Obama = 666?

[Bug]

Ah. Cool.

We should have a beer sometime.

 

or a whiskey.

Single Malt Scotch.

[tvashtarkatena]

Or as one famous atheist (Neitze) put it, "the eternal recurrance of the same."

He declared "God is dead". "We must move beyond God."

So what would he have replaced God with? A God-like man.

Thereby proving his own postulate.

 

This is a common misconception of atheism; the need to replace God with something. In a popular Christian view, this 'something' is always of lesser quality and legitimacy.

 

Atheism is rejecting the need for God as middle man. It is the removal of God as a barrier or buffer between man and the universe, thus putting man where he belongs; simply one more phenomenal part of a much grander universe.

 

My response to Neitze's "We must move beyond God" would be simply that "We must remove God".

 

As for the popular misconception that atheists seek to replace God with a God-like man, I would say that the opposite is true. Believers seek to worship a man-like God; after all, God is the invention of a being that represents what humans are fast becoming: all powerful (or nearly so) entities who have the capability of manipulating the most fundamental forces of the universe (the atom, genetics, the climate, etc). The extra something that believers imparted to the Christian-style God was not omnipotence; something man is capable of, but omniscience, more specifically infinite wisdom; something man is forever doomed never to possess.

[ivan]

Ivan, you should become a Raelian.

 

hey, dru made me learn something today (and why the hell do you know this, btw?)

 

from the wikipedia-hole:

"Raëlism or Raëlian Church is a UFO religion founded by a purported contactee named Claude Vorilhon. On a foundation of accepting the universal ethic, the group is non-theistic, hedonistic, and supports human cloning. Raelians believe that God and souls do not exist; instead they believe that extraterrestrials known as Elohim created life on Earth, including humanity, and through many visits, sparked the founding of many major religions.

 

The Raëlian Church has a quasi-clerical structure with a height of seven levels. At the top is Claude Vorilhon, now known as Raël. Raël founded the Raëlian Movement in Paris, France in 1974 after a large conference. Women are a minority among Raëlians but remain relatively visible when advocating refinement and erotic sensualism as members of Rael's Girls and the Order of Angels. The Raëlian Church has attracted priests and bishops from other religions. About one-third of Raëlians pay dues to the Raëlian Church. Members are asked to follow the Raëlian ideals that speak against the use of recreational drugs, tobacco and limit alcohol to moderation, if at all. Sensuality is an important part of the Raëlian doctrine, though Raëlians recommend a non-contractual agreement between matured sexual partners. Joining the movement involves a transmission ceremony as well as an official apostasy from other religions in recognition of Elohim, as the creators of life from the heavens.

 

Raël founded Clonaid (originally Valiant Venture Ltd Corporation) in 1997, but then handed it over to a Raëlian bishop, Brigitte Boisselier, in 2000.[1] The company claimed in 2002 that an American woman underwent a standard cloning procedure that led to the birth of her new daughter Eve (b. December 26, 2002). Although few believe the claim, it nonetheless attracted national authorities, mainstream media, and young adults to look further into the Raëlians' cult status. The use of the swastika in its original logo halted Raëlian requests for territory in Israel, and later Lebanon, for establishing a Third Temple, despite the creation of a new logo without the swastika. The Raëlians have officially revived the logo with its original meaning as a symbol of peace."

 

Edited April 14, 2008 by ivan

[G-spotter]

So what would he have replaced God with? A God-like man.

Thereby proving his own postulate.

 

What government would an anarchist replace government with?

 

Rejection is not supplantation of one thing with another. It is discarding.

Look up "Ubermensch".

 

Zarathustra ties the Übermensch to the death of God, meaning specifically the Christian God. While this God was the ultimate expression of other-worldly values and the instincts that gave birth to those values, belief in that God nevertheless did give life meaning for a time. The time has come when serious human beings can no longer believe in God, however — God is dead, meaning that the idea of God can no longer provide values. With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real danger of nihilism.

 

Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. Because the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.

 

In order to avoid a relapse into Platonic Idealism or asceticism, the creation of these new values cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values. Instead, they must be motivated by a love of this world and of life. Whereas Nietzsche diagnosed the Judeo-Christian-democratic value system as a reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So what would he have replaced God with? A God-like man.

Thereby proving his own postulate.

 

What government would an anarchist replace government with?

 

Rejection is not supplantation of one thing with another. It is discarding.

Look up "Ubermensch".

 

Zarathustra ties the Übermensch to the death of God, meaning specifically the Christian God. While this God was the ultimate expression of other-worldly values and the instincts that gave birth to those values, belief in that God nevertheless did give life meaning for a time. The time has come when serious human beings can no longer believe in God, however — God is dead, meaning that the idea of God can no longer provide values. With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real danger of nihilism.

 

Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. Because the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.

 

In order to avoid a relapse into Platonic Idealism or asceticism, the creation of these new values cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values. Instead, they must be motivated by a love of this world and of life. Whereas Nietzsche diagnosed the Judeo-Christian-democratic value system as a reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative.

 

life-affirming and creative... like Wolf Larsen

 

[G-spotter]

I was thinking more like Immortal.

[G-spotter]

[billcoe]

WELL, DID ANYONE ELSE FIND THIS WHEN THEY LOOKED UP UBERMENSCH?

 

 

Scary shit dudes.

[Bug]

Isha Yoga is the best combination of spirituality and energy theory I have seen.

[Bug]

Combination or relation or bridging misunderstandings etc.

 

[Bug]

Or as one famous atheist (Neitze) put it, "the eternal recurrance of the same."

He declared "God is dead". "We must move beyond God."

So what would he have replaced God with? A God-like man.

Thereby proving his own postulate.

 

This is a common misconception of atheism; the need to replace God with something. In a popular Christian view, this 'something' is always of lesser quality and legitimacy.

 

Atheism is rejecting the need for God as middle man. It is the removal of God as a barrier or buffer between man and the universe, thus putting man where he belongs; simply one more phenomenal part of a much grander universe.

 

My response to Neitze's "We must move beyond God" would be simply that "We must remove God".

 

As for the popular misconception that atheists seek to replace God with a God-like man, I would say that the opposite is true. Believers seek to worship a man-like God; after all, God is the invention of a being that represents what humans are fast becoming: all powerful (or nearly so) entities who have the capability of manipulating the most fundamental forces of the universe (the atom, genetics, the climate, etc). The extra something that believers imparted to the Christian-style God was not omnipotence; something man is capable of, but omniscience, more specifically infinite wisdom; something man is forever doomed never to possess.

When atheists stop imposing their misguided iterpretations of why I consider myself a Christian, I will buy a round.

[Peter_Puget]

This guy seems pretty smart and believes in God.

[G-spotter]

the theory of intelligent design. (He objects, on grounds of probability alone.)

[mike1]

Did one of you take my Jesus fish?

[ivan]

the babel fish killed god

[mike1]

who is this God character anyways?

[G-spotter]

Godfrey is a relatively common name. At any given moment, one is dying.

[mike1]

Where would God go? They say you can't take it with you...

[tvashtarkatena]

Or as one famous atheist (Neitze) put it, "the eternal recurrance of the same."

He declared "God is dead". "We must move beyond God."

So what would he have replaced God with? A God-like man.

Thereby proving his own postulate.

 

This is a common misconception of atheism; the need to replace God with something. In a popular Christian view, this 'something' is always of lesser quality and legitimacy.

 

Atheism is rejecting the need for God as middle man. It is the removal of God as a barrier or buffer between man and the universe, thus putting man where he belongs; simply one more phenomenal part of a much grander universe.

 

My response to Neitze's "We must move beyond God" would be simply that "We must remove God".

 

As for the popular misconception that atheists seek to replace God with a God-like man, I would say that the opposite is true. Believers seek to worship a man-like God; after all, God is the invention of a being that represents what humans are fast becoming: all powerful (or nearly so) entities who have the capability of manipulating the most fundamental forces of the universe (the atom, genetics, the climate, etc). The extra something that believers imparted to the Christian-style God was not omnipotence; something man is capable of, but omniscience, more specifically infinite wisdom; something man is forever doomed never to possess.

When atheists stop imposing their misguided iterpretations of why I consider myself a Christian, I will buy a round.

 

Why would you think anyone here is talking about you? Do you believe in a Bug-centric universe?

[JayB]

A set of behaviors and instincts that govern reciprocal behaviors, the rearing of offspring are present in all social animals. These traits are as much a product of evolution as their morphology, or the ordering of base pairs within their genomes. There's no escaping this fact.

 

There's no disputing the fact religion and philosophy have influenced human morality, but it's absurd to claim that either are the source of our moral instincts.

[tvashtarkatena]

God evolved.

 

Woah, dude.

[pink]

fuck obama, if he gets elected, he'll be the first black president who doesn't act, talk or anyway represent the black population i grew up around. fuck all the canidates, where's zappa when you need him?

[G-spotter]

A set of behaviors and instincts that govern reciprocal behaviors, the rearing of offspring are present in all social animals. These traits are as much a product of evolution as their morphology, or the ordering of base pairs within their genomes. There's no escaping this fact.

 

There's no disputing the fact religion and philosophy have influenced human morality, but it's absurd to claim that either are the source of our moral instincts.

 

Many animals will, on occasion, eat their young.

[Bug]

Or as one famous atheist (Neitze) put it, "the eternal recurrance of the same."

He declared "God is dead". "We must move beyond God."

So what would he have replaced God with? A God-like man.

Thereby proving his own postulate.

 

This is a common misconception of atheism; the need to replace God with something. In a popular Christian view, this 'something' is always of lesser quality and legitimacy.

 

Atheism is rejecting the need for God as middle man. It is the removal of God as a barrier or buffer between man and the universe, thus putting man where he belongs; simply one more phenomenal part of a much grander universe.

 

My response to Neitze's "We must move beyond God" would be simply that "We must remove God".

 

As for the popular misconception that atheists seek to replace God with a God-like man, I would say that the opposite is true. Believers seek to worship a man-like God; after all, God is the invention of a being that represents what humans are fast becoming: all powerful (or nearly so) entities who have the capability of manipulating the most fundamental forces of the universe (the atom, genetics, the climate, etc). The extra something that believers imparted to the Christian-style God was not omnipotence; something man is capable of, but omniscience, more specifically infinite wisdom; something man is forever doomed never to possess.

When atheists stop imposing their misguided iterpretations of why I consider myself a Christian, I will buy a round.

 

Why would you think anyone here is talking about you? Do you believe in a Bug-centric universe?

Me specifically? No.

Christians generally? Yes.

So why is it OK to talk about Christians as a group but not atheists? Oh I know. It's not PC is it?

 

However, when it comes to bugs, we will outlast humans and probably drive the regeneration of a balanced global ecosystem such as the earth has not seen since the early Bronze age.

 

[ZONK]

Zappa's dead.