Why did we stop inventing gods?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Greatest I am, Aug 13, 2016.

  1. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,183
    What does that even mean? Don't inventions "appeared spontaneously as a natural output product of the brain"? Pretty much by definition...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    Citation needed.

    There is no such thing as the "religion of atheism"

    And yet they all have elements in common.

    Unsupported claim.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    467
    In REALITY the term "atheism" is meaningless.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    Yeah?
    How do you work that out?
     
  8. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    467
    The burden of PROOF is on you.
     
  9. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    No the burden of proof is on whoever said "The religion of atheism does not allow this level of objectivity"

    All terms have to be defined . Why do you think (if you do) that atheism is a religion ?
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    Was it me who made the claim?
    Oh, it wasn't.
    Go ahead and support that claim.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,997
    I have always been bemused by the "bearing witness" to the existence of god. People telling stories of how someone was miraculously saved from some horrible fate, by a divine intervention that "must" have been the *hand of god* which spared the individual or community from disaster.

    What about when the disaster happens in spite of the fervent prayers from devotees? No one bears witness to the *wrath of god*, except to blame the individual or the community for being corrupt and deserving of punishment, including good men, women, and children. Who then bears witness to god's apparent lack of concern for good. healthy and pious people who died along with the people who *deserved* punishment?

    It all seems pretty random (probabilistic) to me.

    As to atheists being unable to make objective observaton and judgement, IMO, the reverse is true. as per definition:
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2016
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Both are similar, but there is a difference. If I was trying to invent a new mouse trap, I will first make a conscious effort. I will read about what already is and then try to come up with a new idea or synthesize a new solution. In invention, the unconscious mind will assist the ego and help do the synthesis. This may appear as a hunch or a flash of insight, that appears to help remove the repression. The ego also wishes the repression to end; find the solution.

    In terms of the gods and unconscious mind, the gods appear; unconscious, because the ego thinks it knows better, which is why the ego is reinforcing memory. This may be due to acceptable social behavior being defined by the egos of others, that is repressive or regressive. In this case, the unconscious is thinking more along the lines of a neural energy balance, instead of how to invent a better path to collective repression. Religious systems will often appear contrary to what the ego of the atheist wishes or thinks. This bothers the ego of the atheists, who wishes free will and choice, even if unnatural and repressive.

    In terms of atheism versus religion, and unconscious synthesis, religion tends to separate the content of the ego and the unconscious mind as two separate things, with the unique unconscious output connected to the gods; God or Devil. Although the term god, will not describe all the output, religion nevertheless separates the process into two; two centers of consciousness. There is the inner man and the outer man.

    Atheism is not as objective to unconscious content and tends to assume there is only the ego center. I am not talking of the sub-class of atheism call psychologists who are more objective. Two centers of consciousness is not taught to the average card carrying atheist. What is taught is, it is taboo if you hear voices or see visions; content separate from the ego. If you admit this, you will be called crazy.

    If a religious person hears a voice or has a dream they think is the spirit, they celebrate this distinction; secondary. This will make them appear crazy to the atheists, who will automatically assume pathology and not synthesis. If anyone in these forums claims to have seen the spirit, there is an atheist circling of the wagon before firing arrows. The religious are not so quick to place all such claims in the garbage barrel. Most have made such distinctions and will ask for more information. This is the objectivity that I spoke of.

    Atheism is not called a religion by definition. However, words do not mean more than actions, unless one is indoctrinated in PC, where hypocrisy reigns if you carry the correct membership card. In atheism, the ego; celebrity, takes the place of gods. The merger of the conscious and unconscious makes the ego assume it is the source of its own inspiration, worshipping the important among them as gods; Darwin. In America, it was blaspheme to those on the left, to challenge president Obama, since he to the atheists he was a god due to charism and celebrity. The religious will see him as a man, but someone being inspired.

    When I started to explore the unconscious, I was an atheist who had the, there is only one POV. It was a shock and profound realization that there was a secondary POV in the unconscious mind. I had to know for sure, which is why I began to do research on myself. Now, it is so self evident. I can still remember the early days of being a scientific member of the atheist religion, that does not exist by definition. But I also remember content, that was so intense, I can see how religion can attribute this to the beyond. It is still ambiguous.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,951
    Yeah, you're still posting unsupported drivel.
    Whut?
    Atheism is not called a religion[1] for one reason: it isn't a religion.

    1 Although this doesn't seem to stop you doing it. E.g. "being a scientific member of the atheist religion" - oh, and if you genuinely had a claim to being scientific you've long lost any right to that (cf the amount of unsupported sheer rubbish you post).
     
  14. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,183
    Not necessarily, therefore your assertion is false:

    Did it take years of experimenting to get that soap to float? Not exactly. Ivory Soap floated by accident. For years the Procter & Gamble company had been developing a formula for a high quality soap at an affordable price. In January 1878, they finally perfected the formula. They called it simply "White Soap," and began production. Several months later the accident occurred.

    A large batch of White Soap was mixing when a workman at the factory went to lunch and left the machinery running. When he returned, he found that air had been worked into the mixture. he decided not to discard the batch of soap because of such a small error, and he poured the soap into the frames. The soap hardened and it was cut, packaged, and shipped.

    A few weeks later, letters began arriving at Procter & Gamble asking for more of the soap that floated. The workman's error had turned into a selling point! Harley Procter came up with the name "Ivory" while listening to a bible reading at church one morning in 1879.​
    http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ivory.htm

    Please do tell - exactly how does one go about being objective regarding subjective matters? Does "unconscious content" exist in some quantifiable form in your universe?
     
  15. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    There are Gnostics of almost every religion. Even Islam, when they are not living in a Sharia led country. In those they would be murdered just as Christians murdered us when they could.

    You are correct about us being an advanced knowledge bunch though. Free thinkers are not that special though. We are just not as stupid as the sheeple of most religions.

    Alexandria fell to the Orthodox Catholics of that day. Gnostic Christian and other mystery schools were not involved as far as I know.

    I will take a link though that proves your point if you can come up with one.

    Regards
    DL
     
  16. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,740
    You said that Gnostics were the so called Christians and now you say that Hypatia was a Gnostic who was killed by her own Gnostic/so called Christian friends.

    Please clarify if you can.

    Regards
    DL
     

Share This Page