Why do the God-haters persist?

[Slyhunter]

This is just another great example of how the rich own/control both parties. Big deal he donated to Obama. Probably playing both sides of the fence. And since Citizens United, you have no idea how much this guy has donated and to whom.

And excuse me pal, but please don't tell us who is liberal and who is not. So now you guys are claiming that the CEO of GE one of the largest most powerful companies in the world is a liberal progressive? Is he starting a union at GE? How much more does he make than the average worker? Besides bribing, I mean donating to Obama, what else makes this guy a liberal progressive?

Immelt has a total five year compensation of $53.82 million, an income which ranked sixth among executives employed by US-based conglomerates.

Overall General Electric year end employment has dropped from 315,000 in 2002 to 307,000 in 2013

Another job creator?

As CEO of General Electric in 2007, Immelt earned a total compensation of $14,209,267

Stop trying to have CEO's run this county. Big difference in running a for profit company and a country. HUGE difference. First of all, a CEO wants to keep worker compensation low and his pay high. In a country, the government should want a balance. The government should protect the middle class and poor from the predatory corporatons who only care about profit.

I don't hate corporations for it. That's their job is to only care about profits. That's why we have a government. Everyone knows a game is no good without rules. Today the refs or government have been paid off to side with the corporations and not be fair to the workers of America. This has to change.

Romney was a CEO. Bain Capital sent thousands of jobs overseas. Bain made money tearing companies apart and bankrupting them. Not what America needs.

Immelt is a leftist totalitarian; just like Obama, just like you.

None of you have the slightest thing in common with liberals.

Liberals support Laissez Faire markets - do you?
Liberals support freedom of religion, even on sacred government ground - do you?
Liberals support freedom of speech, even when it is critical of Dear Leader - do you?

Of course not, you are a Khmer Rouge democrat, a leftist thug.

I got banned at Democratic Underground. I tried to claim I'm a Tom Payne liberal. If your not progressive they get rid of you.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Then stop already. I clearly chose hell over heaven with you.

YOU GOT IT!!! AND IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE,NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!!! hell.

Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.

???....where did you get the silly idea anyone would be preaching in heaven?.....

 

[GISMYS]

YOU GOT IT!!! AND IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE,NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!!! hell.

Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.

???....where did you get the silly idea anyone would be preaching in heaven?.....

HEAVEN HERE ON THE RE-NEWED EARTH THAT IS RE-NEWED TO PERFECTION WITH JESUS RULING FROM THE NEW JERUSALEM AS KING OF KINGS LORD OF LORDS THEN imho. we may use earth as our home base as we move out into the trillions of stars and new worlds=========and here we have a typical non-thinker saying, sounds boring!!!! ROFLMAO!!! SILLY TARDS!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Well I guess that depends on where your reality is. If you live in the reality where rich people gets some kind of sick pleasure out of making poor people suffer and don't want anyone to have money or economic prosperity, then yeah... I guess it does sound out of touch.

On the other hand, if you understand that most wealthy people are capitalists who want consumers to have money and spend money, and they would rather them do that here, where the generated economic commerce benefits our country instead of someone else's country, then my comment makes perfect sense.

You people have been so ******* brainwashed we're never going to get you back. We're going to end up having to shoot a bunch of you in the head before it's all said and done, because you're like rabid dogs. The propagandists have filled your mind with absolute shit, and you've bought every bit of it. Now you're invested, you've got years and years of this shit built up in your minds, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. It doesn't even matter if it makes no rational sense, it's what you're going to believe.

Has no one ever taught you how wrong it is to apply a perceived stereotype to a whole entire group of people you do not know, and judge them on that basis? That virtually every social problem we've had in this country is based on that kind of bigoted ignorance? Rich people are not all one way, just like poor people are not all one way and middle class people are not all one way. Every person is different. I've known poor people who would just as soon step over your body as you're having a heart attack, to be the next in line at Wal-mart. I've also know rich people who give selflessly of their time and money to help those in need, to mentor to others and try to help them achieve a better life. But you all have ignorantly convinced yourselves that every rich person is the equivalent of Homer Simpson's boss.

I read this and thought of you: the erroneous contention that all atheists believe "God does not exist". We have to add that the intelligent atheist will acknowledge that there may, in fact, be "gods" that are unlike those described and worshipped by people through the many organized religions of this world.

The only difference between me and you is I don't believe there is one and you do.

I'm not saying there is no god. I'm saying I don't believe there is one. Certainly I don't believe the christians, muslims & jews.

of course atheists say that God does not exist, that's what makes them atheists.....if you have trouble admitting this, don't call yourself an atheist.....

I, like you guys, have no clue if there is a god or not. That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheism. But I'm not going to say that and explain that every time. As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist. That's all you need to know.

 

[sealybobo]

YOU GOT IT!!! AND IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE,NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!!! hell.

Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.

???....where did you get the silly idea anyone would be preaching in heaven?.....

Can they **** or eat *****? Do they lust? Then it can't be heaven.

 

[sealybobo]

This is just another great example of how the rich own/control both parties. Big deal he donated to Obama. Probably playing both sides of the fence. And since Citizens United, you have no idea how much this guy has donated and to whom.

And excuse me pal, but please don't tell us who is liberal and who is not. So now you guys are claiming that the CEO of GE one of the largest most powerful companies in the world is a liberal progressive? Is he starting a union at GE? How much more does he make than the average worker? Besides bribing, I mean donating to Obama, what else makes this guy a liberal progressive?

Immelt has a total five year compensation of $53.82 million, an income which ranked sixth among executives employed by US-based conglomerates.

Overall General Electric year end employment has dropped from 315,000 in 2002 to 307,000 in 2013

Another job creator?

As CEO of General Electric in 2007, Immelt earned a total compensation of $14,209,267

Stop trying to have CEO's run this county. Big difference in running a for profit company and a country. HUGE difference. First of all, a CEO wants to keep worker compensation low and his pay high. In a country, the government should want a balance. The government should protect the middle class and poor from the predatory corporatons who only care about profit.

I don't hate corporations for it. That's their job is to only care about profits. That's why we have a government. Everyone knows a game is no good without rules. Today the refs or government have been paid off to side with the corporations and not be fair to the workers of America. This has to change.

Romney was a CEO. Bain Capital sent thousands of jobs overseas. Bain made money tearing companies apart and bankrupting them. Not what America needs.

Immelt is a leftist totalitarian; just like Obama, just like you.

None of you have the slightest thing in common with liberals.

Liberals support Laissez Faire markets - do you?
Liberals support freedom of religion, even on sacred government ground - do you?
Liberals support freedom of speech, even when it is critical of Dear Leader - do you?

Of course not, you are a Khmer Rouge democrat, a leftist thug.

I got banned at Democratic Underground. I tried to claim I'm a Tom Payne liberal. If your not progressive they get rid of you.

I am a progressive liberal democrat. They would love me over there.

 

[sealybobo]

No, a country is not a tribe. However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist. You said, "There were no Atheist Native Americans". Since you have defined Native American in this context as the people indigenous to the continental US, that is certainly a country-sized area. Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.

If you find Native American offensive, fine. I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK. But if you are going to use the term, I find it hard to care if you claim to find it offensive or not. I'm fine using indigenous people if you are.

Wait stop! I want to give him that the Indians were god fearing people. That way we can add those scalpers to the list of murderous people who also believe in god. And not just murder them, TORTURE them.

Yes Boss, the Indians were all theists. I agree!

Here we have an ignorant bigot responding to a post where it is made quite clear that "Indian" is an offensive term, yet he applies it twice with no regard. The ignorant one also mentions "scalping" which is a practice of removing the scalp of an enemy as a battle trophy. It originated in Eurasia prehistory. Scalping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.

None of the members of a particular tribe were Atheists. None of the members of ANY tribe were Atheists. The concept of Atheism was unknown, unheard of, and would have been considered "bad medicine" and strongly rebuked.

Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.

Considering your opinion knows nothing of the cultures, it is irrelevant. You continue to try and imagine things as a European, as if no other culture exists. These people were different. Their lives were defined by the spirit. It wasn't a matter of conscious choice, it was just how things were. There was no "choose to not believe" in their culture, it did not exist. Where you view their spirituality as "faith and belief" they saw it as empirical truth. This was true for all the tribes, while they varied in some manner over details, they all universally held this cultural connection spiritually.

If you find Native American offensive, fine. I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.

I didn't say I found it offensive. I said some find it offensive and explained why. It's an issue because it wasn't your continent to name. It presupposes America was already here and these people were the "Natives" of it, and that is a lie. They were here LONG before America was here. But typical of arrogant Europeans, in your mind, America has always been America! And I don't have a problem with using Native American in conversation, it has become a commonly accepted term, but it's still an offensive term to many people.

Native American Indians or Dot Head Indians?

 

[Boss]

I, like you guys, have no clue if there is a god or not. That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheism. But I'm not going to say that and explain that every time. As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist. That's all you need to know.

Sounds to me like you are the one with no clue if there is a God or not. One day you're telling us that man invented God to cope with fear, the next day you're admitting that there may be something greater but you don't know what it is, another day you're lamenting about Karma, back to God doesn't exist and is just a bunch of made up nonsense. I think you should add another title and become the first agnostic-atheist-spiritualist!

The truth is, you are not an atheist. You are not really an agnostic because you do believe there is something greater than self, you called it Karma the other day. This makes you a non-religious spiritualist like me. The difference in us is, I am not a bigot like you. I openly admit that I cannot prove the God of Abraham doesn't exist, and I don't have animosity toward those who spiritually connect differently than myself based on prejudice. We both believe in the same higher power, you call it Karma and I call it God.

We both SEEM to comprehend that science can't disprove God, but you are under the impression that it almost has or it's getting close, whereas I don't believe there is any evidence to support that faith. You like to use Science and The Enlightenment to support your faith in disbelief, and I like to quote Newton, the father of the enlightenment and one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, on his profound belief in God. You go back and forth from claiming only stupid and ignorant gullible fools believe in God, to admitting that some really smart people can believe in God. Like Sir Isaac Newton, for instance.

Thus far, you have submitted very little evidence to support your viewpoint. What it amounts to is grandiose conjecture from atheist bloggers and activist atheist websites. None of which raises your view above the level of faith, no different than the religious people you ridicule. What you have clearly exposed yourself as, is a religious bigot.

 

[Boss]

Native American Indians or Dot Head Indians?

More outright racist bigotry spewing out.

 

[Montrovant]

An offensive term to some of us. Us generally would include you. Is there a reason I should have assumed your use of the word us did not include you? At this point I'm assuming you meant that your ancestry is of the indigenous people, and some of them find it offensive, but not you.

Why would you assume I meant myself? 'Some of us' does not generally include me. Some of us on this forum don't believe in God... does that include me? Did I say it did? I don't take offense to "Native American" but then, I also don't take offense to "Redskin" and actually find it to be more respectful. I just brought this up as a sidebar, just in case you weren't aware, as obviously you weren't.

As to choosing not to believe, I think that is actually a poor way to put it, even if it is common. I don't think most people consciously choose what to believe in regards to religion or spirituality.

Oh really? I'm genuinely interested in your explanation of this.

Regardless, the idea that every single one of the millions of people would agree with whatever their particular tribe believed seems asinine to me. You think you can speak to the beliefs of every individual amongst the millions that lived in the area of the continental US before European settlement. I think that is both arrogant and impossible. Clearly this is going nowhere and it's a sidetrack I really don't care much about.

I know it seems asinine to you, that has been made very clear. It seems that way because you are of European descent and understand western culture, where everything revolves around self. In this culture, we objectively determine what we choose to believe. In the Native American culture there was no choice of individual regarding the Great Spirit, it was a truth as apparent as their existence. I'm not being arrogant, I am stating a fact regarding their culture that is vastly different from the culture you are familiar with, and you don't understand it. This was not a matter of "faith" for them, as it is with western cultures.

Because you didn't specify what you meant by 'some of us'. Notice how, in your examples, you added something at the end of the phrase to clarify; you used 'on this forum' so I know who you mean. If, instead, you were to say just, "Some of us don't believe in god" how would I have any idea you meant some people on this forum, and that you didn't include yourself in that number? I just didn't realize the specifics of who you were talking about until you clarified.

When I say I don't think we consciously choose what to believe, I am saying that I don't think people see something they disbelieve, decide to believe it, and then do. Instead, if someone does not believe in something, they need to either see new evidence, or have previously seen evidence presented in a new way, etc. and find it believable. They don't say to themselves, "I am going to believe this evidence". When viewing the evidence they don't make a conscious decision to believe it, they either do or don't. While our beliefs certainly can change many times throughout our lives, I think it is very rare for a person to consciously decide to make that change.

I'm not sure how being of European decent has anything to do with believing that, however homogenous a society, there always seems to be outcasts, rebels, people who don't fit in, people who don't agree, etc. Even when the threat of imprisonment, pain or death are involved, still we see people who, for whatever reason, cannot accept or agree with whatever the society they live in promotes or believes. Cultures and societies can be very different, but people are still people.
I am not claiming any certainty that there were atheist Native Americans at any particular time before European settlement. What I'm saying is that it is impossible for anyone to know. Could someone have been through some tragedy which made them decide that what they thought they knew was actually false? Could a tribe that did not promote or spend much time on their spiritual beliefs, perhaps because of a lifestyle that didn't leave much time for it, have members that didn't believe what was taught to them? Could a prisoner taken in fighting between tribes have found the clash of beliefs combined with bad treatment caused them to believe their spiritual beliefs false?
It is your apparent certainty that there simply could not have been a single atheist among the millions of Native Americans is what I'm arguing against. I don't see how it's possible you or anyone else could know for a fact, as you said, that there wasn't a single one.

 

[Boss]

An offensive term to some of us. Us generally would include you. Is there a reason I should have assumed your use of the word us did not include you? At this point I'm assuming you meant that your ancestry is of the indigenous people, and some of them find it offensive, but not you.

Why would you assume I meant myself? 'Some of us' does not generally include me. Some of us on this forum don't believe in God... does that include me? Did I say it did? I don't take offense to "Native American" but then, I also don't take offense to "Redskin" and actually find it to be more respectful. I just brought this up as a sidebar, just in case you weren't aware, as obviously you weren't.



Oh really? I'm genuinely interested in your explanation of this.

Regardless, the idea that every single one of the millions of people would agree with whatever their particular tribe believed seems asinine to me. You think you can speak to the beliefs of every individual amongst the millions that lived in the area of the continental US before European settlement. I think that is both arrogant and impossible. Clearly this is going nowhere and it's a sidetrack I really don't care much about.

I know it seems asinine to you, that has been made very clear. It seems that way because you are of European descent and understand western culture, where everything revolves around self. In this culture, we objectively determine what we choose to believe. In the Native American culture there was no choice of individual regarding the Great Spirit, it was a truth as apparent as their existence. I'm not being arrogant, I am stating a fact regarding their culture that is vastly different from the culture you are familiar with, and you don't understand it. This was not a matter of "faith" for them, as it is with western cultures.

Because you didn't specify what you meant by 'some of us'. Notice how, in your examples, you added something at the end of the phrase to clarify; you used 'on this forum' so I know who you mean. If, instead, you were to say just, "Some of us don't believe in god" how would I have any idea you meant some people on this forum, and that you didn't include yourself in that number? I just didn't realize the specifics of who you were talking about until you clarified.

Oh yeah, I forgot I was talking to a complete and total mental retard who can't comprehend basic English in context of the conversation and needs every least little detail and nuance explained so he understands. You are the reason that when I buy a toaster it comes with a small book of warnings about the things you can't do with a toaster that most non-morons comprehend, but if it's not spelled out in the most intricate detail, morons like you will do it and then sue the company for neglecting to warn you that you couldn't. It's a wonder people like you can even have a rational conversation at all... I bet this one paragraph contains a few dozen words or combinations of words that you can easily take out of context or misconstrue in some retarded way, to mean something entirely different.

For future reference, IF what I mean is that I am offended, I will state it as "I AM OFFENDED BY ___________!" I will not vaguely imply that some people are offended and expect you to consider that I am among those "some people" being referred to. In fact, if I ever say that "some people" do, say or are anything, it will never mean that I am automatically included unless I include myself specifically. If you need me to write a complete essay on this and other intricacies of language communication, you'll have to go **** yourself, I don't have time your nonsense.

When I say I don't think we consciously choose what to believe, I am saying that I don't think people see something they disbelieve, decide to believe it, and then do. Instead, if someone does not believe in something, they need to either see new evidence, or have previously seen evidence presented in a new way, etc. and find it believable. They don't say to themselves, "I am going to believe this evidence". When viewing the evidence they don't make a conscious decision to believe it, they either do or don't. While our beliefs certainly can change many times throughout our lives, I think it is very rare for a person to consciously decide to make that change.

Well how the hell else would they decide? SUBconsciously? UNconsciously? Do you even read your blather, or is this stupidity just free-flowing from your vapid little mind like thought diarrhea? I've never known anyone who went to such bizarre extremes to try and make someone else WRONG so they could be RIGHT. You've got a real problem, buddy!

I'm not sure how being of European decent has anything to do with believing that, however homogenous a society, there always seems to be outcasts, rebels, people who don't fit in, people who don't agree, etc. Even when the threat of imprisonment, pain or death are involved, still we see people who, for whatever reason, cannot accept or agree with whatever the society they live in promotes or believes. Cultures and societies can be very different, but people are still people.

You are only familiar with European-style western culture. You do not know of any other culture or how they process thought. Hell, you struggle with processing thought from your OWN culture! Again.... the people you see who "for whatever reason, cannot accept or agree with whatever the society they live in promotes or believes" are raised and conditioned to western culture, where emphasis is on SELF. You're looking at this as if they had a choice to accept and agree or not, and they didn't have a choice, it was a universal understanding of truth and reality to them. Could ANY rational person you know of, that is not mentally defective in some way, "choose to believe" they are a rock and not a living being? I think even your retarded ass can understand, that is not possible unless that person is completely fucked in the head. Well okay... the same thing applies to Native Americans not believing in the Great Spirit... they would have to basically believe they were a rock and not a living thing. ALL LIFE was through the Great Spirit. There was no alternative concept to believe in. You are trying to rationalize one because you are familiar with western culture that revolves around SELF and not the Great Spirit. It is just a vast difference in the two cultures, and you are simply not comprehending this.

You're again wanting to find these little niche caveats where it's possible that there were some rogue rebels or outcasts and whatnot, and there were indeed those types among the tribes, but even they would not have questioned the Great Spirit's existence. They might have disagreed with the tribal leaders, they may have disobeyed something the Great Spirit had conveyed to the tribe, but they were not Atheists because that concept couldn't exist in their culture. It would have been the equivalent to someone declaring themselves a non-living inorganic material. Now, somehow, your brain can comprehend how irrational such a declaration might be in our culture, but you can't comprehend how irrational Atheism would have been in their culture.

I am not claiming any certainty that there were atheist Native Americans at any particular time before European settlement. What I'm saying is that it is impossible for anyone to know. Could someone have been through some tragedy which made them decide that what they thought they knew was actually false? Could a tribe that did not promote or spend much time on their spiritual beliefs, perhaps because of a lifestyle that didn't leave much time for it, have members that didn't believe what was taught to them? Could a prisoner taken in fighting between tribes have found the clash of beliefs combined with bad treatment caused them to believe their spiritual beliefs false?
It is your apparent certainty that there simply could not have been a single atheist among the millions of Native Americans is what I'm arguing against. I don't see how it's possible you or anyone else could know for a fact, as you said, that there wasn't a single one.

What you're continuing to do is to draw up irrelevant hypotheticals to support your notion of which you have provided NO evidence for. You keep yammering about their "spiritual beliefs" as if you don't understand they weren't from westernized culture where we have "spiritual beliefs" but rather, a culture that was centered on the Great Spirit in every aspect of who and what they were, and it was NOT simply a "spiritual belief" to them, but an absolute truism that was not questioned or doubted.

I DO KNOW for a fact, I've studied their culture. That is the most fundamental aspect of it. Everything IN their culture was centered on their spirit and connection with the Great Spirit. There were no exceptions to this, it wasn't a matter of individual choice, that did not exist. I don't care if you don't believe it, I don't care if you don't find it possible, I don't care how unlikely it seems to you. Their culture was unlike anything you are familiar with or can relate to. I'm trying to get that point across to you, but you're too ******* dead-set on finding some nuance or trivial and ridiculous detail to snag me on and prove me WRONG so you can be RIGHT! ...And you just keep on failing!

 

[Tuatara]

Iwould like to point out the idiocy of this poster. I claimed Jeff Immelt was a republican. This poster argued because the man was hired by Obama that he must not be Republican and used this wikipedia link. I then told him to look at his own link which I will post here. Can anyone point out to him what it says about his political leanings. Anyone. Top right corner.

Retard, Immelt is an Obamunist stooge. Part of Obama's economic dream team, in charge of offshoring jobs to China...

and a Republican... tool.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh yeah, I forgot I was talking to a complete and total mental retard who can't comprehend basic English in context of the conversation and needs every least little detail and nuance explained so he understands. You are the reason that when I buy a toaster it comes with a small book of warnings about the things you can't do with a toaster that most non-morons comprehend, but if it's not spelled out in the most intricate detail, morons like you will do it and then sue the company for neglecting to warn you that you couldn't. It's a wonder people like you can even have a rational conversation at all... I bet this one paragraph contains a few dozen words or combinations of words that you can easily take out of context or misconstrue in some retarded way, to mean something entirely different.

For future reference, IF what I mean is that I am offended, I will state it as "I AM OFFENDED BY ___________!" I will not vaguely imply that some people are offended and expect you to consider that I am among those "some people" being referred to. In fact, if I ever say that "some people" do, say or are anything, it will never mean that I am automatically included unless I include myself specifically. If you need me to write a complete essay on this and other intricacies of language communication, you'll have to go **** yourself, I don't have time your nonsense.

But you didn't say 'some people', you said, 'some of us'. Do you know what the word 'us' means? It is a group of which the speaker is a part. I don't need essays or any other ridiculous crap you want to come up with. If you don't understand what the word 'us' means, and how you are included in it when you use it, it is you that has problems with English.

Well how the hell else would they decide? SUBconsciously? UNconsciously? Do you even read your blather, or is this stupidity just free-flowing from your vapid little mind like thought diarrhea? I've never known anyone who went to such bizarre extremes to try and make someone else WRONG so they could be RIGHT. You've got a real problem, buddy!

Yes, you decide unconsciously. When you observe evidence of something, before you believe that evidence leads to a particular conclusion, do you consciously tell yourself you are going to believe in that conclusion?[/quote]

You are only familiar with European-style western culture. You do not know of any other culture or how they process thought. Hell, you struggle with processing thought from your OWN culture! Again.... the people you see who "for whatever reason, cannot accept or agree with whatever the society they live in promotes or believes" are raised and conditioned to western culture, where emphasis is on SELF. You're looking at this as if they had a choice to accept and agree or not, and they didn't have a choice, it was a universal understanding of truth and reality to them. Could ANY rational person you know of, that is not mentally defective in some way, "choose to believe" they are a rock and not a living being? I think even your retarded ass can understand, that is not possible unless that person is completely fucked in the head. Well okay... the same thing applies to Native Americans not believing in the Great Spirit... they would have to basically believe they were a rock and not a living thing. ALL LIFE was through the Great Spirit. There was no alternative concept to believe in. You are trying to rationalize one because you are familiar with western culture that revolves around SELF and not the Great Spirit. It is just a vast difference in the two cultures, and you are simply not comprehending this.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with you. I don't believe that only modern Western cultures have had intellectual rebels, people who believe seemingly wild or crazy things, etc. And hell, maybe there were some mentally defective Native Americans and it led them to be atheists. There's no reason to think Native Americans were immune to mental deficiencies.

You're again wanting to find these little niche caveats where it's possible that there were some rogue rebels or outcasts and whatnot, and there were indeed those types among the tribes, but even they would not have questioned the Great Spirit's existence. They might have disagreed with the tribal leaders, they may have disobeyed something the Great Spirit had conveyed to the tribe, but they were not Atheists because that concept couldn't exist in their culture. It would have been the equivalent to someone declaring themselves a non-living inorganic material. Now, somehow, your brain can comprehend how irrational such a declaration might be in our culture, but you can't comprehend how irrational Atheism would have been in their culture.

I never said that any potential atheists among Native Americans would be considered rational or even sane. What I've said, what you might have understood if you could grasp the English you accuse me of not understanding, is that I don't believe there is any way for you or anyone else to know for sure that no single Native American, of the millions who lived in pre-European settlement times, was ever an atheist.

What you're continuing to do is to draw up irrelevant hypotheticals to support your notion of which you have provided NO evidence for. You keep yammering about their "spiritual beliefs" as if you don't understand they weren't from westernized culture where we have "spiritual beliefs" but rather, a culture that was centered on the Great Spirit in every aspect of who and what they were, and it was NOT simply a "spiritual belief" to them, but an absolute truism that was not questioned or doubted.

I DO KNOW for a fact, I've studied their culture. That is the most fundamental aspect of it. Everything IN their culture was centered on their spirit and connection with the Great Spirit. There were no exceptions to this, it wasn't a matter of individual choice, that did not exist. I don't care if you don't believe it, I don't care if you don't find it possible, I don't care how unlikely it seems to you. Their culture was unlike anything you are familiar with or can relate to. I'm trying to get that point across to you, but you're too ******* dead-set on finding some nuance or trivial and ridiculous detail to snag me on and prove me WRONG so you can be RIGHT! ...And you just keep on failing!

I only feel the need to prove you wrong because you so constantly are.

You've studied Native American culture? That's great. You could be the foremost expert in the world on every tribe that existed at the time and I'd STILL say it is a literal impossibility for you to know the beliefs of every Native American who lived prior to European settlement. There simply is not enough data to make that claim without any possible doubt. Studying cultures can give general knowledge but cannot allow you to know each individual within that culture (unless it's extremely small scale).

So maybe it would have to be the equivalent, for the time, of a conspiracy theorist. Maybe it would have to be someone just crazy. There are always people like that in any society of sufficient size, though. And if just one lunatic didn't believe what everyone around them took to be obvious truth, then there could have been an atheist Native American. It doesn't have to be at all likely, just possible.

Some of us think you are far too certain of your own beliefs.

 

[PostmodernProph]

As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist. That's all you need to know.

because you say they don't exist......precisely what I said, end of argument.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.

???....where did you get the silly idea anyone would be preaching in heaven?.....

Can they **** or eat *****? Do they lust? Then it can't be heaven.

silly bobo.....are ALL your beliefs based on ignorance?......

 

[Boss]

Moonbat, I've already entertained your "maybe there was a nutter" theory. If there were any such cases, they are not documented by any of the tribes I am aware of. Had there been some anomaly instance of such a person, they would have likely been expediently killed and their body burned, and probably their mother and immediate family just to be safe. Then they would have taken the ashes to someplace far away and put them in a place where only death would come in contact with them. Following all of this, the others of the tribe would probably perform some ceremonial rituals for the next months, to ensure the Great Spirit had not become angry. Now, you ask me how I could possibly know all of this? Well because it's documented this is the kind of thing they did with individuals who dared to challenge the authority of the tribal leader. To put it simply, these people would not have fucked around with your atheistic pontifications for one second. Such things were not allowed, IF they ever existed at all. As of yet, you have not given any examples of Atheist Native Americans to prove me wrong. You've presented YOUR OPINION, and that's fine... you're wrong.

And BY the way... When I said "some of us" in my previous statement, I meant some of us who are descendents of the indigenous peoples of the continent. Most non-retarded people could've figured that out without me having to spell it out. Now, I honestly do not have the time or patience to break down every little thing I say, explain what every little word means in context, clarify all the possible mistranslations your empty little noggin can conjure up, and make sure there is no possible way you can misunderstand what I say. I am accustomed to communicating with non-retards who can discern context within the scope of a conversation.

 

[sealybobo]

As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist. That's all you need to know.

because you say they don't exist......precisely what I said, end of argument.....

Oh they may have been real people but they didn't do any miracles.

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan

Elite athletes make first place, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.

 

[sealybobo]

Moonbat, I've already entertained your "maybe there was a nutter" theory. If there were any such cases, they are not documented by any of the tribes I am aware of. Had there been some anomaly instance of such a person, they would have likely been expediently killed and their body burned, and probably their mother and immediate family just to be safe. Then they would have taken the ashes to someplace far away and put them in a place where only death would come in contact with them. Following all of this, the others of the tribe would probably perform some ceremonial rituals for the next months, to ensure the Great Spirit had not become angry. Now, you ask me how I could possibly know all of this? Well because it's documented this is the kind of thing they did with individuals who dared to challenge the authority of the tribal leader. To put it simply, these people would not have fucked around with your atheistic pontifications for one second. Such things were not allowed, IF they ever existed at all. As of yet, you have not given any examples of Atheist Native Americans to prove me wrong. You've presented YOUR OPINION, and that's fine... you're wrong.

And BY the way... When I said "some of us" in my previous statement, I meant some of us who are descendents of the indigenous peoples of the continent. Most non-retarded people could've figured that out without me having to spell it out. Now, I honestly do not have the time or patience to break down every little thing I say, explain what every little word means in context, clarify all the possible mistranslations your empty little noggin can conjure up, and make sure there is no possible way you can misunderstand what I say. I am accustomed to communicating with non-retards who can discern context within the scope of a conversation.

Funny if you look at my 1970's encyclopedia it says 98% of the people of Greece were Greek Orthodox. First, do you really believe all 98% were really "christians" and believed in god? Then you are gullible. I know many Greek Americans who call themselves Greek Orthodox because they were born into it, but like me and you they don't really believe all the stories.

As for the indians. If penalty was death, how can you know if anyone really believes or are they all just going along not to be tortured and killed by savage indians? I'm sure some didn't really believe. I have to believe as savage and barbaric as they were they had to have some phylosophers in the bunch. I'm sure even some indians themselves feared savage indians from other tribes, or is that just stuff I saw in movies? Looked like they would concur other tribes, kill the men and take their women. They'd raise their babies though. They were at least kind to children.

I actually like indians and their history and I am sorry what we did to them. Just think of how much more beautiful the middle of the country would be if we left it alone and didn't develop it into cities and smog and concrete and steal. If you wanted to go live with them you had to live by their rules, which I would gladly do. Ever see Jeremiah Johnson? I would love to sell everything and go do that, until the savages came and killed his wife and son and then tried to kill him. And not that I blame them. That's what the indians should have done to the people on the Mayflower and every other ship that came after. Go take something else over. Go to Africa they should have told us. This land is not for sale. They should have put up borders.

 

[sealybobo]

I, like you guys, have no clue if there is a god or not. That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheism. But I'm not going to say that and explain that every time. As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist. That's all you need to know.

Sounds to me like you are the one with no clue if there is a God or not. One day you're telling us that man invented God to cope with fear, the next day you're admitting that there may be something greater but you don't know what it is, another day you're lamenting about Karma, back to God doesn't exist and is just a bunch of made up nonsense. I think you should add another title and become the first agnostic-atheist-spiritualist!

The truth is, you are not an atheist. You are not really an agnostic because you do believe there is something greater than self, you called it Karma the other day. This makes you a non-religious spiritualist like me. The difference in us is, I am not a bigot like you. I openly admit that I cannot prove the God of Abraham doesn't exist, and I don't have animosity toward those who spiritually connect differently than myself based on prejudice. We both believe in the same higher power, you call it Karma and I call it God.

We both SEEM to comprehend that science can't disprove God, but you are under the impression that it almost has or it's getting close, whereas I don't believe there is any evidence to support that faith. You like to use Science and The Enlightenment to support your faith in disbelief, and I like to quote Newton, the father of the enlightenment and one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, on his profound belief in God. You go back and forth from claiming only stupid and ignorant gullible fools believe in God, to admitting that some really smart people can believe in God. Like Sir Isaac Newton, for instance.

Thus far, you have submitted very little evidence to support your viewpoint. What it amounts to is grandiose conjecture from atheist bloggers and activist atheist websites. None of which raises your view above the level of faith, no different than the religious people you ridicule. What you have clearly exposed yourself as, is a religious bigot.

Well were going to have to just agree to disagree.

You haven't proved there is a god. Pretty big thing not to be able to prove don't you think? How many days have you, Gismys & Emiy tried and so far you've given us nothing. This is why the younger generation is leaving the churches. Even if they agree with you, they really have no "proof". But at least, like you, they realize the jesus, mormon, muslim & jew stories are not real.

There is no church that teaches what you preach, correct? You've pontificated, phylosophized, a lot of interesting points. I'll give you the karma thing does make me think. But it doesn't lead me to a god either. And since you agree that believing in this god if he does exist doesn't matter, I guess it's ok that I don't believe in god, right? And I too am not perfect. I too was raised with the fear of god, and taught about karma. But that might all be random. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. I asked my christian brother about karma and he said it's real if you believe it's real. So I will give you that I do think it matters if you are a good person or not.

And I do understand there is the non physical. Have you ever taken a tuning rod and hit it and the guy across the room's rod starts making noise? Telepathic stuff. There is so much you and I don't know. I watch these shows. They aren't anti religion but they are scientific shows and just the facts and information they are giving always seems to innocently go against religion. Thats when I understand why religion hates science. But they back track and they are slick like you. No matter how many things they have proved are not god when people thought they were, yet you guys continue to move the goal post. God keeps getting smaller and smaller. God of the gaps is what its called.

 

[sealybobo]

so i guess i am the first native to answer this but i am sure i won't be the last. (we are still alive btw)

we do not worship as you know it. we give thanks. we believe the world and everything in it was created. after that fact there is NOTHING in common with christianity or any other religion. each nation has its own beliefs traditionally.

no we don't have gods. we don't even have one god. we acknowledge the spirit world. and past what i have said, there is nothing else i wish to share about my beliefs except that they are meant for me and the other people of my nation. they are not even for other natives. they have their own traditions.

we do not believe one belief is better than another..just better for us as a people.

you may have to rethink your whole idea that if it is good it must have something to do with your god. my experience is christianity brought nothing to us but death and suffering even into the 21st century. we live our beliefs. it is not lip service. you can see WHAT we believe by what we DO.

Best answer Boss!!!

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091125160239AAMqIvN

Clap