inky wrote:on the one hand it is true that atheism is a ploy to dehumanize and enslave
Dehumanize and enslave? I thought atheism was just a state of having no belief in the existence of a supernatural god; it's neither a clubhouse or a political party, or any kind of formally organized group for that matter. You make it sound like "the atheists" have some sort of an orchestrated conspiracy or a formal agenda.
Please...
Look at it this way : what can an overpowerful state accomplish in the name of scientistic atheism that it couldnt in the name of religion? Answer : much. There is no limit to dehumanization under the direction of a scientistic ideology, whereas there are many such limits under the umbrella of traditional religions. Think about tampering with the DNA of all species on Earth, for example. Or think about "1984" and "brave new world". You do need science, tech and materialism to implement such a total dictatorship and that's the point.
What you said about what atheism and atheists are (loose agreement of individuals on certain ideas by pure chance and free will) doesnt pass closer scrutiny.
There is the anarchic level ("individuals") and above it there is the (hidden) hierarchical level of things.
As a new-ager i used to believe that new age beliefs came spontaneously to individuals.
I know better since : they happen to be heavily promoted and funded by our rulers.
It's the same with materialistic atheism, to serve the same purpose.
In one word, freemasonry is behind atheism. Not especially an anarchical organization.
That's where our old religions are the last safeguard against the fourth reich.
(or they were, beware of their subversion from within which is well under way)
inky wrote:as much as i can support the christian resistance to luciferian atheism (being a european it's taken me years to get out from under the socialist atheist programming), i cant take this american christian propaganda too seriously.
It's an oxymoron.
It would be if atheism wasnt a ploy, a tool, a progam used by prople who dont believe in it.
They are luciferians and they do promote atheism for the masses as a means to divide and rule them and exploit them and as a stepping stone to self-admitted luciferianism.
If I was an atheist in my country today I would be going along with the flow.
Just like if I was a muslim in a muslim country.
Then I could go at war against the "superstitious retards" who would be retaliating against the "ungodly infidel" that I would be.
That's the ploy.
Both ideologies are used to enslave and divide.
inky wrote:Sounds nice, neat, and fancy but it doesn't make sense. If you're referring to LaVeyan Satanism, then that's your business - there's a very small percentage of people who are into it.
I dont believe in Lavey's atheism.
His followers are another matter.
inky wrote:Shit, I could be an atheist and believe that Shamu the whale is really the owner of the lost lab that experimented on different creatures that caused the existence humans by accident and I'd still be an atheist. I didn't say anything about Shamu being a god did I?
Socialist Atheist Programming? Like I said, "atheism" is simply not believing in the existence of a higher being.
It would be all fine and dandy if it was just that.
In practice, it is anything but.
You didn't even phrase it correctly.
"Not believing" would fall into the agnosticism category : "I don't know" (with its excess being "it is not knowable")
Atheism is "believing that a supreme spiritual being doesn't exist" : it is a positive affirmation of the inexistence.
inky wrote: What those individuals, (keyword) who happen to be atheist, do in their own free time is their business and has nothing to do with other atheists. Think about communist countries that ban religion because they believe that it might dismay people's faith in the government -
I disagree... the purpose of banning religion in communist countries goes deeper than that.
If you look at it even, it may have stopped in some communist countries but it has spread in non-commonly-called-communist countries.
The ploy to overthrow old religions is the ploy to install a world government where there would be only one religion, which would be controlled by the state.
Pushing atheism is just a way to weaken the religious structures in some countries and most importantly the morals (way of living) that go with it which are incompatible with that world governement.
inky wrote: true, those people in power might be atheists, but it's highly fallacious to condemn "atheism" as being evil simply because of this.
Considering the rituals they attend to, I dont think our world leaders are atheists.
Google "bohemian grove".
Or any stuff about freemasonry by freemasons for freemasons (Manly P. Hall comes to mind).
inky wrote: First of all, we don't have a "Book of Codes" or conduct, or anything that even resembles any holy book - remember the keyword: individual actions.
Remember the
deception keyword, or the
anarchic level surmounted by the
hierarchic one.
In the new age movement there is no central authority either, people seem to spontaneously awaken to new age beliefs. It's just that the structure that promotes these beliefs remains hidden. Same with atheism.
inky wrote:It's like saying wearing socks is evil because Adolf Hitler used them a lot.
I didnt say evil, I said luciferian.
These dudes are luciferian, they believe lucifer is the one real god.
Materialistic atheism is just a means of governing a utopian society based on science and mechanics. It's an ideology for the masses, not believed by the ones promoting it since the 17th century.
inky wrote:Truie wrote:you're confusing god with what the bible tells about it.
Without evidence (or with faulty, repeatedly disputed "evidence"), one cannot prove the existence of anything - especially if it's an invisible supernatural being resembling characters in a fairy tale.
With evidence one cannot prove the existence of anything either, just the appearance of existence.
inky wrote:But I also know that it doesn't refute the possibility of its existence - none of us know that so we lean towards a side that we believe is most likely true based on our judgment and the current information that we have. (Which, for me, that there is most likely no God).
You're not even seeing that you're applying a programming when taking that stance?
That it isnt based on reason but on subjective beliefs and assumptions?
You know in maths, all theorems are based on axioms and postulates. Axioms and postulates are unprovable, they are just conventions. The whole construct lies on the sand. There is no anchoring in reality, except through subjective choices.
If you believe that observations are an anchoring in reality, think again your senses and your brain providing an undepassable wall of subjectivity, at least by analytical means.
My point is that the scientific method isnt meant to be used to describe reality. It is clearly a tool made to use the appearances of reality, not to know anything about what is and what isn't. It works wonders to build rockets (and weapons). It works shittily to tell you who and what you are.
inky wrote:Truie wrote:it's the story of the elephant being described by blind men.
there can be one elephant although there are many apparently conflicting testimonies.
one guy says it's a snake (he touched the tail) one guy says it's a tree (he touched a leg) etc.
Except that those testimonies aren't actually testimonies. They're more like "claims." Kinda like.... "my sister's friend's uncle's classmate's brother's great-grandfather's father's uncle said he found a mystical burning bush and a voice came out of it." You and I both know that already.
Very fun but rather far from reality. Founders of religions have personal visions, they dont talk about their grandfather's visions.
My point about the elephant story is that once the testimony of a religion's founder has been translated by several generations of followers, any commonality it would have with the testimonies of other seers is buried deep.
Yet not too deep for other seers' eyes:)
You can compare that to art and it is related.
A student or a customer of a master artist's work will see only its outer shell whereas another master will see directly through to the essence of the work and recognize it as common to his.
Alright i wrote too much and too long so i wont re-read the rest thus spare some the ordeal of not-reading through a long post:)
inky wrote:In addition, the fact that they actually have conflicting claims is not the main issue (we all know people have wild imaginations and that they'd bend anything to serve to their own, personal agendas), it's the similarities that truly bothers me. Jesus for example, is very similar to Krishna and Horus - I mean, doesn't it strike people that the man probably never even existed in the first place because, let's face it, the Bible is not exactly a historical document that would meet today's standards for "concrete evidence." Then again, I'm not saying that his non-existence is a fact but something that I believe has a higher probability of being correct.
the aliens engineered our species to serve them and they taught us to worship them as gods.
so you're far from being off the track there.
Two words:
celestial teapot.
Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or FSM, whichever you prefer.
====================================================================================Once again I boarded another bus heading for a crash against a brick wall..
Man, these topics...so interesting, yet, so pointless.
@Others bashing Truie:
The man is entitled to his own opinions. I know I have told people to chop their heads off or slit their wrists for being Bible thumping homophobic misogynists in the past but so far I haven't really seen that in this guy.
The whole "evil atheist conspiracy" thing gave me my first laugh of the day. Unless you count the ones I had watching stand up comedy at 3AM.
lol me bible thumping?
i might be masonic-conspiracy thumping, though.
!!