There are so many points about being free of religion and attendant guilt that celebration is possible ever moment of every waking day, I do not know where to begin. Abolish fear by simply denying the existance of a judgemental condemning distant non-existant deity. If there was a deity of note, it would have no gender at all. But for an atheist, there is no point in speculating about this imaginary thing that I will not even label give a name.

Is it inconsistant to you that are reading this that as an atheist, I still take the principles and the ideas of astrology seriously? The reason that I have turned to the study of astrology is not to answer any questions about the meaning of life or need to understand free will as opposed to free choice, but grasping all of the deeper concepts that astrology holds begins to explain why people have a deep inate need to believe in something that is greater than themselves. I personally view people who bow and bend to an imagnary deity to be weaker and intellectually inferior. Belief in religion tends to warp the perceptions and causes levels of dysphoria, states of illusion that are close to mental disorders. Those caught in the frenzy of their own beliefs display all signs of disconnection from the real world, and can be labelled as experiencing a mental dsorder. There i no such thing as heaven or hell, no need for salvation. All those cookies, those carrots that they hold up as motivators are completely bogus, empty meaningless, without any substance whatsoever promises and sleight of hand.

Freedom of mind leads to freedom of spirit. There is much to reveal in order to free the minds and spirits of those who are enslaved by the school of liars especially in Roman Catholicism.
Christian denominations is that their leader, Jesus the Christ, was a devout Jew who followed Jewish ways of living observing the Laws of Moishe(Moses). If this man who in life was called Yeshua ben-Yosef, not Jesus the Christ, was a Jew, why does Roman Catholicism not follow the Jewish ways of doing thing?

There are answers to these questions but it is a good way of beginning to undermind the authority that Constantine perverted Christianity created.

It is not enough to question that bugaboo about a deity that is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, omni-loving, omni-present. Such fakeries that I was fed as a child by my well-intentioned parents and family. It is not enough to question that there is no such thing as hell or heaven, to show the weakness of this erroneous belief based on the fact that Jews themselves have never had dichotomy of heaven and hell nor the belief in salvation.

The base principles that the teacher Yeshua ben-Yosef (Jesus the Christ) taught about unconditional love are valid to this day. His principles of forgiving 7 times 70 times is a very good basis for living, But without judgement or condemnation.

Leaving you with these thoughts..

Ed Joseph

States of bliss and dysphoria are no stranger to me, however, I know the difference between these moments of disconnection and my real world.

Views: 10

Comment by Reggie on September 2, 2009 at 1:05am
Then there is no point to our discussion at this time so I will take this in another direction.


Then I suppose you will not be addressing my challenges in my previous post. Very well. I will let you squirm away from it and follow you wherever you would like to take it.

My problem with theists and deists and religionists in general is that their focus is so completely misplaced on all the unprovable even ridiculous claims that they make. Their claims.

My problem with astrologists in general is that their focus is so completely misplaced on all the unprovable even ridiculous claims that they make. Their claims.

Many secretive mystery cults of ancient times offered a form of salvation but were not monotheistic or religionists of any specific denomination such as exist today.

So? I don't find that compelling in the least. Might as well speak followers of Christ or Zeus.

In essence, religion of all kinds that claim that their deity is better than someone else's imaginary deity are the problem because in their zeal, they create division and dissension when what the world needs is unity and common ground.

Or insert astrology for religion. The world could be united under a common lie. That does not make the lie true. I am interested in the truth, not world unity.

But articles in science journals, in the science section of newspapers also have provided many points of information that I have alluded to. I do not feel the need to spoonfeed you information that is available through research on the internet.

No, no, no, no! You made specific claims that many modern scientists support your claims. I don't normally ask for sources unless the claims are especially outlandish. Yours were. You claimed that many scientists have evidence to back your claims up. You don't have to spoon feed me shit. Give me one fucking source. You made the claim, back it the fuck up. I keep up on science articles, publications, and advances and have never encountered anything of the like that you proclaim. I also keep up on charlatans and your message resembles that of a charlatan. Burden of proof is on you, sir. No need to spoon feed. Just give me one reputable source. Surely you have that to base your beliefs on. Otherwise, do not make those claims so propitiously.

I have no faith in astrology as you suggest. It is a tool. You can choose to use it or ignore it altogether. A vehicle is a tool of sorts that gets you from one place to another.

Bullshit. I know what a tool does. What does astrology do? I can get predictable results from a tool. Need to drive a nail? I know a hammer will do the job.
Comment by Reggie on September 2, 2009 at 11:49am
My apologies for the cursing. I was quite drunk when I composed that. The theme and message I still agree with in my sobriety.
Comment by Ed Joseph on September 3, 2009 at 12:41am
Reggie, hi;

Too busy right now to make any kind of response; I am not ignoing you.

Glad to read that you like to have a drink once in a while like me.

I do not have to have faith in a tool for it to work, you are right. I was using the analogy of a vehicle that does get you from one place to another. It too is a tool.

If you are familiar with the secrecy school of Pythagoras and his own teachingsa bout being saved although I have never been able to figure ot what his view of salvation was, then why do you need my perspective on it. My view on any group, mystery school, secret society, is that they are charlatans. I offer no expression of salvation.

I never said that modern science supports my claims. That is a conclusion that you have made based on oblique statements that I have made. I have said that scientific studies have given some clues that there may be some validity to many ideas that have been held for ages.

Are you not aware that Pythagoras was not only a mathematician but also a mystic? He had said many thousands of years ago that there was a low backgroud hum to the universe and it is the musical note D. I cannot tell you how many times I have read in science articles thisbeing confirmed.

Google key of D - Universe - Pythogoras; you will find something.

If you are a scholarly minded person, you will want to research for youself. At least that is the way that I operate. I do the research for myself because the information that others give me is not always accurate orcorrect.

Steven Hawking's theory of the Big Bang beginning of the universe is, as a theory, is proved to be real. How have scientists determined how the universe began, and how have scientists been able to determine how old the universe is? They say that they are able to do this within a margin of accuracy. I am not familiar with their methods, but I accept their conlusions without reserve.

The universe is old. Very old. Much older than what many religionists claim it to be.

I accept this. Do you?

Maybe that is the definition of trust and not faith.

If you are unable or unwilling to do the research yoursef, like a good scholar, then I have no choice but to suggest that you are intellectually lazy, perhaps. Or you simply are not open minded even as an atheist.

It is essential to be skeptical in every situation. I am skeptical that you are still open-minded to discover or explore the nature of existence and reality as lived by many.

I may not be able to respond on a regular basis. Just busy with life.

I still have no respect for the religionists, deists and theists alike.

There is no god but there is reality, individually experienced and collectively lived.

The language that scientists and mystics of many traditions use to describe the universe are similar. A book that drew these conclusions published in the 1970's called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", cannot recall the author's name, tried to establish this connection between scientists and mystics use of language to describe the universe as similar. It is a book that you have to read for yourself. I cannot give you a synopsis. It is up to you to decide if there is some validity to the information in this book.

I'll have to research these sources myself since this knowledge came to me decades ago. Although I felt that these sources were important and valid, I do not possess total recall.

I was hoping that in doing your own research, you would become more knowledgeable than me, and could then teach me something I did not yet come to realise.

Ed Jopseph
Comment by Reggie on September 3, 2009 at 8:17am
Glad to read that you like to have a drink once in a while like me.

I do love me booze.

I do not have to have faith in a tool for it to work, you are right. I was using the analogy of a vehicle that does get you from one place to another. It too is a tool.

Exactly my point. Where has astrology ever gotten anyone? Other than made money off the gullible? Science landed men on the moon. Where has astrology done?

If you are familiar with the secrecy school of Pythagoras and his own teachingsa bout being saved although I have never been able to figure ot what his view of salvation was, then why do you need my perspective on it. My view on any group, mystery school, secret society, is that they are charlatans. I offer no expression of salvation.

I don't recall asking for your perspective on Pythagoras' view on salvation. Indeed, I have no interest in it and don't see it as being relevant.

I never said that modern science supports my claims. That is a conclusion that you have made based on oblique statements that I have made. I have said that scientific studies have given some clues that there may be some validity to many ideas that have been held for ages.

Errrrrrrr. Okay, can you see the contradiction right there? You just said that you make no claims that science backs up this nonsense, but then turn around and say that science has offered clues. Clues = evidence. Evidence is what science uses to back up claims. And even earlier you say:

As for Pythagoras and physicists who measure geocosmic forces using real instruments designed to do that, you can research it all on the internet. That is where I found most of it. But articles in science journals, in the science section of newspapers also have provided many points of information that I have alluded to. I do not feel the need to spoonfeed you information that is available through research on the internet.

See? You said articles in science journals have provided this information. You don't feel the need to spoon feed me information from a reputable source, but you feel just fine feeding me buckets of unsubstantiated crap. Don't try to claim science backs up your claims all the while saying science does not back up your claims as a way to get out of providing anything of substance. It's dishonest.

Are you not aware that Pythagoras was not only a mathematician but also a mystic? He had said many thousands of years ago that there was a low backgroud hum to the universe and it is the musical note D. I cannot tell you how many times I have read in science articles thisbeing confirmed.

Again, a scientific claim! But no citations. :(

If you are a scholarly minded person, you will want to research for youself. At least that is the way that I operate. I do the research for myself because the information that others give me is not always accurate orcorrect

There is nothing to research. You'd have me spend an eternity to prove a negative. You claim to have read many science journals or articles yet can not provide one, single example. You then pretend that the burden of proof is on me when it is not. I am not making claims; you are! The burden of proof is on you and that means you have to provide the evidence, not me.

If you are unable or unwilling to do the research yoursef, like a good scholar, then I have no choice but to suggest that you are intellectually lazy, perhaps. Or you simply are not open minded even as an atheist.

This is not being intellectually lazy on my part. I know enough about science to know that the Big Bang theory is not Stephen Hawking's and I know enough that there is no reputable research that gives astrology any validity. This is why I will not attempt to find it; it is not there!

I am fairly open minded, but as the saying goes, don't be too open minded lest your brain falls out. Just as with any theistic claim that you find utterly and hopelessly ridiculous, I would require evidence of some sort other than woo-filled assertions. The basic fact that you can not support your claims with evidence and then make accusations of laziness on my part for not doing the research to support your claims is intellectually dishonest your part. Or maybe you simply are trolling.
Comment by Ed Joseph on September 5, 2009 at 3:47pm
Just realising that I am too busy to engage in this for any length of time. I did not want you to think that I am cowardly and just runs away from fights.

Also wanted to go back to earlier sources concerning people like Socrates and his atheism. Interesting that he too denied that the gods were real. His atheism has to be understood in the context of the times. There was no general idea of one supeme god. What Socrates was in fact saying was that one could live outside of the influences of the astral bodies. He was denying the influence of astrology. This outright denial that the gods represented by the major and minor astrals offended those in power of the day. They condemned to death by hemlock or exile. Socrates chose to drink the hemlock saying he had no fear of death rather than simply live another day by leaving Athens.

What baffles me about Socrates is that he believed in the soul. He believed that it was eternal, so yeah, he believed in reincarnation as so many of the Greeks and Romans believed for centuries like him. But he denied any gods.

The Brotherhood of Pythagoras was not just about developing and teaching principles of mathamatics; there was a metaphysical side to Pythagoras' teachings. This part is not necessarily taught as part of curriculum, but there was mention it when I took physics in high school several decades ago now. Simply google Brotherhood of Pythagoras and there will be an huge amount of information at your footsteps. You will be able to find reference to the metaphysical perceptions that Pythagoras entertained.

Read Stehen Hawking's "A History of Time" to get a better perspective on his theory. He certainly expounded a great deal on this very idea as the Big Bang being the beginning of time. I get that quite easily. The scientific method is always preferable than any other.

I said at the beginning that I was looking for like-minded people who were exploring their atheism with an open-mindedness. I am neither subtly trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. The question is irelevant. My own search for understanding and experiences of formal scholarly training have lead to make many interesting associations that seem to not sit well with people in general. In that sense, I am trolling but certainly not for romance or thrillsé

Did you read the part about the fact that ancient ephemirides, books that record the postions of the sun and moon and ALL NINE PLANETS, every moment of every day going backwards and forwards in time, are absolutely accurate and reliable. The ancient people knew of the three outer planets and used them for divination. Yet we are told that the three outer orbs or astral bodies were only discovered starting with Uranus in the 1700's, Neptune only 1800's and Pluto no longer a planet but dwarf planet in 1939.

Did I mention that in the orginal Hebrew, the names of the Sun, Moon and all eight planets one dwarf planet are used. If you visit a Jewish website that lists the names of the planets, it will indicate that Shabatai is the name of the planet Saturn in Hebrew, yet Adonai Shabathai is never rendered in translation as Lord of Saturn which it should be. Pluto's name in Hebrew is Shaddai. Yet in translation, the word Shaddai is never rendered in its true value as Pluto.

Uranus is Yere'ache, and Neptune is really hard to pronounce, Awour. Words as simple as Levana which is the Moon, are rendered as Leviathan rather than what it really mean. Armed with this kind of information, that the Jewish bible, Tanach, is full of reference to astrology and astrological principles, how much damage do you think you can do to believers by telling them that their god is astrology, unbeknownest to them?

If I claim to use astrology, because in my research there is scientific evidence that geocosmic and geophysical forces exist, that is my personal bent. I am not trying to convince you of anything. If I sound like some sort of fanatical weirdo to you, who cares? I have made no claims about astrology except to say that I use it to know myself and understand my motivations better. Period. How is that charlatanism?

Your admonition: "Don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out" means nothing to me. That cannot happen. Even figuratively, it fails to tickle any kind of funny bone for me.

If you google Geocosmic or Geophysical forces, you will find plenty of information, some scientific and some not so much.

If you are in the least piqued check out Burton Goldman and his practice of "quantum jumping". I was kind of interested in his theories until he started to claim that his practice lead him to proof for the existence of god. That's when he lost me. Of course, he was asking for lots of money to "learn" his techniques to use quantum jumping for financial success and happiness.

That is all for now, Reggie. Don't know when I will have time to respond.

I'm realising that keeping up a blog post takes takes up too much of my time.
Comment by Reggie on September 5, 2009 at 7:48pm
Socrates and his beliefs have little to no bearing on the discussion at hand. The amount of knowledge gained in just the past 300 years surpasses that of all the knowledge gained in all of our species’ history. We stand on the shoulders of giants and I appreciate the view granted to me. Why would I climb back down into the grass and mud in an attempt to gain the obstructed view of the world Socrates had?

Because someone entertains metaphysical beliefs is not a good reason that I should entertain them as well. I do not “Google” what you ask me to because you have yet to show me that it would be worth my effort. The burden of proof as well as the burden of compelling argument is on you still. You offer up nothing but the promise of something if only I do something. That is the charlatan’s game. But, I’ll indulge it and you slightly here in a moment. And how is it charlatanism, you ask? Perhaps I should use a synonym; quackery.

As far as Stephen Hawking goes, I have read his “A Brief History of Time” and own two copies of it. I have also read other physics based books but would not claim to be an expert by any means. However, I know enough that I can tell you what Hawking Radiation is and also can tell you that Hawking is not the originator of the” Big Bang” theory. That was George Lemaitre. And guess what? He was a priest! But he called it the “primeval atom”. Big Bang was a derogatory term affixed to the hypothesis by opponents of Lemaitre’s proposal. So, not only did a priest introduce this idea, but opponents of it named it!

"I said at the beginning that I was looking for like-minded people who were exploring their atheism with an open-mindedness. I am neither subtly trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. The question is irelevant. My own search for understanding and experiences of formal scholarly training have lead to make many interesting associations that seem to not sit well with people in general. In that sense, I am trolling but certainly not for romance or thrillsé."

Fair enough. You do seem genuine in your efforts and beliefs. Atheism is quite a catchall. I only describe myself as an atheist because I live in a very theistic world. But atheism is not a positive claim. It is a negative claim. Most of us describe ourselves as who we are rather than who we are not. In that case, I would classify myself as a skeptic or a rationalist. If I lived in more secular places, say England (where astrology thrives!), I would probably not use the term "atheist" nearly so often in describing myself.

I don’t begrudge anyone wanting to explore “their atheism”, although that doesn’t make much sense to me. How many ways can you not believe in a god or gods? But as a skeptic, I am interested in exploring reality and it is a really fine place. I wish theists would realize that, but they are not the only ones who have trouble seeing it. It is perhaps a difficult thing for many people to behold.

I notice that your scholarly pursuits rely quite a lot on Google. I don’t necessarily find anything wrong with that other than portraying it as scholarly. I can find a lot of things via search engines, but that does not make them valid and true. I tried to search for your “Awour”. I didn’t see anything that related to Pluto. Or planets. Or cosmology or any known science. Or even astrology or Pythagoras. I then attempted to find “Yere'ache” and again there were no results that would match what you are speaking of. Google suggested that I was looking for “Eye’ache”. I know you are busy and I am sure that you could empathize with me when I say that I have no interest in chasing around your evidence. You don’t have any need to convince me of anything. I rely on evidence, not people and their assertions.

If I claim to use astrology, because in my research there is scientific evidence that geocosmic and geophysical forces exist, that is my personal bent.

And this is where we return to the beginning. You claim evidence and vaguely allude to how it relates to astrology. What geocosmic forces do you mean? What geophysical forces are you talking about? Simple questions that should be easy to answer simply if it were not simply woo. Okay, okay, so I searched one last time, even though the burden of proof is on you. I searched for “geocosmic” and everything on the first page was astrology related. You predicted there would be some nonscientific results, but you also said there would be some scientific results as well! I scanned a few pages deep and it is all woo-filled results.

So I have done a little research, even though it is much like a prosecutor asking the defendant to prove the prosecutor’s case for him. It turned up nothing and I can’t say that I am thrilled to continue. I have no interest in chasing Burton Goldman through parallel universes, either.

My admonition regarding minds that are opened too far may fall out is more than an admonition; it is good advice. It may not mean anything to you or perhaps you thought it was merely a backhanded comment. In the skeptical community, it does carry some meaning. I certainly don’t consider it a joke. Perhaps you should "Google" scientific skepticism? It may be an interesting branching of your scholarly pursuits.
Comment by Leo on September 8, 2009 at 7:04am
Considering this wealth of information in the past few posts, I feel very comfortable with my "clouded" logic.
Comment by Ed Joseph on September 8, 2009 at 11:02pm
Scientific skepticism is usually called creationism or fundamentalism but I am aware that even scientists and those who are not scientists question the veracity or reliability of what science claims to make.

Big Bang theorists and scientists using whatever instruments that they have designed say that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years in existence in its expansive state.

Our Solar System is supposed to be only 4.8 billion years in age, young by comparison. In the short history of human life and achievement of less than 1 million years where are we now, questioning the questioners? I have no difficulty accepting these bits of data as fact because I understand fully
well the use and meaning of the scientific method so I have no reason to question them.

There is also a discrete branch of antropology, a science also, that has odd bits of artifacts that are anachronistic. They are anachronistic artifacts in that they are far advanced technological developments ahead of their time, such as the first computers using the binarysytem to solvemath problems; the equivalent of the electric battery dating back three to four thousand years old,

Are these out of time artifacts a reason to doubt human achievement? Rather to my mind they are providing a reason to reexamine the concept of time and the experience of time.
Comment by Ed Joseph on September 8, 2009 at 11:04pm
I wanted to add that to me being constantly in a state of skeptcism would make me want to stay in bed all day...

Maybe that is why I suffer from narcolepsia occassionally.
Comment by Reggie on September 8, 2009 at 11:15pm
Scientific skepticism is usually called creationism or fundamentalism

Huh? Is that a typo? They are nearly exact opposites.

Big Bang theorists and scientists using whatever instruments that they have designed say that the universe is at least 13.8 billion years in existence in its expansive state.

Why don't we ask an astronomer?

There is also a discrete branch of antropology, a science also, that has odd bits of artifacts that are anachronistic. They are anachronistic artifacts in that they are far advanced technological developments ahead of their time, such as the first computers using the binarysytem to solvemath problems; the equivalent of the electric battery dating back three to four thousand years old,

I don't know what you are talking about here. The only claims I have heard that resemble this have been adequately debunked. Maybe you have something novel? You'll forgive me if I don't accept your word on such an exceptional claim, I trust.

I wanted to add that to me being constantly in a state of skeptcism would make me want to stay in bed all day...

Scientific skepticism is not the same as solipsism. The empirical, real world is quite wonderful and much more exotic than the things the most imaginative humans can conjure. Reality must have a bad marketing department or else it would be a favorite of more people.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service