There are two types of atheists.........
The offensive and the passive.
The passive atheist is just a fellow who is lazy and when pressed on the subject of God and then pushed in the corner for discussion - he will actually reveal he is more agnostic that an atheist.
The offensive atheist declares his atheism with loud verbal rants and raves - spitting and hissing at anyone who utters the word God.
The offensive atheist is a number one fool and ignoramus - because the atheist does not seek or study and research into spirituality at all - and simply because God is not seen with his eyes he declares there is no God.
He says in defence of his atheism that the universe and everything in it has come about by an explosion/expansion of something he cannot describe - and adds that behind this explosion there was no plan, no Supreme cause, no intelligent direction,.......but only the random accidental chance explosion that was able to create perfect conscious life with all the resources life needs as well to build his electronics, skyscrapers, rockets, cars, trucks, boats, medicines, food and everything else... etc
He tries in vain in his laboratory to copy this explosion by attempting to also create a tiny little ant - but only creates embarrassment in failure.
So arrogant is the atheist he cries in vain that there is no God claiming if there is a God let him show himself to me now.
He is told repeatedly that a person must qualify themselves to see God - but he wants to be special and demands that God shows up just for him just once to prove himself.
When God does not show up................he exclaims! "See there is no God I have proved it"
The atheist ..........is the most foolish and ignorant and arrogant and childish person to walk the earth.
And he is responsible for the poor condition of human society with all its troubles.
Just below this fool the atheist - is the person who teachs and follows and defends false religion because false religion is directly responsible for all the atheism.
Today you can go to university and get a diploma in atheism and its called science - and these persons who have Phd,s in this atheism are very proud.
Even though they teach us the ridiculous teachings that life and the universe comes from a random accidental special explosion........which occurs without plan or thought or direction or intelligence..........then after the explosion a lightning bolt struck a puddle and now we are all here, conscious, and alive, and reproducing, and creating millions of things with all the wonderful resources - and feeding ourselves with the thousands of delicious and nutritious foods that simply grow out of the dirt.
The Big bang and Evolution are the greatest lies perpetrated by pseudo science - and to teach us their foolish fabrications/speculations that life is a random chance accident is thoroughly dishonest.
Originally posted by DasaJust post a single line of your idiotic drivel and discuss it rationally. Otherwise;
There are two types of atheists.........
The offensive and the passive.
The passive atheist is just a fellow who is lazy and when pressed on the subject of God and then pushed in the corner for discussion - he will actually reveal he is more agnostic that an atheist.
The offensive atheist declares his atheism with loud verbal rants and raves - spitting ...[text shortened]... olish fabrications/speculations that life is a random chance accident is thoroughly dishonest.
It is a common contention between theists and atheists as to who has the "burden of proof."
Who has this burden - theists? atheists? both? neither?
This issue comes up often enough in debates and discussions that it really needs to be addressed here in some detail.
Theism and EvidenceThat the theists have some burden of proof simply cannot be denied. They are obviously making at least one claim - that at least one god exists.
Theists must, then, be prepared to offer justification for their claims - they must face up to their burden of demonstrating that their assertions are reasonable.
Of course, it would be unusual for theists to limit themselves to just the claim that a god exists - normally, there will be concurrent and related claims about what this god wants and how we are to live, and those too will require some degree of support from the theist.
The more necessary and fundamental they are to the theist's religious belief system, the greater will be the need for support.
How is a theist to support their claims about their god(s)?
Well, that will depend entirely upon the nature of the god for which they are making those claims.
As with any other claim about any other sort of thing - the nature of the support is dependent upon the nature of the object in question.
There isn't any one set of catch-all "proofs" which will suffice for every possible god. Clearly, then, one of the first steps any theist will have to take is to explain the nature of this god they are claiming. What is it, exactly?
Unless we have a good idea of what we are looking for, we'll never know if we've found it or not! Unless a person's theism is literally nonsense, they must be capable explaining the content of their belief.
Parallel to this, and well recognized by many theists, is the fact that the more ambiguous and vague the description of their god is, the easier it will be to find "evidence" for it. If they don't start out clear about what they are describing, then they can later add on anything they wish as "support." No critically and logically thinking atheist should accept this. If we do not have a clear idea of what "god" mean, then the statement "god exists" is literally communicating nothing to us - and there will be no reason to accept it as rational, much less true.
Atheism and EvidenceBut what about atheists?
What burden of proof do they hold?
Well, we should first notice that atheists aren't necessarily making any particular claims about the world.
When a person says to you "I am an atheist," all you can really assume is that they are saying "I do not believe in any gods."
That isn't much, and unless someone wishes to argue that the atheist is mistaken or lying about their beliefs, then they should be taken at their word.
They do not believe, and that's pretty much that.
Of course, that isn't going to be the limit of the average atheist's beliefs and nonbeliefs.
For example, an atheist might deny the existence of some gods - and that denial is itself a claim which warrants justification and support, if it is questioned.
Other atheists might not deny outright a particular god, but will deny certain associated claims made in relation to belief in that god. For example, an atheist might assert that an alleged god might exist - but that if it does, it cannot be omnibenevolent.
Or an atheist might accept that, if a god exists, it certainly didn't create the world in seven days.
Again, such assertions should be supported if questioned.
Common to all is a fundamental connection to atheism.
They aren't necessary to atheism - no one need deny any particular theistic beliefs in order to be an atheist, they only need to not believe in any gods, whatever their reasons or attitudes.
But the aforementioned claims are clearly related to atheism, since they involve gods.
____________ ad tedium _____________________
Originally posted by Dasa🙄🙄
There are two types of atheists.........
The offensive and the passive.
The passive atheist is just a fellow who is lazy and when pressed on the subject of God and then pushed in the corner for discussion - he will actually reveal he is more agnostic that an atheist.
The offensive atheist declares his atheism with loud verbal rants and raves - spitting ...[text shortened]... olish fabrications/speculations that life is a random chance accident is thoroughly dishonest.
Originally posted by Dasa#5. Apocalypse Now Nuked Acres of Forest
There are two types of atheists.........
The offensive and the passive.
The passive atheist is just a fellow who is lazy and when pressed on the subject of God and then pushed in the corner for discussion - he will actually reveal he is more agnostic that an atheist.
The offensive atheist declares his atheism with loud verbal rants and raves - spitting ...[text shortened]... olish fabrications/speculations that life is a random chance accident is thoroughly dishonest.
As ridiculous film shoots go, few can top Apocalypse Now. There was the mental breakdown and near death of Martin Sheen, the troubles filming in an actual war zone and a typhoon that destroyed an entire set.
"CUT! Hey, stop bleeding, ahole. We still have two more takes."
But then there's the most iconic shot in a film full of iconic shots, the opening scene of the palm trees burning under a storm of napalm as Jim Morrison wails over the top about Oedipus and the transient nature of existence. Most people are probably too distracted by one of the finest opening shots in film to actually contemplate how it was achieved.
After all, it's an impressive special effect for 1979. How did they go about making it look like a huge section of forest had been burned to the ground?
Surprise! They did it by actually burning a huge section of forest to the ground.
That's pretty much it. Around 1,200 gallons of gasoline were poured over the splendid palm trees and then set alight. Tires were also burned to generate more smoke for the shot, while canisters were dropped onto the area to look like falling napalm. Acres of the forest were destroyed in a matter of seconds. Fitting, for a shot that was supposed to visually demonstrate the mindless, indiscriminate destruction of war.
The sequence was shot in the Philippines, and it was fortunate for the production that all those pesky tree-huggers were an ocean away -- or as Francis Ford Coppola put it, "They'd never let you [do it] in the U.S., the environmentalists would kill you."
Then again, this was the 1970s. Hollywood learned its lesson in the decades since, right? Well ...
Read more: The 5 Most Horrifyingly Wasteful Film Shoots | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_19548_the-5-most-horrifyingly-wasteful-film-shoots.html#ixzz1gglz80sD
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Dasa
There are two types of atheists.........
The offensive and the passive.
The passive atheist is just a fellow who is lazy and when pressed on the subject of God and then pushed in the corner for discussion - he will actually reveal he is more agnostic that an atheist.
The offensive atheist declares his atheism with loud verbal rants and raves - spitting ...[text shortened]... olish fabrications/speculations that life is a random chance accident is thoroughly dishonest.
And he is responsible for the poor condition of human society with all its troubles.
Here's a role model for this kind of invective:
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/HitlerNazisAtheismSecularism.htm
The passive atheist is just a fellow who is lazy and when pressed on the subject of God and then pushed in the corner for discussion - he will actually reveal he is more agnostic that an atheist.
--- unquote Dasa.
Do you fear Buddhism, because there are more followers of less BS than your so called Religion, and you fear for the true atheistic Buddhsim for which Hare Krsna held a great deal of respect for?
Do you condone that all of Southern Asians who are Theravada Buddhist are liars and dishonest people, lazy and agnostic?
Am I dishonest in asking you this question?
-m. ?
Originally posted by mikelomIf you understand the history of Buddhism you will know that the Lord incarnated as Lord Buddha to take people away from the Vedas because at the time in the beginning of Kali Yuga - many persons where mis-interpreting the concession in the Vedas to eat meat by abusing that concession to open slaughter houses and kill abundantly.
The passive atheist is just a fellow who is lazy and when pressed on the subject of God and then pushed in the corner for discussion - he will actually reveal he is more agnostic that an atheist.
--- unquote Dasa.
Do you fear Buddhism, because there are more followers of less BS than your so called Religion, and you fear for the true atheistic Buddhsi ...[text shortened]... and dishonest people, lazy and agnostic?
Am I dishonest in asking you this question?
-m. ?
There is a concession in the Vedas for those persons who will eat meat (no matter what) to sacrifice the animal first with a lengthy ritual of purification before the animal is slaughtered that actually allows the animal to to take an elevated birth after its death and makes the karma of the killer less than normal.
However peole were simplifying the ritual and in many cases doing away with the ritual all-together .......so the Lord incarnated to introduce Buddhism which central theme is NON-VIOLENCE meaning zero animal slaughter.
That Buddhism which was introduced at that time was the best Buddhism- because people actually followed properly and in doing so advanced in their spiritual lives a little.
To make people accept Buddhism the Lord denounced the Personality of Godhead and the Vedas - and asked them to accept Lord Buddha as the way.
People are quiet dull and tend to follow the one with the loudest voice......so the mission of the Lord to introduce Buddhism was quiet easy at the time.
Later and after the animal slaughter had stopped the Lord came again as Lord Caitanya and re-established the Vedas and the Personality of Godhead and the Sankirtana movement of chanting the Holy names of the Lord and that is what we have to the present day.
Buddhism is now no longer required.......it was for a time and place and that time has now passed.
How-ever many persons today like to dress up as Buddhist to attract false respect from the ignorant people - and they no longer respect the central theme of Buddhism which was NON-VIOLENCE or in other words zero animal slaughter.
Neo-Buddhism today is not the true Buddhism of yesterday which was then once respectable.
Neo Buddhism today does not speak out against animal slaughter (non violence) and is therefore useless.
A true Buddhist must not eat meat and live an austere life serving others and study the teachings of Buddha and meditate for long periods without sex desire......and in this way they will advance towards the true religion of Vedanta Sutra and Bhakti Yoga.
If they are aware of Vedanta Sutra and Bhakti Yoga and its merits they should at once embrace it.........and move on from Buddhism immediately and not waste their valuable time.
Originally posted by DasaSeems your claim for this veda eternity, scriptures before man etc., just got walloped on the head by your own timing sequence of events!
That Buddhism which was introduced at that time was the best Buddhism- because people actually followed properly and in doing so advanced in their spiritual lives a little.
To make people accept Buddhism the Lord denounced the Personality of Godhead and the Vedas - and asked them to accept Lord Buddha as the way.
People are quiet dull and tend to follow t ...[text shortened]... ment of chanting the Holy names of the Lord and that is what we have to the present day.
[/b]
You're so full of crap, boy!
-m.
Originally posted by DasaYou say, "false religion is directly responsible for all the atheism".
There are two types of atheists.........
The offensive and the passive.
The passive atheist is just a fellow who is lazy and when pressed on the subject of God and then pushed in the corner for discussion - he will actually reveal he is more agnostic that an atheist.
The offensive atheist declares his atheism with loud verbal rants and raves - spitting ...[text shortened]... olish fabrications/speculations that life is a random chance accident is thoroughly dishonest.
So if there was no false religion, there would be no atheism.
Doen't that imply atheism is a false religion?
So what we are saying is that anyone who doesn't have exactly the same belief as DASA is a liar and is dishonest?
*sighs*
Even the poor people who want to stay out of all the religious arguments, claptrap and minefields are liars and dishonest?
*sighs*
PS there are many types of 'atheist' (more than two!). There are many types of people who have their own private thoughts and beliefs and religions. They like to keep this to themselves as this is sacred to them. They don't believe in slating everyone else for their beliefs, no matter how bizarre, extreme or ridiculous. They just get on with it, without all of this bloody minded turd that other people spew out. They don't see the need to convert everyone else to their own beliefs. They just have their own faith and get on with it. It helps them get through life and survive all of the idiocy going on around them in a mad, mad world. That my friend is a true religion and belief. I hope you find yours one day.
Originally posted by RJHindsAtheism is not a religion......but a defective mental state spurred on by a dishonest disposition.
You say, "false religion is directly responsible for all the atheism".
So if there was no false religion, there would be no atheism.
Doen't that imply atheism is a false religion?
Originally posted by jimslyp69What i am saying is there is only ONE religion and all others are but fabrications by mundane man.
So what we are saying is that anyone who doesn't have exactly the same belief as DASA is a liar and is dishonest?
*sighs*
Even the poor people who want to stay out of all the religious arguments, claptrap and minefields are liars and dishonest?
*sighs*
PS there are many types of 'atheist' (more than two!). There are many types of people who hav ...[text shortened]... ad, mad world. That my friend is a true religion and belief. I hope you find yours one day.
True religion must be eternal because God is eternal.
The Vedic teachings are the only eternal teachings on this earth.
The acid test for true religion has proven this many times before.