Atheism

[DarkAngel_]

Don't give up because I was creative and rough...dance my friend - dance - you wanted it - you want to fly? You can not just say - "I have had enough" - what do you expect from me or others similar? It's a cold dark universe and a flaming planet at times - step into the fire and dump the fear - Yes - that's the key....will you faith grant you fearlessness - does your atheism grant you fearlessness? Never - never take these interchanges seriously...lighten up.

we are misunderstood at the same time, we are poets, we are dancers, we are man... i give up nothing, i only know as far as i know and that is the truth... did i say you will die with your belief? yes... as will i, die with mine... this is pointless 'if' you are not willing to recant... i pay for my pride... i recant, i take back what has been said to cuffed words. your words are still too clear. you subscribe to dogma, for this i am sorry.

Edited May 20, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Oleg Bach]

we are misunderstood at the same time, we are poets, we are dancers, we are man... i give up nothing, i only know as far as i know and that is the truth... did i say you will die with your belief? yes... as will i, die with mine... this is pointless 'if' you are not willing to recant... i pay for my pride... i recant, i take back what has been said to cuffed words. your words are still too clear. you subscribe to dogma, for this i am sorry.

It does not matter who dies with what - it does matter that we care - respect and love each other while we are here - what happens latter is a mystery to BOTH of us ----all my love to you my friend..thanks. We are now offically friends - the believer and non-believer - and we just might switch positions sometime..who knows..in the mean time I will act as a safety net incase you are wrong - and you do the same for me - we protect each other - cheers......you are great...and not a bad poet.. I mean it.....I will stand by you - no matter what - and all I expect from you is the same..all must surive.

[DarkAngel_]

It does not matter who dies with what - it does matter that we care - respect and love each other while we are here - what happens latter is a mystery to BOTH of us ----all my love to you my friend..thanks. We are now offically friends - the believer and non-believer - and we just might switch positions sometime..who knows..in the mean time I will act as a safety net incase you are wrong - and you do the same for me - we protect each other - cheers......you are great...and not a bad poet.. I mean it.....I will stand by you - no matter what - and all I expect from you is the same..all must surive.

then it is agreed, i would rather look back and call it a shame rather then a regret. our extremes have got me in an uproar... even a depression. what does it matter if i am just a writer? if we had met, we would both be laughing. as an atheist i offer you my beliefs whenever you wish to ask them. i admit my weakness is pride... but moreover then that i am proud to admit it! but honestly... the 'cap a bullet' thing was a funny twist, i actually saw the wangster down the street saying it... so for that i promise never to take this too seriously again! i hope tonight i will find myself again being, well, happy...

Edited May 20, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[WIP]

I define the mind as the summation of one's education and experience coupled with one's imagination. Basically his memory and all the information stored in it plus any created imagination.

See! You can't define the mind as a thing, since your definition is about what the mind does. I have no problem with this sort of definition, since I see the mind as a manifestation of complex brain neuroelectric and neurochemical reactions. Every mental activity has physical correlate with brain funtion, so I don't see a need to add unseen and unproveable forces to the mix.

As for mind without brain - we will have to wait for science to discover this unknown and tell you about it since they are the only ones approved to create information out of the unknown.

No. There is no scientific reason to support the concept of minds acting without, or separately from the brain, and there is no philosophical method to explain how immaterial minds interface with the physical world, or how they can function and act independently, continuing on after the death of the physical body.

[Pliny]

What a load of red herrings, presumptions and just general arrogance. You seem to suffer from precisely the things you claim atheists do. You most certainly look down on them, you seem to be very self-righteous. This kind of crap really shows whose head is swollen. And as to quality of life, who the f*** do you think you are, telling me, for instance, that somehow, because I don't accept the existence of God, that somehow my quality of life must somehow be less than those that do?

All I've got to say, my fat-headed friend, is pot... kettle... black.

Just dropped by to display some indignant self-righteous arrogance did you? Pot...kettle...black.

Did I hit a soft spot?

I said your quality of life is affected by all the stupid people you see around you. You know the ones...the Christians....the Muslims.. the Buddhists...the Spiritualists....the Corporatists...all those billions of people consuming all the valuable resources of the planet....generally creating a big dump, polluting the environment and the air.

Basically, what I am saying is that one's perception of the world has more to do with their quality of life than externalities. The glass can be half full or half empty. Nothing personal intended.

My argument is that Atheism, in it's definition, is a conclusion and a finality before the fact. Many people, out of frustration with religion, choose to call themselves atheists. Both religion and atheism are ends in themselves, both are, upon acceptance, a finality. They both end the search for an understanding of life. Religion because it claims an understanding and Atheism because it denies anything described as life outside the parameters of the physical could exist.

I only suggest the position of Atheism is no less theoretical than any religion and perhaps caution them to reconsider the finality of it. I suggest it would be better to claim agnosticism.

[Pliny]

See! You can't define the mind as a thing, since your definition is about what the mind does. I have no problem with this sort of definition, since I see the mind as a manifestation of complex brain neuroelectric and neurochemical reactions. Every mental activity has physical correlate with brain funtion, so I don't see a need to add unseen and unproveable forces to the mix.

Sorry. We'll have to just disagree.

I think the brain is too clumsy to make all the calculations necessary plus be a storage unit of memory. It's size limits it. You would probably like the idea of bigger brains and perhaps think that would be our future.

No. There is no scientific reason to support the concept of minds acting without, or separately from the brain, and there is no philosophical method to explain how immaterial minds interface with the physical world, or how they can function and act independently, continuing on after the death of the physical body.

Of course there is no scientific reason to support the concept. You will just have to remain a jumble of electro chemical processes. No peeking to make sure.

[Pliny]

Oleg and darkangel:

Interesting. A most excellent adventure.

[DarkAngel_]

Oleg and darkangel:

Interesting. A most excellent adventure.

yes it was... and is. it was an interesting storm that i will not forget.

My argument is that Atheism, in it's definition, is a conclusion and a finality before the fact. Many people, out of frustration with religion, choose to call themselves atheists. Both religion and atheism are ends in themselves, both are, upon acceptance, a finality. They both end the search for an understanding of life. Religion because it claims an understanding and Atheism because it denies anything described as life outside the parameters of the physical could exist.

though not addressed to me, i must comment... ever think even if there was a god or gods, i or any other atheist might like to stay godless? again it is a matter of preference. there is no finality in no fact, but there is a hint of truth in calling what is innately human; human. god is by way of humanly defined things in books and from men for the very reason definitions of peoples and creeds where wrought by parables and Demi-Gods like Hercules.

they where at one time needed, but with the 'true' god the universe turns and crushes the human, mortal god, this god is defined by scientific observation... we cannot call it a god because it is a 'everythingness' and this to us obliterates that definition. god as defined by the English is just as real as the stories told to open way for men to carry forth and have reason beyond himself and this world. he is a story, a 'he' and epoch of myth. i love this world, i love this place, but all others promise of another i wish nothing of, not heaven or hell or anything in-between... i believe in what is natural, supernatural, and not yet defined or categorized by men and as an atheist... i have so much control, even then i am too much of myself to just observe as i wish to, to understand.

so my only point is god as defined must be redefined... and a godless man will stay godless, even with there being a god. these things must be explored deeper before we call anything, truth.

the god of the 'old-think' is there for the sake of the church to survive as an organization... it will fail if it does not change.

Edited May 20, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[DarkAngel_]

Sorry. We'll have to just disagree.

I think the brain is too clumsy to make all the calculations necessary plus be a storage unit of memory. It's size limits it. You would probably like the idea of bigger brains and perhaps think that would be our future.

do you know how many folds are in a brain? its surface area is massive carrying many billions of memorgrams and other chemical reactions for both emotional and logic areas to work and interact. read 'brain rules' by John Medina, you will be impressed. though my idea of a more deep particle based interaction and quantum based influence would be nice if true.... but as WIP said our attempts at finding if this can work has been blocked due to failures in finding compatible systems... might i add though that we have not done every quantum variant of the test only the ones we are currently capable of. still it is a hard science. (it's suppose to be.)

[WIP]

My argument is that Atheism, in it's definition, is a conclusion and a finality before the fact.

And it has been pointed out to you many times, that atheism does not define what a person believes in, other than indicating that they likely reject all forms of supernatural beliefs as either impossible or natural phenomena that are as of now, not yet understood and undefined by naturalist scientific theory. As for moral philosophy, an atheist could be a Marxist or an Objectivist, and anything in between!

The reason you and others are assuming that there is an atheist belief system, is because a few prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, are trying to create one. The Brights Organization that Dawkins started with his friend, philosopher Daniel Dennett, is the best example of trying to build a bricks and mortar atheist movement.

But I am convinced that the majority of atheists would rather organize around humanist principles, that are often shared by people with varying degrees of supernatural beliefs, than usiing atheism as the organizing principle. It doesn't mean those of us who are naturalists will accept beliefs in ghosts, tree spirits, Gaia or the Process Theology of a lot of liberal Christians. But, we do not believe that a large segment of the population are wired to be rationalists or skeptics, and trying to convert people to naturalism is a futile cause that will only lead to isolation and inability to relate with people who have an intuitive approach to understanding the world.

Most naturalists only object when supernatural beliefs interfere with the objective world, such as: trying to deny scientific evidence because it challenges religious dogma; insisting that mystical theories of a "spirit world" such as souls, auras, psychic energy, faith healing etc. be accepted without evidence. As long as shared objective standards stick to what can and cannot be proven empirically, the mystics can have their own supernatural world to enjoy, while we focus on the things we share in common.

Many people, out of frustration with religion, choose to call themselves atheists. Both religion and atheism are ends in themselves, both are, upon acceptance, a finality. They both end the search for an understanding of life. Religion because it claims an understanding and Atheism because it denies anything described as life outside the parameters of the physical could exist.

I hear a point made often, that it is the religious organizations and not the dogma that causes harm; but I think this is a bogus proposition since many people (like Roman Catholics for example) are at odds with much of their religious dogma, and only find value in the organizational structure of the church. And it's likely because many atheists find value in belonging to a community of shared values, that a number of Unitarian/ Universalists are atheists or agnostics in actual fact.

[WIP]

Sorry. We'll have to just disagree.

I think the brain is too clumsy to make all the calculations necessary plus be a storage unit of memory. It's size limits it. You would probably like the idea of bigger brains and perhaps think that would be our future.

As pointed out previously, there is not enough known about brain function to give a wave of the hand dismissal to the theory that the brain generates all of our feelings of consciousness and awareness. The problem for dualists remains that every mental activity can be traced to brain function, and if there is an added ingredient (a soul), dualists have to propose some sort of way for an immaterial, supernatural force outside of our detection, is able to interact with the physical world. Otherwise, those who study the brain, should continue with the assumption that things which cannot be detected are no different than things that are nonexistent.

[DarkAngel_]

Otherwise, those who study the brain, should continue with the assumption that things which cannot be detected are no different than things that are nonexistent.

i tend to agree with the thought that human things are explainable, most of all the brain. but further investigation may point out a more soul-like quality to the brain, instead of a 'brain like soul' as this argument has been turned toward... the soul is a collection of what?

'consist of one's thoughts and personality, and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self.' via Wkipedia.

case and point? these argument's are based in old definitions... what is the soul? why can a soul not be in the confines of the brain? and why is it not just a 'part' of a human, which by my experience is.

[Pliny]

And it has been pointed out to you many times,

How did I miss that so many times?

that atheism does not define what a person believes in,

My concise definition of atheism is: a disbelief in or denial in the existence of God. What kind of jargon is this that atheism does not define what a person believes in?

other than indicating that they likely reject all forms of supernatural beliefs as either impossible or natural phenomena that are as of now, not yet understood and undefined by naturalist scientific theory. As for moral philosophy, an atheist could be a Marxist or an Objectivist, and anything in between!

The reason you and others are assuming that there is an atheist belief system, is because a few prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, are trying to create one. The Brights Organization that Dawkins started with his friend, philosopher Daniel Dennett, is the best example of trying to build a bricks and mortar atheist movement.

But I am convinced that the majority of atheists would rather organize around humanist principles, that are often shared by people with varying degrees of supernatural beliefs, than usiing atheism as the organizing principle. It doesn't mean those of us who are naturalists will accept beliefs in ghosts, tree spirits, Gaia or the Process Theology of a lot of liberal Christians. But, we do not believe that a large segment of the population are wired to be rationalists or skeptics, and trying to convert people to naturalism is a futile cause that will only lead to isolation and inability to relate with people who have an intuitive approach to understanding the world.

Most naturalists only object when supernatural beliefs interfere with the objective world, such as: trying to deny scientific evidence because it challenges religious dogma; insisting that mystical theories of a "spirit world" such as souls, auras, psychic energy, faith healing etc. be accepted without evidence. As long as shared objective standards stick to what can and cannot be proven empirically, the mystics can have their own supernatural world to enjoy, while we focus on the things we share in common.

My concise definition of atheism is: a disbelief in or denial in the existence of God.

Secular humanism is a movement. Let's not make it complicated. Atheism is atheism. Mix it up with naturalists and humanists Unitarians/Universalists and whatever else you can think of and it is just a means to widen the net. If you wish to include in your concept of atheism all those different concepts then it is no wonder we are bashing our heads on the wall.

I hear a point made often, that it is the religious organizations and not the dogma that causes harm; but I think this is a bogus proposition since many people (like Roman Catholics for example) are at odds with much of their religious dogma, and only find value in the organizational structure of the church. And it's likely because many atheists find value in belonging to a community of shared values, that a number of Unitarian/ Universalists are atheists or agnostics in actual fact.

The Roman Catholics who are at odds with their religious dogma aren't Roman Catholics, as much as they might like to think they are. You can't be honest with yourself if you wear the name and don't play the game.

I think the reason Catholics wear the label long after they reject the dogma is because there isn't really anywhere else to go. All Religions have their dogma which doesn't appear any better and atheism is not an option for them so they remain in the fold and true it does give them a sense of community among people they feel they understand and share common moral standards with.

[Pliny]

yes it was... and is. it was an interesting storm that i will not forget.

As all of us do you will have to find your way.

though not addressed to me, i must comment... ever think even if there was a god or gods, i or any other atheist might like to stay godless?

again it is a matter of preference. there is no finality in no fact, but there is a hint of truth in calling what is innately human; human. god is by way of humanly defined things in books and from men for the very reason definitions of peoples and creeds where wrought by parables and Demi-Gods like Hercules.

they where at one time needed, but with the 'true' god the universe turns and crushes the human, mortal god, this god is defined by scientific observation... we cannot call it a god because it is a 'everythingness' and this to us obliterates that definition. god as defined by the English is just as real as the stories told to open way for men to carry forth and have reason beyond himself and this world. he is a story, a 'he' and epoch of myth. i love this world, i love this place, but all others promise of another i wish nothing of, not heaven or hell or anything in-between... i believe in what is natural, supernatural, and not yet defined or categorized by men and as an atheist... i have so much control, even then i am too much of myself to just observe as i wish to, to understand.

As an atheist, by defintion, your 'everythingness' is obliterated.

so my only point is god as defined must be redefined... and a godless man will stay godless, even with there being a god. these things must be explored deeper before we call anything, truth.

the god of the 'old-think' is there for the sake of the church to survive as an organization... it will fail if it does not change.

I think I stated as much but true God must be defined - I don't think the term ever has been. Some believe the concept a personal thing perhaps that is as it should be but if we wish to discuss it we must have a common understanding.

[ToadBrother]

I think the brain is too clumsy to make all the calculations necessary plus be a storage unit of memory. It's size limits it. You would probably like the idea of bigger brains and perhaps think that would be our future.

And thus dualism is boiled down to its fundamentals; an argument from incredulity.

[WIP]

My concise definition of atheism is: a disbelief in or denial in the existence of God. What kind of jargon is this that atheism does not define what a person believes in?

Assuming that you don't believe in pink unicorns flying overhead, does your denial of the existence of pink unicorns define your belief system?

My concise definition of atheism is: a disbelief in or denial in the existence of God.

Deja vu all over again!

And that definition of atheism does not give you any insight into an atheist's ethical or political philosophy.

Secular humanism is a movement. Let's not make it complicated. Atheism is atheism. Mix it up with naturalists and humanists Unitarians/Universalists and whatever else you can think of and it is just a means to widen the net. If you wish to include in your concept of atheism all those different concepts then it is no wonder we are bashing our heads on the wall.

Do you get it now, an atheist could be in all of those categories and more! If that sounds complicated, that's because it is! It's hard enough trying to define beliefs, without also insisting on Wictionary definitions of nonbeliefs.

The Roman Catholics who are at odds with their religious dogma aren't Roman Catholics, as much as they might like to think they are. You can't be honest with yourself if you wear the name and don't play the game.

Tell that to the majority of North American Catholics who practice birth control. Also of note, is that Catholic poll numbers on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage are equivalent to other groups, which proves that most Catholics are fine with the pomp and pagentry, but do not take orders well from guys who wear dresses.

I think the reason Catholics wear the label long after they reject the dogma is because there isn't really anywhere else to go.

They may come from generations of Roman Catholics, and see it as part of the family tradition. Nevertheless, I would contend that it is not the beliefs that bring people to church, it is the community and support network they find there; and that's why these non-denominational Baptist and Pentacostal churches that have sprung up over the last 20 years make such an appeal to visitors by the services they offer -- the dogma comes 2nd, after they have been won over by the sense of community and belonging that is offered to them.

[WIP]

i tend to agree with the thought that human things are explainable, most of all the brain. but further investigation may point out a more soul-like quality to the brain, instead of a 'brain like soul' as this argument has been turned toward... the soul is a collection of what?

That's why I am not going to be totally dogmatic about a physicalist interpretation of consciousness, that either takes a reductionist approach, or contends that consciousness is just an epiphenomena effect that is generated by complex brain function.

Principles of quantum mechanics may have to be factored in to explain things like memory storage; but no one can claim it can't be explained by present theory, since so little is understood yet about how memories are stored in the brain.

Likewise, property dualists, like David Chalmers, contend that, to explain Qualia, or subjective qualities of personal experience, there has to be some sort of mind properties in the particles that make up the universe - and by this interpretation, higher consciousness would be produced by a complex organization (the brain) of these mind properties.

But, even if they're right, it doesn't change the fact that we are what our brains produce on a continual basis. Quantum consciousness and property dualism are being misappropriated by quacks like Deepak Chopra, and traditional Christian theologians, who want to claim them as evidence for a separate, immaterial soul that can exist independently of the body; and that's where I have to draw the line! If they were right, brain activity wouldn't preceed decision-making in free will experiments, and emotions, memories or some other mental qualities they would like to attribute to a soul, would be separate from brain function. Since they are not, there is no reason to believe that a soul could exist after death of the physical body. Many people who like to be immortal, may not like that prospect - but if that's the reality, then that's what we should learn to accept, rather than retreating further into fantasy realms.

[DarkAngel_]

As all of us do you will have to find your way.

its never done is it? thats one great 'human' thing.

As an atheist, by definition, your 'everythingness' is obliterated.

not necessarily, it is a state by which the meaning has no ending, unlike a condition that limits the movement of such disagreements. atheism is not nihilism nor is nihilism existential... it is a fine area of theory, logic, instinct, and pliability that are at work to form the atheist mind into what it is, just as a mind that is intellectually religious in nature, or even zen-ish in nature are guided to there thoughts through a series of experiences and questions. in my life, being atheist i've asked more questions then i ever did christian and i love all that i am. i love how clear some things i learned to accept in the 'forbidden' area of knowledge became, which in your experiences might not have been forbidden at all, these differences define aspects of our interpretations just as the color of your eyes defines area's of your visage. also the simple explanation of an atheist, by even Latin definition is: 'one without god or gods.

i think simply put i don't understand your opinion.

I think I stated as much but true God must be defined - I don't think the term ever has been. Some believe the concept a personal thing perhaps that is as it should be but if we wish to discuss it we must have a common understanding.

agreed, but what will this thing be called? will we bow before it? or marvel in awe... both? do we want to be acolytes or hero's? slaves or self-masters? we cannot be all of the above... we must define ourselves first! then we can pick a name for this thing we have no word for rather then 'god.' though i would not care the name i don't want to see 4 billion people and there children bowing in subjugation.... makes me feel like a fool.

Edited May 22, 2009 by DarkAngel_

[Oleg Bach]

We can be all the above and we are - he who is a slave will be master and master will be slave. The lowest most righteous slave in the household is the master - because he has good judgement..and good intent..The formal master always submits in a quiet sort of way - because he knows eventually that the lowest of the low are always the highest of the high..there are no restrictions or boundries...God is simply goodness - and almighty power - We are within this entity - all of us - the universe is like a vibration it expands into eternity - then contracts into nothingness then expands again - much like a wave formation - each vibraition may take trillions of years - but with timelessness - it's rapid - basically - all we are is a thought wave - within a massive mind...us talking about God is like two brain cells debating if there is such a thing as a brain.

[Pliny]

Assuming that you don't believe in pink unicorns flying overhead, does your denial of the existence of pink unicorns define your belief system?

Pink unicorns flying overhead do exist. Does that tell you anything about my belief system?

And that definition of atheism does not give you any insight into an atheist's ethical or political philosophy.

It tells me a lot. It tells me they have finally accepted that they are nothing and right back where they started but rather than starting at nothing and creating from that they are finishing at nothing and ending everything for themselves.

It is as Oleg says a brutal universe. Especially brutal if you attempt to fight and resist it's brutality. Now here is the really brutal part of it. Atheists have been beaten down and torn apart in their fight against the brutality of the universe. They have resigned themselves to being a part of it and no longer consider themselves in it and now that they have become a part of this brutal universe they too are brutal. They tell it like it is - a person is nothing more than mechanical processes. There is no personality, no character, no self determined will, only a combination and recombination of purposeless electrochemical processes that end when the body expires. Telling someone they can't exist because there is no proof? How brutal is that? The proof lies only in the subjective awareness of self.

Pink flying unicorns tell me that I do exist. They are an idea and a mechanical process never came up with an idea. They are proof enough for me. The writers and artists of the world tell me that I exist. They create, invent and dream the future. As an Atheist, and the agent of science, what sort of future does the writer and artist create for me? The cold hard reality of a brutal universe that makes me a part of it, turning me to nothing more than mud. That too is an idea and one that is purely brutal.

No, my friend, I will not accept that future. I am being brutal with you. If you accept Atheism you are near the end of having ideas, someone else will be dreaming your future and it's demise. There is nothing wrong in someone else contributing to your future, I suppose, but when they tell you it's all over, that is an idea stemming from defeat and nihilism.

Do you get it now, an atheist could be in all of those categories and more! If that sounds complicated, that's because it is! It's hard enough trying to define beliefs, without also insisting on Wictionary definitions of nonbeliefs.

Sorry, but that does not compute. If you wish to understand what an atheist is you have to have a defintion and not a sweeping generality. I think the dictionary definition is quite sufficient.

Tell that to the majority of North American Catholics who practice birth control. Also of note, is that Catholic poll numbers on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage are equivalent to other groups, which proves that most Catholics are fine with the pomp and pagentry, but do not take orders well from guys who wear dresses.

I have told Catholics that but they get upset. Too brutal for them to perceive.

They may come from generations of Roman Catholics, and see it as part of the family tradition. Nevertheless, I would contend that it is not the beliefs that bring people to church, it is the community and support network they find there; and that's why these non-denominational Baptist and Pentacostal churches that have sprung up over the last 20 years make such an appeal to visitors by the services they offer -- the dogma comes 2nd, after they have been won over by the sense of community and belonging that is offered to them.

How do you get a sense of community and belonging without a common bond? You and I would never socialize so could never develop a sense of community and belonging. Would you become a Baptist for a sense of community and belonging and then subscribe to the dogma? You can't become a part of the community unless you wear the name, you will always remain an outsider and thus never actually feel a part of the community, if you don't believe the dogma. You are just pretending if you don't. And it cannot be denied there is a lot of pretending going on.

[Oleg Bach]

No such thing as a "belief" system...Belief is not a system - it's a simplicty with no moving parts - once something becomes systemic - it's called a religion - and faith - or belief is not a religion - it is a state of mind.

[Pliny]

agreed, but what will this thing be called? will we bow before it? or marvel in awe... both? do we want to be acolytes or hero's? slaves or self-masters? we cannot be all of the above... we must define ourselves first! then we can pick a name for this thing we have no word for rather then 'god.' though i would not care the name i don't want to see 4 billion people and there children bowing in subjugation.... makes me feel like a fool.

Define ourselves first. Brilliant.

Acolytes, heros, slaves, masters - we can be all of them but more fun if we don't try to be everything at once.

[Oleg Bach]

Only a total fool and idiot would actually belief that GOD expects us microbes to bow to him in subjugation - Dark Angel is not taking about GOD - he is talking about people pretending to be god..there is a difference - God has nothing to do with what Dark Angel is talking about - he's talking about human beings and the problems they create when THEY create religions ----I suggest to DA - that he put the blame on those that bring about havoc through religion - People! AND - he should realize that GOD set the bugs free do do what they wish ---- Free will to evolve into gods and be sons of god....you will never evolve into a god if you hate the thing that created you..never! Ahtheism should be re-defined. It should be called arrogant lazy stupidity.

[Pliny]

We can be all the above and we are - he who is a slave will be master and master will be slave. The lowest most righteous slave in the household is the master - because he has good judgement..and good intent..The formal master always submits in a quiet sort of way - because he knows eventually that the lowest of the low are always the highest of the high..there are no restrictions or boundries...God is simply goodness - and almighty power - We are within this entity - all of us - the universe is like a vibration it expands into eternity - then contracts into nothingness then expands again - much like a wave formation - each vibraition may take trillions of years - but with timelessness - it's rapid - basically - all we are is a thought wave - within a massive mind...us talking about God is like two brain cells debating if there is such a thing as a brain.

Interesting. A vibration. I think the premise has been forwarded that particles are vibrations. A vibration has a cycle. Like the alternating current of electricity there are points where there is no current or no energy. At the start, mid way through the cycle and at the end. The universe could be expanding and contracting in that cycle. Could one cycle occur in a nanosecond?

Since we are all that exists immortally, I don't think we could be a thought "wave". A wave changes and we are the only thing that doesn't change.

[Pliny]

Ahtheism should be re-defined. It should be called arrogant lazy stupidity.

Is that the brutal truth?