First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
For everybody: what does being an atheist mean to YOU?
27 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 3/29/12
To amerfoort:

Caricaturist:

I know people reacted quiet violently towards the whole issue but what I wanted to say is that people who did respond

violently and hurt the innocent people not involved with the issue acted outside of their religion.

Freedom of speech:
What a wonderful world we live in, where it is completely ok for a pervert to make snide remarks at an innocent girl, where

people use obscene language with the children and the old, where people have the right to mentally harass you with their

cruel words and insults, where backbiting is more than just accepteble. Afterall we all have the freedom of speech!

It's amazing how people don't realize that the concept of ' freedom of speech' is detrimental to the existance of a

healthy society. I possess no right what so ever to insult you no matter what you may or may not have done to me or someone

else, because this creates rifts between people. Little things said turn into war.

A person can think whatever they want but to voice every thought would make it impossible for the coexistance of people.

Unfortunately, everything that is benificial to a certain group of people on earth fall under freedom of expression and if

it goes against them then it's an insult which must not be tolerated.

You wouldn't stand around listening to someone insulting your mother or family or someone you revere. Even you, in such a

situation, would retaliate.

This is exactly why in my religion we are asked to gaurd what is between our lips, i.e, be careful about what we say.


As for obeying rules, all religions have rules which are required to be followed. If you claim to be a member of my

religion and completely disregard the rules and do all the things you have been told not to do, then you open the doors to

hell.

Now the reason I asked about what you believe happens outside the universe, is because what I wanted to say is this:

You claim that God and heaven are supernatural and beyond the natural world.

Here I want to agree with you. What we claim to be the natural world is limited to this universe and everything it contains

and physics may be limited to this particular universe.

Since none of us know what is beyond this universe, it is very much possible that a god (the Creator :D) does exist there

and He determines what happens in the universe and how. My religion offers indepth explanations regarding where the Creator

is and the creation of the universe and stuff.


For you to get a clear picture, let me briefly tell you about my religion:

The very first thing one must accept is the following:

The Lord, is one.
The Self-sufficient Master whom all creatures need.
He neither eats nor drinks.
He begets not, nor was he begotten.

This a roughly a translation of one of the chapters of our scripture.

We believe that all people, when born, are born as a member of our religion. As they grow up, however, they are deviated

away by the society.

We believe that the Lord has sent messengers to guide the people ever since the beginning of time. He also gave the

messengers books and/or miracles to show people that the message they bring is from the Lord and not created by man. The

miracles and messages (guidelines on how to live your life) were applicapble for the people the message was brought and for

that particular time. The last of the messengers was sent over a 1000 (1400 to be exact) years ago with a scripture. A very

important fact about the last messenger is that he was completely uneducated (for his time). This scripture is in itself a

miracle for the following reasons:

1. It has been preserved word for word (not even a comma or an iota changed) in the original language in which it was

revealed upto this day even though it was written 1400 years ago.

2. It contains several scientific miracles, which I mentioned before.
For example, this is a passage from the english translation of our scripture:
"And indeed We created man out of an extract of clay (water and earth).
Then We made him (the offspring of the 1st man) as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed.
Then We made the drop into an alaqa, then We made the alaqa into a mudgha,then out of the mugdha We made bones, and

clothed the bones with flesh and We brought it forth as another creation...."

Chapter 23, Verses 12-14

Note: the words alaqa and mudgha are exact quotations from the scripture. You will see why I did not use a translation

here.

Stage one of development (the alaqa stage):

Now, the word alaqa has 3 meanings:
a) leech
b) suspended thing
c) blood clot

In the development of the human embryo, it can be seen at approximately 2 to 3 weeks, the embryo resembles a leech in both

appearance and the manner in which it obtains nutrition, i.e from the maternal blood.

At this stage the embryo hangs (is suspended) from maternal uterus by a stalk and is therefore also a suspended thing.

Furthermore, the embryo with it's sacs has the appearance of a blood clot due to the large amount of blood being produced

with in itself. The blood however, does not circulate until the end of the 3rd week.

Stage two of development (the mudgha stage):

The word mudgha means "chewed like substance". If you chew a piece of gum and then look at it, you will notice that there

are teeth marks on it. Similary if you see an embryo after the 18th or 19th day you can see that it looks chewed because

somites appear in the embryo which sort of resemble teeth marks.


These are facts about the human development which were only recently discovered by modern scientific instruments and

methods. You can't see these things with the naked eye because of how small they are (to give you an idea, the human embryo

is only 1.5 mm long at 18the day which is after the stages described previously).

This is just one of the many examples that's there.

46506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / The Butth...
Offline
Posted 4/8/12 , edited 4/8/12
I would like to state a small summary of the atheist perspective on religion that they might want to communicate to someone with a theist perspective.
Religion exists as means for people with power and influence to persuade the greater populace - which also has power because of numbers - from usurping their power.

If there is some coordinated method to keep the majority of the population obedient, uneducated, poor and fearful of speaking against authority then this is probably the most effective way to protect the interests of ruling classes. It just so happens religion is the perfect recipe for that relationship.

During the time of the Roman Catholic Empire, the Church violently barred dissent in the form of free thought, skipping out on church attendance, avoiding confessionals, education of lower classes; anything which give tools to a group in rising up and threatening the status quo of the powerful and influential ruling classes. The exact same methods are being used today, just without the violence and lack of civil rights. This is why we don't have theocracies anymore. The government exists to protect the equal rights of citizens and defend it's own interests from would be foreign intervention seeking to harm it. Too many in power want to see this division between the government and the church dissolve away. But those aren't the politicians, they are just pawns, politicians will always still just be servants of the people.

The elites in the modern day version of the Catholic Church (except now it's usually Protestant) have realized you can't rule as a church, you can't rule as a government the only way to rule is as an individual because as an individual you are protected by both. It's both because all of those followers, who are not worshiping a heavenly father but instead greedy mortals who think they are gods, are also voters.
Posted 4/8/12 , edited 4/8/12

JustineKo2 wrote:

I would like to state a small summary of the atheist perspective on religion that they might want to communicate to someone with a theist perspective.
Religion exists as means for people with power and influence to persuade the greater populace - which also has power because of numbers - from usurping their power.

If there is some coordinated method to keep the majority of the population obedient, uneducated, poor and fearful of speaking against authority then this is probably the most effective way to protect the interests of ruling classes. It just so happens religion is the perfect recipe for that relationship.

During the time of the Roman Catholic Empire, the Church violently barred dissent in the form of free thought, skipping out on church attendance, avoiding confessionals, education of lower classes; anything which give tools to a group in rising up and threatening the status quo of the powerful and influential ruling classes. The exact same methods are being used today, just without the violence and lack of civil rights. This is why we don't have theocracies anymore. The government exists to protect the equal rights of citizens and defend it's own interests from would be foreign intervention seeking to harm it. Too many in power want to see this division between the government and the church dissolve away. But those aren't the politicians, they are just pawns, politicians will always still just be servants of the people.

The elites in the modern day version of the Catholic Church (except now it's usually Protestant) have realized you can't rule as a church, you can't rule as a government the only way to rule is as an individual because as an individual you are protected by both. It's both because all of those followers, who are not worshiping a heavenly father but instead greedy mortals who think they are gods, are also voters.
The "people" as "voters" aren't the "greedy mortals who think they are gods", instead they're the Calvinist privatized central bankers. Who pay off the politicians with their legalized ponzi scheme known as the fiat currency.

Banking secrecy has its roots in Calvinism
Today's Switzerland - and its cherished bank secrecy - still reflect the influence of church reformer Jean Calvin, an economic think tank director tells swissinfo.

swissinfo: What was Calvin's influence on the economy and banking?

X.C.: As a reaction to the papal selling of indulgences as a mean of raising money for Rome, Calvin was one of the first church leaders to permit the granting of loans with interest – albeit tied to high moral standards.

That forged a link with the present: extortionate interest didn't come into question, therefore the loans had to be cheap. As in religion and politics, the thinking behind this banking was to protect the citizen through high moral standards.

Also considered worth protecting by Protestantism was the personal sphere. Add this to being able to bank and you get banking secrecy.

swissinfo: Historically banking secrecy was meant to protect citizens from state interference.

X.C.: Exactly. And that's why there are many misunderstandings concerning the term. The description 'banking secrecy' is actually incorrect – 'protection of the private sphere by the bank' would be more appropriate.

Such legal protection is not unique to Switzerland. In France for example a wife has no right to any information about her husband's bank account – French legal law considers that his private sphere.

We Swiss simply go one step further. We protect against any state despotism. This way of thinking has historical roots in Protestantism, which in Calvin's time sought to protect the people against the despotism of the powerful Catholic Church.

swissinfo: What remains from these Calvinist ethics today – bearing in mind the drama playing out in the world of banking and finance?

X.C.: At the moment we're in a moral crisis. As a result we'll soon have to grapple more with social responsibility.

That will be a form of secular Calvinism with new, still moral, but no longer religious characteristics. Regarding quality for example – new ISO standards in the area of quality attempt to rectify deficits in the area of responsibility.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is based in Geneva – like many other international institutions. This is also part of Calvin's legacy.

Another 'Geneva' institution is the World Wide Web – invented at Cern. This also works 'Calvinistically' insofar as it enables direct access to information to the population, or rather the user.

Until now, powerful intermediaries were needed for this access. The internet has reformed access to the markets – similar to Calvin's reformation of direct access to God.
Modern fiat money is the new god, and whoever interpret its information dictate its power over all of us.

Money As Debt-Full Length Documentary
Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal, there is no human relation between master and slave. Debt- government, corporate and household has reached astronomical proportions. Where does all this money come from? How could there BE that much money to lend? The answer is...there isn't. Today, MONEY IS DEBT. If there were NO DEBT there would be NO MONEY.

If this is puzzling to you, you are not alone. Very few people understand, even though all of us are affected.
Now that this arbitrary fiat money created out of debt, through the mathematical exponential growth function legally called fractional reserve, what we have here is basically a hyperinflation(a dramatic devaluation of money) of empty promises waiting to happen. And this impact is instantaneous due to the mathematical compounding characteristic of exponential growth function.

Crash Course: Ch. 3 - Exponential Growth & Ch. 4 - The Power of Compounding by Chris Martenson
Chapter 3 (Exponential Growth): The most important Key Concept of the Crash Course, exponential growth, demonstrates how world population, oil consumption, U.S. money supply, water use, forest loss, species extinction, and fishery exploitation are rapidly reaching their natural limits. The implications for your life are powerful, and demand attention.

Chapter 4 (The Power of Compounding): Compounding, the first Key Concept of the Crash Course is explained in this installment. Dr. Martenson draws on a paper by Dr. Albert Bartlett explaining the dangerous implications of steady rates of growth, from oil consumption to population: as Chris says, "With exponential functions, the action only heats up in the last few moments".
So the corporate bottom line is this, while the real money to payback interest were never there in the beginning because it's made of debt, and the same fiat money will only become further devalued due to how it was created out of empty promises. The bankers get to make all the rules in their favor, and they'll own us all through debt and foreclosure. So long as they get to keep all the profits through capitalism and privatization, while us get the pain with government austerity and corporate bailouts.

Charlie Post: The Rationale of Austerity
Charlie Post lectures on the reasons why austerity is capitalism's response to the crisis that began in 2008, explaining why it is "logical" from the point of view of the system.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/8/12 , edited 4/8/12

DomFortress wrote:



Banking secrecy has its roots in Calvinism
Today's Switzerland - and its cherished bank secrecy - still reflect the influence of church reformer Jean Calvin, an economic think tank director tells swissinfo.

swissinfo: What was Calvin's influence on the economy and banking?



X.C.: As a reaction to the papal selling of indulgences as a mean of raising money for Rome, Calvin was one of the first church leaders to permit the granting of loans with interest – albeit tied to high moral standards.

That forged a link with the present: extortionate interest didn't come into question, therefore the loans had to be cheap. As in religion and politics, the thinking behind this banking was to protect the citizen through high moral standards.

Also considered worth protecting by Protestantism was the personal sphere. Add this to being able to bank and you get banking secrecy.

swissinfo: Historically banking secrecy was meant to protect citizens from state interference.

X.C.: Exactly. And that's why there are many misunderstandings concerning the term. The description 'banking secrecy' is actually incorrect – 'protection of the private sphere by the bank' would be more appropriate.

Such legal protection is not unique to Switzerland. In France for example a wife has no right to any information about her husband's bank account – French legal law considers that his private sphere.

We Swiss simply go one step further. We protect against any state despotism. This way of thinking has historical roots in Protestantism, which in Calvin's time sought to protect the people against the despotism of the powerful Catholic Church.

swissinfo: What remains from these Calvinist ethics today – bearing in mind the drama playing out in the world of banking and finance?

X.C.: At the moment we're in a moral crisis. As a result we'll soon have to grapple more with social responsibility.

That will be a form of secular Calvinism with new, still moral, but no longer religious characteristics. Regarding quality for example – new ISO standards in the area of quality attempt to rectify deficits in the area of responsibility.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is based in Geneva – like many other international institutions. This is also part of Calvin's legacy.

Another 'Geneva' institution is the World Wide Web – invented at Cern. This also works 'Calvinistically' insofar as it enables direct access to information to the population, or rather the user.

Until now, powerful intermediaries were needed for this access. The internet has reformed access to the markets – similar to Calvin's reformation of direct access to God.


Modern fiat money is the new god, and whoever interpret its information dictate its power over all of us.


Money As Debt-Full Length Documentary
Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal, there is no human relation between master and slave. Debt- government, corporate and household has reached astronomical proportions. Where does all this money come from? How could there BE that much money to lend? The answer is...there isn't. Today, MONEY IS DEBT. If there were NO DEBT there would be NO MONEY.

If this is puzzling to you, you are not alone. Very few people understand, even though all of us are affected.
Now that this arbitrary fiat money created out of debt, through the mathematical exponential growth function legally called fractional reserve, what we have here is basically a hyperinflation(a dramatic devaluation of money) of empty promises waiting to happen. And this impact is instantaneous due to the mathematical compounding characteristic of exponential growth function.

Crash Course: Ch. 3 - Exponential Growth & Ch. 4 - The Power of Compounding by Chris Martenson
Chapter 3 (Exponential Growth): The most important Key Concept of the Crash Course, exponential growth, demonstrates how world population, oil consumption, U.S. money supply, water use, forest loss, species extinction, and fishery exploitation are rapidly reaching their natural limits. The implications for your life are powerful, and demand attention.

Chapter 4 (The Power of Compounding): Compounding, the first Key Concept of the Crash Course is explained in this installment. Dr. Martenson draws on a paper by Dr. Albert Bartlett explaining the dangerous implications of steady rates of growth, from oil consumption to population: as Chris says, "With exponential functions, the action only heats up in the last few moments".
So the corporate bottom line is this, while the real money to payback interest were never there in the beginning because it's made of debt, and the same fiat money will only become further devalued due to how it was created out of empty promises. The bankers get to make all the rules in their favor, and they'll own us all through debt and foreclosure. So long as they get to keep all the profits through capitalism and privatization, while us get the pain with government austerity and corporate bailouts.

Charlie Post: The Rationale of Austerity
Charlie Post lectures on the reasons why austerity is capitalism's response to the crisis that began in 2008, explaining why it is "logical" from the point of view of the system.


So it wasn't the Jews who are the dirty bankers and usurers, it was actually the Calvinists all this time! Not only that, it is the evil Calvinists and the multitudious tentacles which have hoisted fiat money on honest men like us!



2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/8/12

JustineKo2 wrote:

I would like to state a small summary of the atheist perspective on religion that they might want to communicate to someone with a theist perspective.
Religion exists as means for people with power and influence to persuade the greater populace - which also has power because of numbers - from usurping their power.

If there is some coordinated method to keep the majority of the population obedient, uneducated, poor and fearful of speaking against authority then this is probably the most effective way to protect the interests of ruling classes. It just so happens religion is the perfect recipe for that relationship.

During the time of the Roman Catholic Empire, the Church violently barred dissent in the form of free thought, skipping out on church attendance, avoiding confessionals, education of lower classes; anything which give tools to a group in rising up and threatening the status quo of the powerful and influential ruling classes. The exact same methods are being used today, just without the violence and lack of civil rights. This is why we don't have theocracies anymore. The government exists to protect the equal rights of citizens and defend it's own interests from would be foreign intervention seeking to harm it. Too many in power want to see this division between the government and the church dissolve away. But those aren't the politicians, they are just pawns, politicians will always still just be servants of the people.

The elites in the modern day version of the Catholic Church (except now it's usually Protestant) have realized you can't rule as a church, you can't rule as a government the only way to rule is as an individual because as an individual you are protected by both. It's both because all of those followers, who are not worshiping a heavenly father but instead greedy mortals who think they are gods, are also voters.


An atheist's perspective or even many atheist's perspective is not, and cannot, represent that mighty range of opinions which constitute atheism. To unite a group, so loosely united by the single disbelief in the divine, under such specific qualifications and parameters is excise from the atheistic camp entire schools of thought- leading to the very dogma that you claim to oppose! If an Atheist is to disagree with all points, nay, even one point, he is then banished, for if this is truly the Atheist's perspective, how can he logically bear the title of 'Atheist' without agreeing to these points? Why your atheism must be a sort of Catholic Atheism, it claims a universal doctrine that all atheists must follow, else they are not true Atheists. Aspiration to catholicity aside, it also makes a statement on government, sociology, athropology, history, etc. which many people are not quite ready to accept.

De Cive

You claim that our government is preferable to a theocracy- something on which most people can agree- however, it also states that the government 'exists to protect the right of the people and defend its own interest from would be foreign intervention seeking to harm it' (let's ignore the awkward and, nay, insensible pharsing for a moment), a claim most people, atheists and nonatheists, would agree to be complete bullocks. Certainly a government that intervened in the affairs of nations that pose no threat to this nation would not be 'defending its own interest from would be foreign intervention seeking to harm it', intervening in nations like Libya or Iraq, to use an example close to home, would violate this article. You also say that government exist to protect the rights of the people. What absurdity- many government went on fine without protecting the rights of the people- indeed, a government is not an agent to protect the rights of the people, and rarely is. In China, there has been millenia of government concerned singly with the running of the state, with absolutely no regards to the rights of the individuals, and various dictatorships which we help spring up operating just fine without adhering to this principle. It is clear, then, that there is no need for rights for a government to exist, and several successful models of government without very many civil rights have exists throughout history with relative stability- refer to the Roman Empire and to China- and so, establishing that, any reasoning man would see fit to declare such statement on government as completely absurd. The only thing that can be said of government and its raison d'etre is that it exists simply for administration and management, without all this untenable baggage about it protecting civil rights and all that. Having establish thing, the politician, then, is no servant to the people, but a manager, and usually the chief of managers, the decision makers, with an entire system of bureaucrats below to carry out his will.

De Ecclesia

You likewise claim the the Religion exists merely to reconcile authority to man by keeping him oppressed, and that it violently destroys all form of dissent. While the latter head is certainly indisputable, it is the former head that is objectionable. This idea, of course, is not even a wholly atheist perspective, but a Marxist one, and is erroneous on several counts. You use the example of the Romish Church, that it trys to keep the lower class down by forcing them into church and confessionals, silencing all form of free thoughts, and keeping the working man ignorant by purposfully witholding education from them. That last count is especially wrong, especially when one considers that fact that the 1179 Third Lateran Council specifically decrees that the poor should be taught:



Since the church of God is bound to provide like a mother for those in want, with regard to both the things which concern the support of the body and those which lead to the progress of the soul, therefore, in order that the opportunity of learning to read and progress in study is not withdrawn from poor children who cannot be helped by the support of their parents, in every cathedral church a master is to be assigned some proper benefice so that he may teach the clerics of that church and the poor scholars. Thus the needs of the teacher are to be supplied and the way to knowledge opened for learners. In other churches and monasteries too, if anything in times past has been assigned in them for this purpose, it should be restored. Let no one demand any money for a licence to teach, or under cover of some custom seek anything from teachers, or forbid anyone to teach who is suitable and has sought a licence. Whoever presumes to act against this decree is to be deprived of ecclesiastical benefice. Indeed, it seems only right that in the church of God a person should not have the fruit of his labour if through self-seeking he strives to prevent the progress of the churches by selling the licence to teach


You also ignore the fact that, through the Middle Ages, the Church actually promoted Scientific thoughts, and, indeed, we owe our Gergorian Calender to the Church, along with many other scientific innovations, which has continued to the present day- the discoverer of the Peking man was himself a Jesuit.In addition, one must explain how the confessional and the mass keep people servile- any more than the modern confessional and the mass, a thing which most people sit and listen to nod piously for half an hour, feeling holy enough for another week of asbolute sin. However, more grevious than these errors, common errors of the common mind concerning the Church, you refer to a period in history called the 'Roman Catholic Empire'- the closest analogy to this era would be the Holy Roman Empire, which, we may muse with Voltaire, it was neither Holy (a good deal of its population was protestants by his time), Roman (it was more German than anything), nor was it an Empire (it was more of an colation of states with an elected Monarch). Such 'Roman Catholic Empire' have never existed within History, unless you are referring to a made up period in history in which the Roman Catholic Church actually controlled an Empire, and had an Emperor.

Then your argument reduces itself into some ridiculous rant against this strange and nefarious conspiracy of monks and popes and pastors seeking to make themselves gods and whatnot.
Posted 4/9/12 , edited 4/9/12

longfenglim wrote:



So it wasn't the Jews who are the dirty bankers and usurers, it was actually the Calvinists all this time! Not only that, it is the evil Calvinists and the multitudious tentacles which have hoisted fiat money on honest men like us!
Your sarcasm isn't helping. When usury and interest predated Calvinism and Protestant reform, while fiat currency came after secularism. If you got a problem with the banking laws, take it up to the legislators.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/9/12 , edited 4/9/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



So it wasn't the Jews who are the dirty bankers and usurers, it was actually the Calvinists all this time! Not only that, it is the evil Calvinists and the multitudious tentacles which have hoisted fiat money on honest men like us!
Your sarcasm isn't helping. When usury and interest predated Calvinism and Protestant reform, while fiat currency came after secularism. If you got a problem with the banking laws, take it up to the legislators.




The "people" as "voters" aren't the "greedy mortals who think they are gods", instead they're the Calvinist privatized central bankers. Who pay off the politicians with their legalized ponzi scheme known as the fiat currency.



Modern fiat money is the new god, and whoever interpret its information dictate its power over all of us.



The bankers get to make all the rules in their favor, and they'll own us all through debt and foreclosure. So long as they get to keep all the profits through capitalism and privatization, while us get the pain with government austerity and corporate bailouts.


Evil Calvinists are banquiers, financiers, and usurier, but they aren't.
They are responsible for the use of fiat currency, but they aren't,
They are our secret rulers by way of fiat money, but they aren't,
Is this not what the ancients mean by 'Spear and Sheild'?
Posted 4/9/12 , edited 4/9/12

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



So it wasn't the Jews who are the dirty bankers and usurers, it was actually the Calvinists all this time! Not only that, it is the evil Calvinists and the multitudious tentacles which have hoisted fiat money on honest men like us!
Your sarcasm isn't helping. When usury and interest predated Calvinism and Protestant reform, while fiat currency came after secularism. If you got a problem with the banking laws, take it up to the legislators.




The "people" as "voters" aren't the "greedy mortals who think they are gods", instead they're the Calvinist privatized central bankers. Who pay off the politicians with their legalized ponzi scheme known as the fiat currency.



Modern fiat money is the new god, and whoever interpret its information dictate its power over all of us.



The bankers get to make all the rules in their favor, and they'll own us all through debt and foreclosure. So long as they get to keep all the profits through capitalism and privatization, while us get the pain with government austerity and corporate bailouts.


Evil Calvinists are banquiers, financiers, and usurier, but they aren't.
They are responsible for the use of fiat currency, but they aren't,
They are our secret rulers by way of fiat money, but they aren't,
Is this not what the ancients mean by 'Spear and Sheild'?
Except your "spear" is a shallow denial without real evidences to support your claims, while your "shield" is an empty idiom without critical analysis based on my evidences regarding fiat currency. That's you with an ax to grind against my person, when you're trolling my other post with unrelated subject.

Just like how theocracy was an institution of blind faith, with the monotheistic god as an arbitrary symbol of absolute authority, so is how the fiat monetary system is an institution of unsustainable greed, with the private central bank as legalized financial ruler that's "too big to fail".
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 4/9/12 , edited 4/9/12

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



So it wasn't the Jews who are the dirty bankers and usurers, it was actually the Calvinists all this time! Not only that, it is the evil Calvinists and the multitudious tentacles which have hoisted fiat money on honest men like us!
Your sarcasm isn't helping. When usury and interest predated Calvinism and Protestant reform, while fiat currency came after secularism. If you got a problem with the banking laws, take it up to the legislators.




The "people" as "voters" aren't the "greedy mortals who think they are gods", instead they're the Calvinist privatized central bankers. Who pay off the politicians with their legalized ponzi scheme known as the fiat currency.



Modern fiat money is the new god, and whoever interpret its information dictate its power over all of us.



The bankers get to make all the rules in their favor, and they'll own us all through debt and foreclosure. So long as they get to keep all the profits through capitalism and privatization, while us get the pain with government austerity and corporate bailouts.


Evil Calvinists are banquiers, financiers, and usurier, but they aren't.
They are responsible for the use of fiat currency, but they aren't,
They are our secret rulers by way of fiat money, but they aren't,
Is this not what the ancients mean by 'Spear and Sheild'?
Except your "spear" is a shallow denial without real evidences to support your claims, while your "shield" is an empty idiom without critical analysis based on my evidences regarding fiat currency. That's you with an ax to grind against my person, when you're trolling my other post with unrelated subject.

Just like how theocracy was an institution of blind faith, with the monotheistic god as an arbitrary symbol of absolute authority, so is how the fiat monetary system is an institution of unsustainable greed, with the private central bank as legalized financial ruler that's "too big to fail".



Your list of prophets grow larger and larger, don't they? Thomas Frey, Chris Matherson, Paul Grignon! Yes! For people to cite themselves as the ultimate source of authority, no evidence outside of themselves- that is enough to constitute evidence! And yet, can any of these prophets tell me whether these bankers are Calvinists or not?


But all this by the by, for I hope that I should be able to pose the following questions to my learn'd friend, viz.

1: Where is the lack of evidence on my part when I have inquired as to whether these evil Bankers are Calvinists or not? Does not the cited quote sufficiently show that my learned friend declare that these bankers, to whom he indite with controlling fiat money, and, via that medium, the world, to be Calvinists?

2: What does my learned friend mean by 'Except your "spear" is a shallow denial without real evidences to support your claims, while your "shield" is an empty idiom without critical analysis based on my evidences regarding fiat currency'? How does 'a shallow denial without real evidences to support [my] claim' works in contradiction to 'lacking critical analysis'?

3: More important than the above, does my learned friend stand by his original conviction that these bankers are Calvinists who are the éminence grise behind all the world power and, by a consequence, foist the use of fiat currency upon us, or does he stand by his latter statement, viz.



Your sarcasm isn't helping. When usury and interest predated Calvinism and Protestant reform, while fiat currency came after secularism. If you got a problem with the banking laws, take it up to the legislators


Therefore, in posing the following questions, I charge and abjure my learned friend to respond to these questions as clearly and lucidly as possible, though it may not be of his custom to do so.
Posted 4/11/12
to simplify things~~~

there are two types of atheists:
1.) doesn't believe in any religion
2.) doesn't believe in god or higher power

pick one.


Posted 4/11/12
to simplify things~~~

there are two types of atheists:
1.) doesn't believe in any religion
2.) doesn't believe in god or higher power

pick one.


34207 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 4/14/12 , edited 4/14/12
Atheist is a meaningless term, without a context within which to describe the thing not-being-believed-in.

For example: Is one who is not a Christian, a Muslim, etc, an atheist? What about Spinoza's god? What about the god of autotheism? The terms "deity" and "god" mean vastly different things depending on context, so the terms "theist" and "atheist" are only meaningful insofar as they relate to particular instances of these terms. There is no such thing as an "atheist proper", as it were, because of the conflicting definitions of "god" and "deity". It would be more precise to say "ateleological", since that is usually what is meant.
46506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / The Butth...
Offline
Posted 4/14/12

st1rn3r wrote:

Atheist is a meaningless term, without a context within which to describe the thing not-being-believed-in.

For example: Is one who is not a Christian, a Muslim, etc, an atheist? What about Spinoza's god? What about the god of autotheism? The terms "deity" and "god" mean vastly different things depending on context, so the terms "theist" and "atheist" are only meaningful insofar as they relate to particular instances of these terms. There is no such thing as an "atheist proper", as it were, because of the conflicting definitions of "god" and "deity". It would be more precise to say "ateleological", since that is usually what is meant.
Umm I'm pretty sure atheist is the widely accepted, and correct terminology for one who lacks belief in ALL deities or gods. A god does not equal "the supernatural" or "miracles" or "the soul" but it's generally surmised that atheism involves not supporting the existence of any one, all or several of these concepts as well. It's just the same with god vs. deity, their definitions from a theist's standpoint are irrelevant, and the atheist's definition still stands and is proper.
34207 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 4/15/12

JustineKo2 wrote:


st1rn3r wrote:

Atheist is a meaningless term, without a context within which to describe the thing not-being-believed-in.

For example: Is one who is not a Christian, a Muslim, etc, an atheist? What about Spinoza's god? What about the god of autotheism? The terms "deity" and "god" mean vastly different things depending on context, so the terms "theist" and "atheist" are only meaningful insofar as they relate to particular instances of these terms. There is no such thing as an "atheist proper", as it were, because of the conflicting definitions of "god" and "deity". It would be more precise to say "ateleological", since that is usually what is meant.

Umm I'm pretty sure atheist is the widely accepted, and correct terminology for one who lacks belief in ALL deities or gods.


Which, as I stated, is perfectly meaningless because there are contradictory and mutually exclusive definitions for individual deities or gods.


A god does not equal "the supernatural"

Good, because "supernatural" is a meaningless term as well.


or "miracles"

As is this


but it's generally surmised that atheism involves not supporting the existence of any one, all or several of these concepts as well.

One can very well be an atheist and still believe in karma, reincarnation and tarot.


It's just the same with god vs. deity, their definitions from a theist's standpoint are irrelevant, and the atheist's definition still stands and is proper.

No, their definitions are all that is relevant, because without a concise definition for "god" or "deity", an atheist might as well say that they don't believe in "foo".

For example: Imagine no religion ever existed, and no one had ever considered the concept of omnipotent beings or so-forth. Would the term "atheist", to those people, be cognitively meaningful?

46506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / The Butth...
Offline
Posted 4/15/12
My contradiction to your argument does not come from my opinion, I stated the definition of atheist is widely accepted and established as it is. Your opinion is that the definition is meaningless is merely an opinion. Suppose you thought the definition of "tangible" was inaccurate and came up with your own personal definition based on your own opinion of what it should mean. That doesn't change the established definition in any way, just your opinion of it. I happen to agree with the status quo definition of atheist and think it accurately describes my self-identified label of being an atheist. Your claim that the definition is meaningless is irrelevant and the claim that god or deity lacks a concise definition is irrelevant. Your opinion of it may be fine for you and you have every right to claim the definition of atheist is meaningless, but as it stands, so is your claim. Mostly because a good number of your assertions are absurd and nonsensical.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.