Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Spirituality >> Atheists are ..
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1312600093

Message started by Lisa on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm

Title: Atheists are ..
Post by Lisa on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm
people who are obsessed with discussing God and/or religion.

Don't believe me? No worries .. but take another look at this forum and its topics.




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:48pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm:
people who are obsessed with discussing God and/or religion.

Don't believe me? No worries .. but take another look at this forum and its topics.


An Atheist's defining belief relies on God or gods. Is it hardly surprising?

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 6th, 2011 at 4:47pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm:
people who are obsessed with discussing God and/or religion.

Don't believe me? No worries .. but take another look at this forum and its topics.

You might like to consider the difference between being obsessed with God and/or religion as opposed to being interested in the reasons some people believe in/are obsessed with god and/or religion, why they would be and/or what effect many theists believe their theism should have on society.

Believing in god and knowing others believe in god are not the same thing... Different parts of the brain for each are activated y'know...

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Sappho on Aug 6th, 2011 at 7:03pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 4:47pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm:
people who are obsessed with discussing God and/or religion.

Don't believe me? No worries .. but take another look at this forum and its topics.

You might like to consider the difference between being obsessed with God and/or religion as opposed to being interested in the reasons some people believe in/are obsessed with god and/or religion, why they would be and/or what effect many theists believe their theism should have on society.

Believing in god and knowing others believe in god are not the same thing... Different parts of the brain for each are activated y'know...


I would also add that being Atheist does not preclude a persons right to express an interest in ancient history and mythology of which biblical texts are an excellent resource. They may not give an accurate account of history, but they do give us a deep insight into the mood of the times and what influenced that mood.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 7th, 2011 at 12:27am

Sappho wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 7:03pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 4:47pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm:
people who are obsessed with discussing God and/or religion.

Don't believe me? No worries .. but take another look at this forum and its topics.

You might like to consider the difference between being obsessed with God and/or religion as opposed to being interested in the reasons some people believe in/are obsessed with god and/or religion, why they would be and/or what effect many theists believe their theism should have on society.

Believing in god and knowing others believe in god are not the same thing... Different parts of the brain for each are activated y'know...




I would also add that being Atheist does not preclude a persons right to express an interest in ancient history and mythology of which biblical texts are an excellent resource.

They may not give an accurate account of history, but they do give us a deep insight into the mood of the times and what influenced that mood.



....and [some may argue,] that biblical texts also reveal a remarkable insight, on the part of their authors, into aspects of the human psyche ???

And shouldn't this insight into our nature [on the part of 'sheep herders'] be just a little intriguing, to [an 'enhanced' by our superior knowledge and supposed wisdom, of] modern man ?



Questions that come to my mind;

Were our ancient progenitors really so [intellectually] 'backward', as we today [so often] would like to suppose ???

Have we mankind really changed so much, from our ancient progenitors ???





Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 7th, 2011 at 12:30am

Yadda wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 12:27am:
....and [some may argue,] that biblical texts also reveal a remarkable insight, on the part of their authors, into aspects of the human psyche ???

And shouldn't this insight into our nature [on the part of 'sheep herders'] be just a little intriguing, to [an 'enhanced' by our knowledge and wisdom] modern man ?
Questions that come to my mind;

Were our ancient progenitors really so [intellectually] 'backward', as we today [so often] would like to suppose ???

Have we mankind really changed so much, from our ancient progenitors ???

I doubt human nature has changed in thousands of years, so, yes, enduring ancient texts are bound to say something to us as they did when they were written. But the Bible no more than, say, the Bhagavad Gītā.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Amadd on Aug 7th, 2011 at 2:19am

muso wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:48pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm:
people who are obsessed with discussing God and/or religion.

Don't believe me? No worries .. but take another look at this forum and its topics.


An Atheist's defining belief relies on God or gods. Is it hardly surprising?


Where did you get that impression?

To me, it's more like an intrigue, or a fascination as to how some people seem rational in most regards and yet they believe that an historical man once walked on water, performed miracles..etc.
It's very much like a kiddie who still believes that santa will come down the chimney and deliver all sorts of goodies to them if they have been good all year.

Personally, I find that far more fascinating than the question of an interventionist God existing or not.

I agree that yes, I require this belief in God (or what God does) in order to spark my fascination. Without the belief of others, I wouldn't be interested.

No doubt, the initial comment was intended to spark some interest for the "unbelievers".
That interest being "The use of logic".


If presents are found at the base of a xmas tree on xmas day, does that necessarily mean they were left by a man in a red suit who rode through the sky on a sleigh pulled by reindeer?

Using the same logic, ....I think that you should know what I'm getting at.i






i


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Sappho on Aug 7th, 2011 at 9:24am

Yadda wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 12:27am:

Sappho wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 7:03pm:
They may not give an accurate account of history, but they do give us a deep insight into the mood of the times and what influenced that mood.


....and [some may argue,] that biblical texts also reveal a remarkable insight, on the part of their authors, into aspects of the human psyche ???


Absolutely Yadda. I think the great lesson that many Atheists are yet to learn is that if you turn away from religion, you must find something, of equal significance, to fill that gap once held by religion.

With this in mind, Atheists need to ask themselves, what is the point of religion?  


Quote:
And shouldn't this insight into our nature [on the part of 'sheep herders'] be just a little intriguing, to [an 'enhanced' by our superior knowledge and supposed wisdom, of] modern man ?


Not only the Abrahamic faith Yadda, but all faiths and rituals are intriguing. I find the myths and rituals of American Indian tribes to be most fascinating. One particular tribe required boys coming of age to move through a dark tunnel to end up in a cavern and there to add his picture to the pictures drawn by his ancestors near and far. During the journey through the cave, he would be prodded and pushed, tumble and fall in the darkness. When he returned from this, he was deemed a man. It's classic re-birth.

Then again, the pre history Hellenist myths and rituals are a fav of mine and always providing insight into the nature and motives of humans... the symbol of the Bull that stretches back to ancient times is still with us today in the form of Bull fights.  

Likewise the Bhagavad Gītā, as mentioned by Helian... which is fascinating because Krishna gave three arguments to the King as to why he should war with those who are his brothers or who were his teachers... the moral... the philosophical and the spiritual. But the only argument to sway the King was the spiritual... that was Krisha revealing himself as God and as God his desire to see the war fought.


Quote:
Questions that come to my mind;

Were our ancient progenitors really so [intellectually] 'backward', as we today [so often] would like to suppose ???

Have we mankind really changed so much, from our ancient progenitors ???


We are no different nor better than our ancient progenitors... we are just further along the journey of knowledge than they were.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 8th, 2011 at 10:17am

Amadd wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 2:19am:

muso wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:48pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm:
people who are obsessed with discussing God and/or religion.

Don't believe me? No worries .. but take another look at this forum and its topics.


An Atheist's defining belief relies on God or gods. Is it hardly surprising?


Where did you get that impression?


If you look at any of the dictionary definitions of Atheist, they involve Gods or some such thing. It stands to reason that an Atheist would want to discuss the belief in gods (or some such thing).

That's all I'm getting at.

You can find all kinds of definitions for "atheist", "god", "religion" etc  out there, and many are not compatible. So it's a rubbery concept, which means that people who don't call themselves atheists are free to make it almost anything they want.

Yadda - Did you listen to "The Spirit of Things" last night on ABC Radio National? They had John Lennox as a guest. (Richard Dawkins' arch -enemy   ;D )

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 8th, 2011 at 10:50am

Sappho wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 9:24am:

Quote:
Questions that come to my mind;

Were our ancient progenitors really so [intellectually] 'backward', as we today [so often] would like to suppose ???

Have we mankind really changed so much, from our ancient progenitors ???


We are no different nor better than our ancient progenitors... we are just further along the journey of knowledge than they were.



Exactly so Sappho.

....at least, we like to believe that our accumulated knowledge has taken us, to a 'better' place, compared to that 'place' in which our ancient progenitors found themselves.     ;)

Certainly our technology today is impressive.

But our morality ???

Are we today, in any way, better than that character, Cain, in the 1st book of the Bible ?




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 8th, 2011 at 11:08am

muso wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 10:17am:

Yadda - Did you listen to "The Spirit of Things" last night on ABC Radio National?


They had John Lennox as a guest. (Richard Dawkins' arch -enemy   ;D )



Hi muso.

No.



I now, no longer listen to "The Spirit of Things".

I now make a point of avoiding that program.

Listening to the presenter [i forget his name] distresses me.

It really hurts my spirit, to listen to the leftist, 'humanist' opinions and views, expressed by that guy, and to the views many of his guests, even the views of many of his Christian guests offend me.

I am particularly distressed by his lack of critical knowledge regarding ISLAM / moslems [likewise, Geraldine Doogue]

IMO, these people [public presenters, of religious issues] should be asking difficult questions of their moslem guests, but, they almost never do.

They are a part of the problem, imo.

They have their careers to protect.

I can understand that, but, imo, that does not excuse their open appeasement and open 'accommodation' of an evil philosophy like ISLAM, and its adherents, moslems.





Sorry.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 8th, 2011 at 1:42pm

Yadda wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 11:08am:
Hi muso.

No.



I now, no longer listen to "The Spirit of Things".

I now make a point of avoiding that program.

Listening to the presenter [i forget his name] distresses me.

It really hurts my spirit, to listen to the leftist, 'humanist' opinions and views, expressed by that guy, and to the views many of his guests, even the views of many of his Christian guests offend me.


It's not a He, it's a she. Rachel Kohn is the presenter, and like any journo, she takes a neutral viewpoint but still asks hard-hitting questions.  

In last night's edition, it was gratifying to hear Lennox  dismiss some of Dawkins' arguments as being simplistic, in particular his strawman of faith equating to belief without evidence. It's something I've been saying for a while, but it's good to hear somebody else saying it.

IMHO Dawkins gives atheists a bad name  ;D

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 8th, 2011 at 1:56pm

muso wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 1:42pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 11:08am:
Hi muso.

No.



I now, no longer listen to "The Spirit of Things".

I now make a point of avoiding that program.

Listening to the presenter [i forget his name] distresses me.

It really hurts my spirit, to listen to the leftist, 'humanist' opinions and views, expressed by that guy, and to the views many of his guests, even the views of many of his Christian guests offend me.


It's not a He, it's a she. Rachel Kohn is the presenter, and like any journo, she takes a neutral viewpoint but still asks hard-hitting questions.  



Hi muso,

I apologise.

The 'national' program we get here on the local ABC [and the one that i assumed that you were referring to], is 'Sunday Nights' with John Cleary.


http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/



I admit, i have not tried to tune into the ABC Radio National channel.




In any case, i missed the program you referred to.



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Sappho on Aug 8th, 2011 at 4:25pm

Yadda wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 10:50am:

Sappho wrote on Aug 7th, 2011 at 9:24am:

Quote:
Questions that come to my mind;

Were our ancient progenitors really so [intellectually] 'backward', as we today [so often] would like to suppose ???

Have we mankind really changed so much, from our ancient progenitors ???


We are no different nor better than our ancient progenitors... we are just further along the journey of knowledge than they were.


Exactly so Sappho.

....at least, we like to believe that our accumulated knowledge has taken us, to a 'better' place, compared to that 'place' in which our ancient progenitors found themselves.     ;)


Really? How do you measure that to know that? Are we more content? Are we less warlike?


Quote:
But our morality ???


Our morality is more sophisticated due to our more sophisticated technologies. That doesn't make it better, just different.


Quote:
Are we today, in any way, better than that character, Cain, in the 1st book of the Bible ?


Are we any worse than Abel for that matter.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Sappho on Aug 8th, 2011 at 4:30pm

Yadda wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 1:56pm:
I admit, i have not tried to tune into the ABC Radio National channel.


In any case, i missed the program you referred to.



Quote:
An Evening With John Lennox

Mathematician, philosopher of science, and Christian, John Lennox of Oxford University has made a name for himself debating Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Singer on the compatibility of religion and science. Recorded in front of an audience at Sydney's Roseville College in conversation with Rachael Kohn, Lennox covers a range of topics in the religion and science debate. These include the 'evidence for faith', his experiences 'behind the Iron Curtain' in Communist Russia, and his disagreement with Singer's 'solution' to the problem of pain. (Held in conjunction with the Centre for Public Christianity).

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2011/3283542.htm


You don't have to miss it Yadda, or any Radio National program for that matter. They are available on line to listen to or down load. Often there is a transcript also, but not always.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 9th, 2011 at 7:50am
Yadda is bandwidth challenged, I think.

There will be a transcript. I'll let you know when it's up.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 9th, 2011 at 2:03pm

Sappho wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

Quote:
An Evening With John Lennox

Mathematician, philosopher of science, and Christian, John Lennox of Oxford University has made a name for himself debating Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Singer on the compatibility of religion and science. Recorded in front of an audience at Sydney's Roseville College in conversation with Rachael Kohn, Lennox covers a range of topics in the religion and science debate. These include the 'evidence for faith', his experiences 'behind the Iron Curtain' in Communist Russia, and his disagreement with Singer's 'solution' to the problem of pain. (Held in conjunction with the Centre for Public Christianity).

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2011/3283542.htm


You don't have to miss it Yadda, or any Radio National program for that matter. They are available on line to listen to or down load. Often there is a transcript also, but not always.



Thanks for the link Sappho.

The d/l mp3 is +25 mb.

I started a download, my browser showed +5 hours [i'm on dialup, live semi rural] to complete the download.

So i stopped it.



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Sappho on Aug 9th, 2011 at 8:21pm

Yadda wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

Sappho wrote on Aug 8th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

Quote:
An Evening With John Lennox

Mathematician, philosopher of science, and Christian, John Lennox of Oxford University has made a name for himself debating Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Singer on the compatibility of religion and science. Recorded in front of an audience at Sydney's Roseville College in conversation with Rachael Kohn, Lennox covers a range of topics in the religion and science debate. These include the 'evidence for faith', his experiences 'behind the Iron Curtain' in Communist Russia, and his disagreement with Singer's 'solution' to the problem of pain. (Held in conjunction with the Centre for Public Christianity).

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2011/3283542.htm


You don't have to miss it Yadda, or any Radio National program for that matter. They are available on line to listen to or down load. Often there is a transcript also, but not always.



Thanks for the link Sappho.

The d/l mp3 is +25 mb.

I started a download, my browser showed +5 hours [i'm on dialup, live semi rural] to complete the download.

So i stopped it.


You don't have to download it unless you want to keep it. Just select 'listen now' and it will bring up your media player and begin playing.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 10th, 2011 at 8:01am

Sappho wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 8:21pm:
You don't have to download it unless you want to keep it. Just select 'listen now' and it will bring up your media player and begin playing.


Not on 56k dialup, it won't.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 10th, 2011 at 10:38am

muso wrote on Aug 10th, 2011 at 8:01am:

Sappho wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 8:21pm:
You don't have to download it unless you want to keep it. Just select 'listen now' and it will bring up your media player and begin playing.


Not on 56k dialup, it won't.





muso is correct Sappho.


Not on 56k dialup, it won't.         ;D


Not on 19.6 kb/s, 21 kb/s, or 24 kb/s, dialup, it won't.

I have 24 kb/s, today.

Ooooaaar!




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 11th, 2011 at 9:30am

Yadda wrote on Aug 10th, 2011 at 10:38am:

muso wrote on Aug 10th, 2011 at 8:01am:

Sappho wrote on Aug 9th, 2011 at 8:21pm:
You don't have to download it unless you want to keep it. Just select 'listen now' and it will bring up your media player and begin playing.


Not on 56k dialup, it won't.





muso is correct Sappho.


Not on 56k dialup, it won't.         ;D


Not on 19.6 kb/s, 21 kb/s, or 24 kb/s, dialup, it won't.

I have 24 kb/s, today.

Ooooaaar!


Oh Lord, won't you buy me an ADSL ?
My friends all have T1's, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me an ADSL ?

;D

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 11th, 2011 at 11:37am

muso wrote on Aug 11th, 2011 at 9:30am:
Oh Lord, won't you buy me an ADSL ?
My friends all have T1's, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me an ADSL ?

;D




LOL

Too far from the exchange for ADSL.    :'(




"Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord."



"Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the NBN."      ;D


"In your patience possess ye your souls."



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 12th, 2011 at 8:32am
Your prayers have been answered. At least you can read the transcript. I think he makes many valid points. Atheists are too quick to jump on the bandwagon with Dawkins' brand of anti-theism.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2011/3283542.htm


Quote:
Rachael Kohn: Now, John Lennox, you are known as one of the most successful debaters of those who deny God's existence, who say that faith is a delusion. I think Stephen Hawking said that heaven is a fairy story for people who are afraid of the dark.

John Lennox: I think atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the light. Not that that solves the problem though.


;)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:07am
I think atheism, being essentiaqlly a reaction, is mainly a first generation phenomenon. That is, most atheists are converts, rather than keepers of an inter-generational tradition. This explains some of their vehemence: their atheism is a quest for self and reaction against mum & dad (both literally and in the societal sense).
In this sense being an atheist is perpaps a bit like being gay: it may be novel and exciting, not least because of its transgressioon value but it's hard to pass it on to the next generation.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 6:33pm

Soren wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:07am:
I think atheism, being essentiaqlly a reaction, is mainly a first generation phenomenon. That is, most atheists are converts, rather than keepers of an inter-generational tradition. This explains some of their vehemence: their atheism is a quest for self and reaction against mum & dad (both literally and in the societal sense).

;D

This from a resident of one of the most secular countries on earth. ;D


Soren wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:07am:
In this sense being an atheist is perpaps a bit like being gay: it may be novel and exciting, not least because of its transgressioon value but it's hard to pass it on to the next generation.

I think 'neo-Christian' sects is where you'd look to find gays... In denial that is... Would at least explain why they're so obsessed with homosexuality. ;)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 24th, 2011 at 9:18am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 6:33pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:07am:
I think atheism, being essentiaqlly a reaction, is mainly a first generation phenomenon. That is, most atheists are converts, rather than keepers of an inter-generational tradition. This explains some of their vehemence: their atheism is a quest for self and reaction against mum & dad (both literally and in the societal sense).

;D

This from a resident of one of the most secular countries on earth. ;D


Soren wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:07am:
In this sense being an atheist is perpaps a bit like being gay: it may be novel and exciting, not least because of its transgressioon value but it's hard to pass it on to the next generation.

I think 'neo-Christian' sects is where you'd look to find gays... In denial that is... Would at least explain why they're so obsessed with homosexuality. ;)



A bit of demarcation creep there - secular, as every schoolboy knows, is not the same as atheist.

As for homos, the point is that you can't make a trans-generational tradition, complete with institutions, arts and cultural capital out of what is essentially deviance dressed up (if that's the expression I want) as 'personal discovery' issues. And so there is no atheist culture.

More broadly, being gay and being an atheist are about 'you'. Marriage and religion, and all the other stuff of culture and civilisation, are not about 'you' but exactly the other way around:  'you' are about them.

This is why, for example, student centred education is bollocks on stilts with bells on. Education is about transmitting and saving knowledge. Areas where real knowledge is saved and transmitted illustrate the point.




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 24th, 2011 at 9:25am

Soren wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 9:18am:
A bit of demarcation creep there - secular, as every schoolboy knows, is not the same as atheist.

Church-going has been on the decline in Europe and Australia for decades, with families adopting a non-religious lifestyle.


Soren wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 9:18am:
As for homos, the point is that you can't make a trans-generational tradition, complete with institutions, arts and cultural capital out of what is essentially deviance dressed up (if that's the expression I want) as 'personal discovery' issues. And so there is no atheist culture.

More broadly, being gay and being an atheist are about 'you'. Marriage and religion, and all the other stuff of culture and civilisation, are not about 'you' but exactly the other way around:  'you' are about them.

This is why, for example, student centred education is bollocks on stilts with bells on. Education is about transmitting and saving knowledge. Areas where real knowledge is saved and transmitted illustrate the point.

Do you really think culture can necessarily only be transmitted by belief in God?

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 24th, 2011 at 9:42am
What I am saying is that being an atheist, like being gay,  is essentially a 'personal discovery' thing, essentially concerned with the self.  It atomises. It does not unite, especially not across generations, which is what religion and civilisation do.








Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 24th, 2011 at 10:12pm

Soren wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 9:42am:
What I am saying is that being an atheist, like being gay,  is essentially a 'personal discovery' thing, essentially concerned with the self.  It atomises. It does not unite, especially not across generations, which is what religion and civilisation do.

Well, not being gay, I couldn't comment further about your point... Maybe you could assist further in defining the nexus... But then again, you're not an atheist.

I can say that my atheism has nothing to do with railing against my upbringing, about which I have no beef.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 24th, 2011 at 10:45pm
It's not about railing and rebellion. I was brought up an atheist but have lapsed, as it were - and not out of youthful rebellion either. I lapsed not exactly into Christianity but certainly into a greater sympathy for it than for atheism or indeed any of its alternatives.

The point I am making is that religion, like civilisation, is inter-generational. Atheism, being an entirely un- or disorganised personal construction, is not inter-generational. Atheism is like gayness for the same reason atheism is not a religion, nor is gayness, even though people huddle around the concepts.

They are both merely personal.









Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 24th, 2011 at 10:48pm

Soren wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 10:45pm:
Atheism is like gayness for the same reason atheism is not a religion, nor is gayness, even though people huddle around the concepts.

They are both merely personal.

As is whether you're an atheist and like/dislike Brussell sprouts.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 25th, 2011 at 5:25am

Soren wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 10:45pm:
It's not about railing and rebellion.


You thought (2 days ago) it was (were you projecting?)...


Soren wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:07am:
their atheism is a quest for self and reaction against mum & dad (both literally and in the societal sense).


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 25th, 2011 at 10:12am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 25th, 2011 at 5:25am:

Soren wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 10:45pm:
It's not about railing and rebellion.


You thought (2 days ago) it was (were you projecting?)...


Soren wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:07am:
their atheism is a quest for self and reaction against mum & dad (both literally and in the societal sense).



Yes, sorry, it IS about railing and rebellion but I will qualify it by adding that it is often an unselfconscious rebellion, not directed necessaily against mum & dad personally but against them as dimply perceibved figures of authority over one's personal and social life. Authorities perceived as being there  to fence in the great unfolding of self-discovery and individuation. Philip Larkin expressed the sentiment in This be the verse. A good poem but, of course, a buggered up idea.




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Imperium II on Aug 25th, 2011 at 2:09pm
actually its not about railing and rebellion (in the sense that you mean rebellion for rebellion's sake) ok maybe in a couple of cases but in a lot of cases its about thinking religion is illogical and stoopid

im sorry it may come as a shock to hear that a lot of people actually think this about the notion of big sky man

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Imperium II on Aug 25th, 2011 at 2:13pm
namaste

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 25th, 2011 at 8:31pm

Soren wrote on Aug 25th, 2011 at 10:12am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 25th, 2011 at 5:25am:

Soren wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 10:45pm:
It's not about railing and rebellion.


You thought (2 days ago) it was (were you projecting?)...


Soren wrote on Aug 23rd, 2011 at 9:07am:
their atheism is a quest for self and reaction against mum & dad (both literally and in the societal sense).



Yes, sorry, it IS about railing and rebellion but I will qualify it by adding that it is often an unselfconscious rebellion, not directed necessaily against mum & dad personally but against them as dimply perceibved figures of authority over one's personal and social life. Authorities perceived as being there  to fence in the great unfolding of self-discovery and individuation. Philip Larkin expressed the sentiment in This be the verse. A good poem but, of course, a buggered up idea.

Well, I can only speak for myself on this matter... And what turned me was not rebellion against parental authority (or otherwise)... It was the clear inanities of Catholic dogma. I clearly understood (and still do) my cultural Irish Catholic inheritance which has given me the opportunity for hours of comedic banter between the 'war' between my Protestant descent mates and my Catholic self... But of course I don't take it seriously.

But I have met countless numbers of Australians who wouldn't have the first clue of religious indoctrination (having been born into secular/atheist families of two or more generations) who are none the worse for their 'ignorance' and most are the better for it.

Even many of my own Irish Catholic family descendants took the piss out of the 'faith of our fathers'...

Christianity, for the sane and informed, is in terminal decline... And that's a fact. Sure, American Pentecostalism (what I call 'Neo-Christianity') may be on the rise in certain segments of society... But take a look at it... At its most benign, its a ridiculous parody of the 'real deal'. At its worst it deploys the tactics of malignant cults and in some ways is indistinguishable from malicious money-grubbing fiascos like Scientology.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Amadd on Aug 26th, 2011 at 3:29am
Athiests are: Beyond God.

What would you do if you were beyond God?

Would you kill for the sake of it?
Would you hate thy neighbor without instruction from the bible?

What would you do?

Do you require the bible to tell you right from wrong?

What's the story John Dory?

Please continue the tale. God has left you..and then you do what?

Do you run rampant, rape and pillage like all other athiests?

What would you do if you suddenly found yourself without an instructive word?








Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Lepper on Aug 27th, 2011 at 6:16pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 6th, 2011 at 1:08pm:
people who are obsessed with discussing God and/or religion.

Don't believe me? No worries .. but take another look at this forum and its topics.


Nice generalization  ::)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 27th, 2011 at 7:28pm
'..actually its not about railing and rebellion (in the sense that you mean rebellion for rebellion's sake) ok maybe in a couple of cases but in a lot of cases its about thinking religion is illogical and stoopid' im sorry it may come as a shock to hear that a lot of people actually think this about the notion of big sky man' -Quote - Imperium II

Yep - I'm sure it does indeed. Like I have said previously - I'm a little a atheist.Being influenced only minimally by my mother about religion, - who held there was a God, but He didn't require a Church. She never read me the Bible for example- or any other text - and let me know at a very early age - 4 ish I'd say, that it was entirely up to myself... what I decided about the question of God, or NOT. (My father died when I was 13 mths old and I have no conscious memories, so he had no influence.) So - it was me,  ...and societal perceptions. So - no - not an 'escapee' from dogma, me,  just uninterested.... and outside my attention until relatively recently.

I FIND ..  The concepts of religion, christianity, god, generational conflicts, .....really and truly only impinge on my cognisant processes when some nasty thing comes on the News these days. ......And I can only shake my head.
THEN - I have to wonder, in little surprise, but .. ...WHY?  :(

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 27th, 2011 at 10:07pm
Neither civilisation nor religion nor education are about 'me'. Rather, 'I' am for the purpose of civilisation, religion and education.

It is not for 'me' to choose but 'I' am to be chosen for the transmission of civilisation, religion and knowledge from th generation before me to the generation after me.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 28th, 2011 at 2:05am
nothing like you suggest :)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 28th, 2011 at 2:12am
'Neither civilisation nor religion nor education are about 'me'. Rather, 'I' am for the purpose of civilisation, religion and education.

It is not for 'me' to choose but 'I' am to be chosen for the transmission of civilisation, religion and knowledge from th generation before me to the generation after me
' -Quote - Soren

Crap.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Amadd on Aug 28th, 2011 at 3:35am

Quote:
It is not for 'me' to choose but 'I' am to be chosen for the transmission of civilisation, religion and knowledge from th generation before me to the generation after me  ' -Quote - Soren

Crap.


Obviously Soren thinks she as one of the chosen ones, with the chosen information.

To be heralded as one of those "chosen ones", it's as simple as reading a 2000,1960,1500,1040,870,450 or a 330yr old book. Choose your own rendition, because any will serve the purpose of a self-imposed godlike stature.
Most us would be happy enough to be so obliviously ignorant and simple if not for the brain that has been planted in our heads.

Nope, those religious folk are not at one with God, they never can be, because although their minds tell them that they might be, their hearts will always dictate otherwise.
They seek forgiveness from (the imaginary entity) God, not only for what they have done, but also for what they intend to do.
They are beyond learning. They are very evil creatures indeed these religious folk.i

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by falah on Aug 28th, 2011 at 12:48pm
sometimes like Mao, sometimes like Pol Pot, sometimes like Stalin...

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 28th, 2011 at 3:57pm

Soren wrote on Aug 24th, 2011 at 10:45pm:
It's not about railing and rebellion. I was brought up an atheist but have lapsed, as it were - and not out of youthful rebellion either. I lapsed not exactly into Christianity but certainly into a greater sympathy for it than for atheism or indeed any of its alternatives.

The point I am making is that religion, like civilisation, is inter-generational. Atheism, being an entirely un- or disorganised personal construction, is not inter-generational. Atheism is like gayness for the same reason atheism is not a religion, nor is gayness, even though people huddle around the concepts.

They are both merely personal.


Atheism in its broadest sense can certainly be intergenerational. That has certainly  been my experience - at least for three generations.  Maybe it's true that the rebellious genre of anti-theism doesn't last.  I agree that some people take a delight in mocking religion.  I think the sillyness and puerility of that stance wouldn't traverse too many generations.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 28th, 2011 at 3:58pm

falah wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 12:48pm:
sometimes like Mao, sometimes like Pol Pot, sometimes like Stalin...


Pol Pot was a theist - an autotheist.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 28th, 2011 at 5:57pm
' They are beyond learning. They are very evil creatures indeed these religious folk.'     Quote- Amadd

They most certainly can be ....Amadd..very dangerous indeed.  But 'they' does not include all folk who believe in a deity.
I've met some truly wonderful religious folk, but the bad, in our world seem to spread a wider pall.
Hopefully it will not always be so. :)

But we are talking about the claim that atheists are....blah blah...etc.

I find most atheists don't go around proclaiming the fact 'cos it is NOT central to their life, unlike the devout.

I'd suggest that people with a problem with atheism, also have problems with their own religion(s).
Its interesting to find it such a strong theme on this forum.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:07pm

Emma wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 5:57pm:
' They are beyond learning. They are very evil creatures indeed these religious folk.'     Quote- Amadd

They most certainly can be ....Amadd..very dangerous indeed.  But 'they' does not include all folk who believe in a deity.
I've met some truly wonderful religious folk, but the bad, in our world seem to spread a wider pall.
Hopefully it will not always be so. :)

But we are talking about the claim that atheists are....blah blah...etc.

I find most atheists don't go around proclaiming the fact 'cos it is NOT central to their life, unlike the devout.

I'd suggest that people with a problem with atheism, also have problems with their own religion(s).
Its interesting to find it such a strong theme on this forum.


That's a very mature outlook. The only thing you can say with any certainty has to be qualified with "some" Some religious people...  Some atheists.....   Some gay people.......

etc.

- but then you can just take the brainless chook approach and say that all atheists are just rebelling against authority, and all gays are rebelling against their parents, or have an Oedipus complex or something.  Well I'll tell you this, I was sometimes rebellious against my parents, but unlike some contemporary politicians, I would not consider selling my arse for my rebellious principles. I mean there are limits.  :o

It amazes me how people can come up with all-encompassing thoughts about subjects on which they have no clue.

- and you wonder why society is in such a state when you have such self-proclaiming experts hiding behind their degrees.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:10pm
'Pol Pot was a theist - an autotheist.' Quote - Muso

An 'autotheist'.?  wtf is that?
:-?
- in the context - ??
I mean - I could suggest some definitions ;D
but I'd rather hear it from you. :)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:11pm

Emma wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 2:12am:
'Neither civilisation nor religion nor education are about 'me'. Rather, 'I' am for the purpose of civilisation, religion and education.

It is not for 'me' to choose but 'I' am to be chosen for the transmission of civilisation, religion and knowledge from th generation before me to the generation after me
' -Quote - Soren

Crap.


"Crap"
Looks like you have had the misfortune of 'student centred' education.


If you look at music, law or medicine, just to pick a few random exmples, you can immediately see that neither is for the pupil but the pupil is for the subject - for the transmission of accumulated knowledge. Innovation, creativity in these subjects can only begin once they have been thoroughly mastered. The same with education generally.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:11pm

Emma wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:10pm:
'Pol Pot was a theist - an autotheist.' Quote - Muso

An 'autotheist'.?  wtf is that?
:-?
- in the context - ??
I mean - I could suggest some definitions ;D
but I'd rather hear it from you. :)


He thought he was God himself.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:16pm

Soren wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:11pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 2:12am:
'Neither civilisation nor religion nor education are about 'me'. Rather, 'I' am for the purpose of civilisation, religion and education.

It is not for 'me' to choose but 'I' am to be chosen for the transmission of civilisation, religion and knowledge from th generation before me to the generation after me
' -Quote - Soren

Crap.


"Crap"
Looks like you have had the misfortune of 'student centred' education.


If you look at music, law or medicine, just to pick a few random exmples, you can immediately see that neither is for the pupil but the pupil is for the subject - for the transmission of accumulated knowledge. Innovation, creativity in these subjects can only begin once they have been thoroughly mastered. The same with education generally.



To an extent, that is true, however as Plutarch said:


Quote:
The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.


The earlier that fire is kindled, the better the student. Your explanation is closer to filling the vessel.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:28pm
You have to gather the wood and build the fire first.

You can't just really, really want a fire.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:41pm
'He thought he was God himself.' - Muso


Thanks for that ....


'The earlier that fire is kindled, the better the student. Your explanation is closer to filling the vessel.' - Muso


:) :) your words are most thoughtful, and thought-provoking ...   taa !


As to [u]'student-centred education[/u]..!!?'   Que?
Wot you talkin' about Soren??

'You have to gather the wood and build the fire first.' - Quote Soren

Urr ummmm  - absolute rubbish.!!! The fire is all around, waitng for the tinder to give it life.




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:59pm

Soren wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:28pm:
You have to gather the wood and build the fire first.

You can't just really, really want a fire.


Back a million years ago, well last century, I went to school - and university. The good teachers are the ones who inspire, who kindle the spark. The bad teachers who seek to fill the vessel put out the fire before it has even started,

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:11pm

muso wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:28pm:
You have to gather the wood and build the fire first.

You can't just really, really want a fire.


Back a million years ago, well last century, I went to school - and university. The good teachers are the ones who inspire, who kindle the spark. The bad teachers who seek to fill the vessel put out the fire before it has even started,



We are not arguing about metaphors - well, I am not. We are arguing about the value of education. I think it is not for the sake of the pupil but for the sake of the knowledge, the lattr bing infinitely mor important than any individual pupil.

We do not tailor piano teaching to meet every pupil's interest in the piano. Same with medicine, law, languages, engineering, mathematics.

The pupil has to enter into the service of the body of knowledge, not the other way around.




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Imperium II on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:27pm
wats student centred education anyway

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:29pm

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:27pm:
wats student centred education anyway


It's what you had and it's why you hated school.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Imperium II on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:32pm
no what i had was teachers giving students text books and telling them to rewrite what was in the text books into their own work books so the teachers didnt have to do real work

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 28th, 2011 at 9:28pm

Soren wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:11pm:

muso wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 6:28pm:
You have to gather the wood and build the fire first.

You can't just really, really want a fire.


Back a million years ago, well last century, I went to school - and university. The good teachers are the ones who inspire, who kindle the spark. The bad teachers who seek to fill the vessel put out the fire before it has even started,



We are not arguing about metaphors - well, I am not. We are arguing about the value of education. I think it is not for the sake of the pupil but for the sake of the knowledge, the lattr bing infinitely mor important than any individual pupil.

We do not tailor piano teaching to meet every pupil's interest in the piano. Same with medicine, law, languages, engineering, mathematics.

The pupil has to enter into the service of the body of knowledge, not the other way around.

OK, but there's no reason the Christian god cannot pass away into history the way Zeus, Jupiter and alchemy have.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 28th, 2011 at 9:39pm
Oh? we were arguing about the value of education?  Didn't realise that.
 Perhaps it'd be fairer to say you were talking about that, which I confess did puzzle me somewhat.

' Atheists are...  '  becomes somehow a discussion about education?? ::)

OK - I don't agree with you there either, Soren..
You say... 'The pupil has to enter into the service of the body of knowledge, not the other way around.'

I would say - this is a preliminary,  to enable the truly gifted to ADD TO that body of knowledge, not just worship it for what it is.  
That way lies ..'dark ages'..  ::)
If it weren't for pupils who exceeded their masters, .. for thinkers not bound in dogma,  ... we wouldn't have as much 'knowledge' as we do  -  in computer data-bases.  Perhaps your prob is that 'pupils' don't memorise the 'lore' of their calling. ? Pretty well impossible in today's world of multi-info overload.
Please enlighten us. :)


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Time on Aug 28th, 2011 at 9:57pm

Quote:
jalane33 wrote
Atheists are...  '  becomes somehow a discussion about education??


Yeah, I was wondering how that link was made.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 28th, 2011 at 10:01pm

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:32pm:
no what i had was teachers giving students text books and telling them to rewrite what was in the text books into their own work books so the teachers didnt have to do real work



That's it - teachers didn't have to do real work. That's student centred education.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Imperium II on Aug 28th, 2011 at 10:52pm

Soren wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 10:01pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:32pm:
no what i had was teachers giving students text books and telling them to rewrite what was in the text books into their own work books so the teachers didnt have to do real work



That's it - teachers didn't have to do real work. That's student centred edication.


lol ok i get it now

yeah thats def what i did

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 29th, 2011 at 6:21pm

Emma wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 9:39pm:
Oh? we were arguing about the value of education?  Didn't realise that.
 Perhaps it'd be fairer to say you were talking about that, which I confess did puzzle me somewhat.

' Atheists are...  '  becomes somehow a discussion about education?? ::)

OK - I don't agree with you there either, Soren..
You say... 'The pupil has to enter into the service of the body of knowledge, not the other way around.'

I would say - this is a preliminary,  to enable the truly gifted to ADD TO that body of knowledge, not just worship it for what it is.  
That way lies ..'dark ages'..  ::)
If it weren't for pupils who exceeded their masters, .. for thinkers not bound in dogma,  ... we wouldn't have as much 'knowledge' as we do  -  in computer data-bases.  Perhaps your prob is that 'pupils' don't memorise the 'lore' of their calling. ? Pretty well impossible in today's world of multi-info overload.
Please enlighten us. :)


Well, for the dim ones at the back of the room:

Religion, like civilisation, knowldge and culture, is more inter-generational than atheism, which is largely a matter of self-discovery and often comes packaged with rebellion against all sorts of other things that are also... er...  inter-generational (vis Philip Larkin's mum & dad, etc).

Education is also inter-generational, insofar as it is about transmitting knowledge, skills, culture and civilisation and yes, religion.
A student centred education turns this transmission around and makes education something that exists for the sake of the student - self-discovery, personal validation and all that crap.

Most western atheists are reactionary and their reaction is largely based on ignorance of the history, philiospohy and general cultural heritage against which they purport to rebel. In other words, most of them are uneducated and ignorant - except 'they know their own minds'. They will not be able to transmit much of the cultural heritage of previous ages because they thmelvs have never received it. (Not all atheists, of course, very, very few are like Davids Hume, most being like Richard Dawkins or worse).

As one of Dawkins's critcs put it, for example, he, Dawkins is as knowledgeable abour religion as someone who has read the British Book of Birds would be about ornitology. And yet he holds forth to the gallery - indeed, he can only hold forth to the gallery of other like-minded (ie ignorant) atheists.





Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 29th, 2011 at 7:17pm

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 6:21pm:
Religion, like civilisation, knowldge and culture, is more inter-generational than atheism, which is largely a matter of self-discovery and often comes packaged with rebellion against all sorts of other things that are also... er...  inter-generational (vis Philip Larkin's mum & dad, etc).

And then there was the allure of Protestantism over Catholicism which offered, as its most prized gift, freedom.... Freedom from the tyranny of priests, Cardinals and the Papacy, the freedom to read scripture in one's own language for oneself...

Freedom...

Much like the allure of atheism... Freedom... From the tyranny of religious dogma.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Time on Aug 29th, 2011 at 7:38pm
Religion, specifically Christianity, has died out because the empirical has overtaken the transcendent as the dominant form of knowledge. Christianity was predicated on neo-Platonism. The growth of the natural sciences into the empirical sciences in the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods eventually squeezed out transcendence as a legitimate form of knowledge; hence why "god is dead".

Yet, Soren's argument does have some merit. Atheism can often be little more than an adolescent rebellion against the father; god being the ultimate father. Killing god and placing the ego as the centre of the universe is often the inverting of masters; the attempt to be one's own master instead of bowing before an external authority.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 29th, 2011 at 8:25pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 7:38pm:
Yet, Soren's argument does have some merit. Atheism can often be little more than an adolescent rebellion against the father; god being the ultimate father. Killing god and placing the ego as the centre of the universe is often the inverting of masters; the attempt to be one's own master instead of bowing before an external authority.

Bowing before an external authority requires frank and unquestioned respect for that authority's existence and mandate. As any leader knows, once his/her devotees can no longer accede (for whatever reason - like growing up), leadership of the masses and submission by them are impossible... Except by force.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Aug 29th, 2011 at 8:42pm

Soren wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 10:01pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Aug 28th, 2011 at 7:32pm:
no what i had was teachers giving students text books and telling them to rewrite what was in the text books into their own work books so the teachers didnt have to do real work



That's it - teachers didn't have to do real work. That's student centred education.


I have no argument with that point, and in fact it echoes what I said previously - some teachers have the talent to inspire - and there I'm talking more about high school teachers of arts subjects such as English literature. It doesn't require any talent to do as Imperium described.



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:24pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 7:17pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 6:21pm:
Religion, like civilisation, knowldge and culture, is more inter-generational than atheism, which is largely a matter of self-discovery and often comes packaged with rebellion against all sorts of other things that are also... er...  inter-generational (vis Philip Larkin's mum & dad, etc).

And then there was the allure of Protestantism over Catholicism which offered, as its most prized gift, freedom.... Freedom from the tyranny of priests, Cardinals and the Papacy, the freedom to read scripture in one's own language for oneself...

Freedom...

Much like the allure of atheism... Freedom... From the tyranny of religious dogma.



Very important point.

Priests and religion are intertwined but not inextricably, as the reformation and the enlightenment have shown.

Maybe atheism is first and often rightly moved by the desire to be free from priestly power that is all to worldy, corrupt and irreligious in the most offensive way.
But very often it goes too far, carried along by the billowing fervour of priest hatred. All revolts are liable to go too far and it takes a very wise man to know the proper limits of his rebellion. The young seldom do and so if atheism is aquired young it tends to be aquired in too large a measure (not least because of lack of education). i


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:38pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 8:25pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 7:38pm:
Yet, Soren's argument does have some merit. Atheism can often be little more than an adolescent rebellion against the father; god being the ultimate father. Killing god and placing the ego as the centre of the universe is often the inverting of masters; the attempt to be one's own master instead of bowing before an external authority.

Bowing before an external authority requires frank and unquestioned respect for that authority's existence and mandate. As any leader knows, once his/her devotees can no longer accede (for whatever reason - like growing up), leadership of the masses and submission by them are impossible... Except by force.



It will not have escaped you that the putative founder of Christianity was himself completely exempt from this little theory of yours. Unless you propose that jesus got himself nailed up a a way of forcing the masses into submission. But if it was that simple, we would have had any number of tele-evangelists crucified... But no. Religion is not merely a means of social control by a dastardly priestly class.

Did every man in history with 12 disciples became the centre of a religion lasting 2 millenia?




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:58pm

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 7:17pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 6:21pm:
Religion, like civilisation, knowldge and culture, is more inter-generational than atheism, which is largely a matter of self-discovery and often comes packaged with rebellion against all sorts of other things that are also... er...  inter-generational (vis Philip Larkin's mum & dad, etc).

And then there was the allure of Protestantism over Catholicism which offered, as its most prized gift, freedom.... Freedom from the tyranny of priests, Cardinals and the Papacy, the freedom to read scripture in one's own language for oneself...

Freedom...

Much like the allure of atheism... Freedom... From the tyranny of religious dogma.



Very important point.

Priests and religion are intertwined but not inextricably, as the reformation and the enlightenment have shown.

Maybe atheism is first and often rightly moved by the desire to be free from priestly power that is all to worldy, corrupt and irreligious in the most offensive way.
But very often it goes too far, carried along by the billowing fervour of priest hatred. All revolts are liable to go too far and it takes a very wise man to know the proper limits of his rebellion. The young seldom do and so if atheism is aquired young it tends to be aquired in too large a measure (not least because of lack of education).

But here's the thing, I drifted away from religion and felt the freer for it... I didn't beat it to death with a stick.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:02pm

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:38pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 8:25pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 7:38pm:
Yet, Soren's argument does have some merit. Atheism can often be little more than an adolescent rebellion against the father; god being the ultimate father. Killing god and placing the ego as the centre of the universe is often the inverting of masters; the attempt to be one's own master instead of bowing before an external authority.

Bowing before an external authority requires frank and unquestioned respect for that authority's existence and mandate. As any leader knows, once his/her devotees can no longer accede (for whatever reason - like growing up), leadership of the masses and submission by them are impossible... Except by force.



It will not have escaped you that the putative founder of Christianity was himself completely exempt from this little theory of yours. Unless you propose that jesus got himself nailed up a a way of forcing the masses into submission. But if it was that simple, we would have had any number of tele-evangelists crucified... But no. Religion is not merely a means of social control by a dastardly priestly class.

Did every man in history with 12 disciples became the centre of a religion lasting 2 millenia?

Again, here's the thing... Paul transmogrified a form of Judaism into a primitive version of what we call Christianity which, in its turn, ultimately became a weapon of social control wielded by an Imperial political system.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:21pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:58pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:24pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 7:17pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 6:21pm:
Religion, like civilisation, knowldge and culture, is more inter-generational than atheism, which is largely a matter of self-discovery and often comes packaged with rebellion against all sorts of other things that are also... er...  inter-generational (vis Philip Larkin's mum & dad, etc).

And then there was the allure of Protestantism over Catholicism which offered, as its most prized gift, freedom.... Freedom from the tyranny of priests, Cardinals and the Papacy, the freedom to read scripture in one's own language for oneself...

Freedom...

Much like the allure of atheism... Freedom... From the tyranny of religious dogma.



Very important point.

Priests and religion are intertwined but not inextricably, as the reformation and the enlightenment have shown.

Maybe atheism is first and often rightly moved by the desire to be free from priestly power that is all to worldy, corrupt and irreligious in the most offensive way.
But very often it goes too far, carried along by the billowing fervour of priest hatred. All revolts are liable to go too far and it takes a very wise man to know the proper limits of his rebellion. The young seldom do and so if atheism is aquired young it tends to be aquired in too large a measure (not least because of lack of education).

But here's the thing, I drifted away from religion and felt the freer for it... But I didn't beat it to death with a stick.


Priests do enough disservice to religion without you needing to bring a stick to it (perhaps they are trying to spare you from feeling called upon to bring a stick and join in... Who knows?)

My main point: there is a vast amount of cultural inheritance that is not fully understood and appreciated - and therefore is in danger of being forgotten and not passed on  - without being attuned to the religious sensibility with which it was possible to produce it. Being a strident atheist is like blinding oneself when it comes to the arts, history, philosphy - to all "the best which has been thought and said’, as Matthew Arnold put it.

In other words, being hard-hearted and antipathetic to Christianity in toto makes one deaf and blind to most of one's cultural inheritance. This would be a dreadful mistake just to get back at the priests. David Hume is the kind of atheist closest to my heart. One who is learned enough not to protest his atheism at every turn, as if it was the most important thing because it happens to be his view.i





Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:28pm

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:21pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:58pm:
But here's the thing, I drifted away from religion and felt the freer for it... But I didn't beat it to death with a stick.


Priests do enough disservice to religion without you needing to bring a stick to it (perhaps they are trying to spare you from feeling called upon to bring a stick and join in... Who knows?)

My main point: there is a vast amount of cultural inheritance that is not fully understood and appreciated - and therefore is in danger of being forgotten and not passed on  - without being attuned to the religious sensibility with which it was possible to produce it. Being a strident atheist is like blinding oneself when it comes to the arts, history, philosphy - to all "the best which has been thought and said’, as Matthew Arnold put it.

In other words, being hard-hearted and antipathetic to Christianity in toto makes one deaf and blind to most of one's cultural inheritance. This would be a dreadful mistake just to get back at the priests. David Hume is the kind of atheist closest to my heart. One who is learned enough not to protest his atheism at every turn, as if it was the most important thing because it happens to be his view.

You presume so much (for one who was born into an atheist family).

That's not anything like what many atheists feel about culture and history... Not even the (once) uber-vocal anti-theist Christopher Hitchens.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:30pm
....at least, literate.
Sayonara.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:58pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:28pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:21pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:58pm:
But here's the thing, I drifted away from religion and felt the freer for it... But I didn't beat it to death with a stick.


Priests do enough disservice to religion without you needing to bring a stick to it (perhaps they are trying to spare you from feeling called upon to bring a stick and join in... Who knows?)

My main point: there is a vast amount of cultural inheritance that is not fully understood and appreciated - and therefore is in danger of being forgotten and not passed on  - without being attuned to the religious sensibility with which it was possible to produce it. Being a strident atheist is like blinding oneself when it comes to the arts, history, philosphy - to all "the best which has been thought and said’, as Matthew Arnold put it.

In other words, being hard-hearted and antipathetic to Christianity in toto makes one deaf and blind to most of one's cultural inheritance. This would be a dreadful mistake just to get back at the priests. David Hume is the kind of atheist closest to my heart. One who is learned enough not to protest his atheism at every turn, as if it was the most important thing because it happens to be his view.

You presume so much (for one who was born into an atheist family).

That's not anything like what many atheists feel about culture and history... Not even the (once) uber-vocal anti-theist Christopher Hitchens.



You will find that he has simmered down somewhat since he discovered his Jewish roots.

Or as the abbé to the court of Frederich II said when the emperor asked him for a proof of god's exitence:
"the Jews, Sire..."






Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:59pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:28pm:
You presume so much (for one who was born into an atheist family).


No. I became educated...


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 30th, 2011 at 12:21am
yawn

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 30th, 2011 at 6:25am

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:28pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:21pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 10:58pm:
But here's the thing, I drifted away from religion and felt the freer for it... But I didn't beat it to death with a stick.


Priests do enough disservice to religion without you needing to bring a stick to it (perhaps they are trying to spare you from feeling called upon to bring a stick and join in... Who knows?)

My main point: there is a vast amount of cultural inheritance that is not fully understood and appreciated - and therefore is in danger of being forgotten and not passed on  - without being attuned to the religious sensibility with which it was possible to produce it. Being a strident atheist is like blinding oneself when it comes to the arts, history, philosphy - to all "the best which has been thought and said’, as Matthew Arnold put it.

In other words, being hard-hearted and antipathetic to Christianity in toto makes one deaf and blind to most of one's cultural inheritance. This would be a dreadful mistake just to get back at the priests. David Hume is the kind of atheist closest to my heart. One who is learned enough not to protest his atheism at every turn, as if it was the most important thing because it happens to be his view.

You presume so much (for one who was born into an atheist family).

That's not anything like what many atheists feel about culture and history... Not even the (once) uber-vocal anti-theist Christopher Hitchens.



You will find that he has simmered down somewhat since he discovered his Jewish roots.

I think he's simmered down due to all the chemotherapy.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 30th, 2011 at 6:26am

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:59pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:28pm:
You presume so much (for one who was born into an atheist family).


No. I became educated...

Ain't no fool like an educated fool ;)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 30th, 2011 at 8:17am

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:58pm:
Or as the abbé to the court of Frederich II said when the emperor asked him for a proof of god's exitence:
"the Jews, Sire..."

Given all the Jews have been through, I'd say its more likely 'proof' that the devil exists ;)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 30th, 2011 at 9:56am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 30th, 2011 at 8:17am:

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:58pm:

Or as the abbé to the court of Frederich II said when the emperor asked him for a proof of god's exitence:
"the Jews, Sire..."


Given all the Jews have been through, I'd say its more likely 'proof' that the devil exists ;)




The man Jeremiah lived around 600 BC, when man's knowledge of his environment and of the 'heavens' was meagre.

Yet in the book of Jeremiah, God stated that if the extent of the heavens could [ever] be found out, and measured by men, God would cast off his people.


Jeremiah 31:37
Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.


Have scientists today, in our 'modern' age, determined the boundary or extent of our universe ?



Isaiah 29:14
Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.


Evolutionists today refer to our own genus as;

Google
homo sapien sapien


'Sapien', means wise.

Evolutionist scientists have categorised ourselves as the;

'Wise, wise man.'


Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,








+++


Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.







Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Aug 30th, 2011 at 10:23am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 30th, 2011 at 6:26am:

Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:59pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 29th, 2011 at 11:28pm:
You presume so much (for one who was born into an atheist family).


No. I became educated...


Ain't no fool like an educated fool
;)



In my experience, there ain't no fool like an 'academic' fool   [...an academically educated fool].
....especially in the 'humanities', and 'psycho' fields of 'expertise'.

Just plumb dumb, imo!



Dictionary;
academic = =
1 of or relating to education and scholarship. Ø scholarly rather than technical or practical.
2 (of an art form) conventional in an idealized or excessively formal way.
3 not of practical relevance.





Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 30th, 2011 at 9:19pm
Personally I think Charles Darwin - his new look on the genesis of life- laid open a whole new way or path  for the human race to follow -  and progress.  A necessary new way.

A way that didn't begin with religious theology, and its circumscription of so much outside it's control.

We should all feel immense gratitude to Mr Charles Darwin.

Because -  ???  he removed  the 'fear of God' from our thinking. (For some at least!)

Because like so many other seemingly indispensable institutions, religion is ALL ABOUT FEAR.!!

Now - I might have concerns about say meteor strikes, or climate change, but I surely don't worry about the 'wrath of God'.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 30th, 2011 at 10:29pm

Emma wrote on Aug 30th, 2011 at 9:19pm:
Personally I think Charles Darwin - his new look on the genesis of life- laid open a whole new way or path  for the human race to follow -  and progress.  A necessary new way.



Progress - towards what?

The very idea of humanity progressing towards a goal is a Jewish insight, that is to say, a religious idea.



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 30th, 2011 at 10:58pm

Soren wrote on Aug 30th, 2011 at 10:29pm:
The very idea of humanity progressing towards a goal is a Jewish insight, that is to say, a religious idea.

That kind of blind stupid statement isn't worthy of the 'educated'.



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 30th, 2011 at 11:20pm
Not blind or stupid. Before Abraham, it was all simply mirroring nature's cycles, the Great Wheel, the changing of the Seasons, the coming into being and fading out into nothigness, forever, around and around, the eternal recurrence (not a Nietzschean invention, that).


Teleology, a goal (redemption) comes with Abraham and his god. A jewish insight or invention, call it according to your temperament. But it comes with the jews and their religion, and is not found anywhere before it or anywhere unrelated to Judaism since.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 31st, 2011 at 1:39am
I am not educated enough to comment, it seems.
Never heard of this assertion of yours before Yadda.

'Progress' is a word - much like 'reform',... it means different things to different people. (I personally don't accept the common definition of either of these words, as used by our pollies today >:()

But, from my uneducated viewpoint, religion ceased to be an agent of 'progress' a long time ago.

This latest theory -  the creationist theory -  intelligent design? whatever - the blah escapes me at present, is another failed attempt to foist off the explanation of 'who we are' on to , or in the vague direction of, religious orthodoxy.

You seem to be saying Jewish orthodoxy.!?  Teleology is a jewish idea?
NOT some christian idea dreamed up to keep a hold on waverers??? - a concept (that the 'undecided masses' might buy into), with an undeniably religious agenda..  
Is this what you are saying?

I do not deny the history of the Jewish people, - I do not know all that much about it, altho I know of some of the Jewish heros, both then, ..and now.  Of their strength and courage in surviving the worst their fellow humans could do to them, of the genocide and the diaspora - not just of the last couple of hundred yrs, but for all time stretching back to the time of Jesus. It IS undeniable.
It IS irreversible,  and it WAS wrong.

But, the wheel of time rolls on... does it not? The existence of Israel shows that this is so.


It seems unreasonable to expect that ideas rejected over time, will suddenly be accepted now, without some bloody great SIGN.!!! What are you trying to say??

Now - i have to say I have seen some amazing 'signs' in our skies over the last 10 yrs or so - principally in the Nthn hemisphere and most significantly around the time of the Copenhagen Conference.!!
And other mysterious things - on the net. Things I would never have seen, or heard of, probably,  without the 'net.

Doesn't it make you wonder about your truths?  your faith?
You don't have the answer to .....?  anymore than anyone else.

The great books  ...The Bible - The Torah - The Koran... are works of millenia past. Wisdom is found within them, and much that is NOT wisdom.
I think humans remain mired in their own detritus because NEW wisdom is happening so quickly, and there is so much information overload, that it becomes lost in the data.
SO - we cling to the old knowledge, afraid of all the new questions that technology has presented us with, that have 'upset our apple-cart' so to speak.

IT IS TIME to move on. ELSE we remain as we are - warring factions in a finite world.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Aug 31st, 2011 at 5:20am

Soren wrote on Aug 30th, 2011 at 11:20pm:
Not blind or stupid. Before Abraham, it was all simply mirroring nature's cycles, the Great Wheel, the changing of the Seasons, the coming into being and fading out into nothigness, forever, around and around, the eternal recurrence (not a Nietzschean invention, that).


Teleology, a goal (redemption) comes with Abraham and his god. A jewish insight or invention, call it according to your temperament. But it comes with the jews and their religion, and is not found anywhere before it or anywhere unrelated to Judaism since.

And Zoroastrianism?

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Aug 31st, 2011 at 10:06pm
What about Zoroastrianism?


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Aug 31st, 2011 at 11:22pm
Which reminds me of that extraordinary archaeologist, (umm forget the name) who spent much of her later years interpreting some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A New Zealander, originally, I think, and one of the very few persons who have been allowed, by 'Israel' to examine scrolls never seen by human eyes in at least  2000 odd yrs.
Fascinating, controversial - riveting stuff.!!

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Sep 1st, 2011 at 12:00am

Emma wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 1:39am:
IT IS TIME to move on.


Move on to - what???


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by jalane33 on Sep 1st, 2011 at 12:39am
To what?

To a better world of course.!
If all these vaunted theories/religious beliefs were true, then we would be in a better place than we are. They must be false doctrine - because??  - the world is NOT a better place.... it is NOT the place it could be. So the doctrine is a failure,  and will go on being a failure ad infinitum, as long as people give it credence.

Unless of course, you subscribe to the view that living on Earth as we do, is already living in hell. In which case you should be happy.!!

Again, personally, I say it is time,  ..no.. PAST the time,  when we as sentient beings should have moved beyond these factional arguments, devastating as they are. And serving no real purpose - just more of the same.

Amorphous gods ???  good grief !!  

We need to grow up. We don't have a big daddy watching out for us, so we REALLY need to pull our socks up!. ::)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:26am

Soren wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 10:06pm:
What about Zoroastrianism?


Quote:
When the Saoshyant comes, the final spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil will commence, resulting in the utter destruction of evil. Ristakhiz, the ressurection of the dead will take place - the dead will rise, by the Will of Ahura Mazda. The world will be purged by molten metal, in which the righteous will wade as if through warm milk, and the evil will be scalded. The Final Judgement of all souls will commence, at the hands of Ahura Mazda the Judge (Davar), and all sinners punished, then forgiven, and humanity made immortal and free from hunger, thirst, poverty, old age, disease and death. The World will be made perfect once again, as it was before the onslaught of the evil one. Such is the Frashogad (Frasho-kereti), the Renovation, brought on by the Will of Ahura Mazda, the Frashogar.



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:36am

Emma wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 12:39am:
To what?

To a better world of course.!


A better word, of course.
For a Muslim that woul be  world wide ummah under sharia. For Peter Singer, a worldwide live-in with goats (non non-consenting). For fascists, an aryan Walhalla; Aboriginese a stone age dreamtime, for 'progressives' a ... what?
Faust said to Mephistopheles that he, the  devil, may take him when he cries out 'halt' in his quest for a better world.
When will you let the devil take you? When will you say 'we have progressed thus far and let us progress no further'.

Or is 'progress' just political ADHD, with no goal, other than itself (ie sound and fury signifying nothing).


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:51am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:26am:

Soren wrote on Aug 31st, 2011 at 10:06pm:
What about Zoroastrianism?


Quote:
When the Saoshyant comes, the final spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil will commence, resulting in the utter destruction of evil. Ristakhiz, the ressurection of the dead will take place - the dead will rise, by the Will of Ahura Mazda. The world will be purged by molten metal, in which the righteous will wade as if through warm milk, and the evil will be scalded. The Final Judgement of all souls will commence, at the hands of Ahura Mazda the Judge (Davar), and all sinners punished, then forgiven, and humanity made immortal and free from hunger, thirst, poverty, old age, disease and death. The World will be made perfect once again, as it was before the onslaught of the evil one. Such is the Frashogad (Frasho-kereti), the Renovation, brought on by the Will of Ahura Mazda, the Frashogar.


This is more like the Olympians fighting each other undr the walls of Troy than the Jewish idea of the world is a joint project by God and man. Islam is more of an heir to it than Judaism or Christianity: there is no relationship between man and god in either Zoroastrianism or Islam. This is why Islam is a meshuggah's  paroy of Judaism, it missed the most important element while it copied all the superficial commands and restriction. Christianity, on the other hand, grasped the most important thing and downplayed the superficial (the Law) in a new covenant (ie relationship) between god and man.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 1st, 2011 at 8:58am
And then there's Hinduism with...


Quote:
The ultimate goal of life, referred to as moksha, nirvana or samadhi, is understood in several different ways: as the realization of one's union with God; as the realization of one's eternal relationship with God; realization of the unity of all existence; perfect unselfishness and knowledge of the Self; as the attainment of perfect mental peace; and as detachment from worldly desires. Such realization liberates one from samsara and ends the cycle of rebirth.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 11:33am
Exactly - not to mention many of the other Eastern Religions with their immanent deities. In that respect the 'relationship' with any immanent deity is implicit.

Judaism and Christianity don't have any unique corner on relationships between Gods and mortals. In fact as lofty and detached as the  Greek Pantheon was, they didn't mind the occasional bit of relationship.  Zeus and Europa spring to mind as an example, or do you consider that to be a lot of "bull"?  

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by ash on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 5:57pm
atheists (read:FREE THINKERS).... abound because of the abundance of god thumpers. someone has to ask the questions and NOT just baaaaaaaaaabaaaa.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 9:50pm

muso wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 11:33am:
Exactly - not to mention many of the other Eastern Religions with their immanent deities. In that respect the 'relationship' with any immanent deity is implicit.

Judaism and Christianity don't have any unique corner on relationships between Gods and mortals. In fact as lofty and detached as the  Greek Pantheon was, they didn't mind the occasional bit of relationship.  Zeus and Europa spring to mind as an example, or do you consider that to be a lot of "bull"?  

Yes. The pantheon is completely antropomorphic. The only difference is that they were immortals. Greek mythology is projection, and I say that as a good thing. it is very insightful. There couldn't be modern psychoanalysis without it.
Judaism and Christianity are transcendent AS WELL, rather than just antropomorphic. I simply point to their artistic, philosophical, creative fertility and fruitfulness. There is a tremendous leap. You don't get that sort of fire from your African figurines, Egyptian statues or Hindu fairground cow-demons with painted faces.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 2:38am

Soren wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 9:50pm:

muso wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 11:33am:
Exactly - not to mention many of the other Eastern Religions with their immanent deities. In that respect the 'relationship' with any immanent deity is implicit.

Judaism and Christianity don't have any unique corner on relationships between Gods and mortals. In fact as lofty and detached as the  Greek Pantheon was, they didn't mind the occasional bit of relationship.  Zeus and Europa spring to mind as an example, or do you consider that to be a lot of "bull"?  

Yes. The pantheon is completely antropomorphic. The only difference is that they were immortals. Greek mythology is projection, and I say that as a good thing. it is very insightful. There couldn't be modern psychoanalysis without it.

Judaism and Christianity are transcendent AS WELL, rather than just antropomorphic. I simply point to their artistic, philosophical, creative fertility and fruitfulness. There is a tremendous leap. You don't get that sort of fire from your African figurines, Egyptian statues or Hindu fairground cow-demons with painted faces.

Ah, Freud! Where'd we be today without the Oedipus complex, the Electra complex and penis envy.... Still rooting our olds and not knowing why, I guess ;D

Dunno about cow-demons with painted faces, but Hindus certainly believe in the oneness of god and focus on their relationship to it.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 9:53am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 2:38am:

Soren wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 9:50pm:

muso wrote on Sep 2nd, 2011 at 11:33am:
Exactly - not to mention many of the other Eastern Religions with their immanent deities. In that respect the 'relationship' with any immanent deity is implicit.

Judaism and Christianity don't have any unique corner on relationships between Gods and mortals. In fact as lofty and detached as the  Greek Pantheon was, they didn't mind the occasional bit of relationship.  Zeus and Europa spring to mind as an example, or do you consider that to be a lot of "bull"?  

Yes. The pantheon is completely antropomorphic. The only difference is that they were immortals. Greek mythology is projection, and I say that as a good thing. it is very insightful. There couldn't be modern psychoanalysis without it.

Judaism and Christianity are transcendent AS WELL, rather than just antropomorphic. I simply point to their artistic, philosophical, creative fertility and fruitfulness. There is a tremendous leap. You don't get that sort of fire from your African figurines, Egyptian statues or Hindu fairground cow-demons with painted faces.

Ah, Freud! Where'd we be today without the Oedipus complex, the Electra complex and penis envy.... Still rooting our olds and not knowing why, I guess ;D

Dunno about cow-demons with painted faces, but Hindus certainly believe in the oneness of god and focus on their relationship to it.


One god with many bazoomas. Got it.



As for Freud, I think he revived , in part, and continues the very interesting interptretive practice that ancient mythology affords but which may have been left to wither under too much positivism.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 11:00am
How did that song we used to sing in school go?....

"Sons of God, hear his holy word,
Gather ’round the table of the Lord,
Eat his body, drink his blood,
And we’ll sing a song of love,
Allelu, allelu, allelu, alleluia"

The Four Christianmen.

Ooda thought 20 year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas...

Back then, we were so poor, all we 'ad to eat and drink was the body and blood of Jesus...

Aye, day in and bloody day out eating nothing but bits of the lord to keep us goin' so we could work 35 hour a day for 10 days a week down mine and on our knees all Sunday with nuns and priests bashing the Christ out of us Monday to Friday... If we was lucky....

But we were 'appy back then... even if we were cannibals...

Because we were cannibals... As my old dad used to say, "vegetarianism and chicken won't make you 'appy, son"... And he were right...

Aye... Back then we were so Christian, on Sundays we'd have to eat a whole Jesus and certain bits of the blessed Virgin and if we didn't finish the lot and lick plate clean, my old dad would cut us up with the sharp end of a broken crucifix...

Luxury... We had to eat a whole Jesus, four saints and Mary Magdalene, before breakfast, get down to church and confess to 14 crimes against humanity and do 118 acts of penance on a goat before the clock struck the 13th hour or our priest would lash the flesh off our backs with his self-flagellating cat-o-nine-tails.

But you try telling atheists how easy they've got it today... Would they believe you? No.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 1:12pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 11:00am:
How did that song we used to sing in school go?....

"Sons of God, hear his holy word,
Gather ’round the table of the Lord,
Eat his body, drink his blood,
And we’ll sing a song of love,
Allelu, allelu, allelu, alleluia"

The Four Christianmen.

Ooda thought 20 year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas...

Back then, we were so poor, all we 'ad to eat and drink was the body and blood of Jesus...

Aye, day in and bloody day out eating nothing but bits of the lord to keep us goin' so we could work 35 hour a day for 10 days a week down mine and on our knees all Sunday with nuns and priests bashing the Christ out of us Monday to Friday... If we was lucky....

But we were 'appy back then... even if we were cannibals...

Because we were cannibals... As my old dad used to say, "vegetarianism and chicken won't make you 'appy, son"... And he were right...

Aye... Back then we were so Christian, on Sundays we'd have to eat a whole Jesus and certain bits of the blessed Virgin and if we didn't finish the lot and lick plate clean, my old dad would cut us up with the sharp end of a broken crucifix...

Luxury... We had to eat a whole Jesus, four saints and Mary Magdalene, before breakfast, get down to church and confess to 14 crimes against humanity and do 118 acts of penance on a goat before the clock struck the 13th hour or our priest would lash the flesh off our backs with his self-flagellating cat-o-nine-tails.

But you try telling atheists how easy they've got it today... Would they believe you? No.



Lemme consult my Freud...





Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 11:13pm

Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 1:12pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 11:00am:
How did that song we used to sing in school go?....

"Sons of God, hear his holy word,
Gather ’round the table of the Lord,
Eat his body, drink his blood,
And we’ll sing a song of love,
Allelu, allelu, allelu, alleluia"

The Four Christianmen.

Ooda thought 20 year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas...

Back then, we were so poor, all we 'ad to eat and drink was the body and blood of Jesus...

Aye, day in and bloody day out eating nothing but bits of the lord to keep us goin' so we could work 35 hour a day for 10 days a week down mine and on our knees all Sunday with nuns and priests bashing the Christ out of us Monday to Friday... If we was lucky....

But we were 'appy back then... even if we were cannibals...

Because we were cannibals... As my old dad used to say, "vegetarianism and chicken won't make you 'appy, son"... And he were right...

Aye... Back then we were so Christian, on Sundays we'd have to eat a whole Jesus and certain bits of the blessed Virgin and if we didn't finish the lot and lick plate clean, my old dad would cut us up with the sharp end of a broken crucifix...

Luxury... We had to eat a whole Jesus, four saints and Mary Magdalene, before breakfast, get down to church and confess to 14 crimes against humanity and do 118 acts of penance on a goat before the clock struck the 13th hour or our priest would lash the flesh off our backs with his self-flagellating cat-o-nine-tails.

But you try telling atheists how easy they've got it today... Would they believe you? No.



Lemme consult my Freud...

Yep, I'd bet he'd have something to say about religious crypto-cannibalism... The Cronus Complex?

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Amadd on Sep 4th, 2011 at 2:07am
Ever the realistic humorist Helian... ;D ;D ;D
ROTFL. That's hilarious  ;D ;D ;D





Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by GoddyofOz on Sep 4th, 2011 at 11:59pm
Atheists are free thinkers.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 5th, 2011 at 5:37pm

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 11:59pm:

Atheists are free thinkers.




Atheists are gazelle, who know that there is no leopard.

The gazelle knows that there is no leopard, because the gazelle cannot see the leopard, and the gazelle cannot smell the leopard, and the gazelle cannot hear the leopard.

Therefore the gazelle knows that there is no leopard.





Q.
Does the gazelle know [is the gazelle cognizant of the fact...] that the leopard hides himself, from the gazelle ?

???


Q.
If there is a God, why does God hide himself from men ?

A.
For the answer, ask a free thinking atheist.

LOL

i.e.
The free thinking atheist knows that the only reality, is the reality which he is cognizant of.





+++



IMO, atheists are people who hate truth.

Q.
What reasoning, do i apply in that statement?

A.
The possibility of (a) truth which does not comply with, and is not bounded within, their own comprehension, is offensive and unthinkable to atheists.

If you [an atheist] were to step outside on a sunny cloudless day, though you cannot see them, you would never dream of suggesting that there are no stars in the sky above your head.

Yet you [an atheist], do not have the humility to imagine that reality, is NOT bounded by the limits of your own senses and comprehension.


Go your own way.

Walk your path.




+++


John 3:3-12
'...The wind [the spirit of God] bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?'


1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Sep 6th, 2011 at 8:43am

Yadda wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Sep 4th, 2011 at 11:59pm:

Atheists are free thinkers.




Atheists are gazelle, who know that there is no leopard.

The gazelle knows that there is no leopard, because the gazelle cannot see the leopard, and the gazelle cannot smell the leopard, and the gazelle cannot hear the leopard.

Therefore the gazelle knows that there is no leopard.





Q.
Does the gazelle know [is the gazelle cognizant of the fact...] that the leopard hides himself, from the gazelle ?

???


or - Atheists are leopards who don't believe that it's a gazelle.  They just think it's a piece of bread and some wine. Christians know  that what others think is just bread and wine is really a gazelle.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Time on Sep 6th, 2011 at 10:06am
The gazelle-leopard analogy doesn't really work.
The leopard can be empirically proven to exist, the Abrahamic gods cannot.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 6th, 2011 at 10:57am

muso wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 8:43am:
or - Atheists are leopards who don't believe that it's a gazelle.  They just think it's a piece of bread and some wine. Christians know  that what others think is just bread and wine is really a gazelle.



That is deep muso.     ;)


Too deep!    ;D



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:08am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 10:06am:

The gazelle-leopard analogy doesn't really work.

The leopard can be empirically proven to exist, the Abrahamic gods cannot.



time,

You were not 'listening' to what i said....



Yadda wrote on Sep 5th, 2011 at 5:37pm:
Atheists are gazelle, who know that there is no leopard.

The gazelle knows that there is no leopard, because the gazelle cannot see the leopard, and the gazelle cannot smell the leopard, and the gazelle cannot hear the leopard.

Therefore the gazelle knows that there is no leopard.



I presented a very simple analogy.

Not a complex one.



i.e.
YOU, YOU, YOU,.....have a need to prove that the God of Abraham exists [if you are to believe that the God of Abraham exists].

I do not have that need [any longer].

Why is that [with me] ?






Yadda the very simple one.




+++


Psalms 25:12
What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.
13  His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.
14  The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.


Psalms 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11  Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12  Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Time on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:37am
But the gazelle is, obviously, wrong because there is a leopard. The leopard does exist as it can be seen, observed, measured, defined etc. But Christian god can't be defined or observed in that way, therefore using physical objects in your analogy doesn't really work.

I don't believe in the Christian god, or the Islamic one, because they're based in neo-Platonism.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 6th, 2011 at 12:21pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 11:37am:

But the gazelle is, obviously, wrong because there is a leopard.

The leopard does exist as it can be seen, observed, measured, defined etc.

But Christian god can't be defined or observed in that way, therefore using physical objects in your analogy doesn't really work.


I don't believe in the Christian god, or the Islamic one, because they're based in neo-Platonism.




You are stating an assumption [made by mankind], NOT a fact.

And indeed, the Christian god can be observed, when he reveals himself to man.

Likewise, a leopard has the ability to reveal itself to the gazelle.





But the leopard has his own 'purpose' in concealing himself from the gazelle.

And likewise, God has his own 'purpose' in concealing himself from men.




+++



Matthew 13:24
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25  But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26  But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27  So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30  Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:36
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37  He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38  The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40  As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.







Revelation 14:13
And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
14  And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15  And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16  And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17  And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18  And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
19  And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.


Joel 3:9
Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:
10  Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.
11  Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD.
12  Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.
13  Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great.


Isaiah 26:21
For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Time on Sep 6th, 2011 at 1:51pm

Quote:
Yadda wrote
You are stating an assumption [made by mankind], NOT a fact.

And indeed, the Christian god can be observed, when he reveals himself to man.


All assumptions are made by mankind. There are no assumptions outside human cognition; the human head is required for anything at all to be made sense of.
Still, your analogy doesn't work because you're trying to prove that something non-physical exists by way of referring to physical objects. Unless, of course, you're arguing god takes on a physical form? If so, it should be easy for you to prove him true then.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Soren on Sep 6th, 2011 at 6:04pm
The fact that god is incomprehensible is probably the greatest argument in favour of his existence.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 7:17am

Yadda wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 10:57am:

muso wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 8:43am:
or - Atheists are leopards who don't believe that it's a gazelle.  They just think it's a piece of bread and some wine. Christians know  that what others think is just bread and wine is really a gazelle.

That is deep muso.     ;)

Too deep!    ;D

Only for the shallow.  ;)

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 8:46am

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 6:04pm:
The fact that god is incomprehensible is probably the greatest argument in favour of his existence.


Existence is a direct function of incomprehensibility?  :o

Sounds a bit like Quantum Physics.  A new axiom. The Higgs Boson is virtually totally incomprehensible for non Quantum Physicists. Therefore it must exist.

Brilliant!

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 11:27am

muso wrote on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 8:46am:

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 6:04pm:
The fact that god is incomprehensible is probably the greatest argument in favour of his existence.


Existence is a direct function of incomprehensibility?  :o

Sounds a bit like Quantum Physics.  A new axiom. The Higgs Boson is virtually totally incomprehensible for non Quantum Physicists. Therefore it must exist.

Brilliant!



Correct me if i am mistaken....

....but isn't it true, that science has proved [or believes it to be so], that on a sub atomic particle level, nothing exists physically ?

That at that level, 'physical' matter 'reveals itself' to be waves of energy, separated by voids ?


i.e.
Scientists believe that there is no actual 'physical' component, preventing me from pushing my finger through he top of my desk.

Rather it is the wave energy fields [which surround what i perceive to be physical objects] which prevents the 'spaces' in my finger from intersecting the 'spaces' in my desk.


muso asked,
"Existence is a direct function of incomprehensibility?"

Could we instead ask;
Does the incomprehensibility of what exists, limit that which does exist ?

Or do we accept the 'logic' [and the wisdom of many men], that our own comprehension, must put limits on what can exist ?

LOL


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:43pm

Yadda wrote on Sep 23rd, 2011 at 11:27am:
Correct me if i am mistaken....


You're mistaken


Quote:
....but isn't it true, that science has proved [or believes it to be so], that on a sub atomic particle level, nothing exists physically ?


Well, it's a bit more complicated than than. Many sub-atomic particles have mass for one thing.


Quote:
That at that level, 'physical' matter 'reveals itself' to be waves of energy, separated by voids ?


i.e.
Scientists believe that there is no actual 'physical' component, preventing me from pushing my finger through he top of my desk.

Rather it is the wave energy fields [which surround what i perceive to be physical objects] which prevents the 'spaces' in my finger from intersecting the 'spaces' in my desk.


Well, you're talking about rudimentary atomic theory there. You can actually see objects by virtue of electromagnetic energy, and all our visual inputs from the outside world are formed in that way. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  


Quote:
muso asked,
"Existence is a direct function of incomprehensibility?"

Could we instead ask;
Does the incomprehensibility of what exists, limit that which does exist ?

Or do we accept the 'logic' [and the wisdom of many men], that our own comprehension, must put limits on what can exist ?

LOL


well as Donald Rumsfeld said:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.  ;D

Seriously, I think you're using a strawman. Nobody is saying that logic and comprehension limits what can exist. In fact I don't know anybody who thinks that way.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:29am

muso wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:43pm:

Quote:
....but isn't it true, that science has proved [or believes it to be so], that on a sub atomic particle level, nothing exists physically ?


Well, it's a bit more complicated than than.

Many sub-atomic particles have mass for one thing.




Ah yes muso, but is that a known known ???
[just kidding!]





muso wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:43pm:

Quote:
muso asked,
"Existence is a direct function of incomprehensibility?"

Could we instead ask;
Does the incomprehensibility of what exists, limit that which does exist ?

Or do we accept the 'logic' [and the wisdom of many men], that our own comprehension, must put limits on what can exist ?

LOL


well as Donald Rumsfeld said:

There are known knowns; [etc, etc, etc]


LOL



'There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that....'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

Donald Rumsfeld; An intellectual giant among modern men.

LOL






muso wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:43pm:
....there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.  ;D

Seriously, I think you're using a strawman.

Nobody is saying that logic and comprehension limits what can exist.


In fact I don't know anybody who thinks that way.


Sure they do.

Atheists say that they cant comprehend the existence of a God, therefore [for them] he [God] does not [and cannot] exist.

The logic they apply, is sort of the opposite of;

"I think, therefore i am."      ;D

i.e.
'I can't comprehend you, therefore you cannot exist.'



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:39am

Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:29am:
Sure they do.

Atheists say that they cant comprehend the existence of a God, therefore [for them] he [God] does not [and cannot] exist.

The logic they apply, is sort of the opposite of;

"I think, therefore i am."      ;D

i.e.
'I can't comprehend you, therefore you cannot exist.'

Yet, as you've conceded on another thread... (That you cannot know what Jesus said, only what has been attributed to Jesus)... You, yourself, have revealed your agnosticism...

So, just one more step towards the only truth you can ever know, Yadda... And you're home.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:24am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:39am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:29am:
Sure they do.

Atheists say that they cant comprehend the existence of a God, therefore [for them] he [God] does not [and cannot] exist.

The logic they apply, is sort of the opposite of;

"I think, therefore i am."      ;D

i.e.
'I can't comprehend you, therefore you cannot exist.'


Yet, as you've conceded on another thread... (That you cannot know what Jesus said, only what has been attributed to Jesus)... You, yourself, have revealed your agnosticism...


So, just one more step towards the only truth you can ever know, Yadda... And you're home.



Its true, i do not know what Jesus did say. [i was not there.]

But that 'concession' [on my part] does not prove [or supposedly validate] my agnosticism, at least i hope that you do not think that it is a basis to believe that it does.

I have related to you before, i am not among those who believe that there is a God.

I don't know what [essentially] God is, but i do know that God is.






helian,

I get a sense that, ...are you angry with God, 'if there is a God'  ;) ?

Angry because, he won't 'meet you' on your [intellectual] terms ?

God won't engage with us in that way, on that basis.

We have to seek him, come to know him, and to love him.

My own sense is that it is human pride, and human 'intellect', which will separate us from God, and which has always separated [most] men from God.
.....that, and 'expressions' of out and out wickedness!          :-?




Q.
How does a prisoner prove that he is worthy of redemption from a prison, to someone who has the power to redeem him ?

Consider too, that God is not a human warder.

God knows our very thoughts.

So how do you prove that you are worthy of redemption, to a 'warder' like that ?




+++

Job 4:13
In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men,
14  Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake.
15  Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:
16  It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
17  Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
18  Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
19  How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?
20  They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it.
21  Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.

Psalms 69:32
The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.
33  For the LORD heareth the poor, and despiseth not his prisoners.

Psalms 119:19
I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me.
...
54  Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 25th, 2011 at 2:43am

Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:24am:
Its true, i do not know what Jesus did say. [i was not there.]

But that singular 'concession' [on my part] does not prove [or supposedly validate] my agnosticism, at least i hope that you do not think that it is a basis to do so.

Yet by your concession (that the sayings of Jesus are merely attributions to him), then you should concede (if you're honest) that those attributions may be wrongly attributed or misquoted. And as even the authors of those attributions are unknown or uncertain, then you should also concede that those attributions are themselves attributions by authors unknown to authors unknown about what someone may or may not have said 2000 years ago.

Your position therefore is agnostic on what Jesus is purported to have said.


Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:24am:
I have related to you before, i am not among those who believe that there is a God.

I don't know what God is, but i do know that God is.

And no doubt your 'knowledge' is based on what you want him to be... knowable, loving and lovable...

Your perception of god is an anthropomorphised, benign parental figure, I'd bet... Which is not surprising... What would be the point of imagining an omnipotent, omniscient being that was not also omni-benevolent (and may be in fact potentially or capriciously - if not omni - malevolent to the innocent)?

Those who believe in god invariably want something in return...

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:05am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 2:43am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:24am:
Its true, i do not know what Jesus did say. [i was not there.]

But that singular 'concession' [on my part] does not prove [or supposedly validate] my agnosticism, at least i hope that you do not think that it is a basis to do so.

Yet by your concession (that the sayings of Jesus are merely attributions to him), then you should concede (if you're honest) that those attributions may be wrongly attributed or misquoted. And as even the authors of those attributions are unknown or uncertain, then you should also concede that those attributions are themselves attributions by authors unknown to authors unknown about what someone may or may not have said 2000 years ago.

Your position therefore is agnostic on what Jesus is purported to have said.


I guess so [you are correct].

Does that also mean that i have to accede that [because i can't prove that the NT Jesus existed] that i hold an agnostic  position on whether there was even a historic 'Jesus' ?     ;)


"....you should concede (if you're honest) that those attributions may be wrongly attributed or misquoted."

And you should concede too that those attributions could be, accurate ?






NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 2:43am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:24am:
I have related to you before, i am not among those who believe that there is a God.

I don't know what God is, but i do know that God is.


And no doubt your 'knowledge' is based on what you want him to be... knowable, loving and lovable...

Your perception of god is an anthropomorphised, benign parental figure, I'd bet...


Which is not surprising... What would be the point of imagining an omnipotent, omniscient being that was not also omni-benevolent (and may be in fact potentially or capriciously - if not omni - malevolent to the innocent)?

Those who believe in god invariably want something in return...



helian,

I also said....

Quote:

We have to seek him [God], come to know him, and to love him.


Come to love God, not because God is 'needy', as humans are needy.

But i love God because i have experienced his purity, and having experienced that purity, having been in the presence of that purity, i know that i want to be a part of that purity.

Experiencing that purity, is as if i had an aversion to darkness, and then experiencing the presence of light, where no darkness can exist.

And wanting to remain in the presence of that light, forever.

That is a fair way to describe my 'experience' i think.

But, [understanding that i have a carnal nature] within myself, i don't understand how my own 'compatibility' with that purity can be accomplished.

But i know that God can accomplish my 'transformation'.

And that is God's promise to those who seek him.

And that, is my trust in God.

That he can accomplish our transformation.




+++



Jeremiah 17:14
Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise.


2 Corinthians 6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3  And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:29am

Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:05am:
I guess so [you are correct].

Does that also mean that i have to accede that [because i can't prove that the NT Jesus existed] that i hold an agnostic  position on whether there was even a historic 'Jesus' ?     ;)

It does... Isn't that the definition of agnostic? A not knowing?

Although the elaborate fabrication of his birth - i.e. having the story bent for Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem indicates at least that he was probably known to have been born elsewhere and implies that a Jesus figure may have existed... Otherwise, why bother with an overwrought story to have his parents placed in Bethlehem just before his birth... In other words, why not write the story with his parents resident in Bethlehem anyway?



Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:05am:
"....you should concede (if you're honest) that those attributions may be wrongly attributed or misquoted."

And you should concede too that those attributions could be, accurate ?

I should and I do.

However as any child who has played the game of "Chinese Whispers" understands - distortions, misquotes and misinterpretations are introduced into the story as it passes, mouth to ear, from one player to the next... The result being that the final statement is considerably removed from the the first.



Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:05am:
helian,

I also said....

Quote:
We have to seek him [God], come to know him, and to love him.


Come to love God, not because God is 'needy', as humans are needy.

But i love God because i have experienced his purity, and having experienced that purity, having been in the presence of that purity, i know that i want to be a part of that purity.

Experiencing that purity, is as if i had an aversion to darkness, and then experiencing the presence of light, where no darkness can exist.

And wanting to remain in the presence of that light, forever.

So, as I said... You want something in return... Freedom from need... And a desire to imagine you are free from 'darkness' - your shadow self - and for it to be daylight 24/7... About as realistic and paradoxical as being free from your own shadow in the sun while having your shadow by your side at night as evidence of daylight in the dark.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by helian on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:35am
Yadda...

Maybe psychiatry could yield you faster results... Or at least help you come to terms with the need to 'put away childish things' now that you've become a man.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:52pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 2:43am:
Your perception of god is an anthropomorphised, benign parental figure, I'd bet... Which is not surprising... What would be the point of imagining an omnipotent, omniscient being that was not also omni-benevolent (and may be in fact potentially or capriciously - if not omni - malevolent to the innocent)?

Those who believe in god invariably want something in return...


I'd bet that it's more like the ancient Jewish tradition of the head of the household, except applied globally.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by muso on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:56pm

Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:29am:
Atheists say that they cant comprehend the existence of a God, therefore [for them] he [God] does not [and cannot] exist.


When you say "Atheists", do you mean all "atheists" or just some?

For example you could see two Queenslanders wearing maroon teeshirts and say, "Queenslanders wear maroon teeshirts"

That is perfectly correct - at least more than one Queensland wears a maroon teeshirt by observation, but It's not true to say "All Queenslanders wear maroon teeshirts". I'll describe the latter statement as being the general case.

Atheists don't believe in God(s). To say any more than that cannot be applied in any kind of general sense. In other words, you can't arrive at your statement from the definition of Atheism, and I suggest that you can't get inside the heads of every single atheist to verify whether your stement is correct or not.  

However if more than one atheist could be coaxed to believe your  statement, then your statement would be correct, but in a specific case.

If you're saying something about Atheists in a specific sense, then that's fine, but it's hardly noteworthy.

Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 26th, 2011 at 10:03am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:29am:

Yadda wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:05am:
"....you should concede (if you're honest) that those attributions may be wrongly attributed or misquoted."

And you should concede too that those attributions could be, accurate ?

I should and I do.

However as any child who has played the game of "Chinese Whispers" understands - distortions, misquotes and misinterpretations are introduced into the story as it passes, mouth to ear, from one player to the next... The result being that the final statement is considerably removed from the the first.



helian,

If you [and many others] want to believe that the testimony contained in scripture is nothing more than a falsehood, and a falsehood which was the product of a process of multiple subsequent accounts [of the same incident] being conveyed, then i am happy for you to believe that.

I cannot prove that what i believe, is true.

I cannot even prove, that i have experienced, the things which i say that i have experienced.

I am happy for you to base your 'beliefs' [about what is real], on your own life experiences.

And imo, we all must.




Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 26th, 2011 at 10:19am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:35am:

Yadda...

Maybe psychiatry could yield you faster results...


Or at least help you come to terms with the need to 'put away childish things' now that you've become a man.


IMO, anyone who would choose to place themselves into the 'care' of a person [a psychiatrist] who would like to give them psychotropic drugs [to treat their 'malady'], is an idiot, and in effect, a willing victim of their own psychological abuse, by medical 'experts'.




Dictionary;
psychotropic = = relating to or denoting drugs that affect a person’s mental state.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 26th, 2011 at 10:24am
muso,

Noted.


Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by Yadda on Sep 26th, 2011 at 1:30pm

Yadda wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 10:19am:

IMO, anyone who would choose to place themselves into the 'care' of a person [a psychiatrist] who would like to give them psychotropic drugs [to treat their 'malady'], is an idiot, and in effect, a willing victim of their own psychological abuse, by medical 'experts'.




Dictionary;
psychotropic = = relating to or denoting drugs that affect a person’s mental state.





Google;
correlation psychiatric treatment, suicide


Google;
correlation patient discharge from a psychiatric hospital, suicide


Google;
correlation, use of psychotropic drugs, suicide


Google;
use of psychotropic drugs may increase suicidal thoughts





Like doctors, psychiatrists often find themselves in the 'fortunate' position, to be able to bury their mistakes, imo.



Title: Re: Atheists are ..
Post by freediver on Dec 10th, 2023 at 4:55pm
This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.