Atheism Rules !
Fish is definitely appropriate.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/fish.html
Sandra - You lost me too I'm afraid.
One minute you are an atheist. Next you are speaking in tongues.
And I have just seen your last post as I write this so I thought it might be an idea to do this:
Objective:
Of or having to do with a material object.
Something that actually exists.
Having actual existence or reality.
Subjective:
Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world
Existing only in the mind; illusory.
Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
Relating to the real nature of something; essential.
Thus, scripture is subjective, and open to interpretation.
God is not a concept. Sorry if I insulted you Gamergirl. I really mean that.
My pleasure, but don't leave just yet. Sandra is not actually angry at you - even though it may seem that way.
Only one more page to go
Sandra - I am putting your last few responses down to you having a bad day rather than responding in kind. You may have noticed I tend to respond in the tone I am spoken to
In the meantime, as we near the end of my participation in this thread. Before the rules:
And lest we be a little too one sided:
We are almost there. Everybody is doing a great job keeping this thread alive
- sandra rinckposted 16 years ago
0 - sandra rinckposted 16 years ago0
Of course, now I have to work out what the rules are.
Fortunately - there is only one.While we are waiting for the rules to materialize, we can listen to a good music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgpRzFUd4ioThanks Assassin
I think I read something along those lines in Quo Vadis, but I thought there might me some deeper meaning to it...gamergirl - good for you
Silent assasin:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/fish.html
Misha - that is a good music.
Peter - good discussion.
Sandra - On this, I think you are wrong. Books are for everyone. Didn't you read Fahrenheit 451? I have learned much from the bible - including the fact that there is no god.
Before the rules, it would seem that there is a lot of confusion and deliberate misinformation as to what constitutes atheism. So I will leave this quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
Atheism:
in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
The dialectic of the argument between forms of belief and unbelief raises questions concerning the most perspicuous delineation, or characterization, of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It is necessary not only to probe the warrant for atheism but also carefully to consider what is the most adequate definition of atheism. This article will start with what have been some widely accepted, but still in various ways mistaken or misleading, definitions of atheism and move to more adequate formulations that better capture the full range of atheist thought and more clearly separate unbelief from belief and atheism from agnosticism. In the course of this delineation the section also will consider key arguments for and against atheism.
Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs
A central, common core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the affirmation of the reality of one, and only one, God. Adherents of these faiths believe that there is a God who created the universe out of nothing and who has absolute sovereignty over all his creation; this includes, of course, human beings—who are not only utterly dependent on this creative power but also sinful and who, or so the faithful must believe, can only make adequate sense of their lives by accepting, without question, God's ordinances for them. The varieties of atheism are numerous, but all atheists reject such a set of beliefs.
Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.
It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to “rejection of religious belief” and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate.
Atheism and theism
To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways. First, not all theologians who regard themselves as defenders of the Christian faith or of Judaism or Islam regard themselves as defenders of theism. The influential 20th-century Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, regards the God of theism as an idol and refuses to construe God as a being, even a supreme being, among beings or as an infinite being above finite beings. God, for him, is “being-itself,” the ground of being and meaning. The particulars of Tillich's view are in certain ways idiosyncratic, as well as being obscure and problematic, but they have been influential; and his rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God, is not eccentric in contemporary theology, though it may very well affront the plain believer.
Second, and more important, it is not the case that all theists seek to demonstrate or even in any way rationally to establish the existence of God. Many theists regard such a demonstration as impossible, and fideistic believers (e.g., Johann Hamann and Søren Kierkegaard) regard such a demonstration, even if it were possible, as undesirable, for in their view it would undermine faith. If it could be proved, or known for certain, that God exists, people would not be in a position to accept him as their sovereign Lord humbly on faith with all the risks that entails. There are theologians who have argued that for genuine faith to be possible God must necessarily be a hidden God, the mysterious ultimate reality, whose existence and authority must be accepted simply on faith. This fideistic view has not, of course, gone without challenge from inside the major faiths, but it is of sufficient importance to make the above characterization of atheism inadequate.
Finally, and most important, not all denials of God are denials of his existence. Believers sometimes deny God while not being at all in a state of doubt that God exists. They either willfully reject what they take to be his authority by not acting in accordance with what they take to be his will, or else they simply live their lives as if God did not exist. In this important way they deny him. Such deniers are not atheists (unless we wish, misleadingly, to call them “practical atheists”). They are not even agnostics. They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God's existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.
Yet it remains the case that such a characterization of atheism is inadequate in other ways. For one it is too narrow. There are atheists who believe that the very concept of God, at least in developed and less anthropomorphic forms of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, is so incoherent that certain central religious claims, such as “God is my creator to whom everything is owed,” are not genuine truth-claims; i.e., the claims could not be either true or false. Believers hold that such religious propositions are true, some atheists believe that they are false, and there are agnostics who cannot make up their minds whether to believe that they are true or false. (Agnostics think that the propositions are one or the other but believe that it is not possible to determine which.) But all three are mistaken, some atheists argue, for such putative truth-claims are not sufficiently intelligible to be genuine truth-claims that are either true or false. In reality there is nothing in them to be believed or disbelieved, though there is for the believer the powerful and humanly comforting illusion that there is. Such an atheism, it should be added, rooted for some conceptions of God in considerations about intelligibility and what it makes sense to say, has been strongly resisted by some pragmatists and logical empiricists.
While the above considerations about atheism and intelligibility show the second characterization of atheism to be too narrow, it is also the case that this characterization is in a way too broad. For there are fideistic believers, who quite unequivocally believe that when looked at objectively the proposition that God exists has a very low probability weight. They believe in God not because it is probable that he exists—they think it more probable that he does not—but because belief is thought by them to be necessary to make sense of human life. The second characterization of atheism does not distinguish a fideistic believer (a Blaise Pascal or a Kierkegaard) or an agnostic (a T.H. Huxley or a Leslie Stephen) from an atheist such as Baron d'Holbach or Thomas Paine. All believe that “There is a God” and “God protects humankind,” however emotionally important they may be, are speculative hypotheses of an extremely low order of probability. But this, since it does not distinguish believers from nonbelievers and does not distinguish agnostics from atheists, cannot be an adequate characterization of atheism.
It may be retorted that to avoid apriorism and dogmatic atheism the existence of God should be regarded as a hypothesis. There are no ontological (purely a priori) proofs or disproofs of God's existence. It is not reasonable to rule in advance that it makes no sense to say that God exists. What the atheist can reasonably claim is that there is no evidence that there is a God, and against that background he may very well be justified in asserting that there is no God. It has been argued, however, that it is simply dogmatic for an atheist to assert that no possible evidence could ever give one grounds for believing in God. Instead, atheists should justify their unbelief by showing (if they can) how the assertion is well-taken that there is no evidence that would warrant a belief in God. If atheism is justified, the atheist will have shown that in fact there is no adequate evidence for the belief that God exists, but it should not be part of his task to try to show that there could not be any evidence for the existence of God. If the atheist could somehow survive the death of his present body (assuming that such talk makes sense) and come, much to his surprise, to stand in the presence of God, his answer should be, “Oh! Lord, you didn't give me enough evidence!” He would have been mistaken, and realize that he had been mistaken, in his judgment that God did not exist. Still, he would not have been unjustified, in the light of the evidence available to him during his earthly life, in believing as he did. Not having any such postmortem experiences of the presence of God (assuming that he could have them), what he should say, as things stand and in the face of the evidence he actually has and is likely to be able to get, is that it is false that God exists. (Every time one legitimately asserts that a proposition is false one need not be certain that it is false. “Knowing with certainty” is not a pleonasm.) The claim is that this tentative posture is the reasonable position for the atheist to take.
An atheist who argues in this manner may also make a distinctive burden-of-proof argument. Given that God (if there is one) is by definition a very recherché reality—a reality that must be (for there to be such a reality) transcendent to the world—the burden of proof is not on the atheist to give grounds for believing that there is no reality of that order. Rather, the burden of proof is on the believer to give some evidence for God's existence; i.e., that there is such a reality. Given what God must be, if there is a God, the theist needs to present the evidence, for such a very strange reality. He needs to show that there is more in the world than is disclosed by common experience. The empirical method, and the empirical method alone, such an atheist asserts, affords a reliable method for establishing what is in fact the case. To the claim of the theist that there are in addition to varieties of empirical facts “spiritual facts” or “transcendent facts,” such as it being the case that there is a supernatural, self-existent, eternal power, the atheist can assert that such “facts” have not been shown.
It will, however, be argued by such atheists, against what they take to be dogmatic aprioristic atheists, that the atheist should be a fallibilist and remain open-minded about what the future may bring. There may, after all, be such transcendent facts, such metaphysical realities. It is not that such a fallibilistic atheist is really an agnostic who believes that he is not justified in either asserting that God exists or denying that he exists and that what he must reasonably do is suspend belief. On the contrary, such an atheist believes that he has very good grounds indeed, as things stand, for denying the existence of God. But he will, on the second conceptualization of what it is to be an atheist, not deny that things could be otherwise and that, if they were, he would be justified in believing in God or at least would no longer be justified in asserting that it is false that there is a God. Using reliable empirical techniques, proven methods for establishing matters of fact, the fallibilistic atheist has found nothing in the universe to make a belief that God exists justifiable or even, everything considered, the most rational option of the various options. He therefore draws the atheistical conclusion (also keeping in mind his burden-of-proof argument) that God does not exist. But he does not dogmatically in a priori fashion deny the existence of God. He remains a thorough and consistent fallibilist.
Comprehensive definition of atheism
Reflection on this should lead to a more adequate statement of what atheism is and indeed as well to what an agnostic or religious response to atheism should be. Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or “God” is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.
This atheism is a much more complex notion, as are its various reflective rejections. It is clear from what has been said about the concept of God in developed forms of Judeo-Christianity that the more crucial form of atheist rejection is not the assertion that it is false that there is a God but instead the rejection of belief in God because the concept of God is said not to make sense—to be in some important way incoherent or unintelligible.
Such a broader conception of atheism, of course, includes everyone who is an atheist in the narrower sense, but the converse does not obtain. Moreover, this conception of atheism does not have to say that religious claims are meaningless. The more typical and less paradoxical and tendentious claim is that utterances such as “There is an infinite, eternal creator of the universe” are incoherent and that the conception of God reflected in such a claim is unintelligible, and in that important sense the claim is inconceivable and incredible—incapable of being a rational object of belief for a philosophically and scientifically sophisticated person touched by modernity. It is this that is a central belief of many contemporary atheists. There are good empirical grounds for believing that there are no Zeus-like spiritual beings, and as this last, more ramified form of atheism avers, if there are sound grounds for believing that the nonanthropomorphic or at least radically less anthropomorphic conceptions of God are incoherent or unintelligible, the atheist has the strongest grounds for rejecting belief in God.
Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God or spiritual beings, but a sophisticated atheist does not simply claim that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do not succeed in making a coherent factual claim. The claims, in an important sense, do not make sense, and, while believers are under the illusion that there is something intelligible to be believed in, in reality there is not. These seemingly grand cosmological claims are in reality best understood as myths or ideological claims reflecting a confused understanding of their utterers' situation.
It is not a well-taken rejoinder to atheistic critiques to say, as have some contemporary Protestant theologians, that belief in God is the worst form of atheism and idolatry, since the language of Jewish and Christian belief, including such sentences as “God exists” and “God created the world,” is not to be taken literally but symbolically and metaphorically. Christianity, as Reinhold Niebuhr, a theologian who defends such views, once put it, is “true myth.” The claims of religion are not, on such account, to be understood as metaphysical claims trying to convey extraordinary facts but as metaphorical and analogical claims that are not understandable in any other terms. But if something is a metaphor it must at least in principle be possible to say what it is a metaphor of. Thus metaphors cannot be understandable only in metaphorical terms. There can be no unparaphrasable metaphors or symbolic expressions though, what is something else again, a user of such expressions may not be capable on demand of supplying that paraphrase. Moreover, if the language of religion becomes simply the language of myth and religious beliefs are viewed simply as powerful and often humanly compelling myths, then they are conceptions that in reality have only an atheistic substance. The believer is making no cosmological claim that the atheist is not; it is just that his talk, including his unelucidated talk of “true myths,” is language that for many people has a more powerful emotive force.
Agnosticism has a parallel development to that of atheism. An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists—or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists—but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist. Similarly, while some contemporary atheists say that the concept of God in developed theism does not make sense and thus that Jewish, Christian, and Islamic beliefs must be rejected, many contemporary agnostics believe that the concept of God is radically problematic. They maintain that they are not in a position to be able to decide whether, on the one hand, the terms and concepts of such religions are so problematic that such religious beliefs do not make sense or whether, on the other, though the talk is indeed radically paradoxical and in many ways incomprehensible, such talk has sufficient coherence to make reasonable a belief in an ultimate mystery. Such an agnostic recognizes that the puzzles about God cut deeper than perplexities concerning whether it is possible to attain adequate evidence for God's existence. Rather, he sees the need to exhibit an adequate nonanthropomorphic, extralinguistic referent for “God.” (This need not commit him to the belief that there are any observations independent of theory.) Believers think that, though God is a mystery, such a referent has been secured, though what it is remains a mystery. Atheists, by contrast, believe that it has not been, and indeed some of them believe that it cannot be, secured. To talk about mystery, they maintain, is just an evasive way of talking about what is not understood. Contemporary agnostics (those agnostics who parallel the atheists characterized above) remain in doubt and are convinced that there is no rational way of resolving the doubt about whether talk in a halting fashion of God just barely secures such reference or whether it, after all, fails and that nothing religiously acceptable is referred to by “God.”
Intense religious commitment, as the history of fideism makes evident, has sometimes gone hand in hand with deep scepticism concerning man's capacity to know God. It is agreed by all parties to the dispute between belief and unbelief that religious claims are paradoxical. Furthermore, criteria for what is meaningless and what is not or for what is intelligible and what is not are deeply contested. It is perhaps fair enough to say that there are no generally accepted criteria.
Keeping these diverse considerations in mind in the arguments between belief, agnosticism, and atheism, it is crucial to ask whether there is any good reason at all to believe that there is a personal creative reality that is beyond the bounds of space and time and transcendent to the world. Is there even a sufficient understanding of such talk so that such a reality can be the object of religious commitment? (One cannot have faith in or take on faith what one does not at all understand. People must at least in some way understand what it is that they are to have faith in to be able to have faith in it. If a person is asked to trust Irglig, he cannot do so no matter how strongly he wants to take something simply on trust.)
It appears to be a brute fact that there just is that indefinitely immense collection of finite and contingent masses or conglomerations of things and processes the phrase “the universe” refers to. People can come to feel wonder, awe, and puzzlement that there is a universe at all. But that fact, or the very fact that there is a world at all, does not license the claim that there is a noncontingent reality on which the world (the sorry collection of things entire) depends. It is not even clear that such a sense of contingency gives an understanding of what such a noncontingent thing could be. Some atheists think that the reference range of “God” is so indeterminate and the concept of God so problematic that it is impossible for someone fully aware of that reasonably to believe in God; believers, by contrast, think that, though the reference range of “God” is indeterminate, it is not so indeterminate and the concept of God so problematic as to make belief irrational or incoherent. It is known, they claim, that talk of God is problematic, but it is not known, and cannot be known, whether it is so problematic as to be without a religiously appropriate sense. Agnostics, in turn, say that there is no reasonable decision procedure. It is not known and cannot be ascertained whether or not “God” secures a religiously adequate referent. What needs to be kept in mind, in reflecting on this issue, is whether a “contingent thing” is a pleonasm and “infinite reality” is without sense and whether, when people go beyond anthropomorphism (or try to go beyond it), it is possible to have a sufficient understanding of what is referred to by “God” to make faith a coherent possibility.
Finally, it will not do to take a Pascalian or Dostoyevskian turn and claim that, intellectual absurdity or not, religious belief is necessary, since without belief in God morality does not make sense and life is meaningless. That claim is false, for even if there is no purpose to life there are purposes in life—things people care about and want to do—that can remain perfectly intact even in a godless world. God or no God, immortality or no immortality, it is vile to torture people just for the fun of it, and friendship, solidarity, love, and the attainment of self-respect are human goods even in an utterly godless world. There are intellectual puzzles about how people know that these things are good, but that is doubly true for the distinctive claims of a religious ethic. The point is that these things remain desirable and that life can have a point even in the absence of God.
The rules of Atheism:
1. Question everything - if it doesn't make any sense, don't believe it.
2. See rule number 1.Thanks for the fish Mark - I had fun reading
And I new you'll like the music - I hope others did, too. Strangely, I just found it today, probably just for that occasion
But your rules did disappoint me - after 43 pages you could have come up with something more epic I like my two rules to live by better:
1. The Goddess is always right
2. If she is wrong - see rule number one.
Those rules saved my sanity more than a handful of times
That seems to be the logical conclusion.
...and the discussion shifts to what makes sense...Actually I think my answer to this will be different from yours
One doesn't have to know what is inside black box in order to use it. Knowing how it responds to various signals is enough for that. A car or dvd player or even computer are perfect examples on consumer level. The same logic applies on designer level, too.My Goddess, you lost me again
I love your voice (when it manages to overcome guitars), but what it has to do with my question?
And no, I can't understand the text of songs in English without lyrics supplied
nothing, I just posted it passing time.
My pleasure
As far as editing, it is very easy to not say what you are trying to say when you are trying to do it quickly. As this is written and we are all on different time zones, there is no rush, so better to take your time, read what you have written and make sure it makes sense before hitting "Submit."
I learned this myself
And you seem to have edited this one just fine. Clear, concise and to the point.
Of course, I disagree, and don't need to point out the obvious contradictions.
If things pan out the way you say they will, I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong.
In the meantime, I am also open to the spaghetti monster and all the other god-like possibilities. If either the burning chariot arrives (my personal preference) or Zeus comes and has a word in my ear or whatever, I will cheerfully sign up and join whichever one turns out to be true.
And if you are interested, around 1200BC, the Mayans predicted the fall as being December 22, 2012, So, not long to wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar
The Hopi Indians have a similar prophecy:
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/pan.htm
The Great Pyramid also has similar prophecies hidden in the passageways:
http://www.templeofsolomon.org/Pyramids … bolism.htm
So, I am afraid the bible was not the first to make these type of predictions.
But it's nice to know that if I am wrong, you will be there to guide me. For which I thank you - even though I am not going to need it
- sandra rinckposted 16 years ago0
I would ask you ladies to please stop right here.
Sandy,
I understand you want to relay the message - but it will not get through right here and now. When you try to push it, you get resistance.
Charlotte,
I understand that you feel insulted, and I see when and how, but apologies where given already two pages ago - please take your time and chill down.
Thank you both for understandingI'm impressed at the energy some of you are showing here - I'd need several pots of beer to get me through half as much writing.
But on the subject of "knowing" god -
There's a wonderful passage in the Bhagavad Gita where Arjuna insists on seeing Krisna as he really is and not in his benign 'human' form. Krisna eventually agrees and manifests himself fully. I won't even attempt to paraphrase the poet's description, but let's say it's a lot more than Arjuna had bargained for. Yet through it all, it is merely the imagination and imagery of a great poet that we get to see, and what else could it be?
Any god that can be conceived by the human imagination is subject to that imagination and therefore, in a sense, subhuman. Any god that can not be conceived by the human imagination is by definition unknowable. I don't doubt that some people have had mystical (inexplicable) experiences that convince them of the existence of god. They could be mistaken.
It's been a good threadJenny, it's all so confusing, I think I will stick with my atheism. That way I don't have to worry
Que sera,sera.
And God-damn, but you are good at explaining things.
It sure is easier to pick the anti-christ out from the crowd.Unless I stop at 1999
- sandra rinckposted 16 years ago0
LOL ok
- sandra rinckposted 16 years ago0
More rules as everyone seems disappointed in the two rules.
3. There is no god
4. Jesus never lived
5. No such thing as Allah
6. The spaghetti monster is unlikely, but no less so than Jesus
7. You are allowed to make your own mind up
8. This is it. No extra time.
9. All religions are automatically suspect
10. Don't believe people who tell you you need to believe something - even more suspect.
That enough ?
And I really am happy to know that it's a beautiful garden. I do not need to believe there are fairies at the bottom.What if we did find life on another planet? Do you think they would have a purpose? If we found a planet that had the ability to inhabit life, do you think that life there would wonder what there purpose is? The possibility that they wouldn't know us because we passed on. Maybe they too would come up with some sort of God to explain their existence, maybe someone would pass on a book as well?
Your right there is not God. It's an expression. I wonder if you actually believe in evolution? Your my prime suspect. LOL.Sandra - that's a heart-felt statement if ever there was.
I told you before that you seem to be angry at god, or the bible, or the church. You said you wanted to burn the bible. Burning books is not the answer I feel. Books are just books.
You are not alone - everyone feels this way at some time or another. Me too. I have, on occasion, wished I believed in god, in the hope that it would give some solace. And for some, it does. I am sure Peter will tell you that better than I.
But, to a large extent, this is what the christian religion thrives on. The promise of something better in the next life. I personally do not believe that is the case. But others do, and it seems to give them some comfort in this life. To me - that's a waste, and an inability to accept things the way they are. This is it, make the most of it
I am sorry you are in so much pain, but I don't think there is anything *wrong* with you. This is normal. You are supposed to feel this way when things happen that make you feel this way. Nothing wrong with that.
But - You are not completely ruled by the government, or the church, or nature. You can choose something else. But only you can make that choice. And sometime it means a fight, or an argument, or a clash with someone who cannot see what you are going through.
No matter. Be yourself. If you need to believe in god to be able to feel love, then believe in god. Not a problem. But, you don't have to love everything, or everyone.
Find your own way. Be yourself. No one can tell you how to do that. Not me, not the church, not any religion. Sometimes it all doesn't make sense. But it is. And maybe there's no sense to it. If that doesn't make sense and you don't want to continue this discussion in public, please PM me and I will do my best to help.
7. You are allowed to make your own mind up
Just as you have made your choice to not believe
I have made mine to believe.
You find "evidence" to support that belief, so do I.
To say someone never lived is not the same as choosing to not believe!
PS, I noticed the writer of your link article wrote it ca. 1922.
Bit outdated don't you think?
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.htmlMark, the date isn't that important. Time doesn't change Truth, though it may have something to do with particular information available at a particular time.
With that said, your linked article has a few shortcomings. My response, though, is in no way, exhaustive.
First, the writer's knowledge of the NT seems to be lacking. His comments about the statements or lack thereof of the NT writers regarding certain topics doesn't correspond with the content of the NT.
Also, certain conclusions seem to be arrived at with no other possibilities considered. For example, the Gospel accounts are deemed to be at variance with one another because they contain acts not included in one or all of the other accounts of Christ's life. If they were exactly the same, what conjecture would follow then? What would be the need to have various accounts written exactly the same? Would the charge of collusion then be leveled at the writers? Is it possible that the eyewitness accounts are all accurate, even though they do not contain the exact same acts? Is it possible that they are complimentary instead of contradictory?
And as far as the supposed contradictory accounts of Jesus cleansing the temple, is it possible that Jesus cleansed the temple on two occasions instead of just the one?
As far as the time of the writing of the Gospel accounts and Epistles of the other writers, there is much historical information dating back to the first and second century dealing with the existence of the Scriptures in different languages and all in agreement with one another. This information also deals with the existence of spurious accounts and innacurate copies of the Scripture available early on in the history of this sect of Judaism.
Furthermore, this information is not new scholarship, but has been available to scholars for centuries. It has also been rejected by many, especially the ones mentioned in the article, not the least of which is Westcott. They have chosen the other vein of scholarship and its principles which have existed since the earliest Scriptures were extant and which the Epistles themselves contain reference to.
Finally, the portrayal of Rome as "Civilized" is a bit incredible. History has proven that Rome was as civilized as their enemies allowed them to be. In other words, if you submitted yourselves to Rome, you were allowed to exist in peace. If you did not submit, Rome would crush you to the extent necessary to achieve subordination. The Jews were well aquainted with the iron fisted rule of Rome. In fact, the Jews were known as a rebellious lot and were in constant need of the brutality of Roman intervention. That's why the first area of interrogation of Jesus by Pilate dealt with the issue of Jesus being a King. It was the most important issue to the Roman authority.
That's all for now.
To speak the truth requires courage -simply I do not know.
In India we call it Gyani or someone who was ignorant about God before and has now gained God knowledge. Awakened and evolved -you cannot force someone -him or her to be ,their time will come
Thank you.
Now - why is it ignorant and arrogant to come to these conclusions?
See rule no 7.
If I say to you - "The world was created by the spaghetti monster, and the positive proof for this is that fact that there is spaghetti. Spaghetti is so wonderful - it must have been created by the spaghetti monster."
And you come to the conclusion that I am wrong, and say so. Does that make you ignorant and arrogant?
- sandra rinckposted 16 years ago0
Thanks Mark, you actually make perfect sense.
I am angry at something. I am angry at death. I don't know how to deal with it. All I know is that I am getting older, I know that my family and friends are going to start dropping dead around me, and eventually it will be my turn.
I am angry because of the unexplainable experience that happened to me and all I could make of it is that it was God. So I am angry that I feel all messed up in the head. I am angry at the churches because they keep telling me it's Satan, and if that is so, then what did I do? Or why would they say something like that?
I am angry at the church because now that I have read the Bible, I feel like not believing it is going to send me to Hell. I don't know if it is true or not, like how you try to believe in God and can't, I try to not believe in God and I can't. It so frustrating.
I don't know why an atheist can make me feel better and a person who says they believe that God is Love, can not.
I realize that I am not alone, but it's lonely to stand apart from the rest and frustrating to not have a place to fit in. Not just spiritually but in other arenas as well. I think the world doesn't like deviation. It's troublesome to me, so I am angry at that as well.
Looks like I got a lot of issue. LOL. I guess then the root of my troubles is Acceptance, Death, and God. Well, and that I can't get my kid potty trained LoL.
Mostly I am angry that I got sucked in, and part of me was taken away and I want me back. I want to erase the hole mess and I want out, but I don't know how.
Show me how Mark.I appreciate your compassion, but I am not Christain. I renounced my faith in christianity about a month after being baptized.
I am gnostic. I just don't like to say I am because I don't want it to be taken as a religion, when I it's not. If Jenny can remember back to a previous thread, I said, don't give it a name otherwise it is able to be propagated and exploited.
As for the trauma...yeah it's only been a few months+ since it happened. It's strange to call it trauma because nothing touched me or physically hurt me. No one left me, I am still married, etc.
I just got a visit from what is called the Spirit, or in other words " " and seeing " " is enough to mess with anyones head.
What " " said to me really messed me up. Not because it said anything bad, but because it told me my punishment as well as other things.
So, I know I can't change anything cause it is done. But I haven't been the same since. It is like I died that day, but here I am. I am different but I remember who I was and I loved myself, so I don't know who I am really anymore. If that makes sense without sounding like I am a couple eggs short of a dozen. LOL.
Jeromeo, you didn't cause me distress, it's ok. Though something did touch a nerve. I was with a friend whom calls himself a christian. I said, "you know, I have been understanding a lot of a Jahovah, I said, their views are so different from mine or anyone else for that matter." Then my friend said. My mom and dad said that if a Jahovah ever knocks on your door. Don't let them in, there evil.
So I said: Mormons knock on doors too, so what so wrong with Jahovah? Yet he didn't know. When I asked him about what he believed, ironically (LOL) he believed in the same principals as Jahovah, as well as other people.
Now I am realizing that biggest problem when it comes to teaching people about Jesus is to associate him with a religion. As Peter has said a few times on this thread, Please don't associate Jesus with Christains. Of course my reply was, it's hard to talk about Jesus without automatically being lumped in with christain religion.
So I think that Christains don't like Jahovah because, you too deviated from the rest.
As for the anti-christ. However I say this will cause a dispute or ill feelings, but when it comes to the anti-christ. It isn't those who don't believe in God who are the anti-christ.
It is those who have used his name in vein or injustly, who are the anti-christ. Because it is those people who radically, or ironically (so much irony today) have undone what Jesus came to do. Or in other words, exploited his principals, his teachings, and such. Or in the church, gave false witness, denied people of their own free spirit in Jesus.
In other words, giving a superficial understanding of what the Bible or Jesus has to offer.I can't go back and edit, but I meant, their views are not so different from mine or any others for that matter. Sorry Jeromeo, if you read this and thought WTF! My bad. I should pay more attention to my editing as well.
There's something in this statement I find interesting. You don't think Mark acts like an Atheist because he is kind.
Is kindness only the domain of religious people?
Why can't someone be an Atheist and be also be a kind Father?
You talk about Jehovah's Witnesses being persecuted but aren't you doing exactly the same thing to Atheists?
Is not your highly subjective and prejudicial view of what an Atheist should be or how they should act contaminating your actions and speech to those around you?
I do not believe kindness is the domain of the believer. Nor do I believe empathy and ethics to be religious tenets. There are many examples of religious intolerance and many examples of secular acceptance and kindness. (and vice versa)
We all have to find our own path in life and if we are to ever end violence and hatred we need to embrace this diversity in our world.
Atheists are good people too!
P.S. I understand Jeromeo that were trying to compliment Mark and speak kind words to him but your prejudices have tainted the way you choose to express yourself. Even in kindness sometimes we can show our intolerance. This is not meant as a personal attack in any way, shape or form. Just an observation.I never asked who it was, but have mentioned the anti-Christ.
Because I believe that we all can become as the Christ (Mind) that Jesus had attained. You know the bible scripture"...let that mind be in you that was also in Jesus..." and "...all these things I do, ye can do also...and even more, because I go unto the Father..."
AND
I believe everyone has an anti-Christ aspect level of consciousness...it has also been called the not-self, the not-real self, the dweller on the threshold, the unconscious, and deeper/darker levels of the subconscious, etc...
SO... when we as the individual gradually overcomes the anti-Christ within self /keeps bound from acting in life with hate, violence, deceit, (all the worst human traits), then the Christ takes over and is One with all others that have done/are doing, the same.
WE are all becoming Christs! ....those that choose to do so by following the footsteps of Jesus the Christ and his teachings...which at this point in time have not been thoroughly interpreted or correctly interpreted. But people and their beliefs are in the process of tweeking to a new understanding...as we speak!
Sandra -
I can't show you how. Sorry. It's something you have to do for yourself.
I don't blame you for being angry at death. But death is nothing personal. It comes to all of us. Sometimes sooner rather than later We are all getting older. No stopping it I'm afraid. And yes, eventually, it will be your turn. Hopefully not for a long time yet.
The church is programmed to say these things. Standard responses. It's the devil, or it's sin,, or whatever. It is also normal to feel angry. I don't know what experience you have been through, but not believing in the bible will not send you to hell.
God is Love means nothing if the person saying it does not believe it - or feel it.
The world loves deviation. The world thrives on deviation. The church does not. Revel in your different-ness. There is nothing wrong with it. And I do believe there is a place for everyone. You just have to find it.
And I also believe your kid will learn to piss in the toilet LOL
I don't know what you were sucked in by, but:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me." That's what Bush tried to say, but couldn't.
I am sorry I have no easy answers, but you seem a bright person, and will work it out. Reading books is a good start. There are more books than just the bible. You will find the answers you are looking for. You just have to look in the right places.- sandra rinckposted 16 years ago0
yeah, your right. I like stars. I love space. Now that is Heaven to me. The newest theory is that we came here by meteor.
Says during the " " period that wiped out the dinosaurs, there weren't any people here, but when the meteor came it contained a special organism that sparked life in the water, so we came from star dust then primordial soup. We are aliens. LOL.
New topic for the tread if anyone finds it interesting. It' always about the stars. Download google earth. It comes with google space. You can get lost for hours.
I used to be very upset with my death, too. I don't think I care much now - aside from the effect it will have on my relatives. I watched my former wife trying to get over her father's death - it was no fun... I'm lucky to still have living parents, and what probably scares me most in this life are thoughts about their death. I know it will come, and I don't want it to come. I d o n ' t w a n t i t t o c o m e. No, scratch this, there are more scary thoughts - sometimes I think what happens if one of my kids die. That is the end of world, really. Not that parents death is better, but in this case one at least has a kinda soothing thought that what happened is natural. It does not calm you, but you know it is how it supposed to be. It all probably selfish, I know - but this is how I feel about it now...
You are blessed Sandy. Quite a few people are asking for such an experience and not receiving it. You are a chosen one, and you will sort this out.
Priests are trained to deal with standard cases. You are superstandard, and they just don't know what to do and get scared. When people get lost and scared, they become aggressive. On top of that, Christian church never was a tolerant one - hence so many "cults" spawned from the mainstream. They will never accept you as you are. Leave the church alone, you don't need them, you are The Temple yourself.
I think because this atheist cares about you, not about converting you into his system of beliefs...
Sandy, there are people here who share you feelings. Mark, Jenny, Kenny, Sparkling Jewel, Jim Murdoch, Ripplemaker - this is just from the top of my head, there are lots more over here. This is a great community, the home for deviants
I don't remember about my older one, but my middle one wasn't trained fully until after 3. How old is your daughter? I gues less than 2, right? Don't push her, just watch her, catch the moments, and share her joy of achievement. Trust me, she wants this no less than yourself. It will all come naturally in due time. One thing that we use to add to the joy is introducing regular panties. They are just proud to be like adults and keep the panties dry - but don't do this too early.
Don't look back - this is what you said to me. You can't return what you used to be... I do admire you as you are now, though - not as you used to be We learn, and we change as we learn. This is painful sometimes, but this is what we are designed to do I think...
Probably it is called midlife crisis - and whatever it is, I know you'll get through it, and re-emerge from ashes
LOL I exhausted my ability to put thought into words. You can kill me now, I wouldn't feel it...Your the best Misha!
- sandra rinckposted 16 years ago0
LOL I have a lot to work on in this area, too. Even without divine part
Misha - put it away quick.
MARK!!!
I had been soooooo restrained and decorous and completely refrained from going there ... sheesh. I needn't have bothered.Jenny was making a remark that could be considered suggestive and I was pointing that out in a not-so-subtle way
*giggle*
Oh, the places I could go with that line, too ....
But I won't, cos I am a Good Girl.
I'll let Mark do it instead.
Jenny
P.S. Lord, once you get in this frame of mind, EVERYTHING is suggestive, isn't it? I need to get some fresh air.
There you are!!!!!
I was thinking last night, the greatest challenge for a believer is to become a non believer. In the course of seeking God, when it comes down to it, the fullest of faith are the ones who are able to live without the need of God.
Now the same can be said for a non believer. The greatest challenge for a non believer is to become a believer. In the course of seeking God, when it comes down to it, the fullest of faith are the ones who are able to live without the need for God.
as Jenny said it best....the ironies are masterfully delicious...
Related Discussions
- 114
How can atheists improve their image?
How can atheists improve their image?For whatever reason, the mainstream theists in the U.S. have trouble separating average atheists from the extremists in the news. Not all atheists want to watch Christianity crumble or start their own dictatorship. But how can we spread the image of a more...
- 12
What are the pros and cons of Atheists?
From another thread on the religious side of pros and cons. No one gave a list. Let see if any atheist are afraid trying this out.From not being an atheist nor religious, I made my own pros and cons list anyways. Found out I am either.Pros-1. Focus on what's really important in life. Don't concern...
- 25
Has being an Atheist ever caused you problems in your life?
Has being an Atheist ever caused you problems in your life?has it made people reject you or treat you differently ?
- 135
Do you really know the difference between agnostic and atheist?
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not religion. Although ignorance and religion are good bedfellows.
- 123
How Are Atheists Created?
Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some of you might not like what I am about to say, understand that it is not meant as...
- 16
Religion and Atheism Jokes
The best way to get out aggression is through laughter.Post your jokes here.No getting offended. Remember they are jokes. Don't take it personal..Its not always about YOU!
working
