Hey FD & Barnacle. This Board lacks a 'Logo'.
I've done a bit of SignWriting/Craft and am just wondering why this Board hasn't got a 'visual' like every other Board.
Is it because Atheism (Anti-Religion) lacks an identity unto itself?
It is a hard one, I admit because it is just a 'Anti' beyond people wearing black skivvy's, drinking cafe-latte's and taking a Scientific stance and Media savvy snobbery against Religions.

So who here thinks they have a good Logo for the Board?

I thought so.
Atheism: There just isn't anything there.

;D

Atheism is not necessarily anti-religion, it's just not believing what the god botherers say. A(without) Theism(belief in the existence of a god or gods).

https://p7.hiclipart.com/preview/845/487/716/negative-and-positive-atheism-symbol-christian-atheism-religion-watermark-vector-thumbnail.jpg https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--XGdjFEWW--/t_Preview/b_rgb:000000,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1537382119/production/designs/3181677_0.jpg

Like the red one, how well will it shrink to logo size?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2020 at 3:53pm:

Like the red one, how well will it shrink to logo size?

---

Jasin wrote on Jul 1^st, 2020 at 7:04am:

Hey FD & Barnacle. This Board lacks a 'Logo'. I've done a bit of SignWriting/Craft and am just wondering why this Board hasn't got a 'visual' like every other Board. Is it because Atheism (Anti-Religion) lacks an identity unto itself? It is a hard one, I admit because it is just a 'Anti' beyond people wearing black skivvy's, drinking cafe-latte's and taking a Scientific stance and Media savvy snobbery against Religions. So who here thinks they have a good Logo for the Board?

Finally, atheists have something important to discuss.... themselves.
  ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2020 at 4:01pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 2nd, 2020 at 3:53pm: Like the red one, how well will it shrink to logo size?

Probably need to thicken the cross stroke of the ‘A’ a tad?

Is having a logo a form of idolatry??

When you just get on with it and GET a flag:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ebb2swGWAAcyGCw?.jpg

;D ;D

Raven wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 3:02am:

Is having a logo a form of idolatry??

And all that they can come up with is the letter 'A'  ;D
I would have thought a picture of Darwin or Wallace be more appropriate than just a 'letter in the alphabet'. Worshipped like Gods!  ;D
Just find a picture of a bald Hipster in a black skivvy drinking a cafe latte in some backwater Darlinghurst lane reading Science Doesn't Need Morals in their experiments.


That was funny Frank. ;D ;D

Atheist Foundation of Australia

https://atheistfoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Logo200.png

America

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/AmericanAtheists.png

Atheist Alliance International

https://yt3.ggpht.com/a/AATXAJzuQpM-JLOfkxy8_r_c1UXGhs9qiylH-2u16X8p=s88-c-k-c0xffffffff-no-rj-mo



Vatican Atheist:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hTBkloHVcmY/Wze0JzMEkFI/AAAAAAAARZw/2mqEnDVTZF8YpqjPeMM4MQ7NuhjjPqLvACLcBGAs/s640/Dunce%2B%25281%2529.JPG

A for Atheist. That's so lame!  ;D ;D ;D

Still waiting for a Logo for this Board.
Maybe a Burning Cross?

I think what you mean is an Avatar. Atheism is not a belief, its a rejection of assertions about Cosmic Truth. Its not a unifying principle. If you say 2+2 = 5, and I say it does not, my contradiction does not mean I am a 4-ist. It means you are wrong.

Atheism is a term invented by Godists and Religionists to pigeon-hole anyone who says they are wrong. That has been very convenient in persecuting people who will not go along with them. And that can mean torture and murder.

This sub-forum does not need a symbol, or a flag, or a trademark. That would suit the Godists in their labeling of people.

I get called an Atheist all the time. I am not one, I just know bullsh!+ when I hear it.

Raven wrote on Jul 5^th, 2020 at 3:02am:

Is having a logo a form of idolatry??

Maybe if you are an xtian bible basher
Spot

issuevoter wrote on Mar 5^th, 2021 at 8:44am:

I think what you mean is an Avatar. Atheism is not a belief, its a rejection of assertions about Cosmic Truth. Its not a unifying principle. If you say 2+2 = 5, and I say it does not, my contradiction does not mean I am a 4-ist. It means you are wrong. Atheism is a term invented by Godists and Religionists to pigeon-hole anyone who says they are wrong. That has been very convenient in persecuting people who will not go along with them. And that can mean torture and murder. This sub-forum does not need a symbol, or a flag, or a trademark. That would suit the Godists in their labeling of people. I get called an Atheist all the time. I am not one, I just know bullsh!+ when I hear it.

issue,

You may not realise it, but you and i have so much in common.

For example, we both agree that,   2 + 2 <> 5



issue,

Do you accept logical process [thought] ?   [see my final argument]



p.s.
I would prefer NOT to see a large  A  graphic/avatar, used as the Atheism Logo

The two examples which greggery presented,    shouted    'ANARCHIST'    to me.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1593551069/3#3




FURTHER....
Many, many atheists have claimed that they     DO believe,     that something came from nothing.

i.e.
We exist, and human beings have self-awareness.

But what we are, and the universe around us, ALL CAME FROM NOTHING.


Q.
Am i misrepresenting     the 'beliefs'     of atheists ?



"...The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger,....."

Q.
How logical, is it, to 'believe'      in       that proposition [which has been put forward by today's greatest human 'scientific' minds !!!] ?     ;D       :D


.


     ;D       :D

And yes !    It is the hypothesis which the best 'scientific' [atheist] human minds today have offered;

WWW search....
scientific theory,        nothing, exploded into everything

WWW search....
scientific theory,         in an instant in time, the universe appeared from nothing


.


Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304543494/253#253

Quote:

One moment, no universe. The next, there is a BIG BANG [which was cause by, NOTHING] and then we have a universe. It sounds like a magic trick to me. ......Do you believe in magic ? +++ Yadda explains the [accepted by scientists] BIG BANG theory; THIS IS WHAT IS TAUGHT TO CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS; All matter was once compressed into the size of a full-stop-dot, like the one at the end of this sentence >>> . <<< And then there was an explosion of that matter [i.e. the BIG BANG], which resulted in our present universe of stars and planets. The material from that explosion [of nothing] then coalesced and was drawn together to form the stars and planets in our universe. On earth, the molten rocks cooled, life evolved [from what was once those molten rocks!], and here we all are, ...the masters of the universe! LOL Here is a nice BIG BANG theory quote from a science article [purporting to be fact] published in that reputable 'science' magazine, 'Discover'; Google it; "...The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Alan Guth, Discover magazine April 2002 [quote]......Start, Guth says, by imagining nothing, a pure vacuum. Be careful. Don't imagine outer space without matter in it. Imagine no space at all and no matter at all. Good luck. To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something. Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly. While this phenomenon has never been observed directly, measurements of the electron's magnetic strength strongly imply that it is real and happening in the vacuum of space even now. Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover#.UNA9tCyDFpg


Its a 'magic' show folks!           ;D           ;D           ;D

Tickets!  Tickets!    $10 a ticket!

[/quote]

On Cosmic Truth, I don't care one way or another. But when an individual claims to have knowledge or intuition into Comic Truth, and most especially when they make it esoteric, well. . . like I said, I know bullsh!@$%# when I hear it. People who claim esoteric knowledge are either charlatans, or they are trying to convince themselves. Why they would want to do that, is unclear. Perhaps they feel threatened by immensity and need to explain everything in human terms. Like a kid who made a mud pie. The Universe is just a bigger mud pie, someone musta made it. Who the fuq cares?

I like the Pecker pictures - the one on the right looks 'satanic', it might be a suitable Avatar for the Board - pending Barny's and FD's final decision.
I've found most self-admitting Atheists have a pro-Science outlook or background.
I'm somewhere in between Science and Spirituality - both representing our Brain & Mind.
I have also found many Atheists somewhat just 'Anti' religion, like Gillard is. She's also 'Anti' Men too, unless their subservient and Beta like Prince Phillip.

I retake my mock of the letter A, now that it has been made apparent to me, my mistake.

Why don't we just call it the Science Board, because that's where Atheism is stuck: Being Anti-Religious, but Pro- ...what exactly? The lack of an Avatar kinda sums this up in a way.

I think FD needs to recalibrate the Avatars down in the State & Party Boards as the likes of Gillard, Abbott, etc are long gone.
Any potential new Members here would see a Forum that looks 'out of date' by many years.

Maybe a pic of ScoMo having a Burning Lamborghini Cocktail in Hawaii?

Jasin wrote on Mar 5^th, 2021 at 1:43pm:

I like the Pecker pictures - the one on the right looks 'satanic', it might be a suitable Avatar for the Board - pending Barny's and FD's final decision. I've found most self-admitting Atheists have a pro-Science outlook or background. I'm somewhere in between Science and Spirituality - both representing our Brain & Mind. I have also found many Atheists somewhat just 'Anti' religion, like Gillard is. She's also 'Anti' Men too, unless their subservient and Beta like Prince Phillip. I retake my mock of the letter A, now that it has been made apparent to me, my mistake. Why don't we just call it the Science Board, because that's where Atheism is stuck: Being Anti-Religious, but Pro- ...what exactly? The lack of an Avatar kinda sums this up in a way.

In between Science and Spirituality? What the !@#$ does that mean? Science is Science. Its not a point on a spectrum. Spirituality, on the other hand, is any damn thing you want it to be. Don't worry about contradiction. No one is going to come up with an intelligent definition.

A M.A.S.H unit is like a hybrid of Medical & Military.

Scientology is a hybrid of Science and Religion.

QLD & California are a hybrid of Australia and USA, as is Chile and VIC a hybrid of South America and Australia.

There is always a Pure State and a Mixed-State.

Btw - Spirituality is physically expressed through Fashion.
Are you wearing thongs, stubbies and a wife-beater singlet for your Spiritual expression Issuevoter? ;)

Jasin wrote on Mar 6^th, 2021 at 1:23pm:

A M.A.S.H unit is like a hybrid of Medical & Military. Scientology is a hybrid of Science and Religion. QLD & California are a hybrid of Australia and USA, as is Chile and VIC a hybrid of South America and Australia. There is always a Pure State and a Mixed-State. Btw - Spirituality is physically expressed through Fashion. Are you wearing thongs, stubbies and a wife-beater singlet for your Spiritual expression Issuevoter? ;)

??? WTF are you on about???

*sigh

Possibly subject to copyright though ?

---

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 20^th, 2021 at 10:54am:

Possibly subject to copyright though ?

;D ;D

I like that one!

Do Atheists (Anti-Religious) lack a moral code?

Jasin wrote on Mar 20^th, 2021 at 4:58pm:

Do Atheists (Anti-Religious) lack a moral code?

Atheists come in many shades. Some are anti-religious, some simply see religion as irrational some regard it as meaningless. The idea you’re hinting at is a moral code cannot be held without a belief in or fear of a ’supreme being’ or a number of them. May I suggest you explore at least one form of atheism in the hope this may answer your question. A good place to start would be Ronald E Merrill’s “The Ideas of Ayn Rand”.(Publ’ Open Court 1993) If that doesn’t answer your question maybe, if you’re brave, you could dive into Christopher Hitchen’s “God is Not Great: How religion poisons everything”(Publ’ Allen & Unwin. 2007)

I would say many Scientists are Atheists because their experiments don't have to adhere to any moral code.

...like genetic engineering and changing the sex of people is just the early days start, no?

Here's a logo

https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 7:10pm:

Here's a logo https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg

Just what we’d expect from a simpleton.

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 8:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 21st, 2021 at 7:10pm: Here's a logo https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg Just what we’d expect from a simpleton.

Suggest a better one then and stop complaining.

https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg

Atheism started as an ANTI religious movement, nothing more.

It knew what it was against, but still doesn't know what it's for.

At the most, the odd black-skivvy, shaved head, cafe-latte sipping, Paddington living, Media-loving man with an interest in Science instead (because he had to belong to someone, if not Religion).

Jasin wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 10:12pm:

Atheism started as an ANTI religious movement, nothing more. It knew what it was against, but still doesn't know what it's for. At the most, the odd black-skivvy, shaved head, cafe-latte sipping, Paddington living, Media-loving man with an interest in Science instead (because he had to belong to someone, if not Religion).

Atheism isnt a movement. its a name that religious ppl gave to describe non-religious ppl.

Spot

Jasin wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 10:12pm:

Atheism started as an ANTI religious movement, nothing more. It knew what it was against, but still doesn't know what it's for. At the most, the odd black-skivvy, shaved head, cafe-latte sipping, Paddington living, Media-loving man with an interest in Science instead (because he had to belong to someone, if not Religion).

What Spot said. Anyway, where did you get the idea that Atheism is a movement?

issuevoter wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2021 at 11:00am:

Jasin wrote on Mar 21st, 2021 at 10:12pm: Atheism started as an ANTI religious movement, nothing more. It knew what it was against, but still doesn't know what it's for. At the most, the odd black-skivvy, shaved head, cafe-latte sipping, Paddington living, Media-loving man with an interest in Science instead (because he had to belong to someone, if not Religion). What Spot said. Anyway, where did you get the idea that Atheism is a movement?

I think it was atheists that did that. Not that they are very good at it, but they try.

Gillard was part of the Atheist Movement, even though it has been around for decades, she proudly Atheisized her presence as a PM against the likes of Abbott's Christian Crusade to Hillsong ScoMo and the other 'blokes' with her manhating too. Gillard was the ultimate 'Anti' everything.

Gillard is an atheist.

doesnt make it a movement

Spot

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2021 at 1:44pm:

doesnt make it a movement Spot

That's because Atheism doesn't really exist.

...like the spot for a Logo/Avatar.  ;)
It's more invisible than God.
For one thing, it hasn't a book upon the subject.  ;D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2021 at 1:44pm:

doesnt make it a movement Spot

Indeed not.

I have met quite a few atheists over the years, and not one of them every claimed to be part of an Atheist organisation or movement.

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2021 at 3:42pm:

I think it was atheists that did that.

I knew you made it up as soon as you said 'I think'.

I think then that Atheism ceases to exist entirely beyond being just Anti-Religious, sipping cafe-lattes in a black skivvy, not showing any 'movements' even in their bowels.

Time to ditch the Board then.

Jasin wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2021 at 10:24pm:

I think then that Atheism ceases to exist entirely beyond being just Anti-Religious, sipping cafe-lattes in a black skivvy, not showing any 'movements' even in their bowels. Time to ditch the Board then.

Atheism isnt anti-religious its just non-religious

Spot

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24^th, 2021 at 7:18am:

Jasin wrote on Mar 23rd, 2021 at 10:24pm: I think then that Atheism ceases to exist entirely beyond being just Anti-Religious, sipping cafe-lattes in a black skivvy, not showing any 'movements' even in their bowels. Time to ditch the Board then. Atheism isnt anti-religious its just non-religious Spot

That's another reason why I am not an Atheist. I am anti-religion. They establish hierarchies through unverifiable claims of esoteric knowledge. I don't care what people believe, until they start lying about it.

issuevoter wrote on Mar 24^th, 2021 at 8:07am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24th, 2021 at 7:18am: Jasin wrote on Mar 23rd, 2021 at 10:24pm: I think then that Atheism ceases to exist entirely beyond being just Anti-Religious, sipping cafe-lattes in a black skivvy, not showing any 'movements' even in their bowels. Time to ditch the Board then. Atheism isnt anti-religious its just non-religious Spot That's another reason why I am not an Atheist. I am anti-religion. They establish hierarchies through unverifiable claims of esoteric knowledge. I don't care what people believe, until they start lying about it.

The Media is doing to the New Worlds, 'exactly' what Religion did to the Old Worlds.  ;)

This one is nicely sarcastic ... but maybe it wouldn't shrink down too well for an avatar?

https://i.imgur.com/O7KdfTv.jpg

;D

or this?

https://i.imgur.com/6hg8ipS.jpg

or

https://i.imgur.com/zHce9Hn.jpg


Or ...


https://i.imgur.com/JziV0Wb.jpg

;D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 24^th, 2021 at 7:18am:

Jasin wrote on Mar 23rd, 2021 at 10:24pm: I think then that Atheism ceases to exist entirely beyond being just Anti-Religious, sipping cafe-lattes in a black skivvy, not showing any 'movements' even in their bowels. Time to ditch the Board then. Atheism isnt anti-religious its just non-religious Spot

It is anti-religious by definition. It only exists as a reaction to religion. Without religion, atheism could not exist. If you wanted to be an antheist in a world without religion, you would fist have to invent a religion to not believe in.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 8:28pm:

Ayn Marx wrote on Mar 21st, 2021 at 8:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 21st, 2021 at 7:10pm: Here's a logo https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg Just what we’d expect from a simpleton. Suggest a better one then and stop complaining. https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg

Why was the logo I made rejected?

https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 10:33am:

It is anti-religious by definition. It only exists as a reaction to religion.

That depends on your definition of Atheism. Many see it as an absence of belief in deities.
An absence of belief doesn't require the presence of belief to exist. An absence of belief is passive, and is not a reaction against anything.


freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 10:33am:

If you wanted to be an antheist in a world without religion, you would fist have to invent a religion to not believe in.

Before religion was invented by humans some time in the stone age as an attempt to explain the world, it was effectively an atheist world.




Jasin wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 10:12pm:

Atheism started as an ANTI religious movement, nothing more. It knew what it was against, but still doesn't know what it's for. At the most, the odd black-skivvy, shaved head, cafe-latte sipping, Paddington living, Media-loving man with an interest in Science instead (because he had to belong to someone, if not Religion).

Atheism isn't a "movement" and it is not a "belief"
There is no ideology or code of conduct that atheists adhere to.
"Atheist" is purely a label given to differentiate them from Theists.

Quote:

That depends on your definition of Atheism. Many see it as an absence of belief in deities.

You cannot even define atheism without religion. It would be like trying to identify as an aborgist in a world without star trek. It would have no meaning at all.


Quote:

Before religion was invented by humans some time in the stone age as an attempt to explain the world, it was effectively an atheist world.

How do you know this?

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 7:26am:

Quote: That depends on your definition of Atheism. Many see it as an absence of belief in deities. You cannot even define atheism without religion. It would be like trying to identify as an aborgist in a world without star trek. It would have no meaning at all. [quote]Before religion was invented by humans some time in the stone age as an attempt to explain the world, it was effectively an atheist world.

How do you know this?[/quote]

The name describes the condition. I am atheist because I don't believe just any crap people make up. I believe in god as much as fairies in my garden or a teapot orbiting the sun. Show me or you're talking shyte. I don't believe in god, as much as I don't believe in Leprechauns, ie, I don't believe the stories.

If god believers see no belief the same as a belief, tell me why you believe I have a fairy in my pocket.

Setanta wrote on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 8:59pm:

tell me why you believe I have a fairy in my pocket.

Is that a fairy in your pocket or...?

Setanta wrote on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 8:59pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2021 at 7:26am: Quote: That depends on your definition of Atheism. Many see it as an absence of belief in deities. You cannot even define atheism without religion. It would be like trying to identify as an aborgist in a world without star trek. It would have no meaning at all. [quote]Before religion was invented by humans some time in the stone age as an attempt to explain the world, it was effectively an atheist world. How do you know this?

The name describes the condition. I am atheist because I don't believe just any crap people make up. I believe in god as much as fairies in my garden or a teapot orbiting the sun. Show me or you're talking shyte. I don't believe in god, as much as I don't believe in Leprechauns, ie, I don't believe the stories.

If god believers see no belief the same as a belief, tell me why you believe I have a fairy in my pocket.
[/quote]

I think you are intelligent enough to know that is not a good enough reason. In fact I believe there are a lot of intelligent people who claim to be atheists as a kind of reaction to Judeo-Christian silliness. If one expands the idea of a diety beyond father-figures, judges, and personality, we have about as good an explanation of cosmic truth as any other. But it is like talking about reality before the big bang, and just to go on record, I don't give a rat's ass.

I'd doubt there's ever been a time from the beginning of human sentience that religion has not existed...

We're wired for it (and in Darwinian terms that counts for something).

Ultimately, we all must accede to the ubiquity of existential doubt... And accept that ultimately we all devise, adopt or acquire methods by which we come to terms with that ubiquity.

I'm suspicious of those who evangelise atheism... It reminds me of the reformed alcoholic who becomes obsessed with preaching about sobriety just to keep alive the memory of the 'consolations' of insobriety.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 10:59pm:

I'd doubt there's ever been a time from the beginning of human sentience that religion has not existed... We're wired for it (and in Darwinian terms that counts for something). Ultimately, we all must accede to the ubiquity of existential doubt... And accept that ultimately we all devise, adopt or acquire methods by which we come to terms with that ubiquity. I'm suspicious of those who evangelise atheism... It reminds me of the reformed alcoholic who becomes obsessed with preaching about sobriety just to keep alive the memory of the 'consolations' of insobriety.

I’ve always found biblical apologetics et al sloppy thinking posing as intellectualisation of an absurd topic but the above really takes the cake.
I have no need of any form of superstition in order to 'accede to the ubiquity of existential doubt’    Pot kettle black.

Atheists are very quick to point out the stupidity of Christianity, in fact they seem to enjoy the ridicule, but they have to be maneuvered into a corner to do the same with Islam or Judaism.

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 1:36am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 5th, 2021 at 10:59pm: I'd doubt there's ever been a time from the beginning of human sentience that religion has not existed... We're wired for it (and in Darwinian terms that counts for something). Ultimately, we all must accede to the ubiquity of existential doubt... And accept that ultimately we all devise, adopt or acquire methods by which we come to terms with that ubiquity. I'm suspicious of those who evangelise atheism... It reminds me of the reformed alcoholic who becomes obsessed with preaching about sobriety just to keep alive the memory of the 'consolations' of insobriety. I’ve always found biblical apologetics et al sloppy thinking posing as intellectualisation of an absurd topic but the above really takes the cake. I have no need of any form of superstition in order to 'accede to the ubiquity of existential doubt’    Pot kettle black.

Biblical thinking? So, you assume religion is restricted to Judeo-Christianity. And that would be because incidentally your culture is predicated on its tenets... And you assume that's the method of doubt dispelatiom I'm only referring to? Lazy thinking, much?

It's appears an anthropological fact that methods of comprehension of the 'numinous', the inexplicable, being attributed to cosmic super-humanoid entitles appear to have always existed (and probably since the dawn of human sentience) and the reason would be that these methods have in their time satisfied the need to eradicate doubt or 'forbid' doubt altogether... That's not an apology, nor even saying anything new.

If the instinct to dispel doubt has been evolved away (only since, say the Enlightenment only about 300 years ago), then why the need for, say, astrophysics?

Can you explain this sudden evolution?, Do you think it occurred some time around the mid 18th century?

Is there nothing you take on faith - not in a Judaic 'god' or any 'god' - but on anything? Or are you certain in the absolute?

issuevoter wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 4:03am:

Atheists are very quick to point out the stupidity of Christianity, in fact they seem to enjoy the ridicule, but they have to be manoeuvred into a corner to do the same with Islam or Judaism.

Ok, let’s start with Christianity. Which particular sect or branch are you referring to here? All of them or just some? As to ridicule, as an agnostic ridicule is the least of my approaches to superstition. Contempt and loathing for twisted belief systems and the monstrous neuroticism and suffering they’ve induced over the ages is closer to my view.
I’m also intrigued by your use of the term ‘they’ given atheism comes in a number of flavours.

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:27am:

issuevoter wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 4:03am: Atheists are very quick to point out the stupidity of Christianity, in fact they seem to enjoy the ridicule, but they have to be manoeuvred into a corner to do the same with Islam or Judaism. Ok, let’s start with Christianity. Which particular sect or branch are you referring to here? All of them or just some? As to ridicule, as an agnostic ridicule is the least of my approaches to superstition. Contempt and loathing for twisted belief systems and the monstrous neuroticism and suffering they’ve induced over the ages is closer to my view. I’m also intrigued by your use of the term ‘they’ given atheism comes in a number of flavours.

So, given your lifestyle and personal experience, you have found no solace from those who follow Judeo-Christian tenets or enforce them with brutality. Is that your point?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:28am:

a number of flavours.

So, given your lifestyle and personal experience, you have found no solace from those who follow Judeo-Christian tenets or enforce them with brutality. Is that your point?
[/quote]
Which particular Judeo-Christian tenets? There are a multitude of contradictory ’tenets’ in both the Tora and the many (mis)translations of the bible.
Which particular brutality are you hinting at? As far as I’m concerned it’s a long list.
And what exactly do you know about my lifestyle? If you’re edging around listing my being openly gay, so what. Scriptural so called authority on the subject is a very dangerous area for you to step into. We could start with the many mistranslations of 1st Timothy 1:10.

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:27am:

issuevoter wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 4:03am: Atheists are very quick to point out the stupidity of Christianity, in fact they seem to enjoy the ridicule, but they have to be manoeuvred into a corner to do the same with Islam or Judaism. Ok, let’s start with Christianity. Which particular sect or branch are you referring to here? All of them or just some? As to ridicule, as an agnostic ridicule is the least of my approaches to superstition. Contempt and loathing for twisted belief systems and the monstrous neuroticism and suffering they’ve induced over the ages is closer to my view. I’m also intrigued by your use of the term ‘they’ given atheism comes in a number of flavours.

Excellent obfuscation instead of a denial.

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:43am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:28am: a number of flavours. So, given your lifestyle and personal experience, you have found no solace from those who follow Judeo-Christian tenets or enforce them with brutality. Is that your point?

Which particular Judeo-Christian tenets? There are a multitude of contradictory ’tenets’ in both the Tora and the many (mis)translations of the bible.
Which particular brutality are you hinting at? As far as I’m concerned it’s a long list.
And what exactly do you know about my lifestyle? If you’re edging around listing my being openly gay, so what. Scriptural so called authority on the subject is a very dangerous area for you to step into. We could start with the many mistranslations of 1st Timothy 1:10.
[/quote]
I'm not making judgements, nor defending biblical texts. I'm drawing on what you've already posted here about your life.

Certainly the Christian New Testament is littered with mistranslations and deliberate alterations, and too many to list in a post.

What we know as the New Testament was a rescripting of an eastern religion to suit the palate of largely Roman sensibility. The only part of the New Testament that hints at its original thought is the Epistle of James, which is essentially the castigation by James' (the Just, as he was called, the brother of Jesus/Joshua) and his deeply hostile response to Paul's (Saul) Romanising of Joshua's teaching.

Paul had, by about 40AD, stripped bare the tenets of (what was not yet called Christianity) anti-temple Judaism to its bare bones to make it acceptable to the Roman mind. James (the leader of the community post-Joshua) was vehemently opposed to Paul's teaching.

For example, Paul believed faith was all that was needed for salvation. James' argument was that faith without 'works' is empty. As he says, 'Show me your faith without works and I will show you mine with works'.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 8:02am:

I'm not making judgements, nor defending biblical texts. I'm drawing on what you've already posted here about your life. Certainly the Christian New Testament is littered with mistranslations and deliberate alterations, and too many to list in a post. What we know as the New Testament was a rescripting of an eastern religion to suit the palate of largely Roman sensibility. The only part of the New Testament that hints at its original thought is the Epistle of James, which is essentially the castigation by James' (the Just, as he was called, the brother of Jesus/Joshua) and his deeply hostile response to Paul's (Saul) Romanising of Joshua's teaching. Paul had, by about 40AD, stripped bare the tenets of (what was not yet called Christianity) anti-temple Judaism to its bare bones to make it acceptable to the Roman mind. James (the leader of the community post-Joshua) was vehemently opposed to Paul's teaching. For example, Paul believed faith was all that was needed for salvation. James' argument was that faith without 'works' is empty. As he says, 'Show me your faith without works and I will show you mine with works'.

So, you get to pick and choose the passages you find innofensive?
This does not illuminate the specifics you claim atheists are very quick to point out the stupidity of .
As to the possibility Paul was motivated by a desire to 'make it acceptable to the Roman mind’, you may be correct but we have no substantive proof this was part of his motivation.
In fact we have little substantive proof of anything reported in vast tracts of the New Testament. Faith I’m afraid doesn’t fill in the gaps.

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 8:45am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:02am: I'm not making judgements, nor defending biblical texts. I'm drawing on what you've already posted here about your life. Certainly the Christian New Testament is littered with mistranslations and deliberate alterations, and too many to list in a post. What we know as the New Testament was a rescripting of an eastern religion to suit the palate of largely Roman sensibility. The only part of the New Testament that hints at its original thought is the Epistle of James, which is essentially the castigation by James' (the Just, as he was called, the brother of Jesus/Joshua) and his deeply hostile response to Paul's (Saul) Romanising of Joshua's teaching. Paul had, by about 40AD, stripped bare the tenets of (what was not yet called Christianity) anti-temple Judaism to its bare bones to make it acceptable to the Roman mind. James (the leader of the community post-Joshua) was vehemently opposed to Paul's teaching. For example, Paul believed faith was all that was needed for salvation. James' argument was that faith without 'works' is empty. As he says, 'Show me your faith without works and I will show you mine with works'. As to the possibility Paul was motivated by a desire to 'make it acceptable to the Roman mind’, you may be correct but we have no substantive proof this was part of his motivation.

I'm not a 'follower' of Christianity and I would only accede to being 'culturally Christian'.

Actually, we do, in the Acts of the Apostles, James confronts Paul directly after James summons Paul to Jerusalem to answer to the charge that he has deviated drastically from the orthodoxy of the Jerusalem community of which James was the head (the Bishop of Bishops as he was known by all former followers of Joshua until his death in 63AD, even begrudgingly by Paul himself).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 8:56am:

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:45am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:02am: I'm not making judgements, nor defending biblical texts. I'm drawing on what you've already posted here about your life. Certainly the Christian New Testament is littered with mistranslations and deliberate alterations, and too many to list in a post. What we know as the New Testament was a rescripting of an eastern religion to suit the palate of largely Roman sensibility. The only part of the New Testament that hints at its original thought is the Epistle of James, which is essentially the castigation by James' (the Just, as he was called, the brother of Jesus/Joshua) and his deeply hostile response to Paul's (Saul) Romanising of Joshua's teaching. Paul had, by about 40AD, stripped bare the tenets of (what was not yet called Christianity) anti-temple Judaism to its bare bones to make it acceptable to the Roman mind. James (the leader of the community post-Joshua) was vehemently opposed to Paul's teaching. For example, Paul believed faith was all that was needed for salvation. James' argument was that faith without 'works' is empty. As he says, 'Show me your faith without works and I will show you mine with works'. As to the possibility Paul was motivated by a desire to 'make it acceptable to the Roman mind’, you may be correct but we have no substantive proof this was part of his motivation. I'm not a 'follower' of Christianity and I would only accede to being 'culturally Christian'. Actually, we do, in the Acts of the Apostles, James confronts Paul directly after James summons Paul to Jerusalem to answer to the charge that he has deviated drastically from the orthodoxy of the Jerusalem community of which James was the head (the Bishop of Bishops as he was known by all former followers of Joshua until his death in 63AD, even begrudgingly by Paul himself).

To add to that, James was the reason Paul found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time (i.e. in Rome under Nero after the great fire of Rome).

It was James who'd had Paul arrested and Paul pulled his Roman citizen card which entitled him to appeal to the emperor on provincial charges.

Paul was subsequently executed under Nero's orders not for any local crime in Judea but as part of a deflection for the fire which was placed on the (then named) Christians.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 8:56am:

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:45am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:02am: I'm not making judgements, nor defending biblical texts. I'm drawing on what you've already posted here about your life. Certainly the Christian New Testament is littered with mistranslations and deliberate alterations, and too many to list in a post. What we know as the New Testament was a rescripting of an eastern religion to suit the palate of largely Roman sensibility. The only part of the New Testament that hints at its original thought is the Epistle of James, which is essentially the castigation by James' (the Just, as he was called, the brother of Jesus/Joshua) and his deeply hostile response to Paul's (Saul) Romanising of Joshua's teaching. Paul had, by about 40AD, stripped bare the tenets of (what was not yet called Christianity) anti-temple Judaism to its bare bones to make it acceptable to the Roman mind. James (the leader of the community post-Joshua) was vehemently opposed to Paul's teaching. For example, Paul believed faith was all that was needed for salvation. James' argument was that faith without 'works' is empty. As he says, 'Show me your faith without works and I will show you mine with works'. As to the possibility Paul was motivated by a desire to 'make it acceptable to the Roman mind’, you may be correct but we have no substantive proof this was part of his motivation. I'm not a 'follower' of Christianity and I would only accede to being 'culturally Christian'. Actually, we do, in the Acts of the Apostles, James confronts Paul directly after James summons Paul to Jerusalem to answer to the charge that he has deviated drastically from the orthodoxy of the Jerusalem community of which James was the head (the Bishop of Bishops as he was known by all former followers of Joshua until his death in 63AD, even begrudgingly by Paul himself).

I’m tired of repeating this but here goes again. We have no way of knowing if any of the events described in the New Testament happened at all or happened as described.

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 1:02pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:56am: Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:45am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:02am: I'm not making judgements, nor defending biblical texts. I'm drawing on what you've already posted here about your life. Certainly the Christian New Testament is littered with mistranslations and deliberate alterations, and too many to list in a post. What we know as the New Testament was a rescripting of an eastern religion to suit the palate of largely Roman sensibility. The only part of the New Testament that hints at its original thought is the Epistle of James, which is essentially the castigation by James' (the Just, as he was called, the brother of Jesus/Joshua) and his deeply hostile response to Paul's (Saul) Romanising of Joshua's teaching. Paul had, by about 40AD, stripped bare the tenets of (what was not yet called Christianity) anti-temple Judaism to its bare bones to make it acceptable to the Roman mind. James (the leader of the community post-Joshua) was vehemently opposed to Paul's teaching. For example, Paul believed faith was all that was needed for salvation. James' argument was that faith without 'works' is empty. As he says, 'Show me your faith without works and I will show you mine with works'. As to the possibility Paul was motivated by a desire to 'make it acceptable to the Roman mind’, you may be correct but we have no substantive proof this was part of his motivation. I'm not a 'follower' of Christianity and I would only accede to being 'culturally Christian'. Actually, we do, in the Acts of the Apostles, James confronts Paul directly after James summons Paul to Jerusalem to answer to the charge that he has deviated drastically from the orthodoxy of the Jerusalem community of which James was the head (the Bishop of Bishops as he was known by all former followers of Joshua until his death in 63AD, even begrudgingly by Paul himself). I’m tired of repeating this but here goes again. We have no way of knowing if any of the events described in the New Testament happened at all or happened as described.

Then you could say that of any aged recorded history...

In fact there are ways of knowing on the balance of probabilities when multiple non-biblical history is included byond the four canonical testaments

But I'm guessing you will only have a 10-year-old's understanding of the nature of religion, let alone Judeo-Christian history.

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 1:02pm:

I’m tired of repeating this but here goes again. We have no way of knowing if any of the events described in the New Testament happened at all or happened as described.

If you repeated it so often then obviously people are ignoring and dismissing it. And you know why?  Because it is banal and irrelevant.  Even if you take the NT as mythology, the truths it conveys are plain and evidently lasting and powerful.

Did the Buddha actually sit under bodhi tree, as described? See, that would be another banal and irrelevant question.  Go on, ask it.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 9:51pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 5th, 2021 at 8:59pm: tell me why you believe I have a fairy in my pocket. Is that a fairy in your pocket or...?

No, it's god in my pants. :-?

issuevoter wrote on Aug 5^th, 2021 at 9:57pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 5th, 2021 at 8:59pm: freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2021 at 7:26am: Quote: That depends on your definition of Atheism. Many see it as an absence of belief in deities. You cannot even define atheism without religion. It would be like trying to identify as an aborgist in a world without star trek. It would have no meaning at all. [quote]Before religion was invented by humans some time in the stone age as an attempt to explain the world, it was effectively an atheist world. How do you know this? The name describes the condition. I am atheist because I don't believe just any crap people make up. I believe in god as much as fairies in my garden or a teapot orbiting the sun. Show me or you're talking shyte. I don't believe in god, as much as I don't believe in Leprechauns, ie, I don't believe the stories. If god believers see no belief the same as a belief, tell me why you believe I have a fairy in my pocket.

I think you are intelligent enough to know that is not a good enough reason. In fact I believe there are a lot of intelligent people who claim to be atheists as a kind of reaction to Judeo-Christian silliness. If one expands the idea of a diety beyond father-figures, judges, and personality, we have about as good an explanation of cosmic truth as any other. But it is like talking about reality before the big bang, and just to go on record, I don't give a rat's ass.
[/quote]

Let me put it this way, the only notion I have of a god is what people have told me. Every one of those "ideas" of what god is, is theirs, not mine. Every god man has put forward is found seriously wanting. When I say "god" this is the god I'm talking about. The petty, interfering, dictatorial, misogynistic, cruel invention of men to suit their own purposes.

If you have some other god in mind, enlighten us. I see no evidence of the god of any religion, therefore I reject the idea.

I've often pondered if I, left alone and scared, would invent a god too but I don't think I would and if I did, I don't think I'd want to impose it on anyone.

'God' is the best you can aim for. It's the ideal. The point is that you SHOULD aim for the best - psychologically, philosophically, imaginatively.  That is the gist of religion, mythology, literature.

To dismiss ALL previous generations' ideas of what is best, honourable, life-giving, etc,  is stupid and arrogant and insular. You do not have to accept every insight and belief of your predecessors but dismissing them ALL because they were 'religious' is idiotic.

Setanta wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 6:51pm:

issuevoter wrote on Aug 5th, 2021 at 9:57pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 5th, 2021 at 8:59pm: freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2021 at 7:26am: Quote: That depends on your definition of Atheism. Many see it as an absence of belief in deities. You cannot even define atheism without religion. It would be like trying to identify as an aborgist in a world without star trek. It would have no meaning at all. [quote]Before religion was invented by humans some time in the stone age as an attempt to explain the world, it was effectively an atheist world. How do you know this? The name describes the condition. I am atheist because I don't believe just any crap people make up. I believe in god as much as fairies in my garden or a teapot orbiting the sun. Show me or you're talking shyte. I don't believe in god, as much as I don't believe in Leprechauns, ie, I don't believe the stories. If god believers see no belief the same as a belief, tell me why you believe I have a fairy in my pocket. I think you are intelligent enough to know that is not a good enough reason. In fact I believe there are a lot of intelligent people who claim to be atheists as a kind of reaction to Judeo-Christian silliness. If one expands the idea of a diety beyond father-figures, judges, and personality, we have about as good an explanation of cosmic truth as any other. But it is like talking about reality before the big bang, and just to go on record, I don't give a rat's ass.

Let me put it this way, the only notion I have of a god is what people have told me. Every one of those "ideas" of what god is, is theirs, not mine. Every god man has put forward is found seriously wanting. When I say "god" this is the god I'm talking about. The petty, interfering, dictatorial, misogynistic, cruel invention of men to suit their own purposes.

If you have some other god in mind, enlighten us. I see no evidence of the god of any religion, therefore I reject the idea.

I've often pondered if I, left alone and scared, would invent a god too but I don't think I would and if I did, I don't think I'd want to impose it on anyone.

[/quote]

10-4 good buddy.

Frank wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:07pm:

'God' is the best you can aim for. It's the ideal. The point is that you SHOULD aim for the best - psychologically, philosophically, imaginatively.  That is the gist of religion, mythology, literature. To dismiss ALL previous generations' ideas of what is best, honourable, life-giving, etc,  is stupid and arrogant and insular. You do not have to accept every insight and belief of your predecessors but dismissing them ALL because they were 'religious' is idiotic.

Justify your claims it's the best you can aim for. Look at Yahweh, El, Allah. Tell me they are the ideal. Perhaps Odin, who gave his eye for knowledge, gods that sacrifice too but that is a reflection of a higher ideal, not the dictatorship of monotheism.

It think I'm better off without any god that has been put to me by man.

Setanta wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:26pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:07pm: 'God' is the best you can aim for. It's the ideal. The point is that you SHOULD aim for the best - psychologically, philosophically, imaginatively.  That is the gist of religion, mythology, literature. To dismiss ALL previous generations' ideas of what is best, honourable, life-giving, etc,  is stupid and arrogant and insular. You do not have to accept every insight and belief of your predecessors but dismissing them ALL because they were 'religious' is idiotic. Justify your claims it's the best you can aim for. Look at Yahweh, El, Allah. Tell me they are the ideal. Perhaps Odin, who gave his eye for knowledge, gods that sacrifice too but that is a reflection of a higher ideal, not the dictatorship of monotheism. It think I'm better off without any god that has been put to me by man.

My point is this.

You are here as a result of the people who were here before you. You think what you do because people before you had thought, felt, experienced, expressed and passed all that on to you. To dismiss their ideas, hopes, imaginings, stories, ways of making sense, ways of coping is dismissing what made you.

Walking into Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and Venice cathedral and stepping onto their marble threshold, hollowed by centuries of footsteps, made me realise the arrogance and myopia  of being merely 'modern'.

Frank wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:39pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:26pm: Frank wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:07pm: 'God' is the best you can aim for. It's the ideal. The point is that you SHOULD aim for the best - psychologically, philosophically, imaginatively.  That is the gist of religion, mythology, literature. To dismiss ALL previous generations' ideas of what is best, honourable, life-giving, etc,  is stupid and arrogant and insular. You do not have to accept every insight and belief of your predecessors but dismissing them ALL because they were 'religious' is idiotic. Justify your claims it's the best you can aim for. Look at Yahweh, El, Allah. Tell me they are the ideal. Perhaps Odin, who gave his eye for knowledge, gods that sacrifice too but that is a reflection of a higher ideal, not the dictatorship of monotheism. It think I'm better off without any god that has been put to me by man. My point is this. You are here as a result of the people who were here before you. You think what you do because people before you had thought, felt, experienced, expressed and passed all that on to you. To dismiss their ideas, hopes, imaginings, stories, ways of making sense, ways of coping is dismissing what made you. Walking into Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and Venice cathedral and stepping onto their marble threshold, hollowed by centuries of footsteps, made me realise the arrogance and myopia  of being merely 'modern'.

I've never dismissed how we got to where we are, would we have got there without the import of the foreign religion, Christianity? I'm betting yes, people adapt, and that Christianity may even have held us back considering it was used as a weapon. Western Europe may even have had the vikings inflicted on them by god, not in the way early Christianity saw it but by the way Charlemagne et al pushed pagan communities through forced conversion, much like Islam did.

Frank wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:39pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:26pm: Frank wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:07pm: 'God' is the best you can aim for. It's the ideal. The point is that you SHOULD aim for the best - psychologically, philosophically, imaginatively.  That is the gist of religion, mythology, literature. To dismiss ALL previous generations' ideas of what is best, honourable, life-giving, etc,  is stupid and arrogant and insular. You do not have to accept every insight and belief of your predecessors but dismissing them ALL because they were 'religious' is idiotic. Justify your claims it's the best you can aim for. Look at Yahweh, El, Allah. Tell me they are the ideal. Perhaps Odin, who gave his eye for knowledge, gods that sacrifice too but that is a reflection of a higher ideal, not the dictatorship of monotheism. It think I'm better off without any god that has been put to me by man. My point is this. You are here as a result of the people who were here before you. You think what you do because people before you had thought, felt, experienced, expressed and passed all that on to you. To dismiss their ideas, hopes, imaginings, stories, ways of making sense, ways of coping is dismissing what made you. Walking into Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and Venice cathedral and stepping onto their marble threshold, hollowed by centuries of footsteps, made me realise the arrogance and myopia  of being merely 'modern'.

Very poetic.
However, walking into the cathedral I studied pipe organ in eventually cured me of anything like religious feelings. The details of the obscenities I witnessed there I’ve related on this forum too often. As to your idea of ‘merely modern’ , sorry but to me that carries no weight whatsoever.
As to ‘ways of making sense’ - are you serious?
And yes, I have been inside Hagia Sophia, more cathedrals in Europe & England than I can remember but it was Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim museum and the Robin Boyd house I owned in Melbourne that filled me with awe and the ‘peace that passes all understanding’.

I could prattle on here about what Bach’s organ music means to me but realising our perspectives are universes apart tells me further discussion along these lines is a waste of time.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 7:10pm:

Here's a logo https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg

I posted a Logo - why wasn't it used?

https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 8:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 21st, 2021 at 7:10pm: Here's a logo https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg I posted a Logo - why wasn't it used? https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg

A better icon would be a middle finger up. Just sayin'

Ayn Marx wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:55pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:39pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:26pm: Frank wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:07pm: 'God' is the best you can aim for. It's the ideal. The point is that you SHOULD aim for the best - psychologically, philosophically, imaginatively.  That is the gist of religion, mythology, literature. To dismiss ALL previous generations' ideas of what is best, honourable, life-giving, etc,  is stupid and arrogant and insular. You do not have to accept every insight and belief of your predecessors but dismissing them ALL because they were 'religious' is idiotic. Justify your claims it's the best you can aim for. Look at Yahweh, El, Allah. Tell me they are the ideal. Perhaps Odin, who gave his eye for knowledge, gods that sacrifice too but that is a reflection of a higher ideal, not the dictatorship of monotheism. It think I'm better off without any god that has been put to me by man. My point is this. You are here as a result of the people who were here before you. You think what you do because people before you had thought, felt, experienced, expressed and passed all that on to you. To dismiss their ideas, hopes, imaginings, stories, ways of making sense, ways of coping is dismissing what made you. Walking into Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and Venice cathedral and stepping onto their marble threshold, hollowed by centuries of footsteps, made me realise the arrogance and myopia  of being merely 'modern'. Very poetic. However, walking into the cathedral I studied pipe organ in eventually cured me of anything like religious feelings. The details of the obscenities I witnessed there I’ve related on this forum too often. As to your idea of ‘merely modern’ , sorry but to me that carries no weight whatsoever. As to ‘ways of making sense’ - are you serious? And yes, I have been inside Hagia Sophia, more cathedrals in Europe & England than I can remember but it was Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim museum and the Robin Boyd house I owned in Melbourne that filled me with awe and the ‘peace that passes all understanding’. I could prattle on here about what Bach’s organ music means to me but realising our perspectives are universes apart tells me further discussion along these lines is a waste of time.

"walking into the cathedral I studied pipe organ in" - *ahem* spare us, please. We know already more about your fascination with pipe organs than we ever wanted. Yes, you like a Pole's organ up you, got it.


You have that tendency, Ms Miffs - saying your bit and then declaring all responses pointless, mincing off, wrists all limp.

Quick costume change -

https://static.dw.com/image/19567327_303.jpg

Setanta wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 9:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 8:48pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 21st, 2021 at 7:10pm: Here's a logo https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg I posted a Logo - why wasn't it used? https://i.ibb.co/QDxdjJW/Atheist-Devil.jpg A better icon would be a middle finger up. Just sayin'

Anything would be better than nothing.

Setanta wrote on Aug 6^th, 2021 at 7:47pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:39pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:26pm: Frank wrote on Aug 6th, 2021 at 7:07pm: 'God' is the best you can aim for. It's the ideal. The point is that you SHOULD aim for the best - psychologically, philosophically, imaginatively.  That is the gist of religion, mythology, literature. To dismiss ALL previous generations' ideas of what is best, honourable, life-giving, etc,  is stupid and arrogant and insular. You do not have to accept every insight and belief of your predecessors but dismissing them ALL because they were 'religious' is idiotic. Justify your claims it's the best you can aim for. Look at Yahweh, El, Allah. Tell me they are the ideal. Perhaps Odin, who gave his eye for knowledge, gods that sacrifice too but that is a reflection of a higher ideal, not the dictatorship of monotheism. It think I'm better off without any god that has been put to me by man. My point is this. You are here as a result of the people who were here before you. You think what you do because people before you had thought, felt, experienced, expressed and passed all that on to you. To dismiss their ideas, hopes, imaginings, stories, ways of making sense, ways of coping is dismissing what made you. Walking into Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and Venice cathedral and stepping onto their marble threshold, hollowed by centuries of footsteps, made me realise the arrogance and myopia  of being merely 'modern'. I've never dismissed how we got to where we are, would we have got there without the import of the foreign religion, Christianity? I'm betting yes, people adapt, and that Christianity may even have held us back considering it was used as a weapon. Western Europe may even have had the vikings inflicted on them by god, not in the way early Christianity saw it but by the way Charlemagne et al pushed pagan communities through forced conversion, much like Islam did.

Christianity's explanatory powers, its power to illuminate, are similar to the psychologically illuminating powers of Greek mythology and indeed all mythology and the very best of imaginative literature. They all shed light on things that science is blind to, yet which are more significant than the concerns of science.  And I am not dismissing science, I am merely pointing to its material limitations and that beyond those limits there are hugely significant and vital concerns. Note that I am not talking about church dogma but 'soul-work' which we are all doing, all our lives, in or out of established dogmas.

Atheism is the acknowledgement that our life on Earth is the one and only life we have. No magic sky fairy.

Organised religion does suck—personal agendas soon overpower any idealism the religion was founded on. And truth about the origin of the religion is soon buried—let us not spoil a promising cult with hard information!

A logo for atheism? How do you portray commonsense? We are of the earth and to the earth we return. A lump of clay from which we come and to which we return, nothing before, nothing after.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 18^th, 2021 at 7:17pm:

Atheism is the acknowledgement that our life on Earth is the one and only life we have. No magic sky fairy. Organised religion does suck—personal agendas soon overpower any idealism the religion was founded on. And truth about the origin of the religion is soon buried—let us not spoil a promising cult with hard information! A logo for atheism? How do you portray commonsense? We are of the earth and to the earth we return. A lump of clay from which we come and to which we return, nothing before, nothing after.

So what are you waiting for? Why not return to clumpy clayness,  pronto? One year is as meaningless as 70 by your banal, stupid blather.
Why do you keep living? It's nothing, as you say.




The thing about idiots like you is that not even yoy actually believe the shite yoy spout. You would have topped yourself when you came to the above realisation if you really belived it and were really honest about it. But you are not, obviously, evidently.

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.