Atheist Unicyclists [Archive] - Unicyclist Community

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-15, 01:32 AM

A christians work, just by being christian is to share the love. The need to do so is increased greatly by youth or the newness of it. Your toying with them only increases that energy. But I think that you already know that. Why not live and let live. As I'm sure that you would want if you were in their shoes.

On another note. Is atheism the belief that there is no higher power?
If that holds true, doesn't that belief(by default) make you that higher power?

Finally, isn't your consistant argument of the point, in and of itself, advertising or witnessing your point of view?

I find the entire concept of "witnessning" to be highly offensive. It also goes against the polciy you are trying ot promote of "live and let live"

A lack higher power does NOT by default make man the higher power. It eliminates the very nature of a power hirarchy to begin with factors.

But just so you know I find this thread just as offensive as the Christian one.

If you want to discuss Christianity fine I have no problem with that, but if you are going to do it in a public forum you need to allow other viewpoints into the discussion.

boo radley

2005-10-15, 01:36 AM

We don't need this thread, we've already taken over the Christian Unicyclists thread.

Also I don't know about other atheists, but I don't have that urge to advertise that a lot of Christians do.

word .

UniTyler

2005-10-15, 02:11 AM

With all these threads...

Why doesn't someone make a poll?

Done....!!!!! (TEXT FILLER)

unidad

2005-10-15, 03:11 AM

I find the entire concept of "witnessning" to be highly offensive. It also goes against the polciy you are trying ot promote of "live and let live"

A lack higher power does NOT by default make man the higher power. It eliminates the very nature of a power hirarchy to begin with factors.

But just so you know I find this thread just as offensive as the Christian one.

If you want to discuss Christianity fine I have no problem with that, but if you are going to do it in a public forum you need to allow other viewpoints into the discussion.
It's not a policy. It's an action. Your missing my point. Let them witness. Let you tell them to go away. Then they will witness, you say go away. Before you two realise your not getting anywhere , an education could be had.

As the top of the food chain. Without a higher power, would make you as a human the higher power.Debatable, sure.

You are debating and chastising christianity. Here in a public forum. I'm open to other viewpoints. Are you?

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-15, 04:43 AM

You are debating and chastising christianity. Here in a public forum. I'm open to other viewpoints. Are you?

I am open to their veiwpoints, I don't mind them having a talking about it, but to do so at the exlusion of opposing viewpoints is not okay.

boo radley

2005-10-15, 04:47 AM

could our newfound obsession with religion have anything to do with hurricanes, earthquakes, mudslides, floods and tsunamis?

edit: by which i mean recent events in the southern u.s., pakistan, central america, north eastern u.s., and asia of course

Seager

2005-10-15, 11:57 AM

As the top of the food chain. Without a higher power, would make you as a human the higher power.Debatable, sure.

That's not atheism, that's satanism. Satanisim, contary to popular belief, is NOT the worship of satan (that's a small off shoot) but the worship of humans beings as the ultimate power. The Church of Satan founded by laVay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan) was/is the main driving force. People that actually worship a deity of satan are very much the minority.

Atheism, in turn, is simply the opposite of theism as opposed to any sort of belief in people as a higher power or deity. Quite literally "the absence in the belief of a God." "Soft atheism" is the absence of belief whereas "hard atheism" is an active believe in there not being a god. (Hard atheism, I think, requires just as much faith as theism)

Many people who claim they are atheist are actually soft atheists or even agnostics, (a-gnostic = without knowledge). Agnostics simply believe you can't tell either way. Many people (including myself) are thus agnostic-atheists or soft atheists which basically means we can't prove or disprove god, but we have a hunch that he isn't around. (it's pretty improbable)

I spent many years in college studying religion, theology, and theodicy in an effort to prove or disprove god and the sad truth is after studying all the so-called proofs and disproofs (problem of evil/aquinus/etc) I realized that you simply can't answer the question. It all boils down to metaphysics anyway, and metaphysics sucks.

(please don't bother trying to post your version of proof - I promise I've already studied it and can post why it's fallible. Nothing new has some out of this debate for hundreds of years.)

cathwood

2005-10-15, 02:18 PM

Many people (including myself) are thus agnostic-atheists or soft atheists which basically means we can't prove or disprove god, but we have a hunch that he isn't around. (it's pretty improbable)

Why is the Christian god always thought of as 'He'?

Cathy

Seager

2005-10-15, 02:25 PM

Why is the Christian god always thought of as 'He'?

Cathy

Because western christian society has been traditionally patriarchal.

cathwood

2005-10-15, 02:27 PM

Because western christian society has been traditionally patriarchal.

Damn, I was hoping that it would be something else.

Cathy

kington99

2005-10-15, 02:53 PM

James_Potter

2005-10-15, 03:31 PM

cyberpunk

2005-10-15, 04:10 PM

2005-10-15, 04:33 PM

I'm going to jack this thread slightly, I've been meaning to ask this for a while, has anyone here become interested or involved in LaVeyan satanism? That is satanism by the way, not satan worship. I've been pondering the principles and ideas every since i first read 'The Long Hard Road out of Hell' by Marilyn Manson about 18 months ago. Would be nice to think that there are some unicyclists out there who think the same.

Incidentally, please someone post your 'version of proof', Seager sounds like he's all geared up to give someone a good spanking.

Satansim makes a fair amount of sense, and I guess I could say that I'm "interested," but I wouldn't afilliate myself with any religion/sect. The only downside is some of the stupid "rituals." I think that Satanisim is a "religion" that works out better with human nature.

heres another thing on the Church of Satan (http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm)

Mikefule

2005-10-15, 09:00 PM

Why is the Christian god always thought of as 'He'

Because he worked for six days building the world then had a day off. A woman would have carried on working, even if there was nothing to do.

It then took him ages to finish off the last few jobs, including finally mackling together a mate for the only person he'd made, using an offcut of their rib.

because he never got round to putting that fence up around the apple tree - and look what happened because of that.

Because a woman would have organised things better.

And anyway, what mother would sacrifice her only son?

cathwood

2005-10-15, 09:04 PM

Because he worked for six days building the world then had a day off. A woman would have carried on working, even if there was nothing to do.

It then took him ages to finish off the last few jobs, including finally mackling together a mate for the only person he'd made, using an offcut of their rib.

because he never got round to putting that fence up around the apple tree - and look what happened because of that.

Because a woman would have organised things better.

And anyway, what mother would sacrifice her only son?

MUCH better!

Cathy

Mikefule

2005-10-15, 09:09 PM

Incidentally, please someone post your 'version of proof', Seager sounds like he's all geared up to give someone a good spanking.

I'm inclined towards the logical positivist answer that if the answer to a question is susceptible neither to proof nor disproof, then it is a nonsensical question. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If the difference makes some difference, then that is an opportunity for proof or disproof.

However, I recognise that the logical positivist position is not without its own limitations.

The widespread belief in god is a real and demonstrable phenomenon, and has real effects on our day to day lives. In a sense, therefore, God exists as an idea that has real power, for good or ill. Faith is a reality, even if it is faith in something that is unreal.

unidad

2005-10-15, 10:01 PM

That's not atheism, that's satanism. Satanisim, contary to popular belief, is NOT the worship of satan (that's a small off shoot) but the worship of humans beings as the ultimate power.
I disagree. Although it sounds as though you've put a lot more thought, effort and time into this then I have. Correct me if I'm wrong. I've always thought that satanism is the minipulation of the powers of spirits and earthen things in the quest to have more power then the next person.
The rest of your explanations seem spot on to me. Thanks!

kington99

2005-10-15, 10:37 PM

unidad, we seem to be talking here specifically about LaVayen satanism, which has little or no occult basis, as far as i can see it is based on human psychology, powers of earthen spirits doesn't come in to it. It teaches that you are your own god, that there is nothing above you that is worthy of worship.

Dk, im not sure what rituals you are referring to, most of the 'satanic rituals' relate to branches of satanism that we're not discussing at the moment, namely those praticed by teen dabblers in the 'dark arts' or groups of voodoo-esque worshipers who seek control or power via occult means. As far as i understand it, to subscribe to the Church of Satanism is to alter the way one lives their everyday life, it's in everything you do, there is no need for a house of worship or a doctrine of laws. Most of all i think, it praises intelligent thought rather than blind obedience, something which raises my opinion of it a great deal.

kristine

2005-10-16, 01:36 AM

uni57

2005-10-16, 04:57 AM

I'd just like to ask a question, and that is there is a big difference between Darwinism, and Atheism, while I can hold respect for the beliefs of Darwinist, I cannot say the same for Atheist. Atheists do not have a belief. We simply have a lack of belief. It's like not believing in the Easter Bunny. It says nothing else about the person. It's not a belief system. It's lack of one single belief.

Seager

2005-10-16, 07:49 AM

I'd just like to ask a question, and that is there is a big difference between Darwinism, and Atheism, while I can hold respect for the beliefs of Darwinist, I cannot say the same for Atheist. That entitles the disbelief of an omnipotent consciousness that entitles matter, i.e. a God, even at the level of belief of that of Buddhism, where there God rarely if never interacts with the material world.

I'm not very picky along the lines of Religious doctrine, when it comes to this point, but anyone that doesn’t believe in a 'God' of any sorts, has not studied Quantum Theory or Relativity, and you are just as bad as those religious proponents that you say follow there beliefs 'blindly'

Become an Evolutionist, Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, and I'll give you one-hundred percent of my support, but, Kill God or become a Mormon, and you've lost my respect.

Darwinism is usually used incorrectly instead of "evolution" or darwinist for evolutionist. Evolution/darwinism makes absolutely no claims upon the existance of God. Darwinism would be, I suppose, a follower of Darwin. Since most evolutionist have moved past Darwin (he got some things wrong) to better perfect the theory calling evolutionists "darwinists" is completely wrong. Also, you can agree with evolution and believe in God, they are not mutually exclusive. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution or darwinism and vice versa.

As for having studied quantum physics and relativity and not believing in God... that's silly. You argument here is simply "Holy cow it's super complicated and we can't fully explain is yet so there must be a higher power." That's pretty much how religion was invented, when people were trying to explain lightening. Something being unexplainable by humans does not prove the existence of a deity.

Furthermore, Buddism doesn't have a "god" they way you said it, and evolutionist doesn't belong in the same list as "christian, muslim, or buddist" because it's not a religion.

We do agree, however, the hard atheism (the belief that God can not exist) does require faith. Many people that claim to be atheists are actually agnostic who simply lean to atheism but admit that God cannot be proved or disproved. It's possible to not believe in God and at the same time not believe that there is no God. One can simply not believe anything for lack of enough information.

burjzyntski

2005-10-16, 03:49 PM

I'm not going to fully express my views right here, right now, but I will say that I am Agnostic.

Expect a full argument in the future.

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-16, 04:32 PM

Atheists do not have a belief. We simply have a lack of belief. It's like not believing in the Easter Bunny. It says nothing else about the person. It's not a belief system. It's lack of one single belief.

Dave, Thank you for speaking for all the Atheists. Might you say that Atheists, like the Satanists, [In the words of kington99]: Most of all i think, it praises intelligent thought rather than blind obedience, something which raises my opinion of it a great deal.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, also praise intelligent thought rather than blind obedience, except the Fundamentalists of any group.

But being a Christian says nothing else about the person either. You find Christians in jails, in politics, even in unicycle clubs:eek:

Billy

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-16, 04:34 PM

We do agree, however, that hard atheism (the belief that God can not exist) does require faith. [/b]

Thank you Seager!!! [I hope Dave sees this....]

Billy

cathwood

2005-10-16, 05:52 PM

Atheists do not have a belief. We simply have a lack of belief. It's like not believing in the Easter Bunny. It says nothing else about the person. It's not a belief system. It's lack of one single belief.

I disagree. I am an aetheist and I have a belief system. I don't believe in god but at the moment I do believe that reality is something socially negotiated rather than being something that actually exists (at least to a point). I don't believe that I am god or that any other gods exist but I do have a belief system, mostly founded on moral principles such as it is wrong to kill others and that when you die your whole universe dies with you but in another way you live on in the minds and behaviours of those that you have influenced along the way.

Cathy

Mikefule

2005-10-16, 07:04 PM

... but at the moment I do believe that...

How nice to read of someone who is open minded and self-aware enough to acknowledge that their beliefs may change. That is an important difference between faith and reason.

Your provisional conclusion that your whole universe will die with you, but that you will live on in the memories of those whom you have affected is interesting and, I think, a useful way of trying to understand your own place in the world. It is also a useful model to bear in mind when you try to understand those who see the world very differently.

Of course there is an external world of sorts. We can only know it second hand through our senses and the interpretations we place on them. Even if the "outside world" is just an illusion, the fact that we conceive it shows that "otherness" exists, that there is something "other than" the part of our mind that we conceive as a discrete entity, and there is therefore something that we can reasonably describe as "external", relative to that part of the mind.

Your emphasis on the social foundation of your "universe" is where I might part company from you. Is your suggestion that a person raised in isolation from other human beings, and unaware of their existence, would have no universe? I think the foundation of our private universes is based on our interpretations of our perceptions, and that social interraction is only one (very important) source of those perceptions.

cathwood

2005-10-16, 07:26 PM

Is your suggestion that a person raised in isolation from other human beings, and unaware of their existence, would have no universe?

Perhaps I interpret social interaction more broadly than you do. I can't see how it would be possible for a child to be raised in total isolation. Somebody or something would have to do the raising. This in iteslf is a social accomplishment. Human babies are designed to blag parents into raising them. (Please interpret 'design' in the loosest way possible). I believe that that child would interact with whatever was available, it doesn't necessarily have to be human beings. We are designed (I believe) to make meaning out of the world via social interaction (with whatever is around).

Cathy

one_track_mind

2005-10-16, 07:55 PM

Am I the only one who finds it the least bit amusing that a theological discussion like this is on a unicycling forum?

But yes, I am an atheist. I am not for or against religion. It's great for teaching people moral values, but it just seems like a huge waste of thought. You live your life, you die. There is no need for there to be some sort of higher purpose for your existence.
This whole "Reality is an illusion! Manifest destiny! If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a noise?" just seems to be a product of too much time spent thinking. It really doesn't matter to me.

Sorry if that got a bit emotional. You try have a conversation like this to a bunch of high schoolers....

cathwood

2005-10-16, 08:01 PM

This whole "Reality is an illusion! Manifest destiny! If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a noise?" just seems to be a product of too much time spent thinking. It really doesn't matter to me.

Well, you could be right. It's probably just that as you get older you get more time to think. All that time spent at work when you have to do something to pass the time.

Cathy

Mikefule

2005-10-16, 08:29 PM

Am I the only one who finds it the least bit amusing that a theological discussion like this is on a unicycling forum?
...

In Just Conversation, which is here so that people who already know (of) each other through a shared interest in unicycles can get to know each other better, and just shoot the breeze.

As for the waste of thought. Philosophy is unicycling for the mind: a minority sport with few directly practical applications, but very good for helping you to develop and maintain balance and nimbleness.

Chill.

Seager

2005-10-16, 11:00 PM

Cathwood, If I were to define your beliefs I'd call you "spiritual" over anything else, or maybe spiritual atheist. I think most people that hold the same style of beliefs as you would be found if someone researched various forms of paganism or wicca, however. The things you are thinking about (the nature of reality, etc) are metaphysics. An interesting but wholly frusterating (to me) aspect of philosphy.

I like reading your thoughts on the subject. :) Evolution and society are inherently linked. (strong societies are selected for over weak ones just like strong individuals.) You show remarkable insight.

uni57

2005-10-17, 01:28 AM

I disagree. I am an aetheist and I have a belief system. Okay, fine. But atheism is not a belief system. You (and I) have a belief system, but it lies outside of atheism. As an analogy, lack of belief in the Easter Bunny is not a belief system either.

uni57

2005-10-17, 01:39 AM

Dave, Thank you for speaking for all the Atheists. Might you say that Atheists, like the Satanists, [In the words of kington99]: Most of all i think, it praises intelligent thought rather than blind obedience, something which raises my opinion of it a great deal.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, also praise intelligent thought rather than blind obedience, except the Fundamentalists of any group.

But being a Christian says nothing else about the person either. You find Christians in jails, in politics, even in unicycle clubs:eek: Billy, you are welcome. Also, I am glad that, as you say above, religions praise intelligent thought. I've never commented on obedience (except indirectly, at the unicycle club meeting yesterday). Do you want me to?

Being a Christian DOES say something about the person. It says much about their beliefs. There are certain criteria which must be met in order to call oneself a Christian. For example, believing in Jesus. Labeling yourself Christian is a shorthand way of saying "I believe in Jesus. I believe in God. I believe this. I believe that. (etc. -- a long list)"

I agree that Christians do not necessarily act upon those beliefs (and end up in jail for murder, etc). But calling yourself Christian says that you subscribe to a set of beliefs. (Not so with atheism.)

uni57

2005-10-17, 01:53 AM

(((regarding Seager's comment that hard atheism requires faith...)))

Thank you Seager!!! [I hope Dave sees this....]
Yes, I saw it. And I disagree completely. One does not require faith that a square circle CANNOT exist. Those two attributes conflict. Anything claiming to possess BOTH of those attributes CANNOT exist.

It is possible to apply a similar thought process to God. This is why I was trying to get a definition of God a few weeks ago. What is it that you believe in? If you wish me to believe, you have to describe what you want me to believe in. And if the attributes of this being conflict with each other or with the world-at-large, then I can say with certainty that that being CANNOT exist. No faith needed. Just simple logic.

Why are theists reluctant to define God? I'm ignorant about what God is. Clue me in. How would I know God if I met Him? What are his attributes?

Spudman

2005-10-17, 02:11 AM

Let me explain how this works:

Lets say that someone has a belief that there is a unicorn in orbit around a planet in another galaxy. You say "That is a load of bull. Prove it."

They say: "Prove I'm wrong."

Now there is no way you can ever do that given the infinate number of galaxies and planets in the universe. You say: "I can't prove that." They win.

There are some things that can't be proven or disproven, because they exist soley on the notion that they could exist.

The same thing can be applied the other way:

You say: "There is no god"

They say: "Prove it!" You can't can you? Just in the same way that they cannot prove that he exists, you cannot prove that he doesn't.

Seeing as there is absolutely no way to prove that either side is right, we each follow our own best judgements to determine which side we are on, and thus we have these huge gigantomungous arguements about who is right.

Seager

2005-10-17, 02:12 AM

Yes, I saw it. And I disagree completely. One does not require faith that a square circle CANNOT exist. Those two attributes conflict. Anything claiming to possess BOTH of those attributes CANNOT exist.

It is possible to apply a similar thought process to God. This is why I was trying to get a definition of God a few weeks ago. What is it that you believe in? If you wish me to believe, you have to describe what you want me to believe in. And if the attributes of this being conflict with each other or with the world-at-large, then I can say with certainty that that being CANNOT exist. No faith needed. Just simple logic.

Why are theists reluctant to define God? I'm ignorant about what God is. Clue me in. How would I know God if I met Him? What are his attributes?

Yes, a square circle cannot exist because we can prove that. You CANNOT prove that God does not exist, and thus you believing that god doesn't exist is faith. You believe in something you cannot prove, than you have to have faith.

You can disprove some Gods, you can disprove some definitions of God, but the general christian God is so mumbo-jumboey that you cannot disprove him/it. Trust me, I've tried for a long time.

The general theodic definition of a christain God, btw, generally agreeded on by theodicians and theologians is a God bound by logic. Infact, God and "logic" are often thought of as being identical and inseperable. (logic is perfect and God is perfect, etc) Therefor, God CANNOT do things that defy logic. Therefor, God CAN make a rock that he can't lift. God CAN'T make a circle be a square, etc. Proving or disproving this version of God is very hard. It all works out to metaphysics at some point (can a being outside of time affect a timeline) etc.

For thousands of years people have been trying to prove and disprove this God, and they've failed. Therefor believing that God cannot exist requires faith. You can say that it's highly improbable, and that the odds against it are a gazillion to one, but you can't say it's impossible.

phlegm

2005-10-17, 02:30 AM

This whole "Reality is an illusion! Manifest destiny! If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a noise?" just seems to be a product of too much time spent thinking. It really doesn't matter to me.

You might like this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691122946/qid=1129516013/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2825630-1260718?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). :D

2005-10-17, 02:32 AM

People really analyze the shit out of things, don't they?

halfbike

2005-10-17, 02:33 AM

who do you aetheists cry to when you bust a nut?

Spudman

2005-10-17, 02:34 AM

I do.

.......

2005-10-17, 02:38 AM

who do you aetheists cry to when you bust a nut?
Why do you Christians cry when I burn churches?

theotherguy

2005-10-17, 03:16 AM

we cry to the nut gods

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-17, 03:37 AM

i don't want to speak for all atheists, but I have DISbelief in God, I just can't be bothered with the idea. It seems to be a very Christian idea tht there are only 2 possible sides to everything. As Bush woudl say "you either fer us or yer aginst us" But it's not that simple.

uni57

2005-10-17, 06:11 AM

People really analyze the shit out of things, don't they? Oh yes, I've been told that before.

Lets say that someone has a belief that there is a unicorn in orbit around a planet in another galaxy. You say "That is a load of bull. Prove it."

They say: "Prove I'm wrong."

<snip>

The same thing can be applied the other way:

You say: "There is no god"

They say: "Prove it!" You can't can you? Just in the same way that they cannot prove that he exists, you cannot prove that he doesn't.Imagine that a scientist came up with a theory that sounded pretty unbelievable, had lots of holes in it, and basically had no evidence to support the theory. If that scientist said "prove I'm wrong", the other scientists would laugh at him and his theory. He would be considered a quack or a charlatan or a goofball or whatever (what's a quack scientist called?).

And regarding your second part, that is why I am always very careful NEVER to assert that "God does not exist". I simply do not believe the theory of God. Practically speaking, we arrive at the same place (no God). But a lack of belief requires no defense. A positive belief (God does not or cannot exist) does require defense.

If you present sufficient evidence for your orbiting unicorn, then of course I'll believe it. But until then, I reject your theory.

"An orbiting unicorn exists" is not a true statement to me. Prior to me becoming convinced of your theory, it is simply not a true statement. That's different from me saying that "an orbiting unicorn does NOT exist".

God is YOUR theory. You have to explain the theory and then give me reasons to believe. The onus is 100% on you.

i don't want to speak for all atheistsYes, that's what Billy accused me of doing.

MrBoogiejuice

2005-10-17, 01:52 PM

I came across this the other day. It seems relevant.
http://www.venganza.org/

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-17, 03:14 PM

Being a Christian DOES say something about the person. It says much about their beliefs. There are certain criteria which must be met in order to call oneself a Christian. For example, believing in Jesus. Labeling yourself Christian is a shorthand way of saying "I believe in Jesus. I believe in God. I believe this. I believe that. (etc. -- a long list)"

Dave,

Incorrect. Like Atheist, Christian says only one thing about a person. See below:
Christian (krschn)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Atheist (athee-ist)
adj.
1. Professing belief in no God.
2. Showing no loving concern for others; inhumane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in no God.

Billy

mscalisi

2005-10-17, 04:06 PM

The problem here, as I see it, is using the word faith out of context. The concept of faith simply does not exist in atheism. You are looking at athiesm through the paradigm of theism.

If you were to show an athiest god, he would not refute it since the athiest view uses logic and reason instead of faith. Example: If one did not believe elephants existed and you presented him an elephant, he would have to acknowledge that elephants existed. (please note: I mean "show god" in the literal sense as in "athiest this is god, god this is athiest")

However, if a person has faith in a god, you cannot show him "no god". (even if you could, he would still have "faith").

Yes, a square circle cannot exist because we can prove that. You CANNOT prove that God does not exist, and thus you believing that god doesn't exist is faith. You believe in something you cannot prove, than you have to have faith.

mscalisi

2005-10-17, 04:12 PM

I think this is sort of funny.

You cannot have satan without god. For satan to exist, you must accept god. True satanism doesn't exist except for death rock bands. (and in a comical sense in that).

LaVay satanism, to me, seems like a rejection of christianity, and the name is used simply as a means of distancing itself from religion. Which is ironic since it has the opposite effect.

That's not atheism, that's satanism. Satanisim, contary to popular belief, is NOT the worship of satan (that's a small off shoot) but the worship of humans beings as the ultimate power. The Church of Satan founded by laVay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan) was/is the main driving force. People that actually worship a deity of satan are very much the minority.

Atheism, in turn, is simply the opposite of theism as opposed to any sort of belief in people as a higher power or deity. Quite literally "the absence in the belief of a God." "Soft atheism" is the absence of belief whereas "hard atheism" is an active believe in there not being a god. (Hard atheism, I think, requires just as much faith as theism)

Many people who claim they are atheist are actually soft atheists or even agnostics, (a-gnostic = without knowledge). Agnostics simply believe you can't tell either way. Many people (including myself) are thus agnostic-atheists or soft atheists which basically means we can't prove or disprove god, but we have a hunch that he isn't around. (it's pretty improbable)

I spent many years in college studying religion, theology, and theodicy in an effort to prove or disprove god and the sad truth is after studying all the so-called proofs and disproofs (problem of evil/aquinus/etc) I realized that you simply can't answer the question. It all boils down to metaphysics anyway, and metaphysics sucks.

(please don't bother trying to post your version of proof - I promise I've already studied it and can post why it's fallible. Nothing new has some out of this debate for hundreds of years.)

mscalisi

2005-10-17, 04:15 PM

This is another example of looking at athiesm through the paradigm of theism. With athiesm , there cannot be a higher power. The moment you have a higher power, athiesm is no longer present.

On another note. Is atheism the belief that there is no higher power?
If that holds true, doesn't that belief(by default) make you that higher power?

Finally, isn't your consistant argument of the point, in and of itself, advertising or witnessing your point of view?

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-17, 04:22 PM

The problem here, as I see it, is using the word faith out of context. The concept of faith simply does not exist in atheism. You are looking at athiesm through the paradigm of theism.

That is an ethnocentric view: A christian COULD say: I do not need faith in God any more than I need faith in gravity. My every step confirms the existence. It's not faith; it's FACT. Who needs faith in gravity?

If you were to show an athiest god, he would not refute it since the athiest view uses logic and reason instead of faith. Example: If one did not believe elephants existed and you presented him an elephant, he would have to acknowledge that elephants existed. (please note: I mean "show god" in the literal sense as in "athiest this is god, god this is athiest")

Everytime I show GOD to Atheists, they say: That's not the GOD I don't believe in.

Billy

mscalisi

2005-10-17, 04:30 PM

That's pretty much the response I expected to get, and it simply underlines the differences between thiests and athiests, and why these discussions always end the same way.....except, what does ethnicity have to do with it?

That is an ethnocentric view: A christian COULD say: I do not need faith in God any more than I need faith in gravity. My every step confirms the existence. It's not faith; it's FACT. Who needs faith in gravity?

Everytime I show GOD to Atheists, they say: That's not the GOD I don't believe in.

Billy

uni57

2005-10-17, 04:54 PM

Incorrect. Like Atheist, Christian says only one thing about a person. See below:
Christian (krschn)
adj.
.
.
.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
Christianity is a belief system. But according to your dictionary definition, I must be a Christian, because I have a loving concern for others. And you doctored the definition of atheism, didn't you?

If you were to show an athiest god, he would not refute it since the athiest view uses logic and reason instead of faith. Thank you. I'm glad you are here. (this is in response to everything you've said, not just the above)

Good luck trying to get through to Billy. He is obviously* crying out for our help. He wants to trust in logic and reason, but he has been taught "faith", which is incompatible with reason. Billy is my friend. Can you help me help him? :)

* - not

Mikefule

2005-10-17, 05:14 PM

Oh dear.
Not believing in God can only be explained by faith in there not being a God?

The idea of a God(s) is an idea about the fundamental nature of the universe. It is a very important idea indeed. Gosh, if I'm wrong, then I'm gonna be in a lot of trouble in a few years when I die.

An idea about the fundamental nature of the universe, something that describes the universe and helps us to see how it works. That's a theory... but a theory is no good if:
(1) It cannot possibly be verified. (Proven to be true.)
(2) It cannot possibly be falsified. (Proven to be false.)
(3) It cannot be used to make better than random predicitions.

The God theory in its standard form cannot be verified or falsified, and even its keenest proponents don't suggest they can use it to make better than random predicitions. Will the child die? Will God save it or take it to his bosom? God works in mysterious ways, etc.

So the God theory is less useful than the orbiting unicorn theory, because at least in prnciple, it would be possible to verify that. You'd only need to stumble across one star with an orbiting unicorn and you'd be home and dry.

It is possible that the first man to use a flint tool was called Gregory. There is nothing inherently implausible about this, but it is not susceptible to proof or disproof, and can't help us to make better than random predictions about future events in palaoarchaeology. Therefore, no one investigates it further.

As for Darwin. Darwin was another fallible human being, a scientist. He had a great insight, and proposed a theory of evolution. Like all scientific hypotheses, it was susceptible to testing. Over the years, the basic idea has held good, but it has been refined as we've learned more.

Lamarck had another theory - the theory that acquired characteristics could be transmitted down the generations. Right or wrong, his theory was susceptible to proof, disproof, or refinement.

Of course, God(s) could have designed a world in which a mechanism like evolution played its part, and most people who call themselves Christian accept the idea of evolution. Only a minority of people profess to believe in literal 6 day creationism, and a fair number of people subscribe to some version of intelligent design.

As a purely logical challenge, it is harder to dismiss the idea of numerous gods with limited powers (as per the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, etc.) than it is to dismiss the idea of an omnipresent omnipotent etc. single God.

Those who choose to believe often derive solace, or strength from their faith. I know some very good Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and at least one pagan. Other people I have known have had their lives ruined by a religious upbringing, sinking into depression, guilt, and feelings of worthlessness.

Those who choose not to believe are sometimes stronger and happier for their independence; others sink into depression at the futility of it all.

The debate is unwinnable, because a person who strives to live by faith will only concede when they lose their faith, and a person who strives to live by the dictates of reason will only concede when they lose the will to do so.

Let's not fall out about it.

Anyone else out there ride a unicycle? It's great fun.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-17, 07:15 PM

Atheist (athee-ist)
adj
2. Showing no loving concern for others; inhumane.

wow that's an offensive definition. It was obviously written by a theist. What a horrible jump of logic. But some people jsut can't understand how someone would try to be a good person without a God to tell them to.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-17, 07:17 PM

The edit button isn't working for me.

Billy what dictionary did that come from?

cathwood

2005-10-17, 07:22 PM

The edit button isn't working for me.

Billy what dictionary did that come from?

Don't rise to it. He's just winding us up.

Cathy

this end up

2005-10-17, 07:46 PM

i guess i am kind of atheist but only because i don't have a belief in any other religion

uni57

2005-10-17, 08:16 PM

Billy what dictionary did that come from?Hi This,

It came from the Billy dictionary. He made it up, just like he "edits" my quotes until they say something completely different. It's just Billy being Billy.

phlegm

2005-10-17, 08:44 PM

Regarding atheists having no regard for others, it seems to me that atheism within Western Society is often a reaction against Christianity. How many atheists are there that were raised as atheists and that seriously act as if there is no god? To me, many seem to merely dislike some aspect of Christianity and thus choose atheism by default, not because atheism is really that great, but because it's against Christianity.

Also, much of Western philosophy is inseparable from Christianity and lies at the foundations of Western Society. For example, the idea of social welfare (caring for the elderly and poor) in Western society was born out of Christianity. So when you declare yourself an atheist in Western society, it shouldn't be surprising when viewed as diametrically opposed to all that is Christian. Now, I don't think this is necessarily a fair treatment to say that all atheists are against social welfare, but in the Modernist mindset where entire systems of supposed absolute Truth compete, this is how it seems to work.

kington99

2005-10-17, 09:07 PM

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, also praise intelligent thought rather than blind obedience, except the Fundamentalists of any group.
Billy

Really? In what way is, for instance, exclaiming 'Thought shalt not kill' praising intelligent thought over blind obedience? Surely it would take no-one more than 5 minutes to figure that out for themselves with a little rational thought, why the need to spoon-feed it to people in a form which requires less actual thought, and therefore quite possibly a lower level of compliance? Why do parents teach their children often exclusively about their own religion, if intelligent thought is being sought over obedience shouldn't you lay all the religous theories of the world out in front of them and let them decide?
Everyone is brain washed, intentionally or otherwise, by their parents as they grow up. I can be pretty sure that if i'd been born to the family living next door I would be coming from the other side of this argument (if this argument has sides, you know what i mean) I can't see how any religion can make any claims to intelligent thought if it doesn't accept this fact and challenge its young followers to examine other religions before really choosing. I've realised that my up-bringing has caused my anti-religious tendencies, and if i stick with my current beliefs then I'm no better than the people i criticise, if i think through all this and come back to the same beliefs then fine, that is the end product of my intelligent thought process, anyone who can't subject their own beliefs to such scruitiny for fear of discovering that they were wrong all along really is walking blind.

kington99

2005-10-17, 09:11 PM

[QUOTE=uni57]
Imagine that a scientist came up with a theory that sounded pretty unbelievable, had lots of holes in it, and basically had no evidence to support the theory. If that scientist said "prove I'm wrong", the other scientists would laugh at him and his theory.
QUOTE]

You've obviously never heard of dark matter, it exactly matches your theory description but is pretty widely accepted in the scientific community and is the basis of a lot of our understanding of how the universe works.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-17, 09:18 PM

Also, much of Western philosophy is inseparable from Christianity and lies at the foundations of Western Society. For example, the idea of social welfare (caring for the elderly and poor) in Western society was born out of Christianity.

then what has happened over the past 2000 years where a President who is supposedly devoutly faithful and blah, blah, blah, is so entirely agianst social welfare.

Jesus was quite the leftist. I personally try to live my life by all the teachings of Christ except those that involve God. He was certianly a wise philosopher, but he totally ruined his credibility when he brought the whole son of God thing into the mix, what an ego :rolleyes:

phlegm

2005-10-17, 09:26 PM

I can't see how any religion can make any claims to intelligent thought if it doesn't accept this fact and challenge its young followers to examine other religions before really choosing.

Is this really so bad? Isn't being taught as a child a necessary part of development? Should we stop teaching kids history because all of the history books contain subjective bias? Any psychologist will tell you that children are not ready for the same level of abstract and critical thought that we adults employ. That's why we train them and tell them what to believe.

I think you need to leave children out of your claim that all religion is blind obedience, because I don't think it does anything for your argument.

phlegm

2005-10-17, 09:30 PM

then what has happened over the past 2000 years where a President who is supposedly devoutly faithful and blah, blah, blah, is so entirely agianst social welfare.

Good question. ;)

Jesus was quite the leftist. I personally try to live my life by all the teachings of Christ except those that involve God. He was certianly a wise philosopher, but he totally ruined his credibility when he brought the whole son of God thing into the mix, what an ego :rolleyes:

He ruined his credibility? So the Gospel writers were in on his power trip?

Seager

2005-10-17, 09:59 PM

We need to agree on our definitions of "atheist."

If one says God is impossible without proving so that take a belief.
If one says God is possible but probably doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it - that does not take belief. That is correct logic.

Saying God is impossible is just as unprovable as a theory as saying God must exist. Both theories are bunk and should be thrown out. The only correct stance, logically, is that God is possible and unprovable either way. From there you can go to wether you think it's probable or not. (just like the invisible unicorn theory)

On a side note, Secular Morality exists. Billy should look it up.

kington99

2005-10-17, 10:09 PM

...your claim that all religion is blind obedience...

Wo there, I don't know what you think you read me say, I said that Satanism is higher in my estimation than it might otherwise be because it praises intelligent though over blind obedience, I never claimed that all religion is blind obedience, please take that back. Such a claim would be ridiculous, I don't know everything about every religion, I have never claimed to, so how on earth would i know?

Teach kids from biased books fine, but explain to them in what way and why the book is biased, so that they can understand the slant that the writer will have put on it. I can't remeber ever hearing a sermon (and i've heard hundreds) that ends with, "But that's just Christianity's view of things, you read it your own way."

Obviously the obedience of children is not a suitable point for my argument for the reasons you listed, my point was intended more to aim at people who have been brought up as children within a religion, but are now at a suitable age to make their own descisions, their continued faith without ever questioning what they were told throughout their lives smacks of following the heard.

I think the main jist of my argument is this, if you'd been born to jewish parents, you'd be jewish right now, (I'm presuming your christian, swap the religions around if you're not). If that were the case, do you really think that you would 'see the light' and swap to christianity? If not, then you'd be a jew right now, happy and content in your belief, just because you had different parents. How on earth then, can you be sure that your religious beliefs are correct, you could have so easily turned out different? The only answer is to totally reassess the situation, don't rely on anyone except yourself to guide you to your personal version of enlightenment.

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-17, 10:26 PM

Everyone is brain washed, intentionally or otherwise, by their parents as they grow up. I can be pretty sure that if i'd been born to the family living next door I would be coming from the other side of this argument (if this argument has sides, you know what i mean) ....I've realised that my up-bringing has caused my anti-religious tendencies, and if i stick with my current beliefs then I'm no better than the people i criticise, if i think through all this and come back to the same beliefs then fine, that is the end product of my intelligent thought process, anyone who can't subject their own beliefs to such scruitiny for fear of discovering that they were wrong all along really is walking blind.

if i think through all this and come back to the same beliefs then fine, that is the end product of my intelligent thought process.

if i think through all this and come back to the same beliefs then fine, that is the end product of my intelligent thought process.

if i think through all this and come back to the same beliefs then fine, that is the end product of my intelligent thought process..

Hey King Ton99,

You are my King. King of the Jews and Christians and Atheists!!! All Honor and Glory to King Ton99!!! OM!

Truly, I like what you said here. It only makes me jealous, because I have no intelligent thought process... Still worse, when I think of end product, I recognize that all the raw materials added on the assembly line of thought were someone else's.

And Dave keeps complaining that Billy is putting words in his mouth. But YOU seem to be saying that everyone put words in his mouth. That he's most in touch with reality when he's really tripping!! Far out!

It's... like...now I know that I really don't know. Like, wow!

Billy

phlegm

2005-10-17, 10:36 PM

I think the main jist of my argument is this, if you'd been born to jewish parents, you'd be jewish right now, (I'm presuming your christian, swap the religions around if you're not). If that were the case, do you really think that you would 'see the light' and swap to christianity? If not, then you'd be a jew right now, happy and content in your belief, just because you had different parents. How on earth then, can you be sure that your religious beliefs are correct, you could have so easily turned out different? The only answer is to totally reassess the situation, don't rely on anyone except yourself to guide you to your personal version of enlightenment.

Sorry, I apologize. I must have read too much into what you wrote.

I see your point and agree that some amount of reassessment may be worthwhile for some at least, however I'm skeptical that a complete reassessment is even possible. Isn't it quite impossible to only rely on one's own assessment? (Been there, tried that. ;) )

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-17, 10:41 PM

I think the main jist of my argument is this, if you'd been born to jewish parents, you'd be jewish right now.

In fact, many Atheists were born to and raised by Jewish parents, Christian parents, etc. Jews believe as follows:

You can confirm this by Google, but I'm sure you know the Truth. Rabbi Jacob Immanuel Schochet said the belief in the coming of Moshiach and the Messianic redemption is one of the fundamental principles of the Jewish faith. Every Jew must believe that Moshiach will arise and restore the Kingdom of David to its original state and sovereignty, rebuild the Bet Hamikdash (Holy Temple of Jerusalem), gather the dispersed of Israel, and in his days all the laws of the Torah shall be reinstituted as they had been aforetimes.

Do you know people who are Atheist by culture but don't really have any BELIEFS about it? Like, they were raised by Atheists, and identify with the Atheist culture, but they never really absorbed the BELIEFS? Check with the children of Dave and other reknowned Atheists, about what they try to teach their kids [Father to daughter--overheard at a recent Unicycle meeting: Don't listen to the GOD nonsense, sweetheart. Those GOD believing people are primitives who haven't yet accepted Science as Lord"]

One way: Science

Billy

Spudman

2005-10-17, 10:43 PM

Science as lord?

I think you're confusing me with Tom Cruise.

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-17, 10:57 PM

Christianity is a belief system. I must be a Christian, because I have a loving concern for others. :)

It's true, Dave. If not a christian, at least one of the Godful, rather than Godless.

That's pretty much the response I expected to get, and it simply underlines the differences between thiests and athiests, and why these discussions always end the same way.....except, what does ethnicity have to do with it?

What is the difference between Racism and Ethnocentric Monoculturalism?
By Rosemary I Patterson
Last edited: Friday, February 04, 2005
Posted: Tuesday, September 04, 2001

A quick outline of how Racism differs from Ethnocentric Monoculturalism.

-Racism is conscious. One does not even want to speculate on why an individual feels so traumatized about oneself as to feel the need to boost one's own self-worth by denigrating a person of differing skin color or different cultural practices. Racial discrimination is generally forbidden by laws.
-Ethnocentric Monoculturalism as defined by two of its most coherent authors (Gerald Wing Sue & David Sue in "Counseling the Culturally Different", 3rd. Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1999) is unconscious. It is predominently a product of enculturation. Many people of an Ethnocentric Monocultural bent are well meaning. Five aspects of this unconscious belief system can be particularly damaging to ethnic minorities. These are: (Quoting & paraphasing from Sue & Sue)
1)A strong belief in the surperiority of all other group's cultural heritage (history, values, language, traditions, arts/crafts, etc.
2)There is a belief in the inferiority of all other groups cultural heritage that extends to their customs, values, traditions and language. (Others considered pagan, primitive, uncivilized, etc.)
3)Power to impose standards.
4)Manifestation in Institutions. For example, education systems, management systems.
5)The Invisible Veil. "Since people are all products of cultural conditioning, their values and beliefs (world view) represent an invisible veil that operates outside the level of conscious awareness. As a result people assume universality: that the nature of reality and truth are shared by everyone regardless of race, culture, ethnicity or gender."

It's not hard to see how these unconscious belief systems result in two divided groups of people who do not understand each other at all. On the one hand, the dominent group presumes that everybody thinks like them and that they are pretty great and on the other hand, an oppressed group who thinks the dominant culture people are arrogant, viscious and must hate them which often leads to the conclusion on their part that the dominant group are beyond redemption.

What is the answer to this problem?

A good question! Some answers are likely procedures like dialoging, apologising, at least drawing up treaties in places like British Columbia and Australia where they are mostly lacking, and reparations for years of discrimination, disrespect, paternalism and lack of upward mobility. END

Let me repeat: "It's not hard to see how these unconscious belief systems result in two divided groups of people who do not understand each other at all." My King, King Ton99, could not have said it better if these authors had raised him and put these words in his mouth themselves. Here we have the Godful and the Godless--2 cultures who do not understand each other at all.

Peace of God,

Billy

johnfoss

2005-10-17, 11:26 PM

Atheist (athee-ist)
adj.
1. Professing belief in no God.
2. Showing no loving concern for others; inhumane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in no God.

Several people have accused this of being a made-up definition but I'm still wondering. #2 sure isn't "nice" to people who think themselves atheists, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's in a dictionary somewhere. Billy?

Anyway, #2 is my reason for not claiming to be an atheist. The very sound of the word seems to have an evil connotation. Something to be feared by organized religion as a possible way to lose members (and revenue).

As far as definitions, I have to believe in #1 above as the strict definition of atheist. Note the "b" word. If "atheist" is to be the opposite of "theist," it means you *believe there is no god." If that doesn't fit you, you may belong in the much more flexible agnostic category.

Therefore, atheism is a belief (but not a religion). And atheism *requires* faith. You have to believe something without being able to prove it. So please stop the assertions of "no faith."

So to be a theist is to believe in something without being able to prove it (or to believe you *can* prove it I guess). To be an atheist is to believe in something *not* existing. Same type of faith required.

I'm not at a full 100%, so I guess that makes me an agnostic.

Based on the dictionary-like definiton (real or not) above, "atheist" also carries the connotation of being inhumane and uncaring. Also I believe there is a general connotation with "agnostic" of being apathetic or unconcerned. Neither is any more true about those groups than they are about any other group of people. Some highly religious people are serial killers, and some atheists have probably won Nobel Peace Prizes. Remember, labels don't describe a person, they only describe one aspect of them.

Seager

2005-10-17, 11:33 PM

It's true, Dave. If not a christian, at least one of the Godful, rather than Godless.

Wait, so you are saying having good morals defines you as a christain or "one of the godful?"

Secular morality exists, billy. One example is secular humanism, but there are many other examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism Read some books or take some classes in morality and moral theories and then come back and try again. You are coming off as very ignorant.

Spudman

2005-10-17, 11:33 PM

The way that I see the world without a God is just the same as you would see the grass to be green. It just is, I don't have to believe it.

However, If we are all at this level of thinking and can all host our own opinions on this subject, then we must all believe our opinions to be true, right? So by definition we all have faith in what we think to be true.

But then what about the green grass? I think that it is green, so do I have faith that it is green?

johnfoss

2005-10-17, 11:53 PM

But then what about the green grass? I think that it is green, so do I have faith that it is green?You have to do more than *think* it's green, you have to *believe* through-and-through that it's green.

That's the green grass, right? Because here in California, in October all the grass that doesn't get watered is yellow/brown. At least that's what it looks like to me... :)

The color thing goes back to the whole interpretation-by-the-body's-senses thing. We can only know what our senses tell us. Not all people can see the green, so they are considered color-blind. Since color-blindness comes in many levels, many people probably have a much better ability to see color than many others. I learned this when I worked with old-fashioned (analog) color photography and making prints in the darkroom. Some people seemed to discern small color differences very easily while others had a lot more trouble.

And some people probably have super-sensitive color vision, and may be able to discern thousands more variations of color than the vast majority of people.

We are all limited by our senses. But we can agree on a basic, color, and a name for that color, even if it doesn't look the same to all of us.

Better than color, I like to think of taste as the most subjective. How do we know another person's perception of taste is anything like ours? Different people like different things. Some people like spicy while others can't handle it. Maybe to them, everything is a little spicy already, so adding more makes it unbearable?

It's one of those things to go "Hmmmm" about.

I belive that the (watered) grass is green. However I don't consider it the type of thing that requires faith, at least not in the larger sense. People say it's green, it looks green to me, so I agree.

But as to the existence of a higher power, to answer all the questions we humans can't answer (or to withold those answers for reasons that won't be explained), I do not agree.

mscalisi

2005-10-18, 12:18 AM

To say that athiesm is a reaction against christianianity is a bit simplistic. In my view, athiesm is pretty neutral. Satanism is a reaction against christianity. Athiesm sidesteps the whole thing. There are lots of other choices if you choose to not be christian. I don't think one chooses athiesm because it is "all that great", but rather because thats what makes sense to them. A dislike of christianity or any other religion is not a requirement.

I think its rather arrogent to give christianity credit for the birth of social welfare. I think helping people is a noble cause. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and housing the homeless are all honorable acts regardless of the faith of the giver. If christianity is what you need in order to perform these acts, then the world is a better place for it.

Lots of non-christians are out there helping others. And they're not trying to convert them in the process.

But christianity isn't all smiles and fun.
Its oppressive toward women (ever read Leviticus: regarding women prisoners of war?)
Oppressive towards non-hetrosexual.
Condemns the majority of the worlds population to hell.
Uses eternal damnation as a scare tactic to win believers.

So to imply that christians are morally superior really has no basis.

Edit, It wasn't Leviticus after all.

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 Female prisoners-of-war, said God, must be subject to the sexual whims of their captors. They may have only one month of mourning for slain parents. Thereafter, when the captor grows tired of a prisoner, he may cast her aside.

Regarding atheists having no regard for others, it seems to me that atheism within Western Society is often a reaction against Christianity. How many atheists are there that were raised as atheists and that seriously act as if there is no god? To me, many seem to merely dislike some aspect of Christianity and thus choose atheism by default, not because atheism is really that great, but because it's against Christianity.

Also, much of Western philosophy is inseparable from Christianity and lies at the foundations of Western Society. For example, the idea of social welfare (caring for the elderly and poor) in Western society was born out of Christianity. So when you declare yourself an atheist in Western society, it shouldn't be surprising when viewed as diametrically opposed to all that is Christian. Now, I don't think this is necessarily a fair treatment to say that all atheists are against social welfare, but in the Modernist mindset where entire systems of supposed absolute Truth compete, this is how it seems to work.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-18, 12:59 AM

He ruined his credibility? So the Gospel writers were in on his power trip?

It's a matter of incentives. As we all know it's very easy to get caught up in something big. Also the Gospels were writing decades after the actual events, so when they are writing what Jesus said it's not what he actually said but what they remember him having said. Things get blown out of proportion on retelling. I don't believe Jesus himself ever claimed to be the Son of God, it was the retelling by the Gospels that blew it out of proportion to what people believe today.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 01:34 AM

To say that athiesm is a reaction against christianianity is a bit simplistic. In my view, athiesm is pretty neutral. Satanism is a reaction against christianity. Athiesm sidesteps the whole thing. There are lots of other choices if you choose to not be christian. I don't think one chooses athiesm because it is "all that great", but rather because thats what makes sense to them. A dislike of christianity or any other religion is not a requirement.

Yes, certainly some atheists are the counterexample to my "reaction against christianity" hypothesis. That is why I qualified my statement so carefully, specifying only within the context of Western Society and only often, not always. Certainly it is possible that someone could choose atheism without reacting against Christianity, however since Western Society has been so influenced by Christianity throughout history, I find it hard to believe that many in our society are not at least slightly influenced by Christian thought. And so it seems that the path of least resistance into an atheistic worldview is often by way of reacting against Christianity, not always, but often enough that I think it merits mentioning.

I think its rather arrogent to give christianity credit for the birth of social welfare. I think helping people is a noble cause. Feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and housing the homeless are all honorable acts regardless of the faith of the giver. If christianity is what you need in order to perform these acts, then the world is a better place for it.

If it is arrogant, then give me a prominent example within Ancient Greek thought where this notion of caring for the elderly and poor specifically originated outside of Christianity. No, I don't believe one needs Christianity in order to perform noble and moral deeds, however I do believe that much of the ethical framework that we take for granted in our current society is, for better or worse, largely a product of Christianity. Even the atheistic philosopher Sartre acknowledged the need for atheists to construct a new ethical scheme to replace the concept of God.

Lots of non-christians are out there helping others. And they're not trying to convert them in the process.

I believe the same could be said for Christians.

But christianity isn't all smiles and fun.
Its oppressive toward women (ever read Leviticus: regarding women prisoners of war?)
Oppressive towards non-hetrosexual.
Condemns the majority of the worlds population to hell.
Uses eternal damnation as a scare tactic to win believers.

These accusations are unfair and unwarranted as universal statements. Please use the the existential quantifier 'some'.

So to imply that christians are morally superior really has no basis.

I didn't intend to imply that Christians are morally superior.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 01:36 AM

It's a matter of incentives. As we all know it's very easy to get caught up in something big. Also the Gospels were writing decades after the actual events, so when they are writing what Jesus said it's not what he actually said but what they remember him having said. Things get blown out of proportion on retelling. I don't believe Jesus himself ever claimed to be the Son of God, it was the retelling by the Gospels that blew it out of proportion to what people believe today.

Alright, fair enough. You can believe that if you want, and I'll believe that the Gospel writers gave a reasonably accurate account.

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-18, 02:15 AM

Several people have accused this of being a made-up definition but I'm still wondering. #2 sure isn't "nice" to people who think themselves atheists, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's in a dictionary somewhere. Billy?.

You are correct, John. I made it up. Sorry.

Happy to have your detailed input into this thread!!

Billy

uni57

2005-10-18, 04:03 PM

[Billy to John Foss:] Happy to have your detailed input into this thread!!Oh, yes, especially because he believes that disbelief is belief which requires faith.

If you don't accept (agree with) someone's belief, it does not mean that you believe the opposite. It simply means you lack that belief. It's a subtle difference. Does anyone else here see it?

Maybe there are orbiting unicorns. But it sounds highly unlikely and there is absolutely no proof. There is no reason to believe that theory. So I don't believe. I lack that belief. "An orbiting unicorn exists" is not a true statement to me. But I am NOT saying that they DON'T exist. I'm not saying that an orbiting unicorn CANNOT exist. I'm simply saying that based on an utter lack of proof and lack of plausibility (insert your own reasons here), I cannot accept the theory. I reject the theory -- and it's like the theory never existed. By rejecting the theory, I don't believe the opposite; I simply have a lack of belief in the theory. Show me an orbiting unicorn and I'll believe. But until then, I'm going to put the hokey theory out of mind and live my life as if the theory were never postulated.

Can anyone else see the difference? Lack of belief is not belief in the opposite. Otherwise, people can insert beliefs into your mind. They simply have to say something you disagree with. Then you will be forced to figure out the opposite of what they are saying and then believe that.

Guess what...

"John Foss is riding his unicycle right now (as I type this post)"

I have no way of knowing that. So you don't believe me. You reject my statement. But if you say that disbelief is belief in the opposite, then, by disagreeing with me, you will have to conclude that "John Foss is NOT riding his unicycle right now" -- an equally baseless statement.

Can some of the heavy-hitter atheists comment on this point? Am I wrong? Am I wrong to believe that this is an incredibly important point to clarify? Because without it, the atheists are on shaky ground (which would be fine if it were true, but it's not).

mscalisi

2005-10-18, 04:19 PM

Fine, I agree that American history cannot exclude Christianity. I also agree that Christians can do good deeds without promoting their religion.

Buddhism predates Christianity. The Buddha taught the importance of developing compassion and loving-kindness, and eradicating greed and hatred in our lives. Buddhism teaches that good deeds lead to happy states and bad deeds lead to unhappy ones. This is known as the law of karma.

My statements weren't meant as accusations. There are many specific biblical passages that put women beneath men. Christianity is largely anti-gay, and virtually all American anti-gay movements have Christian proponents. According to the bible, if you aren't "saved", you're going to hell, that includes most people of the world.

If you are Christian, and these don't apply to you, then I applaud you, but if that's the case, it probably means that you're going to hell with me.

I apologize for misinterpreting your statements to mean that Christians are morally superior.

If it is arrogant, then give me a prominent example within Ancient Greek thought where this notion of caring for the elderly and poor specifically originated outside of Christianity. No, I don't believe one needs Christianity in order to perform noble and moral deeds, however I do believe that much of the ethical framework that we take for granted in our current society is, for better or worse, largely a product of Christianity. Even the atheistic philosopher Sartre acknowledged the need for atheists to construct a new ethical scheme to replace the concept of God.

I believe the same could be said for Christians.

These accusations are unfair and unwarranted as universal statements. Please use the the existential quantifier 'some'.

I didn't intend to imply that Christians are morally superior.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-18, 05:21 PM

Alright, fair enough. You can believe that if you want, and I'll believe that the Gospel writers gave a reasonably accurate account.

and we all know that George Washington actually chopped down a cherry tree, and Abraham Lincoln did math on the back of a shovel. They are stories based on fact, elaborated and twisted to better support a specific point.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 06:11 PM

Buddhism predates Christianity. The Buddha taught the importance of developing compassion and loving-kindness, and eradicating greed and hatred in our lives. Buddhism teaches that good deeds lead to happy states and bad deeds lead to unhappy ones. This is known as the law of karma.

Yes, Buddhism does have its own ethical scheme, however I don't think it has influenced Western Society until recently.

My statements weren't meant as accusations. There are many specific biblical passages that put women beneath men.

Obviously, women were regarded as less than men in the cultures that the Bible records. Yet, in keeping with our present culture, there are mainline Christian denominations that do not generally place women beneath men--Presbyterian, United Methodist, and Evangelical Covenant all come to mind.

Christianity is largely anti-gay, and virtually all American anti-gay movements have Christian proponents.

Anti-gay? I believe the Bible is clear that homosexual sex is a perversion and a sin. The Bible is also clear that all humans are sinners. So, if you're going to charge the Bible as anti-gay, why stop there? How about, the Bible is misanthropic. Other than labeling homosexual sex as sin, I don't believe the Bible is "anti-gay".

Of course there are those who hate gays in the name of Christ just as there are those who blow up abortion clinics in the name of Christ. But I don't believe a valid case can be made against Christianity because of the hypocrisy of its followers.

According to the bible, if you aren't "saved", you're going to hell, that includes most people of the world.

That includes most people? Yes, I believe that God will judge all and send some to hell, yet I'm not about to make the determination of who is "saved" and who is going to hell. I just try to live my own life as I believe a Christian should.

johnfoss

2005-10-18, 06:11 PM

Oh, yes, especially because he believes that disbelief is belief which requires faith.It has to do with how strict our definition is. My assertion is that if "theist" believes in a higher power (has faith that this is true), than to be an "atheist" is to *believe* there isn't a higher power. That's the same type of belief, going in the opposite direction, and also requiring faith.

But only if one chooses to go with such a strict definition. The more relaxed definition could be that you *don't believe* in a higher power. This does not require that you *believe* there isn't one. To me that puts you in the agnostic category, which is a lot wider than the athiest one.

So we're arguing definitions, which might be already established somewhere. But in any case it helps us understand each other to go over the details I guess.
If you don't accept (agree with) someone's belief, it does not mean that you believe the opposite. It simply means you lack that belief. It's a subtle difference. Does anyone else here see it? Understood. So now we wonder what to call each of those versions.
"John Foss is riding his unicycle right now (as I type this post)"According to the time my system shows on your post, had I ridden to work today, and if I'd been a little late, it might have been true. Unfortunately I'm trying to get over my cold, and even though there are precious few days left before we set the clocks back, I wussed out once again...

phlegm

2005-10-18, 06:13 PM

and we all know that George Washington actually chopped down a cherry tree, and Abraham Lincoln did math on the back of a shovel. They are stories based on fact, elaborated and twisted to better support a specific point.

So do you believe anything? You know, those history books are all lying to you. We're really an alien experiment. ;)

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-18, 06:36 PM

.
Based on the dictionary-like definiton (real or not) above, "atheist" also carries the connotation of being inhumane and uncaring.

That's the only part that's made up. I have posted defintions here before but defintitions get little respect here.

But you are correct here, John. You see this all the time. One example comes from the Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy's mother says to the mean lady taking Toto, "If I weren't a good Christian woman, I'd...."

Billy

mscalisi

2005-10-18, 07:00 PM

How do those denominations rectify themselves against specific passages in the bible?

Obviously, women were regarded as less than men in the cultures that the Bible records. Yet, in keeping with our present culture, there are mainline Christian denominations that do not generally place women beneath men--Presbyterian, United Methodist, and Evangelical Covenant all come to mind.

I think labeling homosexuals perverts and sinners is pretty anti-gay. Unless you expect homosexual people to refrain from ever having sex. If a homosexual person belonged to the Christian church, she must think of herself as intentionally sinning every time she has sexual relations.

Anti-gay? I believe the Bible is clear that homosexual sex is a perversion and a sin. Other than labeling homosexual sex as sin, I don't believe the Bible is "anti-gay".

Yes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Christianity, doesn't one need to follow Christ in order to have a shot at being saved? Most people on this planet are not Christian.

That includes most people? Yes, I believe that God will judge all and send some to hell, yet I'm not about to make the determination of who is "saved" and who is going to hell. I just try to live my own life as I believe a Christian should.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-18, 07:19 PM

So do you believe anything? You know, those history books are all lying to you. We're really an alien experiment. ;)

I believe in love, I believe in the good of humanity, I believe in being a good, decent, honest person.

when looking at stories as historical fact it's important to look at whose telling them, and considering what they have to gain by telling them in the way that have. That is a big part of the study of history. In order to understand what actually happened its important to look at stories from people with conflicting agendas. The same events get portrayed in completely different ways.

mscalisi

2005-10-18, 07:28 PM

Again, I think "faith" is the wrong word to use.

Noun
S: (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality"
S: (n) faith, trust (complete confidence in a person or plan etc) "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
S: (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
S: (n) faith (loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person) "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

So faith has a couple definitions. One relates to the "supernatural belief". The other type of definition is complete trust or confidence in something.

I believe that god does not exist. If presented adequate evidence, I could be persuaded otherwise. I don't have "faith" that god doesn't exist.

"Faith" in my riding abilities (founded or otherwise) is what I had when I was riding along steep jagged cliffs in Santa Barbara. I was trusting my abilities.

Still, the word "faith" as it applies to religous views is more of the "belief in the supernatural" definition. Something which is clearly absent in athiesm.

As far as definitions, I have to believe in #1 above as the strict definition of atheist. Note the "b" word. If "atheist" is to be the opposite of "theist," it means you *believe there is no god." If that doesn't fit you, you may belong in the much more flexible agnostic category.

Therefore, atheism is a belief (but not a religion). And atheism *requires* faith. You have to believe something without being able to prove it. So please stop the assertions of "no faith."

So to be a theist is to believe in something without being able to prove it (or to believe you *can* prove it I guess). To be an atheist is to believe in something *not* existing. Same type of faith required.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 07:34 PM

How do those denominations rectify themselves against specific passages in the bible?

Two words--cultural context. The Bible is a historical document written in the context of a different culture than ours, so it should be read as such.

I think labeling homosexuals perverts and sinners is pretty anti-gay. Unless you expect homosexual people to refrain from ever having sex. If a homosexual person belonged to the Christian church, she must think of herself as intentionally sinning every time she has sexual relations.

Yes, all Christians must think of themselves as sinners, saved by grace, by the blood of Christ.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Christianity, doesn't one need to follow Christ in order to have a shot at being saved? Most people on this planet are not Christian.

Yes, as a Christian, I believe that Christ's death atoned for my sins, and by grace I am "saved." But that doesn't mean that I believe every non-Christian is "going to hell." I believe God will judge. Christianity is the way I understand and know God, and perhaps, there are other valid ways. However, I make no claims about them one way or another.

mscalisi

2005-10-18, 07:38 PM

I respect your beliefs, however I don't think they agree with what "the book" says.

Regarding all Christians thinking of themselves as sinners. The distinction is that Christian homosexuals must INTENTIONALLY sin (or deny their sexuality). One who is saved and follows Christ must do her best to follow the book to the word. One who is gay must either deny his sexuality or the bible.

Two words. Cultural context.

Yes, all Christians must think of themselves as sinners.

Yes, as a Christian, I believe that Christ's death atoned for my sins, and by grace I am "saved." But that doesn't mean that I believe every non-Christian is "going to hell." I believe God will judge. Christianity is the way I understand and know God, and perhaps, there are other valid ways. However, I make no claims about them one way or another.

cathwood

2005-10-18, 07:39 PM

Obviously, women were regarded as less than men in the cultures that the Bible records. Yet, in keeping with our present culture, there are mainline Christian denominations that do not generally place women beneath men--Presbyterian, United Methodist, and Evangelical Covenant all come to mind.

I can understand people believing in god(s) but I can't understand you believing in this! The dominant discourse in western culture is still very male. For example (brining this back to unicycling for a moment). The dominant discourse is that women are in danger of violence (rape and pillage) if they are out on thier own, especially after dark, whereas men are not. I am a product of my society and so have not yet been able to breach this enough to be able to venture out on my unicycle in the dark. However the statistics show that women are much more at risk in thier own homes from thier own families whereas young men are the most likely victims of violence on the streets.

Cathy

phlegm

2005-10-18, 07:42 PM

I can understand people believing in god(s) but I can't understand you believing in this!

What do you mean? Believing in what? :confused:

mscalisi

2005-10-18, 07:43 PM

Wait.....how can this be so? According to Christianity, is the bible not the word of god? How could cultural context be relevant?

Two words--cultural context. The Bible is a historical document written in the context of a different culture than ours, so it should be read as such.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-18, 07:49 PM

Two words--cultural context. The Bible is a historical document written in the context of a different culture than ours, so it should be read as such.

first of fi love how you speak for "all chrisitans" and secondly this whole cultural context thing sort of contradicts everythign you say and believe. Looking at the cultural context of when the book was written it was obviouly written to promote a certain agenda. It was also written at a time when no there was no regard for accurate history. History was just storytelling. If you're going to take it just on cultural context then the whole anti-gay thing was just that in their cultural being Gay wasn't alright because those books were written at the time when public orgies were running rampant, and the government that was trying to stop it had to . So now that homosexuality has a different place in culture, by your argument that cultural context has changed, than the Christian positon on homosexuality should have changed.

You're using this context of cultural context as a way of only taking the parts that you agree with and ignoring the others.

If you're going to look at it as a historical document you should be more accepting of the fact that the book was written many years after the fact as was heavily filtered by imagination and bias. The Bible is not a literal history of the world, and any historian would point this out when interpreting the text of the bible as a historical document.

cathwood

2005-10-18, 07:52 PM

What do you mean? Believing in what? :confused:

Believing that women are not regarded as less than men in 'this' culture.

cathy

phlegm

2005-10-18, 07:58 PM

Wait.....how can this be so? According to Christianity, is the bible not the word of god? How could cultural context be relevant?

Fundamentalist Christians tend to take the Bible as God's exact words, dictated and written down by humans. Other Christians, like myself, take the Bible as a collection of texts written by humans who were inspired by God.

In either view and all views inbetween, the argument can be made that God communicated his message in a meaningful way to the people in a certain time and place in history. So in the same way that we read Ancient Greek philosophy and try to understand it in the context of "the way the Greeks understood it," we also can read the Bible in its historical context.

Unfortunately, it seems that the most extreme fundamentalist Christian groups garner most of the attention by the media (e.g., Pat Robertson). And, in misguided fashion, some fundamentalist groups read the Bible without regard to the culture, and I believe this is far from the norm.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 08:02 PM

Believing that women are not regarded as less than men in 'this' culture.

Which culture? Here is what I said.

"Obviously, women were regarded as less than men in the cultures that the Bible records. Yet, in keeping with our present culture, there are mainline Christian denominations that do not generally place women beneath men--Presbyterian, United Methodist, and Evangelical Covenant all come to mind."

In the ancient cultures of the Bible, women were not educated, so I believe they were regarded as less than men.

In our present culture, we aim for "gender equality."

What's the problem? Do my words convey a double meaning?

mscalisi

2005-10-18, 08:10 PM

To me, this sounds like "making it up as you go along". People can use the parts of the bible that they like while dismissing the parts they don't like as cuturally irrelevant. Its hard to argue with a moving target.

Fundamentalist Christians tend to take the Bible as God's exact words, dictated and written down by humans. Other Christians, like myself, take the Bible as a collection of texts written by humans who were inspired by God.

In either view and all views inbetween, the argument can be made that God communicated his message in a meaningful way to the people in a certain time and place in history. So in the same way that we read Ancient Greek philosophy and try to understand it in the context of "the way the Greeks understood it," we also can read the Bible in its historical context.

Unfortunately, it seems that the most extreme fundamentalist Christian groups garner most of the attention by the media (e.g., Pat Robertson). And, in misguided fashion, some fundamentalist groups read the Bible without regard to the culture, and I believe this is far from the norm.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 08:18 PM

first of fi love how you speak for "all chrisitans"

How do I speak for all Christians? All Christians are sinners? That's at the core of Christian doctrine, and to deny it would be, well, unchristian.

and secondly this whole cultural context thing sort of contradicts everythign you say and believe. Looking at the cultural context of when the book was written it was obviouly written to promote a certain agenda. It was also written at a time when no there was no regard for accurate history. History was just storytelling. If you're going to take it just on cultural context then the whole anti-gay thing was just that in their cultural being Gay wasn't alright because those books were written at the time when public orgies were running rampant, and the government that was trying to stop it had to . So now that homosexuality has a different place in culture, by your argument that cultural context has changed, than the Christian positon on homosexuality should have changed.

Maybe you're right. Maybe it should change. Frankly, the "gay issue" in the U.S. is a very complex issue involving attitudes toward no less than politics, economics, religion, and culture. Maybe it will change in the future. I don't know. All I can give you is my present understanding and opinion.

You're using this context of cultural context as a way of only taking the parts that you agree with and ignoring the others.

If you're going to look at it as a historical document you should be more accepting of the fact that the book was written many years after the fact as was heavily filtered by imagination and bias. The Bible is not a literal history of the world, and any historian would point this out when interpreting the text of the bible as a historical document.

You're right to say that some parts of the Bible are not historical at all, and I believe that some parts are not literal at all. Biblical hermeneutics is a very complex field, and I don't claim to be an expert.

What basis do you have for the Bible being "heavily filtered by imagination and bias," so much so that it loses all meaningful truth? Isn't this just your own bias?

phlegm

2005-10-18, 08:29 PM

To me, this sounds like "making it up as you go along".

Isn't that how life works? We're all making it up as we go along. ;)

People can use the parts of the bible that they like while dismissing the parts they don't like as cuturally irrelevant. Its hard to argue with a moving target.

Sure, that's a fair criticism. Unfortunately, I think this is inevitable in any human endeavor to understand. We're not the immutable individuals we like to pretend to be. Nonetheless, regardless of cultural relevance, I believe Christ's message was and is central to Christianity, and these other socio-political and cultural issues pale in comparison.

Have you read any texts about Postmodern Hermeneutics, like Gadamer's Truth and Method? Meaning is a moving target.

mscalisi

2005-10-18, 08:38 PM

<sigh> Yes it is. However, if I were Christian, I'd be worried about getting it wrong and spending eternity in hell.

Isn't that how life works? We're all making it up as we go along. ;)

Well, if nothing else, you've expanded my vocabulary today.

Sure, that's a fair criticism. Unfortunately, I think this is inevitable in any human endeavor to understand. We're not the immutable individuals we like to pretend to be. Nonetheless, regardless of cultural relevance, I believe Christ's message was and is central to Christianity, and these other socio-political and cultural issues pale in comparison.

Have you read any texts about Postmodern Hermeneutics, like Gadamer's Truth and Method? Meaning is a moving target.

Borges

2005-10-18, 08:59 PM

I can understand people believing in god(s) but I can't understand you believing in this! The dominant discourse in western culture is still very male. For example (brining this back to unicycling for a moment). The dominant discourse is that women are in danger of violence (rape and pillage) if they are out on thier own, especially after dark, whereas men are not. I am a product of my society and so have not yet been able to breach this enough to be able to venture out on my unicycle in the dark. However the statistics show that women are much more at risk in thier own homes from thier own families whereas young men are the most likely victims of violence on the streets.

Cathy

The example shows that, becaus of your gender, you're missing out on riding your unicycle at night. That's a clear example of gender inequality, but it isn't because anyone regarded you any less than if you had been a man. Isn't it just bad risk assessment or am I missing the point?

Morten

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-18, 09:07 PM

What basis do you have for the Bible being "heavily filtered by imagination and bias," so much so that it loses all meaningful truth? Isn't this just your own bias?

I am speaking of the gospels, and how their writings are actually the words of Christ, but what they remember him saying and teaching.

I like the teachings of Christ and I try to follow them, even as an atheist. I do NOT however believe that Jesus was the son of god and I argue that he never actually claimed that. All that son of God stuff stuff came up afterwards in the re-telling, as rumours of what he said gained the power of fact. I follow his teaching because I agree with them, not because I will be rewarded or punished for doing so or not.

A good way to test this would be for yo uto write about an event from your life from say 30 years ago, and then have someone else perhaps your Mother or father right about the same event without any discussion before hand. Your memories of the event will be quite different. Some of the gospels even write of events where they were not actually present, so they are writing about what they were told by others happened. It's easy for truth to get muddled and fantastical ideas to arise.

Looking at the historical writing of the text is jsut important as looking at the cultural context for which it was written.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 09:16 PM

I am speaking of the gospels, and how their writings are actually the words of Christ, but what they remember him saying and teaching.

I like the teachings of Christ and I try to follow them, even as an atheist. I do NOT however believe that Jesus was the son of god and I argue that he never actually claimed that. All that son of God stuff stuff came up afterwards in the re-telling, as rumours of what he said gained the power of fact. I follow his teaching because I agree with them, not because I will be rewarded or punished for doing so or not.

A good way to test this would be for yo uto write about an event from your life from say 30 years ago, and then have someone else perhaps your Mother or father right about the same event without any discussion before hand. Your memories of the event will be quite different. Some of the gospels even write of events where they were not actually present, so they are writing about what they were told by others happened. It's easy for truth to get muddled and fantastical ideas to arise.

And still, this is not a universalizable test. We're believing our own views by faith, by a gut feeling. Maybe you're right--that the Gospels are overly distorted, but, FWIW, at least I have a couple millennia of church history and tradition on my side. (I know tradition doesn't go very far for many in today's world.)

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-18, 09:29 PM

I see you have as much free time at work as I do Phlegm. I am glad that you're at least resonable in your support of your faith, and that you aren't a screwy fundamentalist. And that you don't try to associate atheists as inhumane or uncaring.

And that your political views match your faith, rather than being true diametric opposites like our current leaders who claim one thing and practice the opposite.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 10:11 PM

<sigh> Yes it is. However, if I were Christian, I'd be worried about getting it wrong and spending eternity in hell.

I don't know that I'll ever get it right, so I try not to worry too much. Keep in mind that a lot of Christians are worried as you suggest. As much fun as it is to shake up fundamentalists, don't be too hard on them. ;)

-----

ThisGuyIKnow, I don't have any free time. What are you talking about? ;) :D

I appreciate your comments and have enjoyed the discussion. I try my best to be reasonable in my faith, especially because I see how often Christians are portrayed as morons (sometimes quite fairly so). Contrary to popular belief, 'Christian thought' is not a paradox. As with many other intellectual pursuits, you just have to be willing to look below the surface.

phlegm

2005-10-18, 10:49 PM

Believing that women are not regarded as less than men in 'this' culture.

I think I see what you're saying. You think I was presuming that women and men are treated equally in our present society, while, in fact, women are still treated as less than men, perhaps as evidenced by average salaries and popular objectifying attitudes toward women. Is that right?

If that's the case, then I contend that the mainline Christian churches that I referred to are in fact leading the way in promoting gender equality, by placing both women and men in roles of leadership and by being morally opposed to treating women as sex objects.

If you are interested, here (http://www.covchurch.org/cov/resources/pwomenmin.html) is the official stance of the Evangelical Covenant denomination, which the church I am presently a member is part of.

UniBrier

2005-10-19, 06:27 AM

Anyone else find it ironic that the original "Christian Unicyclist" thread ended up morphing into a atheist discussion and now this thread has now morphed into a Christianity discussion?

GILD

2005-10-19, 07:03 AM

has anyone here become interested or involved in LaVeyan satanism? I read his Satanic Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380015390/103-3234189-4015013?v=glance) many years ago. And several times subsequently. It remains one of my favourite reads and I would recommend it as essential reading to anyone who even considers posting to this thread. Or considers themselves 'religious' in any sense of the word.

could our newfound obsession with religion have anything to do with hurricanes, earthquakes, mudslides, floods and tsunamis?

edit: by which i mean recent events in the southern u.s., Pakistan, central America, north eastern u.s., and Asia of coursePhew! I'm safe.

cathwood

2005-10-19, 07:02 PM

The example shows that, becaus of your gender, you're missing out on riding your unicycle at night. That's a clear example of gender inequality, but it isn't because anyone regarded you any less than if you had been a man. Isn't it just bad risk assessment or am I missing the point?

Morten

I guess the point is that society has something invested in keeping women in their place (ie the home) by misrepresenting the dangers that we face outside. Perhaps that's not a good example. Perhaps a better example is just to ask: in Western societies, how many countries have equal numbers of men and women in positions of power?

Cathy

cathwood

2005-10-19, 07:05 PM

I think I see what you're saying. You think I was presuming that women and men are treated equally in our present society, while, in fact, women are still treated as less than men, perhaps as evidenced by average salaries and popular objectifying attitudes toward women. Is that right?

If that's the case, then I contend that the mainline Christian churches that I referred to are in fact leading the way in promoting gender equality, by placing both women and men in roles of leadership and by being morally opposed to treating women as sex objects.

That's great. The next thing for them to do is to arrange their communities so that 'homecare' is regarded as important as some of the most important jobs and rewarded accordingly. Or at least arrange things so that women can both assume positions of power and take care of thier families by making thier working enviroments more family friendly. Yes we want it all.

Cathy

johnfoss

2005-10-19, 09:55 PM

Fundamentalist Christians tend to take the Bible as God's exact words, dictated and written down by humans.In a language other than English, and in a culture tremendously different from what we have today. It's amazing what can be lost along the way, in either of those let alone both together!

A good example from my own experience is an attempt at reading Dante's Inferno in the (translated) original. Okay. The original is a gigantic poem, written in Italian, in the year thirteen-something. So first it has to go through a language translation, in which the translators wanted to keep to the rhyming wherever possible. In addition to this, the book I read was filled with sidebars, which often ran much longer than the main text, to keep the reader up on what the text was talking about.

Such as a reference to a well-known pontiff of the time (and place), in regards to some set of cultural or economic issues from the current events of when the book was written. Totally meaningless to a reader of today without a long explanation, which in this case was over a page in length, to explain the mere mention of a name in a sentence.

So for all you Fundamentalists or otherwise believers that the Bible is the exact word of God, go ahead and keep believing so, but make sure you read it in the original language and study up on the culture of those times. Hmm. Not much available on the culture of those times, is there? That was an awfully long time ago; more than a thousand years before Dante's time.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-19, 10:04 PM

In a language other than English, and in a culture tremendously different from what we have today. It's amazing what can be lost along the way, in either of those let alone both together!

So for all you Fundamentalists or otherwise believers that the Bible is the exact word of God, go ahead and keep believing so, but make sure you read it in the original language and study up on the culture of those times. Hmm. Not much available on the culture of those times, is there? That was an awfully long time ago; more than a thousand years before Dante's time.

The problem is that a lot of fundamentalists when approached with this argument will say that the translation were also divinely inspired.

theotherguy

2005-10-19, 10:15 PM

So for all you Fundamentalists or otherwise believers that the Bible is the exact word of God, go ahead and keep believing so, but make sure you read it in the original language and study up on the culture of those times.
About these fundementalists thinking that the bible is the exact words of God, i have a question, and please correct me if i'm wrong.

If God is the allknowing being of the universe, and the bible is the exact words of God, then why does one part of the bible say that the sun stops revolving around the earth? Wouldn't God know that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Please tell me if that is not in the bible, because i heard it was there from someone else.

phlegm

2005-10-19, 10:58 PM

The problem is that a lot of fundamentalists when approached with this argument will say that the translation were also divinely inspired.

Everyone knows that King James English is God's native tongue. :p

GILD

2005-10-20, 06:26 AM

The edit button isn't working for me.The edit button seems to disappear when the edit-window has passed. I think this is still around ten minutes after your initial post.

To me, many seem to merely dislike some aspect of Christianity and thus choose atheism by default, not because atheism is really that great, but because it's against Christianity.Speak for yourself. I consider myself an atheist and I wouldn't get out of bed to do or choose something 'because it's against christianity'.
The phrase 'non concept' springs to mind.

For example, the idea of social welfare (caring for the elderly and poor) in Western society was born out of Christianity.I'd love to see your sources for this one. Are you saying there was no care for the elderly before christianity grafted itself on the existing religions and took over?

If you don't accept (agree with) someone's belief, it does not mean that you believe the opposite. It simply means you lack that belief. It's a subtle difference. Does anyone else here see it?
Yes.
Vividly and Clearly.
With bells on.
When the other people 'get it' they're going to feel so stupid...

Anti-gay? I believe the Bible is clear that homosexual sex is a perversion and a sin. The Bible is also clear that all humans are sinners. So, if you're going to charge the Bible as anti-gay, why stop there? How about, the Bible is misanthropic. Other than labeling homosexual sex as sin, I don't believe the Bible is "anti-gay". It's time for this (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=194695&highlight=dr+laura+schlessinger#post194695) again.

I believe the Bible is clear that homosexual sex is a perversion and a sin.

The Bible is also clear that all humans are sinners. Therefore all humans are gay?!?

Seager

2005-10-20, 10:40 AM

oh christ. The bible is clear that pedophelia is wrong, not homosexuality. It's a man shall not lay with a boy. Those passages that have been so twisted? They've against man boy sex, not man man sex. Ask someone that can read the hebrew.

Not like this'll matter. When the debate switched from philosophy of religion to interpretation of christianity it lost meaning to me. Organized religion has ... issues... and no one here is going to change their mind about homosexuality. Either you think it's creepy and will find some way to justify that feeling in your religion, or you don't find it creepy and let it be.

Religion doesn't belong in a church.

phlegm

2005-10-20, 06:03 PM

oh christ. The bible is clear that pedophelia is wrong, not homosexuality. It's a man shall not lay with a boy. Those passages that have been so twisted? They've against man boy sex, not man man sex. Ask someone that can read the hebrew.

What about the passages in the NT that were originally in Greek? This webpage (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm) has lots of information about how both conservative and liberal Christians understand homosexuality in relation to the Bible. I'm not about to reiterate the views. :p

cathwood

2005-10-20, 06:37 PM

Borges

2005-10-20, 08:49 PM

I haven't read all of the bible yet, but I don't remember anything about pedophilia. Perhaps it's allowed as long as you are married to the child. I don't remember seing anyting about a minimum age for marriage, but whenever there's talk of marriage it is between a man and a woman, not boy or girl.

Seager

2005-10-20, 08:49 PM

Of course not, otherwise people couldn't sell their little girls for property. Who would support the religion if that happened?

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-20, 09:25 PM

whenever there's talk of marriage it is between a man and a woman, not boy or girl.

Yeah in the English version. Things often get lost in translation. A better translation for the worf that described Mary is "unwed" not "virgin". Similar ideas, but completely different concepts.

johnfoss

2005-10-20, 11:44 PM

The problem is that a lot of fundamentalists when approached with this argument will say that the translation were also divinely inspired.And divinely inspired is not necessarily the same thing as divinely accurate. :)

GILD

2005-10-21, 07:30 AM

Religion doesn't belong in a church.That is quite possibly the kewlest single quote I've seen on these fora.
Guaranteed to seperate the religious from the powermongers.
For good or ill.

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-22, 02:08 AM

I personally try to live my life by all the teachings of Christ except those that involve God. He was certianly a wise philosopher, but he totally ruined his credibility when he brought the whole son of God thing into the mix, what an ego :rolleyes:

I think Jesus the Man was very cool, too. Do you think he meant he was the EXCLUSIVE child of GOD?

How would you be living your life differently if you included his teachings about GOD? I cannot see how it makes a difference to how we live.

Billy

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-22, 02:35 AM

I think Jesus the Man was very cool, too. Do you think he meant he was the EXCLUSIVE child of GOD?

How would you be living your life differently if you included his teachings about GOD? I cannot see how it makes a difference to how we live.

Billy

I don't think he meant exclusive, and the only differnece I think would be where I spent my sunday mornings.

GILD

2005-10-22, 09:32 AM

I think Jesus the Man was very cool, too. Do you think he meant he was the EXCLUSIVE child of GOD?On 'Woody Allen - The Stand-up Years' there's a bit about a friend setting him up on a blind date.
"She introduced herself as Sister Agnes. It was a slow evening. We discussed the fact that he was very well adjusted for an only child..."

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-22, 01:53 PM

I don't think he meant exclusive, and the only differnece I think would be where I spent my sunday mornings.

I think you mean Friday nights and Saturdays. Jesus is a Jew, and the Jewish Sabbath begins on Friday at Sundown. Still, I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about attending services...

PS: Did the Beatle songs which were big on GOD start with the Revolver album, or before?

Billy

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-22, 01:58 PM

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-22, 05:06 PM

[The Bible] in the final analysis, may have no more to do with GOD than Succoth or Christmas.

Duh, I've known that my entire life.

ThisGuyIKnow

2005-10-22, 05:10 PM

I think you mean Friday nights and Saturdays. Jesus is a Jew, and the Jewish Sabbath begins on Friday at Sundown. Still, I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about attending services...

Yeah you know what I mean though.

I know Jesus is was a Jew even thoguh I've had some idioitic Christians try to argue otherwise on numourous occasions. The Christian Sabbath was celebrated on saturday until Constantine (or some other emperor I forget) changed it to Sunday when he was combining Paganism and Christianity to make everyone get along. That's also when they moved Christmas to December and renamed Easter after Oestre.

Seager

2005-10-22, 09:52 PM

Funny how much people get stuck on the Bible which, in the final analysis, may have no more to do with GOD than Succoth or Christmas.

It seems that Atheists are literary critics and fact-checkers.

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows....

Peace of GOD,

Billy

Apparently we do need a weather man 'cause some are saying the wind is blowing one way, and you're saying it's blowing the opposite. Some are even saying you can't tell either way. I suppose I'd agree with the "fact checkers" if I had to choose.

On a side note, most bibilical scholars are religious (otherwise why bother?) I've known quite a few, and only a small percentage are atheist. I don't know why you'd care what an atheist says anyway, since you claim they have no morals. What would stop them from just lying?

uni57

2005-10-23, 07:29 AM

I don't know why you'd care what an atheist says anyway, since you claim they have no morals.He doesn't think that. He was just stirring the pot. Pushing buttons. Being Billy.

Funny how much people get stuck on the Bible which, in the final analysis, may have no more to do with GOD than Succoth or Christmas.

<snip>

Peace of GOD,MUST you end every post with that particular valediction???

Um, isn't the BIBLE our only source of information about God? If you doubt the veracity of the Bible, then how do you know what to "do" with your "knowledge" that God exists? How do you know that He actually wants you to "do" anything at all? (like pray and go to church and make cupcakes for the church bake sale)

Or maybe God is only in your head (http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html).

In Free and Joyous Godlessness,

Dave

GILD

2005-10-23, 01:43 PM

PS: Did the Beatle songs which were big on GOD start with the Revolver album, or before?I'm not sure, but it ended pretty convincingly round about here (http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/john_lennon/god.html).

this end up

2005-10-24, 08:08 PM

wow!!! this thread grew quick. i am impressed.

phlegm

2005-10-24, 08:44 PM

Um, isn't the BIBLE our only source of information about God?

Actually, I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, Christian theologians admit the existence of 'General Revelation', that is, God's revelation to all humankind through creation/nature, among other things. In contrast, the term 'Special Revelation' usually refers to the written message communicated in the Bible.

The God Spot

by D. Trull
Enigma Editor
dtrull@parascope.com

Scientists, philosophers and atheists have long argued that God and spirituality are constructs of the human mind, although that opinion generally hasn't been a popular one. After centuries of bloody holy wars and fierce theological dispute, the controversy of the Creator's existence has taken a strange new turn: humanity may finally have uncovered tangible evidence that the phenomenon of religious faith is all in our heads.
... (http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html)

Hmm, this is hardly evidence that religious faith is all in our heads. It is akin to saying that the visible world is all in our heads because seeing something stimulates our brains. :rolleyes:

this end up

2005-10-24, 08:46 PM

i think that some of the stories are passed down through verbal means to.

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-25, 01:38 AM

I don't know why you'd care what an atheist says anyway, since you claim they have no morals. What would stop them from just lying?
Seager,

If you are directing this to me personally, I don't know where you get that idea from. Why would I care any less what an Atheist says?

Are you getting it from Uni57? That is Satan, just using another name. He doesn't even unicycle. The Satan worshippers are infiltrating the Uni sites because they think we are alienated and thus easy targets.....

Billy

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-25, 01:43 AM

I'm not sure, but it ended pretty convincingly round about here (http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/john_lennon/god.html).

You cannot be sure. Lennon says he doesn't believe in Elvis, Kennedy or Zimmerman (that's Bob Dylan). Let's here from Uni57 aka Satan: Do you believe in Bob Dylan? Are you a Dylantheist? Or an Adylanthieist?

Billy

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-25, 01:47 AM

Hmm, this is hardly evidence that religious faith is all in our heads. It is akin to saying that the visible world is all in our heads because seeing something stimulates our brains. :rolleyes:

phlegm: Of course faith rests in our heads, or our hearts. That's what FAITH means.

I'm just glad the Atheists still have faith in love, or at least don't make a big deal about those of us who still BELIEVE in love.... Because that rests in our hearts as well.

Billy

uni57

2005-10-25, 02:24 AM

[to Billy] I don't know why you'd care what an atheist says anyway, since you claim they have no morals. What would stop them from just lying?

Seager,

If you are directing this to me personally, I don't know where you get that idea from. Why would I care any less what an Atheist says?

Are you getting it from Uni57? That is Satan, just using another name. Because you satisfied the conditional part of Seager's statement (back on page four (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=376153#post376153)). You really must stop making things up.

In Free and Joyous Godlessness,

Dave

GILD

2005-10-25, 08:56 AM

'General Revelation', that is, God's revelation to all humankind through creation/nature, among other things.You're sounding frightfully Pantheistic (http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=pantheism+definition&meta=) there.

Hmm, this is hardly evidence that religious faith is all in our heads. It is akin to saying that the visible world is all in our heads because seeing something stimulates our brains.Mmmm, actually it is. We can observe the input from the visible world with a variety of other means other than just what it stimulates in our heads. We can't do the same with this god-concept. That resides entirely in your head and can be scientifically isolated and (as the technology is still in it's infancy) scratchily recreated.

I can use a variety of means to prove that the 'visible world' exists independent of my head.
You can't do the same with god.
I can prove that the idea of god is 'simple' neurological chemistry.
And you still can't prove the independent existence of god.

At some point, Chosen's '...you'll just know...' (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=379160#post379160)reaction becomes your only option.
And me and Socrates (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24198.html) don't hold much with that.

GILD

2005-10-25, 09:19 AM

And right on cue, The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41687)weighs in.
(This link will only be valid for a week or so.)

UniBrier

2005-10-25, 02:27 PM

You're sounding frightfully Pantheistic (http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=pantheism+definition&meta=) there.Not quite the same. (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=678)

GILD

2005-10-25, 02:31 PM

Fair enough, but there's enough grey-area there for me to try n stir trouble in.

Tim

2005-10-25, 03:53 PM

I find the entire concept of "witnessning" to be highly offensive. It also goes against the polciy you are trying ot promote of "live and let live"

A lack higher power does NOT by default make man the higher power. It eliminates the very nature of a power hirarchy to begin with factors.

But just so you know I find this thread just as offensive as the Christian one.

If you want to discuss Christianity fine I have no problem with that, but if you are going to do it in a public forum you need to allow other viewpoints into the discussion.You witness in your own way like in the Christian Unicyclists thread. I don't want to do the same to this thread as was done to the christian one and start the whole them and us.

phlegm

2005-10-25, 04:32 PM

We can observe the input from the visible world with a variety of other means other than just what it stimulates in our heads. We can't do the same with this god-concept. That resides entirely in your head and can be scientifically isolated and (as the technology is still in it's infancy) scratchily recreated.

I can use a variety of means to prove that the 'visible world' exists independent of my head.
You can't do the same with god.
I can prove that the idea of god is 'simple' neurological chemistry.
And you still can't prove the independent existence of god.

What are those variety of means?

You can sense the 'visible world' with other senses, but you're still just sensing it. All your senses are still just surges of energy on your brain. How does that prove/disprove that the "external" world exists outside of your head?

Assuming other people are not just the figments of your imagination, you can ask them, and they too can sense the external reality. But this is the same for sensing God. If you want to go down this path, most people in the world are not atheists and acknowledge the existence of some type of god-like concept. So in the same way that a group of scientists can claim that God is only in a believer's head by their popular opinion, the popular opinion according to the rest of the world is that atheists are disabled because they cannot sense God, just as blind people are disabled because they cannot see. (I'm not advocating that popular opinion is necessarily the best way to the Truth. However, I do believe it is often used as such by many groups of people, including the scientific community.)

GILD

2005-10-25, 04:34 PM

Just take the main medium we use to observe the world, light. There are a variety of ways of measuring light. You can prove that light exists with more experiments you can shake a pentacostal stick at.
I'm still waiting for a single repeatable experiment I can use to prove that god exists. And I'd prefer one that doesn't involve me killing myself.

phlegm

2005-10-25, 04:40 PM

There are a variety of ways of measuring light.

How does that prove its existence outside of our heads?

GILD

2005-10-25, 04:44 PM

phlegm

2005-10-25, 04:56 PM

Cause you can't measure it if it ain't there, now can you?
You want to fire up your god-o-meter and see what kinda reading we're getting today?
Or shall we spend the time more constructively by telling plant leaves not to go green and tell deep-cave creatures to grow eyes?

If it ain't where? If light (part of the supposed "external" reality) is only a figment of your imagination, you could still use an imaginary measuring device (also part of the supposed "external" reality) to measure it.

Just because something is quantifiable doesn't prove/disprove its existence. Math is full of quantifiable objects that we have no proof of existence.

GILD

2005-10-25, 05:05 PM

phlegm

2005-10-25, 06:09 PM

Which bring us back to not being able to prove that god exists. Which is roughly where we came in and only really important to one of us. And that one isn't the one who's about to bid you a good evening and head on home.
Blessed be.

I don't know that anyone has doubted the claim that we are unable to (universally) prove that god exists. But you seemed to claim some magical way to solve the central problem posed by Cartesian dualism, i.e., how to indubitably bridge the gap between the subject's mind and the objects of external reality. So I had to force the issue. :p

You're sounding frightfully Pantheistic there.

I didn't say that nature and God are one in the same, only that God reveals himself through creation.

cathwood

2005-10-25, 06:57 PM

You are all just a bunch of realists.

Cathy

phlegm

2005-10-25, 07:34 PM

If you're an antirealist unicyclist, find your own thread! ;)

GILD

2005-10-26, 05:50 AM

But you seemed to claim some magical way to solve the central problem posed by Cartesian dualism, i.e., how to indubitably bridge the gap between the subject's mind and the objects of external reality. So I had to force the issue.And I had to try n perform (in broad daylight) a lateral arabesgue cause I don't do Cartesian Dualism after lunch.

I'm having a simmilar dilemma in trying to convince a friend of mine that Larry Walters' (no relation - by blood anyway, spiritually we are brothers) famous weather balloon-gargen chair flight isn't an urban legend. He simply refuses to believe anything and dismisses any form of proof as 'manufactured on the internet'. It makes for frightfully stunted conversation.

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-26, 12:35 PM

GILD

2005-10-26, 12:41 PM

What? Refuse to kill myself for love?
If love gets her fat arse of the couch and runs herself back to her college weight we might have an outside chance of me making an effort, but kill myself?
Oh you can sod right off my good sir.

uni57

2005-10-26, 02:33 PM

And I thank GOD you don't take the same stance toward LOVE....BTMG,

Your posting is starting to sound like your signature...

(saying the same thing over and over again)

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-26, 03:58 PM

BTMG,

Your posting is starting to sound like your signature...

(saying the same thing over and over again)

Do you like the melody?

What? Refuse to kill myself for love?
If love gets her fat arse of the couch and runs herself back to her college weight we might have an outside chance of me making an effort, but kill myself?
Oh you can sod right off my good sir.

:) :) :D Now play nice and try again.....

Billy

GILD

2005-10-26, 04:14 PM

Trying?
You want me to be trying?
Humph.

BillyTheMountain

2005-10-26, 07:53 PM

Trying?
You want me to be trying?
Humph.

Dave, And of course, your whole persona is betrayed by your Hindu Namaste signature.

The gesture Namaste represents the belief that there is a Divine spark within each of us that is located in the heart chakra. The gesture is an acknowledgment of the soul in one by the soul in another. "Nama" means bow, "as" means I, and "te" means you. Therefore, Namaste literally means "bow me you" or "I bow to you," but really means "The divinity in me ows to the divinity in you."

Hare Krishna,

Billy

GILD

2005-10-31, 12:25 PM

Therefore, Namaste literally means "bow me you" or "I bow to you," but really means "The divinity in me ows to the divinity in you."
Or the version I've always quoted (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=109446&highlight=the+god+in+me#post109446) whenever someone's asked.

this end up

2005-11-01, 08:46 PM

it seemed like today all of the teachers here were "slightly" religious.

isn't there a law against that or something?

BillyTheMountain

2005-11-02, 01:58 PM

Or the version I've always quoted (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=109446&highlight=the+god+in+me#post109446) whenever someone's asked.

yes, except the meaning of the word namaste

it's an old sanskrit word and a quick google search will show you the myriad of different interpretations and 'translations'
i prefer, and use it in this sense, 'the god in me salutes the god in you'

Dave: So you are definitely NOT an Atheist.

Maybe you are a polytheist. Unless, like other Hindus, you see the god in me and the god in you as manifestations of the same god. In which case you are a One GOD person.

I've reported you to the Pope of Evangelical Atheism, and you have been ex-comunicated. They are removing your name from all their pamphlets and promotional materials. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

Billy

GILD

2005-11-02, 02:49 PM

Kewl, I can go back to being a pantheist again?

BillyTheMountain

2005-11-02, 03:37 PM

Kewl, I can go back to being a pantheist again?

Peace of GOD,

Billy

johnfoss

2005-11-02, 06:57 PM

it seemed like today all of the teachers here were "slightly" religious.

isn't there a law against that or something?No, teachers have the same freedoms as everybody else, to believe what they want.

So what does it mean by "slightly" religious?

this end up

2005-11-03, 05:01 PM

well first off i meant isn't there a law against them doing that in school?

second mr. o'conner and i were talking about math and numbers, and he said, "math is so perfect that it makes you wonder if it wasn't created by some greater almighty being." and mr. rohrer was playing some quiet christian rock in class as we were working.

s7ev0

2005-11-03, 06:18 PM

...and mr. rohrer was playing some quiet christian rock in class as we were working.

Christian rock?

Christian rock?

Christian ROCK?

*pulls face like this end up's avatar*

phlegm

2005-11-03, 06:22 PM

Don't get me started about the "christian music" scene. :rolleyes:

johnfoss

2005-11-03, 06:52 PM

"math is so perfect that it makes you wonder if it wasn't created by some greater almighty being."Yes, it sounds like he's walking the line there. There's a big difference if this was said in a personal conversation or if he said it to the class as a whole.
mr. rohrer was playing some quiet christian rock in class as we were working.That's possibly over the line. If it was a Christian station he was probably aware he was playing religious music. If it was mixed in on a "regular" station I still might think it's better than no music at all.

Remember (according to your avatar), you're in Wisconsin. Not exactly famous as a mecca for religious diversity. Probably worse than the Detroit area, where I grew up. :)

this end up

2005-11-03, 08:35 PM

mr. rohrer was playing a cd and mr o'conner said it to the whole class.

not that i want to get them in trouble(they are my two favorite classes this semester) i was just wondering if there was a law.

phlegm

2005-11-03, 08:51 PM

"math is so perfect that it makes you wonder if it wasn't created by some greater almighty being."

I don't think this is an unreasonable statement for a math enthusiast to make, even if he or she is an atheist. Anyone who has spent time and energy doing higher level math typically develops an appreciation for its beauty. And attributing divinity to beautiful things is, I believe, not at all uncommon.

Seager

2005-11-03, 09:56 PM

Christian rock?

Christian rock?

Christian ROCK?

*pulls face like this end up's avatar*

No kidding. If there is one thing jesus doesn't do, it's rock. He'd could be in some reggai band or bluegrass, but not rock. Jesus ISN'T metal.

phlegm

2005-11-03, 10:08 PM

Jesus ISN'T metal.

I don't know about that. All those effeminate pictures of Jesus with long hair look pretty metal to me. :eek:

uni57

2005-11-07, 03:27 AM

God is one of those things that was kind of cool the first time I thought about it as a kid, but the rabid fanaticism has completely turned me off.AMEN, BROTHER!!!

Kevin, I'm sorry. This is the sort of thing that BillyTheMountain does to me... all the time.

Just for the record, everybody, here is the original post (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?p=386118#post386118) (below) before I doctored it. I have to admit, it's fun. But I can't do it without setting the record straight (unlike Billy, who is ruthless).

Star Wars is one of those things that was kind of cool the first time I saw it as a kid, but the rabid fanaticism has completely turned me off.

BillyTheMountain

2005-11-07, 04:06 PM

AMEN, BROTHER!!!

"A unicycle is so perfect that it makes you wonder if it wasn't created by some greater almighty being...(unlike Billy, who is ruthless).

And this is from an Atheist!!! I think that's a testament to unicycles, don't you?

Dave "Uni57" ISN'T mental.

Thanks for coming to Dave's defense. I am one of Brother Dave's biggest supporters.

Billy

BillyTheMountain

2005-11-07, 04:11 PM

Yes, it sounds like he's walking the line there. There's a big difference if this was said in a personal conversation or if he said it to the class as a whole. :)

Of course, it would be worse if he said This is PROOF there is NO GOD, or was playing Athiest hymns, or pieces of JJuggle's Atheist Sunday school lectures.

Because Atheists don't stick together, they lose their rights. Some Atheists even DENY they are a religion. The Chief Atheist told JJuggle and Dave "Namaste": You shall deny me 3 times before the ---- crows." And wouldn't you know it, just like he said, for each of them, recorded right here in JC over the past weeks.

Billy

Borges

2005-11-07, 06:24 PM

No kidding. If there is one thing jesus doesn't do, it's rock. He'd could be in some reggai band or bluegrass, but not rock. Jesus ISN'T metal.

John 2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

That rocks.

johnfoss

2005-11-07, 07:58 PM

not that i want to get them in trouble(they are my two favorite classes this semester) i was just wondering if there was a law.
I don't know the specifics. But when you hear about lawsuits about such things, it always requires a group of "offended" people to get them going. So first you have to decide if you're offended. Then decide how much. But since you like these classes, if you decide not to do nothing, you should start by asking those teachers about it. They might just say "Oh, sorry" and not do it again.

s7ev0

2005-11-07, 10:35 PM

Any Brits out there watching Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief Tuesdays on BBC2? A truly erudite programme from distinguished scholar.

I am kind of disappointed that they didn't show it on Sunday evenings against Songs of Praise though.

Still. Thank g*d for the good old Beeb, eh?

mscalisi

2005-11-07, 11:18 PM

One might call athiesm an idealogy or philosophy, but even these are tenuous seeing as there is not an agreed upon written doctrine about athiesm.

No matter how many times you call it a religion, it can never be one. It is the absence of religion.

Even if you wrote an athiestic bible and started an athiestic church, it could not be a religion.

Only if you extend the definition of religion to include ideology or philosophy can athiesm be a religion, but then the word religion loses its meaning.

Calling athiesm a religion is like calling a unicycle a bike. They may have some similarities, but the moment it is one, it cannot be the other.

Some Atheists even DENY they are a religion. The Chief Atheist told JJuggle and Dave "Namaste": You shall deny me 3 times before the ---- crows." And wouldn't you know it, just like he said, for each of them, recorded right here in JC over the past weeks.

Billy

phlegm

2005-11-07, 11:21 PM

AMEN, BROTHER!!!

Kevin, I'm sorry. This is the sort of thing that BillyTheMountain does to me... all the time.

Hahaha! :D

The rabid fanaticism of so called "christian" culture turns me off too. Although, it makes good satire (http://www.savedmovie.com/). Rabid fanaticism in general is a big turn off. Why do people feel the need to convince everyone else to be just like them? Hasn't the undertow of existentialism taken over yet?

BillyTheMountain

2005-11-07, 11:29 PM

One might call athiesm an idealogy or philosophy, but even these are tenuous seeing as there is not an agreed upon written doctrine about athiesm.

No matter how many times you call it a religion, it can never be one. It is the absence of religion.

Even if you wrote an athiestic bible and started an athiestic church, it could not be a religion.

Only if you extend the definition of religion to include ideology or philosophy can athiesm be a religion, but then the word religion loses its meaning.

Calling athiesm a religion is like calling a unicycle a bike. They may have some similarities, but the moment it is one, it cannot be the other.

Thank GOD we tolerate such anti-Atheist sentiment here.

Billy

mscalisi

2005-11-08, 01:44 AM

phlegm

2005-11-08, 02:10 AM

I'm pretty sure most of us want to be disassociated from religion

As I am quite eager to disassociate myself from the religious right and other Christian fundamentalist groups, I have some idea where you might be coming from. Yet I'm not sure why it matters so much to draw a rigid line between atheism and religion. In some contexts, arguably, some forms of atheism could be understood as a religion. I don't think this necessarily detracts from an atheistic worldview, or does it? Why is religion so offensive? In a weak sense, religion can be understood simply as a set of beliefs, and whether we like it or not, each of us has a set of beliefs.

BillyTheMountain

2005-11-08, 02:36 AM

Cute.

Anti-Athiest? I assume you're saying this since you consider it negative to dissassociated with religion.

I don't speak for all athiests, but I'm pretty sure most of us want to be disassociated from religion (although I personally subscribe to some buddhist philosophy).

Thank dog.

No. I'm saying if we were to say Animism is not a religion, or Billyism is not a religion, or Universal Life is not a religion, it would be anti those religions, and would deprive them of the rights allowed for religions.

mscalisi

2005-11-08, 05:40 AM

Ahhh yes, well....thats different altogether.

If calliing athiesm a religion gives us better legal standing, then I'm all for it.

...but of course, legal definitions don't always follow real definitions.

No. I'm saying if we were to say Animism is not a religion, or Billyism is not a religion, or Universal Life is not a religion, it would be anti those religions, and would deprive them of the rights allowed for religions.

boo radley

2005-11-08, 06:13 AM

i propose a constitutional amendment to define religion as between one man and one god, or two if you're into that kind of thing. atheism can't be a religion, it's unnatural.

GILD

2005-11-08, 06:16 AM

So religions are natural?
Hence the pictures of the caveman priests? And the bonobo preachers?

uni57

2005-11-08, 06:24 AM

atheism can't be a religion, it's unnatural.I agree with the first five words and disagree with the last two words (everything before the comma -- good. Everything after the comma -- bad).

Unnatural? It's entirely natural, because atheists do not believe in the supernatural (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/supernatural).

GILD

2005-11-08, 06:26 AM

So dismissing the supernatural proves that it must be natural?
That's a bit of a leap that's likely to even leave Billy slightly dizzy.
Nice work.

uni57

2005-11-08, 06:42 AM

So dismissing the supernatural proves that it must be natural?
That's a bit of a leap that's likely to even leave Billy slightly dizzy.
Nice work.I'm confused now. I have to admit, I didn't think about my reply very much. It seemed obvious at the time. However (in my defense)...

In the context of theism, than which is not natural (unnatural) is supernatural.

In the context of food, that which is not natural (unnatural) is synthetic, man-made, altered, etc. Dismissing the supernatural does not, of course, prove that the food is natural. It's all about context.

So, my "leap" only applies within this narrowly defined discussion.

Belief in the supernatural is unnatural... by definition. It is the theistic opposite of natural.

Wait... Was the original post saying that atheism is unnatural -- meaning that it goes against human nature? I see now. Well, at least I made Billy slightly dizzy.

GILD

2005-11-08, 06:46 AM

Damn! I though I understood that untill about halfway thru your post.

BillyTheMountain

2005-11-08, 02:22 PM

i propose a constitutional amendment to define religion as between one man and one god, or two if you're into that kind of thing. atheism can't be a religion, it's unnatural.

Atheist have defined their relationship with GOD. That's more than many people have done. As such, they are a faith-based religion, and prefer to be spoken with a capital A, thank you.

You have to admit the belief in NO GOD is faith-based, just like the belief in NO UNICORNS.

Can we hear from the Aunicorntheists?????

Billy

GILD

2005-11-08, 02:31 PM

You have to admit the belief in NO GOD is faith-based, just like the belief in NO UNICORNS.Excuse (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=183257&postcount=12) Me?!? (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=165353&postcount=10)

wobbling bear

2005-11-08, 02:33 PM

I have not seen that thread before ... and I do not feel like reading all the posts ...
So trying to say something: I would not try to proselityze (I even think than preaching is bad manners: see my previous post on the subject of raising religious subjects -sorry for those who did not appreciate the remark :( -).
I tend to like discussion on issues and often discover that I can come to terms with people who profess "religious patterns" very different from mine! (an habit from childhood: I was raised in a muslim country).
So I tend to think that though philosophical framework are important it is a real bad idea to require that other people share your patterns.
I tend to be wary of people advertising loudly their christianity (or any other flavour of thought -including mine!-): ok what's in the box?
There is a fine line: issues are important and theories are important, nonetheless if we focus only on the advertisement on the box we are dealing with marketing not with healthy bickering.

mscalisi

2005-11-08, 04:42 PM

Oh Billy Billy Billy. Whatever are we to do. I'm now offically bored with this argument on semantics.

Am I to infer from your post that you are a follower in the teachings of the son of the unicorn?

Atheist have defined their relationship with GOD. That's more than many people have done. As such, they are a faith-based religion, and prefer to be spoken with a capital A, thank you.

You have to admit the belief in NO GOD is faith-based, just like the belief in NO UNICORNS.

Can we hear from the Aunicorntheists?????

Billy

BillyTheMountain

2005-12-07, 05:54 PM

Am I to infer from your post that you are a follower in the teachings of the son of the unicorn?

How about it, Dave (aka GILd, aka GILby),

Tell us why you have 2 unicorns tattooed on your chest.

Gilby

2005-12-07, 06:42 PM

Tell us why you have 2 unicorns tattooed on your chest.Unicorns? I thought those were nipples.

this end up

2005-12-07, 09:06 PM

gilby and gild are the same person?

Gilby

2005-12-07, 09:12 PM

gilby and gild are the same person?
Oh, now look what you started BTMG. Rumors, rumors, rumors... eventually people begin to think it's truth. Then thousands of years later the debate still continues... :D OK, maybe not in this case.

killrockroll

2005-12-07, 09:14 PM

I'm athiest

GILD

2005-12-08, 10:57 AM

Unicorns? I thought those were nipples.Nope, unicorns (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=165353&postcount=10).

Now we need someone to get us a pic of a shirtless Gilby (http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=108938)...

GILD

2005-12-08, 11:02 AM

I'm athiestWelcome to the fora. Watchout for Billy, he's a dangerous one.

refuze

2005-12-08, 05:24 PM

i too am atheist, here are some good thoughts for you from a great book. i got to go to work but i just wanted to join in on this thread, and put in my 2 cents.
"... if devothoin to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater , nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."

".. the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind."

".. to describe the unknown by the known is a logical prodedure, to explain the know by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."

by George H. Smith - Atheism , The Case Against God

BillyTheMountain

2005-12-08, 06:36 PM

I'm athiest

i too am atheist, ....by George H. Smith - Atheism , The Case Against God

Do Atheists believe in Satan? What do they call people who do not believe in Satan?

Do Atheists believe in miracles?

Do all Atheists want to killrockroll?

Billy

mscalisi

2005-12-08, 06:44 PM

Of course we do. Satan and baby Jesus.

Do Atheists believe in Satan? What do they call people who do not believe in Satan?
Billy

this end up

2005-12-08, 09:19 PM

Oh, now look what you started BTMG. Rumors, rumors, rumors... eventually people begin to think it's truth. Then thousands of years later the debate still continues... :D OK, maybe not in this case.

hey i was just interpreting this quote

How about it, Dave (aka GILd, aka GILby),

Tell us why you have 2 unicorns tattooed on your chest.

phlegm

2005-12-08, 10:21 PM

I'm a theist

Yeah, me too! :D

refuze

2005-12-09, 02:54 AM

Do Atheists believe in Satan? What do they call people o not believe in Satan?

Do Atheists believe in miracles?

Do all Atheists want to killrockroll?

Billy

no they do not, athiests do not believe in any higher power whether it be good or evil...
what are miracles??? do you know if little timmy fought for his life for himself and took care of himself and therefor over came some deadly illness??? or was it a miracle??? we believe in science, a scientific proof. Not some myth. just cause you prayed for someone to get better doesnt mean that if you didnt pray that he or she wouldnt be cured... its a matter of faith in something un proven and that faith is what i lack therefor i am athiest. to believe in god is irrational thought, and i refuse to think irrationally, ( that is where i get my name from... i bboy and that is what my crew calls me) anyway hope that i helped out in this conversation. sorry if my spelling is bad im a terrible speller. oh and to coment on something previously said... i am athiest but im am very kind and compasionate, and also being vegetarian for 13 years makes me think that if there was a "god" he would not have made these animals so they could suffer, be tortured, and be killed. That outrages me when people just assume that since i dont believe in "god" that i am an un-carring person, thats why i just dont say anything i just keep my beliefes or lack there of ... to myself. although i like the debate of it, i dont like to et into it with other people because i dont like to offend any one.
ok im done now i will wait to be blasted about being veg.
kevin - aka bboy refuze

phlegm

2005-12-09, 03:58 AM

what are miracles??? do you know if little timmy fought for his life for himself and took care of himself and therefor over came some deadly illness??? or was it a miracle???

Or, could it be both? :)

That outrages me when people just assume that since i dont believe in "god" that i am an un-carring person

Similarly, I'm bothered when atheists assume that theists cannot be rational and appreciate science. ;)

refuze

2005-12-09, 04:21 AM

Or, could it be both? :)

Similarly, I'm bothered when atheists assume that theists cannot be rational and appreciate science. ;)

see... im sorry if i offended you this is why i do not express my beliefs, or lack there of..... now go outside and practice your no handed track stands so you can get wheelies!!! hahaha
kevin

phlegm

2005-12-09, 04:32 AM

I'm not offended. Don't worry about it. I've already aired my opinions enough in this thread, not to mention several other popular threads.

If everyone could just ignore BillyTheMountain, then maybe the threads would die. ;)

Gilby

2005-12-09, 05:07 AM

If everyone could just ignore BillyTheMountain, then maybe the threads would die. ;)

No problem. Shhh... just don't tell him. :)

tomblackwood

2005-12-09, 05:21 AM

No problem. Shhh... just don't tell him. :)
Wow, a tiny, very rare glimpse into Godby's Phenomenal Cosmic Power!

I need to try to remember that Heinlein story where people get sent to Coventry...it was great, but it's been a while.

johnfoss

2005-12-09, 09:31 AM

Do Atheists believe in Satan?

Do Atheists believe in miracles?
All atheists think identically. Just like all Christians. So when you find the answers to these questions be sure to write them down, because then you'll have insight into the head of every atheist on Earth.

That being the case...
athiests do not believe in any higher power whether it be good or evil...
Speak for yourself. To me atheist means to believe there is no God. Not to not-believe. If you merely don't believe, that makes you agnostic. To be an atheist you have to actively believe there isn't. That is to say you have faith in the non-existence of God. Or not, because I speak for myself and not everybody.
what are miracles???
To me they are when extremely unlikely stuff happens. But a miracle is in the eye of the beholder. Say a baby is found in the ruins of a big building after an earthquake, where everyone else is dead. Call it a miracle, but the families of all the surrounding dead people might not agree.

faith is what i lack therefor i am athiest.
Okay.
to believe in god is irrational thought, and i refuse to think irrationally
But we humans are irrational beings. Just look around. Pick up a psychology book. Confusing, huh?
being vegetarian for 13 years makes me think that if there was a "god" he would not have made these animals so they could suffer, be tortured, and be killed.
You mean like being eaten alive by a predator? I don't know that they'd see the difference. All non-omnivorous creatures eat each other. Most herbivores run the constant risk of being eaten. That's damn cruel.

But I will not knock anyone for choosing to be vegetarian or vegan. As long as they don't "preach" it. :)

jagur

2005-12-09, 09:42 AM

good stuff J_F

BillyTheMountain

2005-12-09, 02:17 PM

All non-omnivorous creatures eat each other. Most herbivores run the constant risk of being eaten. That's damn cruel.

But I will not knock anyone for choosing to be vegetarian or vegan. As long as they don't "preach" it. :)

John: Finally, someone speaking Truth and Reason! An Atheist who knows what it means to be an Atheist.

And a vegetarian unicyclist who sees meat eating as cruel, but doesn't "preach" it.

Thanks, John.

Billy

Murde Mental

2005-12-09, 03:32 PM

Atheists are boring... but then again, so is anyone who doesn't exercise any flexibility in his beleifs.

I am a free spirit gathering information from whatever sources I stumble upon. :-P

JJuggle

2005-12-09, 03:50 PM

Atheists are boring...Interesting. In a sense, this is the point.
but then again, so is anyone who doesn't exercise any flexibility in his beleifs.People inflexible in their beliefs have been responsible for some of the most exciting events in human history. The Holocaust, The Crusades, the Inquisition, those wonderful entertainments in the Roman arenas, the starvation of millions of Russian peasant/farmers, 9/11, and the war in Iraq.
I am a free spirit gathering information from whatever sources I stumble upon. :-PTry to remember to be a little discriminating.

Murde Mental

2005-12-09, 04:23 PM

Maybe boring wasn't the best choice of word? I dunno, hard to hold up a spiritual conversation with a die-hard christian (but as I said there still are some good things ot be remembered from their doctrine) and almost equally impossible with an Atheist.

thus making them boring?

Right now I'm wondering if my thoughts make any sense...

cathwood

2005-12-09, 06:41 PM

Murde Mental

2005-12-09, 06:51 PM

Oh good! I was afraid I might have been caught up in a debating vortex... now I hope I can make a silent escape...

Gilby

2005-12-09, 06:53 PM

Oh good! I was afraid I might have been caught up in a debating vortex... now I hope I can make a silent escape...

Not so fast. Who do you think is interesting to talk to? Not Christians, not atheists... agnostics, buddhists, etc?!?

cathwood

2005-12-09, 06:54 PM

Come back here, you can't just leave after accusing me of being boring.

Cathy

mscalisi

2005-12-09, 07:23 PM

No no no no!!! All the hard work I've done and John Foss goes and undoes it by saying athiests have faith.

I don't have faith that there is no god any more than I have faith that gravity exists.

My athiestism has more to do with thought and reason than "faith" (FYI, ,when I'm feeling more mystical, I consider myself agnostic, but it's been a while)

I don't think John is a vegetarian unicyclist, but I am.

and people who support the factory farming of living creatures practice cruelty by proxy. Was that preachy? I hope so.

Ever notice that the word "ignorance" contains the word "ignore"?

John: Finally, someone speaking Truth and Reason! An Atheist who knows what it means to be an Atheist.

And a vegetarian unicyclist who sees meat eating as cruel, but doesn't "preach" it.

Thanks, John.

Billy

phlegm

2005-12-09, 07:35 PM

and people who support the factory farming of living creatures practice cruelty by proxy. Was that preachy? I hope so.

Hey, something I agree with! Maybe... I'm no vegetarian, but I do have a low meat diet and make an effort to only eat meat that wasn't factory farmed. So, have we talked about vegetarianism yet? How many more 'ism's are left undiscussed in this thread? ;)

Murde Mental

2005-12-09, 10:26 PM

Not so fast. Who do you think is interesting to talk to? Not Christians, not atheists... agnostics, buddhists, etc?!?

You're making it very hard for me to say Gilby. On the one hand people with unbendable beleifs are boring and on the other I respect someone who respects his values.

So I guess it goes like this:

Be indicisive? Yet hold a few values close to yourself and live by them. Values, not beleifs that is.

I'm pretty sure that made even less sense than my last post.

cathwood

2005-12-09, 10:30 PM

You're making it very hard for me to say Gilby. On the one hand people with unbendable beleifs are boring and on the other I respect someone who respects his values.

So I guess it goes like this:

Be indicisive? Yet hold a few values close to yourself and live by them. Values, not beleifs that is.

I'm pretty sure that made even less sense than my last post.

What's the difference between values and beliefs?

Cathy

JJuggle

2005-12-09, 10:39 PM

I'm pretty sure that made even less sense than my last post.Agreed.

Murde Mental

2005-12-09, 10:42 PM

What's the difference between values and beliefs?

Cathy

don't make me dictionarise it.

GOSH! I should've staid FAR away form you crazy atheists. ;)

I did anyways:

Values: the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard

beliefs: knowns to the subconscious.

Gilby

2005-12-09, 11:02 PM

GOSH! I should've staid FAR away form you crazy atheists. ;)

Who are you calling atheist?

Catboy

2005-12-09, 11:05 PM

I'm a Taoist, so technically, I am an athiest... oh well.

But I just am.

Murde Mental

2005-12-09, 11:46 PM

Who are you calling atheist?

Ummm Atheists I guess?

Gilby

2005-12-10, 04:17 AM

and people who support the factory farming of living creatures practice cruelty by proxy. Was that preachy? I hope so.

No, that wasn't preachy, that's just stating the facts. Preachy would be saying something like "you all have to convert and see things my way!"

Naturally, I am an omnivore, as are all humans. However, technological advances have allowed us to step a little away from that and rely more on plants. That's happening, slowly, and I think eventually, we'll rely only on plants, and possible include "manufactured" meat. It's hard to try to convert people to not consuming animal products, as we are genetically programmed to desire it.

Religion doesn't help it much either... God said we rule over all animals, etc. (Genesis 1:26) and for us to overtake the earth (Genesis 1:28). To fully kill our meat before eating (Genesis 9:4) and fully cook it before eating (Exodus 12:9).

Hey, it's kinda fun to (mis)interpret the bible to have it say whatever I want it to. ;)