|
Post by fred on Apr 3, 2014 19:21:08 GMT -5
During my university years I became good friends with a guy who was Jewish - it boggled my mind to realize that he was also an atheist. Since then I have come to a better understanding of what it means to be a Jew. What it means from a religious standpoint or cultural? In the old race classification most people in that area would be classified as Caucasians. I guess it could be narrowed to semites who originated/live in the Near East. Jews are tough to classify since it is mainly their beliefs that separate them from their neighbors. Most of the Jewish people I have known are proudly so. That is, in a cultural sense - they follow the practices of their culture very conscientiously but seem to be agnostic when it comes to the existence of God. They don't seem to feel any tension in their position.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 3, 2014 21:57:33 GMT -5
No. Atheists talk in circles and use scientific jargon and yet dodge simple answers to questions. But if you believe in nothing, that it Ok with me. Being an atheist is an answer to one question: you do not accept the claim there is a god. It answers only that one single question. It tells you nothing about what they do believe in. Each atheist can hold unique other beliefs. By only knowing someone is an atheist you know nothing about their other beliefs except they reject the claim of a particular god. Christians are also atheist in the minds of someone who believes in another non Christian god. I don't believe in any of gods, so poly atheism seems the most exact expression of me. To me, all people are born atheist and remain so until or unless they adopt a belief in a god, and yes atheist disagree on this too. Some ideas many people have general come to believe in, be they theist or atheist ie; the golden rule , the code of Hammurabi, reciprocal altruism, empathy - Theory of mind, ECG en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabien.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ruleen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mindAs they say; the difference between an atheist and a Christian is, atheist believe in one less god than Christians. Three less Gods. 1) God the father who represents all of our concepts about creation and order. 2) God the holy spirit, who animates and communicates with cerebral structures/entities. 3) God the son who revealed the way to negotiate an upside-down, world. These are the fundamental expressions of God to those who believe.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 4, 2014 5:33:24 GMT -5
Being an atheist is an answer to one question: you do not accept the claim there is a god. It answers only that one single question. It tells you nothing about what they do believe in. Each atheist can hold unique other beliefs. By only knowing someone is an atheist you know nothing about their other beliefs except they reject the claim of a particular god. Christians are also atheist in the minds of someone who believes in another non Christian god. I don't believe in any of gods, so poly atheism seems the most exact expression of me. To me, all people are born atheist and remain so until or unless they adopt a belief in a god, and yes atheist disagree on this too. Some ideas many people have general come to believe in, be they theist or atheist ie; the golden rule , the code of Hammurabi, reciprocal altruism, empathy - Theory of mind, ECG en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabien.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ruleen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mindAs they say; the difference between an atheist and a Christian is, atheist believe in one less god than Christians. Three less Gods. 1) God the father who represents all of our concepts about creation and order. 2) God the holy spirit, who animates and communicates with cerebral structures/entities. 3) God the son who revealed the way to negotiate an upside-down, world. These are the fundamental expressions of God to those who believe. So Christianity is no longer monotheistic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 6:41:57 GMT -5
Three less Gods. 1) God the father who represents all of our concepts about creation and order. 2) God the holy spirit, who animates and communicates with cerebral structures/entities. 3) God the son who revealed the way to negotiate an upside-down, world. These are the fundamental expressions of God to those who believe. So Christianity is no longer monotheistic? The predictable response to that is "oh but you don't really understand Gene."
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 4, 2014 6:49:46 GMT -5
Being an atheist is an answer to one question: you do not accept the claim there is a god. ----------------------------------- 1) God the father who represents all of our concepts about creation and order. 2) God the holy spirit, who animates and communicates with cerebral structures/entities. 3) God the son who revealed the way to negotiate an upside-down, world. These are the fundamental expressions of God to those who believe. ------------------------------------- I never understood 1=3=1 I understand Mark Twain
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 4, 2014 6:51:54 GMT -5
Three less Gods. 1) God the father who represents all of our concepts about creation and order. 2) God the holy spirit, who animates and communicates with cerebral structures/entities. 3) God the son who revealed the way to negotiate an upside-down, world. These are the fundamental expressions of God to those who believe. So Christianity is no longer monotheistic? Three is the new One.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 4, 2014 9:18:08 GMT -5
Three less Gods. 1) God the father who represents all of our concepts about creation and order. 2) God the holy spirit, who animates and communicates with cerebral structures/entities. 3) God the son who revealed the way to negotiate an upside-down, world. These are the fundamental expressions of God to those who believe. Well, at least for those who believe in your particular god(s). I am surprised that you believe in three gods. But your god(s) is/are limited with only three manifestations. The Hindu god Vishnu can come up with 10 manifestations! Whose god is better?!?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 4, 2014 21:25:42 GMT -5
Three less Gods. 1) God the father who represents all of our concepts about creation and order. 2) God the holy spirit, who animates and communicates with cerebral structures/entities. 3) God the son who revealed the way to negotiate an upside-down, world. These are the fundamental expressions of God to those who believe. So Christianity is no longer monotheistic? It never was to unbelievers.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 4, 2014 21:33:51 GMT -5
No. Atheists talk in circles and use scientific jargon and yet dodge simple answers to questions. But if you believe in nothing, that it Ok with me. Being an atheist is an answer to one question: you do not accept the claim there is a god. It answers only that one single question. It tells you nothing about what they do believe in. Each atheist can hold unique other beliefs. By only knowing someone is an atheist you know nothing about their other beliefs except they reject the claim of a particular god. Christians are also atheist in the minds of someone who believes in another non Christian god. I don't believe in any of gods, so poly atheism seems the most exact expression of me. To me, all people are born atheist and remain so until or unless they adopt a belief in a god, and yes atheist disagree on this too. Some ideas many people have general come to believe in, be they theist or atheist ie; the golden rule , the code of Hammurabi, reciprocal altruism, empathy - Theory of mind, ECG en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabien.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ruleen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mindAs they say; the difference between an atheist and a Christian is, atheist believe in one less god than Christians. That's a meaningless assertion. To be atheist is to believe the world has not been destined to close around any particular eventuality or upon anything significant.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 4, 2014 21:37:06 GMT -5
But might doesn't make right of itself because God is love, and love involves freewill. I agree. I see things like the mud slides in Washington as natural phenomena but when you have an all powerful being that you believe controls the universe and all within it you must have to ask yourself "What did these people do wrong so have the wrath of god punish them so severely". That kind of love I can do without. The implicit message of mud-slides is that God is God and we're not. Why do you have such a problem with that? Amazing to consider the myth of JC might gradually be immunizing the world of fratricide. Is the homicide of brothers even spoken against in the JC myth? From the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 8:13:37 GMT -5
To be atheist is to believe the world has not been destined to close around any particular eventuality or upon anything significant. Once again, to be an atheist only means that one does not believe in a deity or deities. As far as the end/close of the world, that would require a definition. Do you mean the end of the world from a human point of view or from a physical point of view? At some point the sun will die and we will be enveloped in the expanding sun as it evolves into a red dwarf. At some point it will explode, destroying the planets and then collapse into a white dwarf. That is one possible eventuality and will definitely be significant to human and all other life forms as we know them. The interesting part of this possible eventuality is that it has been observed and there id data to confirm the possibility. For example, a water-rich minor planet was found orbiting a white dwarf star. Another possibility, one that does not involve the destruction of the earth, is that earth collides with something large and the resulting explosion destroys the higher forms of life, returning earth back to a primordial ooze. Sort of a reset. What eventuality do you have in mind? Can you point to anything to back it up? In the universe there certainly must be examples.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 8:23:32 GMT -5
The implicit message of mud-slides is that God is God and we're not. Why do you have such a problem with that? I don't have a problem with the event - it is the result of natural phenomena. I have a slight problem with the theists who believe that god is in control of the universe and are quick to thank their god when things go their way but are too cowardly to thank god for killing thousands. "Thank god for the hundreds that survived the tsunami." But to thank god for killing the hundreds of thousands? Nope. If a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent is to be thanked for one deed, saving a few hundred from the tsunami, then that same being should be thanked to for causing the tsunami in the first place and killing hundreds of thousands.I don't know. This is the same myth that encourages people to abandon their families.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 5, 2014 8:44:50 GMT -5
So Christianity is no longer monotheistic? Three is the new One. Three's company too!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 6, 2014 3:17:07 GMT -5
The implicit message of mud-slides is that God is God and we're not. Why do you have such a problem with that? I don't have a problem with the event - it is the result of natural phenomena. What makes natural phenomena "natural". "Natural" according to what? What does it have to do with consciousness as we experience it? I have a slight problem with the theists who believe that god is in control of the universe and are quick to thank their god when things go their way but are too cowardly to thank god for killing thousands. "Thank god for the hundreds that survived the tsunami." But to thank god for killing the hundreds of thousands? Nope. If a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent is to be thanked for one deed, saving a few hundred from the tsunami, then that same being should be thanked to for causing the tsunami in the first place and killing hundreds of thousands. I use to tout a 'hard-doctrine' of Satan where I blamed every evil incident upon him. Not anymore. I believe in a 'soft-doctrine' of Satan meaning he/it exists to the degree our credulity, naivety and vice contributes to evil. It's true that some people receive a "prosperity gospel" that feeds an entitlement complex. I don't know. This is the same myth that encourages people to abandon their families. Its necessary sometimes to distance oneself from ones family. That's not abandonment.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 6, 2014 3:52:01 GMT -5
To be atheist is to believe the world has not been destined to close around any particular eventuality or upon anything significant. Once again, to be an atheist only means that one does not believe in a deity or deities. As far as the end/close of the world, that would require a definition. Do you mean the end of the world from a human point of view or from a physical point of view? At some point the sun will die and we will be enveloped in the expanding sun as it evolves into a red dwarf. At some point it will explode, destroying the planets and then collapse into a white dwarf. That is one possible eventuality and will definitely be significant to human and all other life forms as we know them. The interesting part of this possible eventuality is that it has been observed and there id data to confirm the possibility. For example, a water-rich minor planet was found orbiting a white dwarf star. Another possibility, one that does not involve the destruction of the earth, is that earth collides with something large and the resulting explosion destroys the higher forms of life, returning earth back to a primordial ooze. Sort of a reset. What eventuality do you have in mind? Can you point to anything to back it up? In the universe there certainly must be examples. You make me think of the man who on entering a junkyard concludes there must be no such thing as an automobile. In other words your obsession with the apparent blinds you from the latent.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 6, 2014 9:48:05 GMT -5
What makes natural phenomena "natural". "Natural" according to what? It means it occurs according to the known physical laws that have been observed on earth and does not require invoking any paranormal activity to explain any aspect.It does not rely on our experiencing it to have happened.The much more prosaic explanation is that events happen with a degree of randomness and there is no mythical/paranormal entity that causes or influences the events.First the admonishment: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.And then: If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower.And finally: You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life!This doesn't seem to be a path to strong family relationships. No, it does not say abandonment, simply hate them and walk away. Almost like that is the definition of abandonment.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 6, 2014 9:50:27 GMT -5
The predictable response to that is "oh but you don't really understand Gene." The inventor of the concept (Catholic church) admits it is an unknowable mystery.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 6, 2014 9:55:34 GMT -5
You make me think of the man who on entering a junkyard concludes there must be no such thing as an automobile. In other words your obsession with the apparent blinds you from the latent. But I know that a person could take the parts and build an automobile without throwing in a god of the gaps to complete it. And I would much rather go with the apparent, demonstrable, and testable than with some idea based on one of thousands of possibilities that is not yet developed or manifest and is in no way demonstrable or testable. But then, I do not live in a castle in the clouds nor do I dream/aspire of ever going there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 10:13:12 GMT -5
The predictable response to that is "oh but you don't really understand Gene." The inventor of the concept (Catholic church) admits it is an unknowable mystery. Yes, it's an unknowable mystery that you must understand and embrace if you are to be a Christian. That's what makes it so interesting!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 6, 2014 12:21:02 GMT -5
Why is it that when someone has something good happen in their life they say "God is so good!" but they don't even consider that all the things they don't like would then have to be God's doing too. Here is a current example from my sister.
She was in the process of adopting a baby girl about 20 years ago, but after having her for 10 days the mother changed her mind and took the baby back. This caused my sister so much sadness and pain at the time and she talked about it for years later as such a hard thing to have to go through. The other day she got a letter from the mother of this baby (who is now 20) and the girl would like to meet my sister and get to know her. Now my sister is raving and so happy that God has brought this girl back into her life and how good God is because she was just taking about this baby the other day etc. Now everyone is so thrilled that God is doing this for her. What they don't even grasp as a concept is that God was also the one who took the child away in the first place. That is if God is in control and it seems he is if he had the power to bring the girl 'back' into her life. Why don't people see the break down in logic here.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 6, 2014 19:19:55 GMT -5
Why is it that when someone has something good happen in their life they say "God is so good!" but they don't even consider that all the things they don't like would then have to be God's doing too. Here is a current example from my sister. She was in the process of adopting a baby girl about 20 years ago, but after having her for 10 days the mother changed her mind and took the baby back. This caused my sister so much sadness and pain at the time and she talked about it for years later as such a hard thing to have to go through. The other day she got a letter from the mother of this baby (who is now 20) and the girl would like to meet my sister and get to know her. Now my sister is raving and so happy that God has brought this girl back into her life and how good God is because she was just taking about this baby the other day etc. Now everyone is so thrilled that God is doing this for her. What they don't even grasp as a concept is that God was also the one who took the child away in the first place. That is if God is in control and it seems he is if he had the power to bring the girl 'back' into her life. Why don't people see the break down in logic here. The answer is man cannot understand the mind of god or god's thoughts are higher than man's. Beliefs are not subject to logical support. And there is no material support. You have to respect their unquestioning faith.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 7, 2014 0:58:06 GMT -5
You make me think of the man who on entering a junkyard concludes there must be no such thing as an automobile. In other words your obsession with the apparent blinds you from the latent. But I know that a person could take the parts and build an automobile without throwing in a god of the gaps to complete it. And I would much rather go with the apparent, demonstrable, and testable than with some idea based on one of thousands of possibilities that is not yet developed or manifest and is in no way demonstrable or testable. Exactly. Design follows intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 7, 2014 1:12:39 GMT -5
What makes natural phenomena "natural". "Natural" according to what? It means it occurs according to the known physical laws that have been observed on earth and does not require invoking any paranormal activity to explain any aspect. But you haven't defined what natural means. If nothingness is the original normal it follows that we must be paranormal. What does it have to do with consciousness as we experience it? It does not rely on our experiencing it to have happened. That's not what I asked you. I use to tout a 'hard-doctrine' of Satan where I blamed every evil incident upon him. Not anymore. I believe in a 'soft-doctrine' of Satan meaning he/it exists to the degree our credulity, naivety and vice contributes to evil. It's true that some people receive a "prosperity gospel" that feeds an entitlement complex. The much more prosaic explanation is that events happen with a degree of randomness and there is no mythical/paranormal entity that causes or influences the events. Normal entity. Sovereign over every experience. I keep having to correct you.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 7, 2014 8:30:38 GMT -5
But I know that a person could take the parts and build an automobile without throwing in a god of the gaps to complete it. And I would much rather go with the apparent, demonstrable, and testable than with some idea based on one of thousands of possibilities that is not yet developed or manifest and is in no way demonstrable or testable. Exactly. Design follows intelligence. Design also follows necessity.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 7, 2014 8:46:52 GMT -5
It means it occurs according to the known physical laws that have been observed on earth and does not require invoking any paranormal activity to explain any aspect. But you haven't defined what natural means. I did. You simply don't like the definition and somehow decided to throw in a bit about the creation of the universe.Oh I know. You wanted to wander off and talk about some universal conscientiousness.Normal would be demonstrable and testable. In your world you believe there is an invisible being that you talk to and who you believe has created the universe. When you can produce any evidence of this entity that can tested you can talk about making a correction. Until then, it is simply your belief, not supported by logical or material proof, and you are more than welcome to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 8:48:23 GMT -5
Why is it that when someone has something good happen in their life they say "God is so good!" but they don't even consider that all the things they don't like would then have to be God's doing too. Here is a current example from my sister. She was in the process of adopting a baby girl about 20 years ago, but after having her for 10 days the mother changed her mind and took the baby back. This caused my sister so much sadness and pain at the time and she talked about it for years later as such a hard thing to have to go through. The other day she got a letter from the mother of this baby (who is now 20) and the girl would like to meet my sister and get to know her. Now my sister is raving and so happy that God has brought this girl back into her life and how good God is because she was just taking about this baby the other day etc. Now everyone is so thrilled that God is doing this for her. What they don't even grasp as a concept is that God was also the one who took the child away in the first place. That is if God is in control and it seems he is if he had the power to bring the girl 'back' into her life. Why don't people see the break down in logic here. I suppose they see God as the author of all good things that happen to them and Satan as the author of all the bad things while God allows it to happen for some later higher purpose that will work out for the better in the end. It's perfectly logical. People find comfort in it in good times and bad.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 7, 2014 10:09:26 GMT -5
I suppose they see God as the author of all good things that happen to them and Satan as the author of all the bad things while God allows it to happen for some later higher purpose that will work out for the better in the end. It's perfectly logical. People find comfort in it in good times and bad. I think some get something out of wallowing in the bad.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 7, 2014 11:04:30 GMT -5
Why is it that when someone has something good happen in their life they say "God is so good!" but they don't even consider that all the things they don't like would then have to be God's doing too. Here is a current example from my sister. She was in the process of adopting a baby girl about 20 years ago, but after having her for 10 days the mother changed her mind and took the baby back. This caused my sister so much sadness and pain at the time and she talked about it for years later as such a hard thing to have to go through. The other day she got a letter from the mother of this baby (who is now 20) and the girl would like to meet my sister and get to know her. Now my sister is raving and so happy that God has brought this girl back into her life and how good God is because she was just taking about this baby the other day etc. Now everyone is so thrilled that God is doing this for her. What they don't even grasp as a concept is that God was also the one who took the child away in the first place. That is if God is in control and it seems he is if he had the power to bring the girl 'back' into her life. Why don't people see the break down in logic here. I suppose they see God as the author of all good things that happen to them and Satan as the author of all the bad things while God allows it to happen for some later higher purpose that will work out for the better in the end. It's perfectly logical. People find comfort in it in good times and bad. I guess so, but what I don't understand is how anyone can find it comforting? All you have to do is look at the illogical aspect of it and then all comfort would fly out the window. For me anyway. It makes no logical sense to me at all. God is either sovereign of he's not. If he is then he did the bad things too, or allowed the bad things to happen at the very least. What does that say about God? He is not a very good or comforting entity in that case. Is the random happenings of life so hard to live with that they have to grasp at comfort from a source that suspends all logic?
|
|