Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 25, 2024, 4:26 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
#1
Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
I'm brand new to this site/forum, and honestly, I only joined because I need to genuinely understand the logic and quantitative reasoning behind your "athiesm" (I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere previously but technically if you do not believe in God whatsoever, you are a non-deist. Christians, Muslims, Pagans, etc. are all by definition, athiests; the rejection of the existence of a God is the essence of the word)

Please do not post anything about the Bible or Quran or any other book created by shitting, groveling humans. Arguments against religious texts are primitive and ignorant; it's obvious that historically men have scripted inherently flawed doctrines, simply because humans are by default, flawed. This does not mean that God does not exist. Religion is embedded into human culture and has fostered comparitively distinctive arts, music, sciences, and above all again, cultures. The superiority complex that often comes with religious groups is what confuses many athiests. Forget about religious technicalities and learn to draw parallels on a macro-level. Culture.

From an exerpt on the Roerich Banner of Peace:

"Nicholas Roerich was involved throughout his career with the problems of cultural preservation. From an early age, when, as a teen-age amateur archeologist in the north of Russia, he unearthed rare and beautiful ancient artifacts, he realized that the best products of humanity's creative genius were almost always neglected, or even destroyed, by humanity itself.
In the earliest years of twentieth century, he traveled through the historic towns of Northern Russia, making paintings of their crumbling walls and deteriorating architecture. He then made appeals to the Russian government for efforts to maintain and restore these priceless links to the past.
Later it was the devastations of the first World War and the Russian revolution that spurred his own efforts. He came to realize that the cultural heritage of each nation is in essence a world treasure. And his idea of cultural heritage broadened to include more than just the physical remains of earlier cultures—the buildings and art, for example—but also the creative activities, the universities, the libraries, the hospitals, the concert halls and theaters. All must be protected from the ravages of war and neglect, for without them life would be nothing but a rude and ignorant time on earth.
It became clear to Roerich that an international effort was required. During the nineteen-twenties, he composed a treaty with the assistance of international legal experts. This treaty came to be known as The Roerich Pact.
The Roerich Pact and Banner of Peace movement grew rapidly during the early nineteen-thirties, with centers in a number of countries. There were three international conferences, in Bruges, Belgium, in Montevideo, Uruguay, and in Washington, D.C. The Pact itself declared the necessity for protection of the cultural product and activity of the world—both during war and peace—and prescribed the method by which all sites of cultural value would be declared neutral and protected, just as the Red Cross does with hospitals. Indeed, the Roerich Pact was often called The Red Cross of Culture.
Just as the Red Cross is embodied in a protective sign and banner, so does the Roerich Pact also designate a symbol—the one seen on this page—to be displayed on a banner, The Banner of Peace. This Banner, flown at all sites of cultural activity and historical value, would declare them neutral, independent of combatant forces.
The Banner of Peace symbol has ancient origins. Perhaps its earliest known example appears on Stone Age amulets: three dots, without the enclosing circle. Roerich came across numerous later examples in various parts of the world, and knew that it represented a deep and sophisticated understanding of the triune nature of existence. But for the purposes of the Banner and the Pact, Roerich described the circle as representing the totality of culture, with the three dots being Art, Science, and Religion, three of the most embracing of human cultural activities. He also described the circle as representing the eternity of time, encompassing the past, present, and future. The sacred origins of the symbol, as an illustration of the trinities fundamental to all religions, remain central to the meaning of the Pact and the Banner today.
The Roerich Pact was first agreed to by twenty-one nations of the Americas and signed as a treaty in the White House, in the presence of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on April 15, 1935, by all the members of the Pan-American Union. It was later signed by other countries also.
The year 2005 marks the seventieth anniversary of the signing of the Roerich Pact. The history of international treaties shows us how many of them were relevant and applicable to the times in which they were signed, but then lapsed into irrelevance. The Roerich Pact, however, has kept its heart and its life, and is linked to the needs of today’s chaotic world as much as ever. In so many countries we see a deterioration of cultural values and a disregard for the right of all cultural treasures to have their own continued existence, forever protected and unimpeded. We see destruction of life, property, and the inheritance of the creative genius of the nations. One can only hope that a greater awareness of the importance of humanity’s cultural heritage will increase, rather than deteriorate. There is no greater value to a nation than its culture..."

http://www.roerich.org/nr_pact_banner.html
Reply
#2
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
There is nothing of greater value than freedom.

To prioritise cultural artefacts over the lives and freedoms of people is to have your priorities completely ass backwards in my opinion.

Quote:Later it was the devastations of the first World War and the Russian revolution that spurred his own efforts. He came to realize that the cultural heritage of each nation is in essence a world treasure. And his idea of cultural heritage broadened to include more than just the physical remains of earlier cultures—the buildings and art, for example—but also the creative activities, the universities, the libraries, the hospitals, the concert halls and theaters. All must be protected from the ravages of war and neglect, for without them life would be nothing but a rude and ignorant time on earth.

My life is nothing but a rude and ignorant period of time if some theatres deteriorate? There are far more important things in this world. The rights of cultural treasures to have a perpetual existence? Who decides what is and isn't a cultural 'treasure'? Who pays for it? If you want it preserved, you pay for it, or convince others to.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, the often forgotten side of it is that you don't get to have the government use coercion and force to take money from people to support speech they don't believe in, and perhaps even find offensive. One person's speech, it doesn't matter when they were born, shouldn't be subsidised or prioritised because some politician or beurocratic waste of space is a fan of theirs. They forcibly take from others, who then are less able to express themselves, to produce their own speech.

Quote: I only joined because I need to genuinely understand the logic and quantitative reasoning behind your "atheism"

...

Please do not post anything about the Bible or Quran or any other book created by shitting, groveling humans. Arguments against religious texts are primitive and ignorant; it's obvious that historically men have scripted inherently flawed doctrines, simply because humans are by default, flawed. This does not mean that God does not exist . Religion is embedded into human culture and has fostered comparitively distinctive arts, music, sciences, and above all again, cultures. The superiority complex that often comes with religious groups is what confuses many athiests. Forget about religious technicalities and learn to draw parallels on a macro-level. Culture.

You say you came here looking for answers, yet you seem to have made assumptions about our beliefs and reasons for them, and then seek to instruct us. You won't find many answers this way.
Reply
#3
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
The reason for my atheism?

Lack of evidence for god/s.

Simple as that.

Badger
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#4
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
This "god" does not present any evidence for it's existence....

Sorry ...EPIC FAIL....what's your name again?? Welcome # 75
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#5
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
Quote:There is nothing of greater value than freedom.

Hmm. Suppose someone would kidnap, imprison, and rape your spouse/child/family for 5 years...unless you agreed to be unjustifiably incarcerated for 5 years. Does your freedom have greater value than your family's comfort?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Reply
#6
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
(July 6, 2012 at 9:06 am)CliveStaples Wrote:
Quote:There is nothing of greater value than freedom.

Hmm. Suppose someone would kidnap, imprison, and rape your spouse/child/family for 5 years...unless you agreed to be unjustifiably incarcerated for 5 years. Does your freedom have greater value than your family's comfort?

Thats not my families comfort vs my freedom.

Your hypothetical involves some monster abusing his power and depriving people of their freedom, but playing head games at the start of it. Both options (and of course in that situation I would chose to myself be imprisoned) result in a loss of freedom for all.
Reply
#7
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
(July 6, 2012 at 9:21 am)Stue Denim Wrote: Thats not my families comfort vs my freedom.

Your hypothetical involves some monster abusing his power and depriving people of their freedom, but playing head games at the start of it. Both options (and of course in that situation I would chose to myself be imprisoned) result in a loss of freedom for all.

So, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Reply
#8
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
(July 6, 2012 at 10:22 am)CliveStaples Wrote:
(July 6, 2012 at 9:21 am)Stue Denim Wrote: Thats not my families comfort vs my freedom.

Your hypothetical involves some monster abusing his power and depriving people of their freedom, but playing head games at the start of it. Both options (and of course in that situation I would chose to myself be imprisoned) result in a loss of freedom for all.

So, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

I would think that it isn't as simple as that. You speak about his family, there is a little thing called love that comes into the equation when talking about the safety and needs of your loved ones...
Cunt
Reply
#9
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
(July 6, 2012 at 10:25 am)frankiej Wrote: I would think that it isn't as simple as that. You speak about his family, there is a little thing called love that comes into the equation when talking about the safety and needs of your loved ones...

Love, that seems like an emotion. Aren't those for weak, pathetic anti-intellectuals who don't understand science?
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Reply
#10
RE: Nicholas Roerich (for the love of God)
Quote:I need to genuinely understand the logic and quantitative reasoning behind your "athiesm"


Others can speak for themselves but mine is based on the fact that you have no evidence that your god ( or any other god) exists.

When you find some, let me know. Otherwise, bugger off.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thoughts on Courtly love (aka platonic love) Macoleco 16 1221 September 11, 2022 at 2:04 pm
Last Post: Jehanne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)