop / bad cop?
Am I imagining things or can this work?
|
|
|
|
|
Someone should post it here.
|
|
|
|
|
DO WANT
AM POOR
PICK ME
1BQkSs8iFoamEGgBPiQEc88fNKfBmgd4x
KTHXBYE
|
|
|
|
If you consider mundane subjects such as killing millions of people in wars, subsidizing GMO crops, poising water with fluoride, debasing the currency, and raiding people producing fresh milk, legalizing torture to be any different than raping your wife... I would like to know how. Your wife is one person and she doesn't die... millions are starving or being killed as a result of people voting and 'complying' with the result.
No, I will not comply I will ignore and evade and undermine the result of the vote when ever it is in my interest to do so.
Huh? Fluoridation of your water supply is handled on a state level (assuming you are based in the USA), so if you disagree with it then feel free to talk to your local politicians for your state. And as said earlier, if you do not like all your politicians, feel free to run for a state position yourself. The only thing blocking you is if the majority of the states population agrees with you or not. There was a town that was mentioned on Arstechnica lately that was able to get rid of fluoridation of their water supply. Also, fluoridation has been proven time and time again to be very effective when in the water supply and done correctly, and in the USA it is done very well. Heck, it is even considered by some to be one of the best medical advancements of this century! Also, if you don't like it, feel free to get a water filter for ten bucks. Subsidizing GMO crops is not a bad thing. It encourages further research for GMO's crops so the yield increases and therefore food would become cheaper, more accessible, and easier to grow. Though, how Monsanto handles GMO's is quite horrific, so I somewhat partially agree with your there. Debasing the currency is a long and hard discussion. I don't want to get into that on a forum where this has been talked about over and over again, often times with misinformation on both sides. Raiding people producing fresh milk, that I have no clue what you are talking about. Selling milk which you produce yourself is very illegal, as it should be without any sort of license. You should know fully well that equating actions with a users wife getting raped is a very flawed and messed up way to get any argument across. Millions are not dying due to voting and complying with the result, I haven't got a faintest clue how you are getting that. People vote in for someone they wish to represent them, and those people who represent them handle how the government should handle and do things. If you do not like how they are doing things, either impeach them, vote for someone else the next time, get the public to show that they disagree with the recent action, or run yourself for office. Meanwhile in America, the cliques of CNN FOX watchers are voting DEM REP based on how on the dole or wealthy they are; states rights have been crapped on as a matter of principle since Lincoln, despite weed being less freaky than flouride; prewritten letters are the greatest possible reward for saying anything to a politician; elections are only for rich lawyers and politicians, and rape is almost completely practically legal and widely ecouraged- and very much tax funded according to millitary rape stats. |
|
|
|
However I am invoking Godwin's Law, in the case that a bunch of people get together and decide that the earth would be a better place by wiping out the Jews (because they thought the Jews were destroying Germany) what right would you have to tell them they're wrong?
Science that says Jews are no different from any other people, and that there is no evidence that they are destroying Germany? Hitler was a devout Christian and believed in some f'ed up prophesy and BS, so it was easy for him to believe in other ignorant and hateful things. Thus, it was easy for him to believe unsubstantiated stuff like "Jews are destroying Germany." Also, second argument, an argument against utilitarianism:
Suppose you have an uncle who owns a business, and has many workers for him. Your uncle has developed a terrible disease which causes him much pain, yet he continues along with his job, instead of listening to doctors. Because of his condition he is very miserable, and so makes all his workers miserable as well. You know that once your uncle dies you will inherit a large fortune, as well as the company, so you could improve the workers' lives.
The most logical choice you decide, is to attempt to kill your uncle, after all, you empathize with his pain. If you were in such pain, a terminal illness at that, wouldn't you want an easy way out? Not only would you be improving your uncle's life, but all the workers', and as well as your's as per the inheritance.
The above would be completely moral by your view.
If death was the uncle's wish, then yes, it would be moral to help him do what he has asked for, since he owns his life and is the only one who can decide what to do with it. If you kill him despite him wanting to continue to work and live his life, then that's not moral, not by the bible's standards, and not by any other set of ethics (including atheist). Just taking this oppurtunity to clarify that Naziism is its own distinct religion, somewhat informed by norse and roman paganism, highly catholic, and entirely enamored with the state. Also to mention that Tekkna is confirmed for super batshit insane ignorebuttonbaitcorefodder. Trust me when I tell you that it is not very popular to be a Christian anymore it seems so I would not think anyone would "fake it" to "fit in."
Are you fucking kidding me?! You only have something like 80% of the US population, all the prior and current presidents, 98% of the politicians, most of the news reporters, most of the school teachers and administrators... This country is steeped in religion/Christianity. Christmas decorations go up in October, all the religious holidays are very overtly celebrated, it's unthinkable for the president to not do any prayer or religious type of ceremony, those who point out that religious icons on public property are unconstitutional get persecuted and receive death threats... Atheists are the ones who are not very popular. Watch any news reporter interviewing an atheist. It's as if they are interviewing some weirdo with cancer. Thank you. All of my +1. I lold audibly. Wishing we could all hear the alarmlike sound that actually just came from my mouth. |
|
|
|
I was a post-atheist, progressive, Taoist, channelling, divining, manifesting OOB junky and was delivered in one day.
If you were a Taoist, channeling, divining, and manifesting (no idea what OOB is), then you were never an atheist. You simply exchanged one brand of bullshit for another. Amen. Neurobox and BitChick are both badass intelligent rockstars IMO. Sort of. K I'll give them head n shoulders above most theists. Christians can be great people sometimes. That post was directed at the whole thread. I still have a monsterous, overwhelming frustration with ABC) in my last post, and hope some of the assertions take root as true somewhere subcon. That hope doesn't detract from how much I appreciate the hell out of those two people's semi faned consideration. Until they grow into what I happen to feel is a more mature and realistic state of reflection about the neccessity and pitfalls of ABC) in their personal development, and redefine the language of that external revelation they described as an entirely internal one, I'll still point out flaws with as much gusto as I can muster. I am very, very angry at the consistent hateful actions, scorn for science, disowned hipocrisy, and blind core untheory of theists in general. It's a good, righteous anger I feel everyone needs to have to do well and have working values. Fookin bitcoiners, yo. |
|
|
|
|
A)Calling your god a 'He' is dumb
B)Talking about your god in a way that requires the reader to make a leap of faith to even finish reading one of your premises is dumb.
C)Claiming matter of factly that your god did this, does that, ect is dumb.
These things are dumb because you really know, deep down, the only reason you talk like that is to fit in.
Whether you were raised by enthusiastic consumers of churching or found that later in life it was easier just to play along until you internalized the motions, you know deep down that youre faking it and being dumb.
Everyone else can tell, and suspects that the act is only there to cover up some missing depth or longing for substantial meaning.
Ive done this debate before. The reasonable people always get sick of the neurosis and leave, losing. Religion must not be based in simply refering someone to a vastly overquoted book. We must think for ourselves.
Lots of folks still have faith in the obsolete lie that is the dollar. IN GOD WE TRUST. NOPE.
I left that lie a long time ago as well.
My religion requires that I be sincere, enflamed in prayer, and unforgiving of the sort of monocultural, white supremacist, patriarchical garbage that passes as religious thought.
|
|
|
|
Can it be done? You said it yourself, you are predisposed to that conclusion in my case, because I will not validate your mundane concept of deity. "My satanism redefines deity into something so radically mundane as to render sacredness itself common. Of course, I maintain that this redefinition is needed for any valid discussion of god to be more than a creepy, overmedicated set of empty quotes and salesmanship of snipehunting gear." If nothing can ever possibly be sacred to you, then we can only miscommunicate. Let it be. [1] Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. [2] Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. [3] And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. [4] The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. [5] For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. - 2Cr 4:1-5 NIV MORE: [41] "I do not accept glory from human beings, [42] but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. [43] I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. [44] How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God ? - Jhn 5:41-44 NIV
Slow mo youtube videos are sacred to me. Planting seeds is sacred. If youre going to insist that all we can do is miscommunicate, why even acknowledge me as a thinking person? Why not just dismiss and ignore me? If your backwards relugious dogma isnt compatible, and prevents you from even interfacing with new ideas, you must do away with it. Who is predisposed here? You, locked into your narrow single book, or me, criticizing you for it? |
|
|
|
On the meaning of freedom:  Quoting politicians for the win? To frame a meaning of freedom in terms of government and economic opression is to misrepresent the idea of freedom. Wrong assumptions about the elements of the human animal are being used to come to a conclusion about the conditions under which freedom happens. |
|
|
|
People don't always have the same meanings for words. Arguing about definitions is semantic bullshit.
/
That was a bad post and you should feel bad.
Words matter. If we can't agree on the definition of words, communication becomes impossible. This is not true, we can have plentiful and meaningful meta discussion. If I strain to replace your "capitalism" with "free market," I can avoid earing my hair out every time I get on here until I can convince you to acknowledge the connotations and unavoidable trappings of that word. |
|
|
|
Did you read my edit? Do you believe God is incapable of making Himself known by simply willing it? That he needs to rely on validation through attestments of men? He can show himself at will. He does it all the time. You suppose he's doing it wrongly, or inadequately, on the premise that you understand the very role of mankind in eternity better than he does. You also seem to enshrine faith beyond any religious person I've known... Faith itself is not what saves you. Jesus is. It requires a leap of faith to trust that his forgiveness is for you and that his resurrection can be yours. [John 20:29] Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
[30] Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
[31] But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Faith was not a concept in the Aramaic. The word was one with Faithfulness, as in "trust in one who proves faithful." Atheists frequent the term as though it were a free, logical wildcard with which to make fools of us. It's insincere and doesn't lend itself to logical argument. EDIT "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." ...
accurately preserving those statements for millennia
...
nope I feel obliged to again point out that you cannot testify your personal relationship with jesus without sounding exactly like a lofty, pretentious disconnected nutcase. Do you get that? Why not fix it? |
|
|
|
... My argument is against an externalized god. Satanism is a better argument against theism than atheism is...
Just a tiny technical detail: Satanism is not an argument against theism, it *is* theism. What's cuter still is the common variants are little more than Christian striation cults. From simplistic inversions of Christian teachings and symbols (Good->Evil, Cross->Upside-down Cross) to sublime interpretations of Sufis*, who worship Satan as the greatest lover of God -- like Christ, receiving the ultimate punishment for embodying the ultimate truth**. *Islam, at least for the nonbelievers: Judaism +1 prophet = Christianity, +another prophet = Islam. **The punishment, of course, is not defeat, but being cast away from the one he adored (God). As he fell to the depths of hell, a feather parted from his wing. As it fell to earth, it became Satan's first gift to man: Freedom. Satanism, as with any number of ideologies, is a tangled wreck of intersecting themes, ideas, practices and interpretations. My satanism redefines deity into something so radically mundane as to render sacredness itself common. Of course, I maintain that this redefinition is needed for any valid discussion of god to be more than a creepy, overmedicated set of empty quotes and salesmanship of snipehunting gear.In other words, when you say "satanism" you mean something entirely different than what you expect others mean by the same word  Sounds like a great way to start silly debates  I expect all sorts of things from all sorts of people. Never has this debate been not silly. I would like to hope that if Im talking to someone, and I say namaste, they will not burn a cross on my lawn garden. |
|
|
|
I am deciding what to listen to and what influences my mind. I have found I need to have a filter on at all times.
Sounds to me like you are describing that blindfold you mentioned earlier, and that you are the one trying to get others to put on the blindfold as opposed to "seeing" and being frustrated at others wearing blindfolds. How is selectively picking what you allow yourself to see and read supposed to be "opening your eyes and seeing?" That is a good question. I can see your point. I have no problem studying all religions and beliefs or philosophies or even reading books that I do not "agree" with. It is really important to understand others and where they are coming from. I think many Christians are ignorant about what others believe. All religions have some good elements in them, otherwise why would anyone follow them? So in order to respect others, it is really important to try to understand them! That said, there are things that I can instantly know is not right and be selective and not allow myself to look at. For example, pornography is one thing. It is degrading to women. I suppose someone could justify it in that it celebrates the beauty of women, etc, but I think that it leads to lust and thoughts that are not "pure" so I try to to avoid having it around our house. I really don't want to expose my kids to it either. So, I shelter myself, and my children from it. Or songs that are violent, angry, full of cussing etc. What good comes from that? I am not necessarily opposed to any style of songs, per se, although I really don't care for rap too much, but if the message behind the song is good then I thing is is great. There are many TV shows I will not watch after watching it once or twice. Why? The message in the show is trying to promote a lifestyle, or thinking that is hedonistic. I have found in my life that if I allow those things in I slowly begin to think that those things are normal. We can see the shift in our own society. There were things that were not accepted 50 or 60 years ago that are now "normal." Many would say that is a "good" thing. I, on the other hand, think it is a dangerous movement. Also, there are so many different ideas out there. How does one know what truth really is? We are in a world that is getting to a point where there is almost no belief in absolute truth at all. Everything is becoming more relative. I personally believe in absolute truth and that my foundation is the Bible. This is my own personal belief and I know many of you will stop reading right there and say I am a Bible-thumper and discredit everything else I say. But that is where I am coming from. I suppose someone could argue that the Bible is my "blindfold." I think the Bible has become my lens that I try to look through to measure what is good, right, pure etc. I guess the question I have is why wouldn't people selectively pick what they watch? Do they think that they can just watch anything and it won't affect them? Do they see things that they don't agree with but then not worry about it affecting them? Maybe they do not even have a moral compass by which to measure things? I think it is just that whatever is entertaining, or interesting, or funny, or makes them feel good etc. is what most people watch, read, or fill their minds with, personally. (not all people I know) Also, it is wrong to try to shelter myself, or my children, from things that are not wholesome? One might object to and boycott the monetized rape entertainment industry and violence celebrating TV without the slightest influence of the bible. I hope we can agree that a foundation in religion is a far cry from a prerequisite for good taste and the ability to discern between a helpful and harmful medium for ideas. In fact, steeping oneself to any degree in religious dogma can, has, and tends to obstruct good judgement EDIT: I'm not above quoting the bible. I could get someone off guard and illustrate a point by doing that. The difference is in diversity of citations. The christian flaw is the willingness to subscribe to a monopoly of ideas. If you can construct an idea from references to nonchristian sources,.any arhumemt you make cannot be diissed out of hand by thinking nonchristians. |
|
|
|
If you don't believe a thing in the book, of course you're going to think the derived ideas are terrible. I just happen to have more to go on now than the book itself.
Where did you get the other things if not from the book? From life itself.. walking with God for a change, trusting Christ and finding him faithful every single day since, and finding this verse quite true. I wish I had time to elaborate, but that's the root of it. The point of contentipn I have with that rhetoric is this. You are not litetally walking. The metaphor is vacant of a corresponding idea. The trust youre putting in that person qua person remains undeliverable to any living being. The ideals youre alluding to pointing to are in the most literal sense not above, below, north by northeast, ect et al of you for any given distance away from your extended, pointing, very tangible finger. Unless you are pointing into the virtual reality of your own specific mind. |
|
|
|
... My argument is against an externalized god. Satanism is a better argument against theism than atheism is...
Just a tiny technical detail: Satanism is not an argument against theism, it *is* theism. What's cuter still is the common variants are little more than Christian striation cults. From simplistic inversions of Christian teachings and symbols (Good->Evil, Cross->Upside-down Cross) to sublime interpretations of Sufis*, who worship Satan as the greatest lover of God -- like Christ, receiving the ultimate punishment for embodying the ultimate truth**. *Islam, at least for the nonbelievers: Judaism +1 prophet = Christianity, +another prophet = Islam. **The punishment, of course, is not defeat, but being cast away from the one he adored (God). As he fell to the depths of hell, a feather parted from his wing. As it fell to earth, it became Satan's first gift to man: Freedom. Satanism, as with any number of ideologies, is a tangled wreck of intersecting themes, ideas, practices and interpretations. My satanism redefines deity into something so radically mundane as to render sacredness itself common. Of course, I maintain that this redefinition is needed for any valid discussion of god to be more than a creepy, overmedicated set of empty quotes and salesmanship of snipehunting gear. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
