god?

towel401 · 11-02-2009 12:59AM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Not true. There're no common beliefs, just a common absence of one for gods. There's no agreed doctrine, no worship, no organisation etc.

Just another group of people who think they know something the rest of us don't. not every religion is organised. but there is some sort of organisation, or else the infamous 'atheist bus' wouldn't exist.

JC 2K3 · 11-02-2009 01:38AM

Atheists shouldn't be thought of as a group of people. Atheism is a trait of non-belief, and an atheist is one who posesses this trait.

So there are atheist organisations? Doesn't mean every atheist has an affiliation with them.....

11-02-2009 01:46AM

Many people are convinced that atheism is tantamount to a religion. No, it's not. If you think it is, then, quite simply, you're wrong.

towel401 · 11-02-2009 01:47AM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Atheists shouldn't be thought of as a group of people. Atheism is a trait of non-belief, and an atheist is one who posesses this trait.

So there are atheist organisations? Doesn't mean every atheist has an affiliation with them.....

the same could be said for most relgions. not every christian goes to church nor is it required. some religions don't have any centralised structure, others like scientology are based completely around the organisation but those are mostly a scam

towel401 · 11-02-2009 01:54AM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Many people are convinced that atheism is tantamount to a religion. No, it's not. If you think it is, then, quite simply, you're wrong.

telling people they are 'just wrong' is something fairly typical of organised religion. you get no special treatment as being the 'anti-religion'. tis just another set of beliefs regardless of the lack of organisation behind it. it is in fact handed down on a for-profit basis by the likes of that dawkins character

having no religion is not the same as being atheist. a bit like no voltage is not the same as 0 volts or that "no" is not the same as "atari jaguar"

ANarcho-Munk · 11-02-2009 02:12AM

There are oh so many dodgy opinions and pieces of information in this thread.

If I start typing now I could be here till morning....i'll have to wait till tomorrow I guess before I can rant.

JC 2K3 · 11-02-2009 02:33AM

towel401 wrote: »

having no religion is not the same as being atheist.

I know, but please explain what you mean by this....

Also, atheism is not the same as anti-theism...

towel401 wrote: »

no voltage is not the same as 0 volts

It is....

KnifeWRENCH · 11-02-2009 03:22AM

Fad wrote:

I mean, the Catholic Church makes up half the shít they talk about, my main problem being the whole dogma thing (never mind my lack of their fundamental belief), but they did so much for Ireland, you cant help but appreciate it.

towel401 wrote: »

its true though. i can't stand modern internet atheism. ****ing pisses me off more than muslim wife-beating extremism. people who just go about their business without religion are grand

OK I want to keep this discussion as civil as possible so I do not want to see any comments like the above bolded comments. towel401, do not tar all followers of Islam with the same brush.

I hope Dades doesn't mind if I steal a paragraph from the A&A Charter:

2. Respect those who do not share your beliefs (or lack thereof). Though many here will share certain atheist or agnostic views - it is not acceptable to ridicule the faith or beliefs of others. Something that would be seen as a direct insult in, say, the Christianity or Islam forums will be similarly treated here.

^^Please keep this in mind when posting on this thread.

Jesus Juice · 11-02-2009 01:57PM

Nuff said tbh!

11-02-2009 02:21PM

towel401 wrote: »

telling people they are 'just wrong' is something fairly typical of organised religion.

No, I'm telling you you're wrong, because, quite simply, you're wrong.

you get no special treatment as being the 'anti-religion'.

Atheism and anti-theism aren't the one and same thing. Atheists aren't anti-religious/theist; if they are, they're anti-theists.

tis just another set of beliefs regardless of the lack of organisation behind it.

Atheists don't have a set of beliefs. If you knew anything about atheism, you'd know it was a lack of belief in a deity. Quite honestly, I don't care if your personal definition of atheism ascribes it a set of beliefs - if it does, then, it's wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god - that's it, as simple as that. If an atheist believes other, additional things, than that's on top of their atheism - not part of it.

it is in fact handed down on a for-profit basis by the likes of that dawkins character

Yes... Because all atheists make loads of money from Richard Dawkins' success. In fact, athiesm is quite a similar organisation to Scientology in that respect.:rolleyes:

having no religion is not the same as being atheist.

Obviously. I don't know anybody who would say that atheism is the lack of a religion.

a bit like no voltage is not the same as 0 volts

Honestly, that's the worst analogy I've ever encountered. It all depends on how you define "no voltage". I would imagine no voltage is the same as zero volts.

or that "no" is not the same as "atari jaguar"

No wait, I retract my previous statement - that's the worst analogy I've ever encountered.

Learn what atheism is before you make silly remarks.

Fad · 11-02-2009 07:48PM

square_igloo wrote: »

OK I want to keep this discussion as civil as possible so I do not want to see any comments like the above bolded comments. towel401, do not tar all followers of Islam with the same brush.

I understand why you chose to highlight it, but in all fairness I was kinda defending the CC and its impact, and also alot of stuff is kinda just made up Original Sin anyone, at lest I wasnt making frankly racist comments :pac:

towel401 wrote: »

Just another group of people who think they know something the rest of us don't. not every religion is organised. but there is some sort of organisation, or else the infamous 'atheist bus' wouldn't exist.

Athiest Bus?

Buses! Quite a few AFAIK

JC 2K3 · 11-02-2009 08:10PM

Fad wrote: »

I understand why you chose to highlight it, but in all fairness I was kinda defending the CC and its impact, and also alot of stuff is kinda just made up Original Sin anyone

There's no reason to suggest the entire bible, or indeed almost any teaching by any religion isn't made up. To single out original sin is to ignore the elephant in the room, that is, the teaching that somehow a man died and resurrected.

Anyway, I don't think it was the content, but the tone of your comment that was the problem

Teutorix · 11-02-2009 08:16PM

Higher force? is that the new Atari Jaguar? lol just messin'

No from me

philologos · 11-02-2009 08:23PM

Jesus Juice wrote: »

Always there for you...and no i dont believe in God because its all way of controlling people tbh!!i mean look how much trouble religion has caused over the past 1000 years or so...and look at the catholic church in ireland in the 60's and 70's...

Indeed, people who have claimed to follow religions have caused problems, as have atheists*. However are we to reach the conclusion that atheism has caused trouble, or that certain atheists have caused trouble?

* Note, by saying this I'm not saying that all atheists have indeed caused trouble, but it is evident that the 20th century in Soviet Russia as an example was horrific. However, by no means does this mean it was purely the result of the atheism of Stalin and other Soviet leaders of that century.

Teutorix · 11-02-2009 08:31PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, people who have claimed to follow religions have caused problems, as have atheists*. However are we to reach the conclusion that atheism has caused trouble, or that certain atheists have caused trouble?

* Note, by saying this I'm not saying that all atheists have indeed caused trouble, but it is evident that the 20th century in Soviet Russia as an example was horrific. However, by no means does this mean it was purely the result of the atheism of Stalin and other Soviet leaders of that century.

In my opinion, it wasn't atheism that was the cause, it was merely the excuse. Similar how to al-Qa'ida twist islam for their own goals.

philologos · 11-02-2009 08:35PM

Teutorix wrote: »

In my opinion, it wasn't atheism that was the cause, it was merely the excuse. Similar how to al-Qa'ida twist islam for their own goals.

Congratulations, now apply this logic to the Christians that "Jesus Juice" alleged caused trouble.

Ginja Ninja · 11-02-2009 08:51PM

Jesus Juice wrote: »

Nuff said tbh!

with your username this is so wrong

but hey there ain't nothin' wrong with bein' down with G.O.D

but i always wonder does god believe in himself?

Fad · 11-02-2009 09:25PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

There's no reason to suggest the entire bible, or indeed almost any teaching by any religion isn't made up. To single out original sin is to ignore the elephant in the room, that is, the teaching that somehow a man died and resurrected.

Anyway, I don't think it was the content, but the tone of your comment that was the problem

My reasoning behind mentioning Original sin is that its barely in the bloody book (And by barely I mean they have to seriously "Interpret" stuff to find it)!

I dont really mind, just attempting to explain myself.

philologos · 11-02-2009 09:34PM

Fad, yes but it is in the book. Romans 5:12 specifically deals with the subject. We've discussed original sin time and time again in the Christianity forum if you want to catch up on some of our thoughts on it.

Piste · 11-02-2009 10:46PM

I think I'd like to be religious or spiritual. I think it would be nice to think that I'll never really die and will someday be reunited with the people I love, or that no matter how bad my life gets that there is someone watching over me who loves me.

But I'm not and I can't make myself believe.

Fad · 12-02-2009 12:13AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Fad, yes but it is in the book. Romans 5:12 specifically deals with the subject. We've discussed original sin time and time again in the Christianity forum if you want to catch up on some of our thoughts on it.

Romans, written by St Paul, who never even met Jesus?

philologos · 12-02-2009 12:21AM

So Fad, now you are contesting what is in the book, despite you saying that there is nothing of original sin in the Bible?

Did David, Solomon, Hosea, Habakkuk etc ever meet Jesus face to face in their lifetimes? Should we throw out over 72% of the Bible then?

Anyhow, since when is meeting Jesus in the flesh the category for being chosen for divine revelation, I don't believe the Bible once said that, but that things would be revealed to mankind through the Holy Spirit.

It's not a good argument, first to object to a lack of mention to original sin, despite the Bible chronicling several personal commitments to God, and several fallings out in those commitments and then secondly when one is shown a mention of the Biblical basis to original sin, one contends that the part of the Bible it is in isn't legitimate? Surely one should make ones mind up as to what the issue is?

12-02-2009 12:44AM

But, with all honesty, the concept of Original Sin shouldn't be taken to have literal origins, anymore; thus, meaning it shouldn't be taken literally. I'm not sure whether or not you believe in it, Jakkass, but, I know that many (most?) Christians don't. Original Sin should only be believed in if you're a literal creationist - otherwise, I think that it should be discarded, perhaps used in an allegorical sense.

philologos · 12-02-2009 12:51AM

Original sin is the belief that humankind has inherited a sinful nature from Adam. I personally do subscribe to said belief yes.

Also why should it be discarded if one is a theistic evolutionist? If one considers Adam and Eve to be the first common ancestors of the human race surely that is just as much valid as it was when it was first penned to paper, or if one takes a linguistic view of the Biblical Hebrew in the passage concerning Adam, one would know that adam = man or mankind, adamah = dust, ish = man, ishshah = woman (literally from man, used in the Genesis 2 rib analogy), Eve = resembles the word for living.

Either way it doesn't propose much of a challenge to original sin.

12-02-2009 12:51AM

I believe that maybe, just maybe, there is something out there. Whether it be God is undecided. It's just a comforting thought, I think. That there is something looking over me.

Fad · 12-02-2009 12:52AM

Jakkass wrote: »

So Fad, now you are contesting what is in the book, despite you saying that there is nothing of original sin in the Bible?

Did David, Solomon, Hosea, Habakkuk etc ever meet Jesus face to face? Should we throw out over 72% of the Bible then?

Anyhow, since when is meeting Jesus in the flesh the category for being chosen for divine revelation, I don't believe the Bible once said that, but that things would be revealed to mankind through the Holy Spirit.

It's not a good argument, first to object to a lack of mention to original sin, despite the Bible chronicling several personal commitments to God, and several fallings out in those commitments and then secondly when one is shown a mention of the Biblical basis to original sin, one contends that the part of the Bible it is in isn't legitimate? Surely one should make ones mind up as to what the issue is?

I wouldnt really mind if the entire bible was thrown out to be honest

Im not a biblical scholar, and I'll never claim to be one, so my knowlege of the Bible is obviously not as extensive as yours. BUT I dont mind questioning the validity of the inclusion of Paul's letters in the bible, he set up communities, I dont ever remember hearing him accused of divine revelation.........(obviously he is, but that really changes nothing in my case).

Perhaps in another forum, I'll have this conversation with you, but my attention is exactly devoted to this so I'm kinda typing a sentence then watching the Terry Pratchett Doc then typing another. (Sorry if this seems like a ridiculous cop out!)

12-02-2009 01:03AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Also why should it be discarded if one is a theistic evolutionist?

I didn't say it should be. I said creationism. And creationists, in typical, don't believe in theistic evolution. In my own opinion, theists who subscribe to theistic evolution are just trying to have their cake and eat it, too (i.e. believe in a religion, and attempt to believe in a science with explicitly contradicts their religious beliefs).

If one considers Adam and Eve to be the first common ancestors of the human race

But this is a direct contradiction to evolutionary theory. I don't see how somebody could say that they believe in theistic evolution (at least what I understand it to be) and believe that humans have two human ancestors. They're simply not at all compatible.

surely that is just as much valid as it was when it was first penned to paper, or if one takes a linguistic view of the Biblical Hebrew in the passage concerning Adam, one would know that adam = man or mankind, adamah = dust, ish = man, ishshah = woman (literally from man, used in the Genesis 2 rib analogy), Eve = resembles the word for living.

Do you believe that the rib passage is an analogy?

Either way, evolution (even watered down theistic evolution) is incompatible with the idea of Adam and Eve, and thus, original sin.

Either way it doesn't propose much of a challenge to original sin.

I think that it does, though. I think that you believe in theistic evolution - I can't see how you can reconcile this idea with the idea of Original Sin. So, you either have to throw out evolution (and with that, the scientific method), or throw out Original Sin.

philologos · 12-02-2009 01:03AM

Fad wrote: »

I wouldnt really mind if the entire bible was thrown out to be honest

Im not a biblical scholar, and I'll never claim to be one, so my knowlege of the Bible is obviously not as extensive as yours. BUT I dont mind questioning the validity of the inclusion of Paul's letters in the bible, he set up communities, I dont ever remember hearing him accused of divine revelation.........(obviously he is, but that really changes nothing in my case).

Perhaps in another forum, I'll have this conversation with you, but my attention is exactly devoted to this so I'm kinda typing a sentence then watching the Terry Pratchett Doc then typing another. (Sorry if this seems like a ridiculous cop out!)

Hm, it's a shame that people don't realise that the Bible is actually one of the most (if not the most) revolutionary texts in Western history.

As for not being a Biblical scholar, I'm hardly one myself. I'm merely a layman who thinks that Christianity is worthy of defence.

As for questioning the existence of Paul's letters (I encourage questioning personally) or whether they should not be valid for the Bible, Paul is noted in the writings of Luke as being chosen by the Apostles to carry out the Mission to the Gentiles after being converted by seeing a vision on the road to Damascus.

Also interestingly, if you have a cross reference Bible, a lot of what Paul writes is substantiated by other verses in the Scriptures in either the Torah or the Law of Moses or in the Gospels.

Anyhow, the New Testament books were ultimately chosen because they were the most legitimate and they were the ones which the priests in Nicea circa 360AD however they were all written within the 1st century AD had chosen based on the dating, the language, and the most universally spread of Christian works. The same happened with Jewish texts in 450BC with a Rabbinical council.

philologos · 12-02-2009 01:15AM

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Do you believe that the rib passage is an analogy?

I'm rather open to it being. I don't see Genesis 1 and 2 as being a complete scientific recount of how the world was formed, it merely is a chronicling of it being formed, and of the first lives coming into it. One must beg the question of why there are two creation accounts in Genesis if they are intended to be scientific recounts. If you look to the passage following the rib incident it explains that this is the reason why a man leaves his family and becomes joined to his wife and they become one (through marriage). I'm open to both possibilities, but at the same time I'm meant to be making an attempt to understand the Bible as it was originally intended to be understood.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Either way, evolution (even watered down theistic evolution) is incompatible with the idea of Adam and Eve, and thus, original sin.

I consider it excessive to suggest that theistic evolution is a watered down form of evolution when many Christian scientists thus far have assisted in making progress while having these beliefs.

I disagree that original sin is somehow compromised in either situation, I also don't see how Adam and Eve could be accounted for with the concept of the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) taken further and further back. However I concede inferior knowledge of the subject of evolution to you.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I think that it does, though. I think that you believe in theistic evolution - I can't see how you can reconcile this idea with the idea of Original Sin. So, you either have to throw out evolution (and with that, the scientific method), or throw out Original Sin.

I don't think there are only two options in this case, or rather you have put forward a false diachotomy.

Fad · 12-02-2009 01:29AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, it's a shame that people don't realise that the Bible is actually one of the most (if not the most) revolutionary texts in Western history.

Dont worry, I didnt mean that seriously, I dont believe in Christian teachings, but at the same time, I can easily appreciate the positive impact of Christianity in the world. Giving people who have nothing something to live for, and what not.

god?

Comments