8th December 2007

“When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.”

Robert G. Ingersoll1833 – 1899

14 Responses to “8th December 2007”

  1. Hypatia Says:

    That’s me at thirteen – a sudden moment of realisation and clarity. All that weird, confusing nonsense the adults around me were spouting finally made sense – once I understood it was all b*******!

  2. Thunder Says:

    * once I understood it was all b*******! *

    Seems to be the only realization is you decided not to pursue understanding it. It can`t be that it is confusing to you and you understanding it. That is contradictory.

  3. Hypatia Says:

    “It can`t be that it is confusing to you and you understanding it.”

    If you read it carefully you will see that the confusion and understanding occurred at different times – the boundary is where the realisation occurred.

    Is English not your first language?

  4. Thunder Says:

    * Is English not your first language? *

    Unwarranted.

    * If you read it carefully you will see that the confusion and understanding occurred at different times – the boundary is where the realisation occurred. *

    I cannot be convinced that a thirteen year old was at the end of a long journey of spiritual discovery.

  5. Hypatia Says:

    “Unwarranted.”

    Don’t take it the wrong way – it was a honest question.

    “I cannot be convinced that a thirteen year old was at the end of a long journey of spiritual discovery.”

    That shows a regrettable rigidity in thinking. Everyone is different you know.

  6. Thunder Says:

    * Don’t take it the wrong way – it was a honest question. *

    I`m a bit over bearing at times. If you can, overlook it.

    * That shows a regrettable rigidity in thinking. *

    It is based on experience.

    * Everyone is different you know. *

    Not so much.

  7. Hypatia Says:

    “I`m a bit over bearing at times.”

    I’d work on it – humility is a virtue you know 🙂

    “It is based on experience.”

    Don’t make the mistake of assuming your experience is universal.

  8. Thunder Says:

    * I’d work on it – humility is a virtue you know *

    Of course.

    * Don’t make the mistake of assuming your experience is universal. *

    It is no mistake to hold that doubt can`t negate experience. That is the lynch pin of my argument to atheists.

  9. Roland Says:

    Hey, thunder most people don’t get to the end of their spiritual journey. If you ask me no one does. Both statements for the same reason, there is no spiritual journey. But lets assume that there is, I do not know what god you believe in, whether he is the one portrayed by christians, the one by muslims, hindu or whatever. My question to you is why don’t you believe in the other gods, why is your description of god right and theirs wrong? Remember that simply quoting a part of a book doesn’t mean much to us the atheist because we think that it is all a lie, superstition or a comfortable way of understanding the universe by wishful thinking. I bet you have gone through this thought as well, so what is it that makes you believe that yours is right and not other ones.
    Cheers,

  10. Thunder Says:

    * My question to you is why don’t you believe in the other gods, why is your description of god right and theirs wrong? *

    I don`t necessarily disbelieve the others. It is more along the lines of God making an appearance and being misunderstood as suggested by the 1st chapter of romans. I disbelieve the others because they promote a physical image for something that is suppose to be indescribable physically. That isn`t the only reason but it is a sufficient for this question.

  11. Roland Says:

    Hi Thunder, thanks for the response.
    Just to clarify my previous question, the reason I stated that you don’t believe in other gods is because of the description of them doesn’t really apply to your description. I don’t think you believe in Jupiter and Saturn, nor Annapurna and Ganesha, or Anubis…
    So, you don’t believe in others because they promote a physical image for something that is suppose to be indescribable physically. This doesn’t always seem to be the case, what about their exceptions? I think I mentioned some that are like this.
    I think that the way muslims perceive god is closer to yours, why do you think that they are mislead and you are not?
    Cheers,

  12. Thunder Says:

    * Hi Thunder, thanks for the response. *

    Not a problem.

    * This doesn’t always seem to be the case, what about their exceptions? I think I mentioned some that are like this. *

    I didn`t notice any exceptions. The image of being physical is not only of the god-image but the nominal residence of God. The same is true of the muslims. What good would 72 virgins do when the evolutional destination is not so similar to what we now know? I would think that buddism more fits the profile of the hereafter except for their absence of a president of that hereafter.

  13. Roland Says:

    *What good would 72 virgins do when the evolutional destination is not so similar to what we now know? *
    What???
    Anyways, I will play a usual card here Thunder, forgive me if this gets tiresome…

    Is God omnipotent?
    Is he omniscient?
    Is he omnibenevolent?
    Will he judge people at the end of time?

  14. Thunder Says:

    * What??? *

    God is spirit. 72 virgins are suggestive of fleshly (not spiritual) pursuits.

    * Is God omnipotent? Is he omniscient? Is he omnibenevolent? Will he judge people at the end of time? *

    Y,Y,Y,Y.

    I would also like to provide another insight in answer to your previous post. It stands a good chance of being lengthy. I`ll do my best not to be too windy. Islaam is predicated upon an assumption not only that the apostles were wrong but also that the jews were wrong. Their contentions that the jews were wrong (parts of the bible they don`t like) seem confusing when they tend to use those works to validate their contentions about the supposed mandates from God to muhammed. They would have been much more valid to just disqualify the apostles and Jesus in order to paint a more credible image of their Pseudo-faith. But it becomes evident when analyzing history that their invalidation of the jews was predicated upon a jealousy and their validation of Jesus (a very incomplete picture of him) while invalidating those charged with reporting on him. These moves of muhammed are very reminicent of the moves of constantine who fathered the catholic faith to solidify a hodge-podge of social sections of a larger empirial state.
    Furthermore, the invalidation of judaism as well as christianity in proposal to redispense forms of more primative law is a retrograde social development (a de-socio-evolution).