LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Atheists and religious fundamentalists are similarly wired.

Tryharder62 said:
Athiests and Religious Fundamentalists may be similarly wired, but something completely different charges their batteries.;)
Click to expand...

Love the analogy.

I'm with dolf & liar... both extreme "poles" are crass, and affect me precisely the same way... "Get outta MY space. Zealots" :rolleyes:

This thread has some VERY cool posts.
 
Ishmael said:
Religious Atheists. Those that go out and evangelize their non-beliefs and are intolerant of anyone with ANY traditional religious beliefs. In their own right they're as bad as the jihadists.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

LOL, what stupidity. Do these atheists kill in the name of atheism?

Jesus you're a fucktard.
 
Ishmael said:
Although I don't think explosives were used, would you care to talk about the Soviets and/or the Chi-Com pogroms?

Ishmael
Click to expand...

Sean said:
That was nothing to do with religion, it was about dictatorial regimes eliminating threats to their power.
Click to expand...

zipman said:
LOL, what stupidity. Do these atheists kill in the name of atheism?

Jesus you're a fucktard.
Click to expand...

So state sanctioned atheism had nothing to do with the pogroms? The tens of thousands executed or exiled? Now you boys can spin it any way you want but it still boils down to what are in effect evangelical atheists murdering and persecuting those that held beliefs of faith. That they were all lumped together under the heading of "enemies of the state" doesn't change the fact that their only sin was to hold a religion.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
So state sanctioned atheism had nothing to do with the pogroms? The tens of thousands executed or exiled? Now you boys can spin it any way you want but it still boils down to what are in effect evangelical atheists murdering and persecuting those that held beliefs of faith. That they were all lumped together under the heading of "enemies of the state" doesn't change the fact that their only sin was to hold a religion.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

The Soviets put in their own priests and bishops that toed the party line. They didn't try to eliminate religion, they tried to harness it.
 
Careful, Ish... that's a pretty cogent description of Stalin, Mao, et al...

I just remembered that my Fraternal Fascist encounters bouts of lucidity betimes.

:D
 
Sean said:
The Soviets put in their own priests and bishops that toed the party line. They didn't try to eliminate religion, they tried to harness it.
Click to expand...

Hairs, Sean. The post-Soviet record shows WAY MORE persecution and suppression than co-opting... at least, from what I studied on an ongoing basis...
 
Sean said:
The Soviets put in their own priests and bishops that toed the party line.
They didn't try to eliminate religion, they tried to harness it.
Click to expand...
You're right.

Indded, they relaxed their stance during the last decades of the Soviet Empire, as in no longer sending them to anti- religious camps and people were allowed to go to Church or to celebrate Christmass and so on.
-- But there were more subtle forms of persecution.
As in lack of career advancement unless one declared himself openly as being an atheist and a communist or so on. And many Clerics were forced to report to the KGB and spy on their own parishoners in order to be able to kerp their job.
And those essayists or philosophers whose writings touched upon the topic: they were heavily censored or they just defected to Western countries.

--- ((As a trivia: my russian acquaintances told me that there was an explosion in religiosity after the Communism block fell. I guess people always hunger for some source of meaning))
 
Last edited:
As many shortcomings at it has, Religion is the no.1 enemy of the more authoritarian leaders of socialist parties. Because their goal is for the the individual to become dependent not only physically, but also psychologically on the State therefore on those who are in positions of power.
Islamic states are trying the same thing (to have power over and control the population) through the marriage of Islam and the State.
Same goal, different methods.

In saying that, I'm not contesting what people in this forum are saying: that it seems like in the States some religious communities have become too authoritarian and tyranical on their own. Thank God that your constitution is clear with regards to the separation of State and Church.

It's always a fine balance.
 
It's ironic, how the Catholic Church initially found Socialistic ideas to keep it's hold and power spread. Then, the players in certain societies switched to Atheists and took over.

Socialism instead of being a benevolent system that secure fairness for all, became a jail.

The Protestants scored big on the Catholic Church that way, her subjects betraying her into submission to the west today.


[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.]
 
Tryharder62 said:
No, but
Click to expand...

But that is the end of it as far as science is concerned.

That's why science is taken more seriously by more people than religion, provide real evidence or it's considered a myth.

Tryharder62 said:
you don't have empirical evidence that there is not a
Click to expand...

I never said it did, in the real world adults don't generally prove negatives and they aren't asked too.

With reguard to science you either back your claims up with evidence or you're just making stuff up.

Tryharder62 said:
God. He can't be measured or observed.
Click to expand...

That's why Science takes god about as serious as Santa Clause.
 
EternalFantasy said:
It's ironic, how the Catholic Church initially found Socialistic ideas to keep it's hold and power spread. Then, the players in certain societies switched to Atheists and took over.

Socialism instead of being a benevolent system that secure fairness for all, became a jail.

The Protestants scored big on the Catholic Church that way, her subjects betraying her into submission to the west today.


[Material prohibited per our forum guidelines.]
Click to expand...

What material, Laurel?

The comment was entirely appropriate. It was a figurative way of expressing his discontent over the protestant branch that arose in France. There was no violence in that message.

I understand that with the current events one has to be careful about these things, but if it came across that way (it didn't to me) it was purely accidental.

.
 
Some interesting posts-n-thoughts, and a touch of horse shit, as is to be expected.


No, atheists don't proselytize like the Mormons, but neither do Episcopalians. But the web is full of folks on boths sides, and many get quite militant. Each set of extremists seem completely convinced of their opinions and almost void of information about their opposites.


Actually, the ex-seminarian, Comrade Dzhugashvili, was quite the militant atheist, and his treatment of the churches in the USSR was largely to send them the way of the kulaks. He, in a fit of nationalist hypocrisy, relented during WW2, when the USSR needed every bit of help it could get. He reopened the churches for the little old ladies to visit and light votive candles for Allah to save them from well-armed Fascism, and I think he even brought back the metropolitan from the gulags and leaned on him to intercede for Mother Russia.


They won, so it must have worked, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928–41)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%96_-_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%96_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%85.jpg/800px-%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%96_-_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%96_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%85.jpg

And some Polish tits:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/fd7a2f36fe0426a4d80d3409a815a47d/tumblr_mpv35ycKEG1r9x3w6o1_500.jpg
 
hashtag46 said:
Religious fundamentalists believe in a personal God who has a clear and specific plan for the world and the people in it.
Atheists believe in the order and structure provided by Science.
Both are very concrete and categorical in their beliefs, they don't accept grey areas and can be equally judgmental of those who think differently.

Western neoliberal commodifying society is dominated by the left brained.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Hypothetically, let's say that a christian fundamentalist came up with a scientific experiment that proved the existence of the one and true god. Scientists from around the world confirm that the test actually fucking works. Furthermore, through mining the results more closely, they discovered specifically which god...Odin, the Norse god.

The reality of that fact is that scientists would all become believers of the Norse god while christians (including the one that created the experiment) would deny the results claiming that the experiment is complete horseshit.
 
Mello_SixtyNine said:
I disagree. Hypothetically, let's say that a christian fundamentalist came up with a scientific experiment that proved the existence of the one and true god. Scientists from around the world confirm that the test actually fucking works. Furthermore, through mining the results more closely, they discovered specifically which god...Odin, the Norse god.

The reality of that fact is that scientists would all become believers of the Norse god while christians (including the one that created the experiment) would deny the results claiming that the experiment is complete horseshit.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Mello_SixtyNine said:
I disagree. Hypothetically, let's say that a christian fundamentalist came up with a scientific experiment that proved the existence of the one and true god. Scientists from around the world confirm that the test actually fucking works. Furthermore, through mining the results more closely, they discovered specifically which god...Odin, the Norse god.

The reality of that fact is that scientists would all become believers of the Norse god while christians (including the one that created the experiment) would deny the results claiming that the experiment is complete horseshit.
Click to expand...

You're actually right.
If forced to choose between a scientist who's an atheist and a fundamentalistic religious person, I'd choose the first one because he's much more likely to evolve towards a hollistic view of the world.

Also, like Tryharder mentioned:
Whereas Einstein rejected the notion of a personal God, he ended up being critical of atheists and believing in a pantheistic God. In his own words:

"The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how.
We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views
 
hashtag46 said:
You're actually right.
If forced to choose between a scientist who's an atheist and a fundamentalistic religious person, I'd choose the first one because he's much more likely to evolve towards a hollistic view of the world.

Also, like Tryharder mentioned:
Whereas Einstein rejected the notion of a personal God, he ended up being critical of atheists and believing in a pantheistic God. In his own words:

"The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how.
We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views
Click to expand...

The most knowledgeable scientist I have ever known was also very devout. Whereas we never got the chance to discuss this at depth, I suspect that he saw a god in the inner workings of the cosmos.


I think that it is scientific to experiment with the concept of a god. In my case, my life lived as though there is a god in it that is charged with aiding humans through spiritual development - which always shows up disguised as misfortune/troubles and/or hard work - has worked better than believing in nothing.


I know, what a militant concept . . . .
 
Wat_Tyler said:
The most knowledgeable scientist I have ever known was also very devout. Whereas we never got the chance to discuss this at depth, I suspect that he saw a god in the inner workings of the cosmos.
.
Click to expand...
1. Wow. You're so right.
Which reminded me: when I was in high school, my class was very fortunate to be assigned an excellent mathematician. He had the mentality of a philosopher slash mathematician who saw everything as being part of a whole and math and science as tools in search for meaning, not as the end result.
--- Our philosophy teacher, by contrast saw science as the end result not as a tool. Her approach to teaching was "Today I'm gonna tell you what to memorize about X if you reproduce the facts exactly you'll get an A on the test. After that I'll switch off and concentrate on the lovely steak sandwitch that I have in my office".

The first one was a scientist, a researcher whose hollistic view of the world and search for answers would have ultimately led him to something akin to what Einstein believed in.
--- The latter called herself a researcher, but she was in fact a craftsperson with a reductionistic view of the world. We learned more about philosophy and how to unleash our creativity and curiosity from our math teacher than from her.


2.Unfortunately, one is more likely to find nowadays concrete practitioners (in all disciplines, scientific, humanistic or religious) like my philosophy teacher. Because only the left brain functions (analytical, here and now problem solving) are needed in order yo succeed in the workplace. The right brain functions (intuition, creativity) are not necessary for survival or success, so our education system tends to neglect them.

So you're right. A lot of scientists have that inquisitive creative side so they are likely to ask themselves more questions.
 
Last edited:
Fundies and atheists are not similarly wired. Fundies do meth, atheists incline more to coke.
 
hashtag46 said:
1. Wow. You're so right.
Which reminded me: when I was in high school, my class was very fortunate to be assigned an excellent mathematician. He had the mentality of a philosopher slash mathematician who saw everything as being part of a whole and math and science as tools in search for meaning, not as the end result.
--- Our philosophy teacher, by contrast saw science as the end result not as a tool. Her approach to teaching was "Today I'm gonna tell you what to memorize about X if you reproduce the facts exactly you'll get an A on the test. After that I'll switch off and concentrate on the lovely steak sandwitch that I have in my office".

The first one was a scientist, a researcher whose hollistic view of the world and search for answers would have ultimately led him to something akin to what Einstein believed in.
--- The latter called herself a researcher, but she was in fact a craftsperson with a reductionistic view of the world. We learned more about philosophy and how to unleash our creativity and curiosity from our math teacher than from her.


2.Unfortunately, one is more likely to find nowadays concrete practitioners (in all disciplines, scientific, humanistic or religious) like my philosophy teacher. Because only the left brain functions (analytical, here and now problem solving) are needed in order yo succeed in the workplace. The right brain functions (intuition, creativity) are not necessary for survival or success, so our education system tends to neglect them.

So you're right. A lot of scientists have that inquisitive creative side so they are likely to ask themselves more questions.
Click to expand...


One knows more when one realizes - makes real to him/herself - that one doesn't know.


And in not knowing, one knows.


Things like that are born from humility, a quality in infinitesimal supply on the GB.
 
Wat_Tyler said:
I think that it is scientific to experiment with the concept of a god.

In my case, my life lived as though there is a god in it that is charged with aiding humans through spiritual development - which always shows up disguised as misfortune/troubles and/or hard work - has worked better than believing in nothing.

I know, what a militant concept . . . .
Click to expand...

Funny. You just labelled the things that I think deep down I believe in but was unable to formulate or express.

I believe I'm only starting to arive at that understanding only now that I'm getting older.

I often wonder how things might have been if I thought about such things when I was younger. Too often I got dragged down by life's grit and grime because I didn't have that independent streak or crutch.
In saying that, maybe you're right, perhaps if things went too smoothly and comfortably for me I would have been content at a strictly materialistic level but would never have been interested in looking deeper than that.
 
Wat_Tyler said:
One knows more when one realizes - makes real to him/herself - that one doesn't know.


And in not knowing, one knows.


Things like that are born from humility, a quality in infinitesimal supply on the GB.
Click to expand...

Or, as you rightly said, many years ago... "I'd rather be happy, than "right" ".

I must've heard those words 1000x in the past 8+ years... I suspect that there's a common source of Wisdom behind that statement, regardless of who penned it. :cool:
 
Last edited:
hashtag46 said:
Funny. You just labelled the things that I think deep down I believe in but was unable to formulate or express.

I believe I'm only starting to arrive at that understanding only now that I'm getting older.

I often wonder how things might have been if I thought about such things when I was younger. Too often I got dragged down by life's grit and grime because I didn't have that independent streak or crutch.
In saying that, maybe you're right, perhaps if things went too smoothly and comfortably for me I would have been content at a strictly materialistic level but would never have been interested in looking deeper than that.
Click to expand...


We think about this stuff when we do, and not a moment before. You had to go through each and every thing you have in order to be who and what you are right - this - minute.


People search for God. S/He/It isn't lost - we can be sometimes. God is in the two places that very few people ever look - inside ourselves, right now.


Oh, I mock Allah and much of what others would shove down our throats about their conceptions of a Supreme Being. For myself, I found that I was able to start exactly where I was, and I didn't need another's conception. My own, however inadequate, was sufficient to begin. If I could understand God, then s/He/It wouldn't be God. That is the bit in the Einstein thing you quoted.


And my conception doesn't make me go to church and isn't in organized religion and let's me search out and post bewbz on the intrawebs, and loves me entirely too much even to have created a Hell to send me to for "crimes and atrocities, real or imagined." That's in the New Testament for those who look close enough.

http://68.media.tumblr.com/46b4caca837f3b746b4565e1ebde2881/tumblr_mqai1lwyNG1r9x3w6o1_1280.jpg
 
BotanyBoy said:
No they say there is no evidence for "God" as described in any of the religious doctrines.

And they are right with an OVERWHELMING pile of empirical evidence supporting them
*******************************************************************
I never said it did, in the real world adults don't generally prove negatives and they aren't asked too.

With reguard to science you either back your claims up with evidence or you're just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

So in one conversation you have an OVERWHELMING pile of empirical evidence supporting there is no God.

When asked to produce it you say no I don't have to, you don't have to prove a negative. Sounds scientific to me.

I trust my heart. I'm sorry, but I do!:heart:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DaddysSissySlut24
I Studied Biden Supporters and Reached a Disturbing Conclusion (I Wish This Was a Joke. And Briefer.)
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Holy_Seduction
Holy_Seduction
DeepAchingNeed
How to connect... for real
Replies
11
Views
3K
Cliffsnrivers
Cliffsnrivers
hashtag4
We're enterimg a new era of neonationalism and resurgence of Religious belief
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Emerson40
Emerson40
K
Pratt
Replies
17
Views
2K
KingOrfeo
K
LJ_Reloaded
Why feminists fear men's rights activists - we just keep winning where it counts!
Replies
16
Views
2K
LJ_Reloaded
LJ_Reloaded
Back
Top