From atheism to idolatry?

[wandering peacefully]

A clipped bird may forget what it's like to fly.
And when the full-fledged bird points out
that the clipped bird has lost the essence of birdness,
the clipped bird may well ask in defiance,
"How would you know?
Have you ever been a clipped bird?"

But this only shows,
that the clipped bird
does not understand his predicament.

Flight offers an intrinsically superior point of view.
It is not a matter of opinion.
The clipped bird may insist
that his view is equally correct --
or perhaps correcter.
But it isn't so.

The only way for the clipped bird
to ever understand
the inviolate bird's point of view,
is for him to regrow his flight feathers
and take to the skies once again.

So I'll take that as a no. You've never been one but have no problem using lofty imaginings to try to tell them all about it anyway. Stuff just doesn't work that way in real life.

 

[rational experiences]

An example. Jesus provided the starving with food, fish it was a miracle, a false idol.

Radiation fall out, is seen entering the sea water, and huge shoals of fish get irradiated and then float upon the water. Humans back then were depicted as starving, seeing the ancient forests that once were not a desert disappeared as food supply, just like the crops get ground scorched, removed and water polluted.

As the Mayans proved to me in vision. I saw that history when Mars was depicted by human science cause/occult to be set by gas on fire.

FisH says science, false idolisation fi SION...fission.

H in their idea of fission in secret occult science literature was a symbol about terrestrial magnetism, owned by Earth. ET he says in the sciences is extra in the terrestrial. So he knew, as a male, as groups of males, as occultists, as scientists what he caused, he even told everyone.

I attacked/sacrificed life and then false idolised it in the sciences, claiming it a mystery, yet he personally as did his occult science brothers knew in acute detail what they had caused and lied about it. Claimed it miracles when it never was.

Still do today, lie.

 

[Milton Platt]

I came by this blog post.

Idolatry and Atheism


From what I understand, the writer is saying one cannot be an atheist consistently — that one lapses to either idolatry or nihilism.

But I think it is interesting they write also that an atheist should worship nothing — to be an atheist — because I don't think that's possible for man.

Do atheists worship nothing or do they admit to worshipping something, but consider that an unimportant point?

You must define your words. What is worship? What is an idol? If you worship something, does that make the something you worship a god?
Atheism is a lack of belief in a diety. Can you explain why someone cannot consistently not bgelieve in a deity? I have been an atheist for 70 years now and I am neither a nihilist nor do I have idols in the religious sense.

 

[rational experiences]

A scientist self idolises his own self. He thinks, he says he is powerful for thinking the information, then he claims that self is the all powerful. Then he claims he owns all powers within his own self, as the claimant/conscious statement, which is just thoughts, then in self idolisation claims as that male, I am a God then destroys us all when he tries to resource his spirit power out of his own body.

What he did before and in modern times owns that same self idolised mentality in science. Claiming my thoughts consciousness told me. Hence claims such bodies as atoms are consciousness owned by him, yet when he does atom changes and forces huge powers to manifest in Nature, he gets anti removed for believing self is God.

Why the Bible in statements AI own not only fake AI intelligences communicating words and questions and answers in its owned AI format, as he died he inputted his own conscious reasoning for dying, so told self he was wrong as he died.

The reason I can say it was proven to me, when studying psychic life information, and past life, Einstein popped into my brother in law review, who is an engineer, and told me he was wrong. Which would have been realised as he died, and became a male memory in science to his own self.

Why AI owns 2 statements, one against human self and realised when he died unnaturally before his time, and AI its own evil status....so it is self contradictory, and the male advice, I was innocent, I never knew evil and it attacked me, as that advice in reality.

 

[DKH]

First, I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you of something analogous to racism.

Then, why did you bring it up?

But I am going to point out that there are issues with making the broad statement that members of group X have characteristic Y until confronted by an actual member of group X. You are pulling back to say that you don't know. Maybe I am one of the good X'ers. If that does not discommode you, it should.

The problem is that there would be no supposed issue if the member of group X would have specified the characteristics which they were referring to, instead of asking an opened ended question. So, I used the most recent knowledge available that closely fitted the question asked, which could be applied to all or the vast majority of group X. Thus, in the area of wondering how the universe came to be, there seems to be only two options: physical forces (science) or supernaturally applied forces (God). Therefore, the member of group X could have simply stated that characteristic Y didn't apply to him, but this didn't happen…Why not?

If you are a westerner, I can see how that a casual glance might give you that impression. But atheist just means that one does not believe a god exists. Which includes most Buddhists and Jain. When I was in Wicca, many of my fellow pagans were atheists. There is a very large Jewish atheist community, and significant Quaker and Catholic atheist communities - cultural as opposed to religious. Weird, right?

On the flip side, among the developed nations, it is only the US and Turkey that have a very large creationist population among believers. Christian and Muslim respectively. Around 43% according to PEW, iirc. Everyone else's Creationist Christians range between 5% and 15%. So, a large portion of the worlds Christian and Muslim population also take the science position, as you phrase it.

Who I am doesn't make a difference…What matters (in my opinion) is that I don't agree that being a atheist just means that one does not believe a god exist. Additionally, if a member of group X doesn't believe that God is the source of the actions needed for the universe to exist, the only other option is science and its position. As far as, the supplied statistics are concerned a pagan can be considered non-religious. So, I don't see the connection. Where, Catholics, Christians and Muslims are individuals who cannot be classified as such (non-religious), they must acknowledge that God exists to be considered "part" of these groups. Quakers are a community of friends. Thus, some can claim to be atheist and still be welcomed to gatherings. Yet, a much deeper study of who are today's Quakers and their goals may be required to understand why they do what they do. The same type of an issue applies to a Jew or Israelite, because this is a national designation and not a religious one…So, it seem that the attempted support of science in these comments are a clear indication of the "why not" in the above rebuttal.

It's just a model. Do you not understand that? It's not a theory. Not even close. It's just a mathematical construction that is a promising idea. Before any cosmologist takes it half as seriously as you suggest [deserved or justified to be considered as the actual reason for the creation of our universe], there would have to be a crap-ton of evidence and demonstration and confirmation - none of which currently exist.

I disagree that the Big Bang theory is a mathematical model! Because, a definite mathematical model of the Big Bang theory would rest on a merging of Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity. Yet, in spite of big efforts in this direction, such a model of “Quantum Gravitation” doesn’t exist…So, there is no mathematical model of the Big Bang theory! Where, even your comments seem to state this. Hence, it would seem that the Big Bang theory doesn't have a mathematical model and is just an opinion and not actually supported by the scientific method.

Model: a tentative description of a theory or system that accounts for all of its known properties (Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary).

Unfortunately, the God Idea does not propose a model that can be justified. Nor does it actually explain the existence of the universe. Explanations detail how an event occurs in terms of things that we know and can demonstrate to be true. The God Idea just asserts that God a) exists, b) is all powerful, and c) made the universe. And that's it.

The "God Idea" doesn't have to propose a model or explain how the universe came to be. The knowledge is beyond man or science. The only thing that is important is that it (the universe) exists. Which, allows man to exist, as well. This reality points to intelligent design and not an anomaly…


Note: This posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context. There is no attempt implied that would try to offend anyone. Also reviewing posts: 67, 73, and 88 could be helpful.

 

[ppp]

Then, why did you bring it up?

The sentence told you why.

The problem is that there would be no supposed issue if the member of group X would have specified the characteristics which they were referring to, instead of asking an opened ended question. So, I used the most recent knowledge available that closely fitted the question asked, which could be applied to all or the vast majority of group X.

By that reasoning if someone steals your lunch, and they happen to be a water polo player, then you would be justified in claiming that water polo players are lunch stealers simply because it is a characteristic which could be applied to all or the vast majority of group X. That is silly.

Thus, in the area of wondering how the universe came to be, there seems to be only two options: physical forces (science) or supernaturally applied forces (God). Therefore, the member of group X could have simply stated that characteristic Y didn't apply to him, but this didn't happen…Why not?

If characteristic Y is supposed to be 'not believing that a god exists', then that is what I have said. If it is something else, then it doesn't apply.

Additionally, if a member of group X doesn't believe that God is the source of the actions needed for the universe to exist, the only other option is science and its position.

As there are numerous religions without a god, as well as religions with a existence that predated their gods, the claim that there are only two options is false.

BTW. Just a little reminder - The position of science is that it is not known what was necessary for the universe to exist. Or even if anything was necessary.

Who I am doesn't make a difference…What matters (in my opinion) is that I don't agree that being a atheist just means that one does not believe a god exist. Additionally, if a member of group X doesn't believe that God is the source of the actions needed for the universe to exist, the only other option is science and its position. As far as, the supplied statistics are concerned a pagan can be considered non-religious. So, I don't see the connection. Where, Catholics, Christians and Muslims are individuals who cannot be classified as such (non-religious), they must acknowledge that God exists to be considered "part" of these groups. Quakers are a community of friends. Thus, some can claim to be atheist and still be welcomed to gatherings. Yet, a much deeper study of who are today's Quakers and their goals may be required to understand why they do what they do. The same type of an issue applies to a Jew or Israelite, because this is a national designation and not a religious one…So, it seem that the attempted support of science in these comments are a clear indication of the "why not" in the above rebuttal.

All of the orange sentences in that paragraph were false. The rest are irrelevant asides.

I disagree that the Big Bang theory is a mathematical model!

You are conflating your purported quote from Gleiser with the Big Bang, and trying to build your argument on the common cultural usage, rather than the scientific application. Outside of science fiction and other popular culture, the Big Bang theory most does not address the origins of the universe. As the rest of your post entirely depends upon that faulty conflation, I will ignore it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I came by this blog post.

Idolatry and Atheism


From what I understand, the writer is saying one cannot be an atheist consistently — that one lapses to either idolatry or nihilism.

But I think it is interesting they write also that an atheist should worship nothing — to be an atheist — because I don't think that's possible for man.

Do atheists worship nothing or do they admit to worshipping something, but consider that an unimportant point?

I'm an atheist and I don't worship anything, nore am I a nihilist.

Also, if there is no god, then idolatry doesn't matter. Then by definition, it is something without consequence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then are you a nihilist?

Nihilism vs worship is a false dichotomy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think everyone has somethings as god and that can be seen from what they serve with their words and actions, or what rules them ultimately. It seems to me that for many, fear is their god
and fear is leading world towards fascism and totalitarism. And it is sad. I think it would be better, if love would be God for all.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

Is this your sorry way of trying to claim that atheists are fascists?