|
| Thread: Why Is Atheism So Prevalent In Online Communities |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
GrunanCross
Famous Hero
King of the Underdark
|
posted May 09, 2003 07:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Depends on the kind of forum really, I know a RP one where at least half of the people there are christian of some form or another, and of the Aethiests/agnostics/non-christians, I seem to be the only one willing to slug it out with them in a reasoned debate. Kinda hard debating things with someone who's answer to almost all your suggestions come via quoting a book written 2000 years ago though 
As for numbers of christians as such, I tend towards the notion that the numbers of true christians in the world, or at least in my country has not, as doom-merchants would have us believe in free fall. Personally I think those going to church these days in the main are true believers. In the not so distant past it was almost considered a social gathering to go to church on sunday, and people in the country were considered almost social lepers if they didn't go. Rather than seeing a marked fall in christians in western nations, I personally think the number of true christians hasn't really changed much down the centuries.
I've often wondered abot that...Thanx for helping me out with that lol
As for on message boards, no I don't think it's a case of intelligence as that's too generic to say that intelligent people don't worship god. I do think those with higher intelligence question things more than those without and to a higher level though. To me religion depends more on faith based on experience rather than intelligence as such. Even the least conventionally intelligent people can have strong faith in their god through their life experience. That doesn't mean they're stupid or gullable for doing so, merely that their experience in life has lead them to truly believe in god.
So I think the main thing is to question your beliefs at all times and ensure they come up to scratch as such. Maybe people on forums do more of this and are incresingly finding that the church or equivalent for other religions offers none of the answers to their questions. I dunno....
Bah ignore me, I never make any sense anyway Ask Dargon or Bort 
____________
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 01:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Personally, Iīd like to win Lotto ... does that make me a Lotto winner ? Seriously, why do you choose a belief based on what you would like reality to be? As a curious person, I find the world fascinating and want to learn more of it, try to dig a bit closer to the truth. The thought of just choosing a view that suits myself and leaving it at that is depressing to me, too .
And regarding our deaths, this planet exists for billions of years, of which weīve been non-existent for billions minus twentysomething or thirtysomething. It hasnīt hurt us, not to be, so I donīt think it will when we are not again.
The part where you say I choose a belief on what I would like reality to be isn't quite right. Belief is not the same as reality ,but it is mine. And who's gonna be the first one to explain to me what the ultimate reality is?
Of course the world is fascinating but it's even more fascinating when you include the religious factor of different people. Like everyone has their own unique Character, we also have our own unique beliefs. It's not a matter of choosing, it's just something in your body that feels right. Whether that is atheism or buddhism or whatever.
Indeed regarding our deaths. Can you be sure we were non-existant in those billions of years? I don't think so. Who knows? Maybe we did exist but not in the form we are today.
The part where you say : it hasn't hurt us not to be....
That is another thing you can't be sure of. So in a way you believe in something too and it might be rewarding to find out what it is. Believing in an afterlife does not exclude being curious about the world and experiencing the "before-life". You don't think I'm actually sitting here waiting to die so i can be i somekinda paradise right? The idea of having an aterlife for me is just comforting and in a way allows me to enjoy the before-life more, just like the idea of simply disappearing when you die might comfort you.
As I see it you live to the fullest because you believe you only get one chance and I live to the fullest because I want too and because it feels good.
Correct me if i'm wrong and nice discussion 
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 06:01 PM |
|
|
I think I might have to do this in a few chunks cause there is so much. First Lews, I sat here nodding and smiling through your whole response post. I think that means I agreed with just about everything you said.
Personally I was never counselled in the subtle distinctions between the various kinds of "Skeptic," but now that I looked it up in the dictionary too I see that you are right. I suppose that I think of the distinction between philosophy and religion as mainly this:
"Religions" as such are institutions of belief that are already formed to answer questions about the ultimate metaphysical and epistemologial realities of human existence. Because these institutions claim to have the ultimate truth, their constituencies are expected to follow directions. (I am talking here mainly about Christianity since these traits are not so prevalint in Buddhism)
On the other hand, "philosohy" is an area of study comprising every school of thought about metaphysica and epistemology. Philosophy is a study of beliefs and the grounds for them. So, one can study the various philosophies including those of the various religions, but it does no make as much sense to say religions (as particular schools of belief)can study philosophy.
As to skepticism, I tend to remain skeptical about pretty much everything, including the various philosophical schools of thought and particularly about religion. Personally, I think the minute I lose my skepticim is the minute I start acting like I've figured it all out, and I'm pretty sure I haven't figured it all out or that anyone else has.
Also Lews, perhaps I was a little too kind in my comments about religion as I get from your post you may have misunderstood me. I have very negative feelings about the religion, but also know Christians who find great wisdom and guidance in their beliefs, so I try not to be too judgmental as it seems to work in some ways for some people to be better and try harder to be good and loving people.
However, as an American Indian I tend to harber deep distrust toward Christianity in general because it was used as a tool of ethnocide. Western-style (dominant Europe paradigm now prevalent on the globe)governments have for eons sent their Missionaries into tribal territories first as a means of gaining a foothold, and the result has typically been ethnocide and assimilation. So in that sence, I tend to be very much anti-"Christian" in terms of the misuse of the institution itself.
On the other hand, there was just something about Jesus that I find more compelling than practically any single figure in history, except maybe Ghandi, whom I suspect was Jesus's half-brother or something. While I generally abhor the entrenched and mind-numbing aspects of Christianity in general, I think it was originally intended as an attempt to spread the influence of Jesus. I think it went awry, but I think the original intend was a good one. I even have family members who call me a Christian because of my feelings about Jesus, even though I am suspicious and jaded about the whole religion in general.
So yes, I think when someone arrives on their own at their own conclusions after breaking free of whatever indoctination they were subjected to as younger folk, that the progress is still made, whether they call themselves Christian, or Buddhist, or skeptic or whateveer. The point is are we internalizing, growing, trying on our own???
Which brings me back to Romana. Once again, I sat there and nodded through both your posts. I think we are saying the same thing as well. This is a deeply personal quest, and the travels through it I think are in some ways easier for women PRECISELY because we can feel in our bodies (as you said) whether something just isn't right (for us on our individual quests). That was the intuition I was referring to, as well as you are referring to it I think.
For instance, when I read the words or study the actions of Jesus or Ghandi, both of whom were absolute and unconditional about their positions on love and peace in the face of tremendous odds and forces to the contrary, there is just something there that feels as though it arises from a highr plane. Especially during this whole war mess I kept thinking why are all these Christions saying things like Yes, Peace, UNLESS... and making that idea conditional??? Jesus wouldn't have done that!!!! And moreover, that most definitely DID NOT FEEL RIGHT IN MY BODY as I have said countless times in HC about the war. In fact it felt hypocritcal as all get-out. Not to say what the answer is, because I don't know. But as a philosophical matter, it just is not consistent with what Jesus would have said and done.
THere is a school of though called Religious Science and Ghandi's grandsom came to a church here in town that subscribes to this thinking recently. One of the ideas that came out of this talk was that a problem cannot be solved from within the mindset whence the problem came. I think he was right on that one and they're trying to solve the violence problem with more violence. But that's all for another thread...
Anyway, all this is not to say (back to your point Lews and to yours Romana) that if we follow our hearts we will all end up in the same place at the same time. It is a very personal quest and takes each of us on our own paths of actions and experience, and that experience is unique to each person. No two are alike, despite that we all seem to be asking the same questions.
As for immortality, what do you guys think of this? (This felt right in my body the first time I thought of it) There is some kind of consciousness working in the universe. The fact that we are having this conversation is evidence that there is intelligent matter in the universe. What if the intelligent matter is one big blob that manifests itself in all these little people thingies running around in mortal bodies, and that manifestation is part of a training ground, or school if you will, so that when the little people bodies die, the experience of the learning then pours back into the great pool of universal intelligence, where we are all reunited and improved by our experience in school? What if we are really all related and are trying to reunite? Doesn't this explain mortal existence and wanting to learn and sex and love and the belief in an after life and the belief in a universal loving force??? And doesn't it explain the very act of us all reaching out to one another in conversations like this one??? Romana, this gous to your point of not being so sure we have not existed for all those billions of years before arriving in person form here on Earth.
Where I come from we say Mitakuye Oyasin. This is Lakota for "We are all relatives" and for "Everything is One." This is said at the beginning and end of every prayer, ceremony and every other significant event. I know traditionals around here who seem to be in a constant state of connectedness with the universal consciousness of love. "We" includes every manifestation, from the tiniest grain of sand to all rocks and plants and animals to our bodies to each other to the Creator. The matter around us is the body of the Creator, just like our bodies house our minds and hearts.
Now that feels right in my body. I don't know if it's the "truth" but I tend to think something like it is.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 06:25 PM |
|
|
Also, Snogard --
QUOTE:
________________________
This sounds like a ?gscientific development?h viewing through kuhn?fs eyes, but I agree with it generally. Though I would like to add that there are different degrees of ?gRELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION?h (sometimes, maybe just merely cultural influences), and that the ?gSPIRITUAL QUEST?h will eventually leads to a formation of a personal ?greligious doctrine?h (believe, philosophy, or whatever you call it), which may (or not may) changes, but only superficially, in future. Do I understand you correctly?
________________________
Yes, I think you understand my proposition correctly. Although I think the change can be superficial or profound, or anywhere in between.
Also Lews, I agree with your statements on Science, and let me add a few things to what I said earlier.
There was a point in history during the Scientific Revolution when humans began to believe that Science and Religion were on some kind of crash course as though they were mutually exclusive. If you recal the big debate about Darwinism and the like. During this period in history it is my understanding that people thought to abandon the existing religious dogma in favor of science.
This is the philosophy of "Mechanism" and has at its roots that notion that there really is no spiritual force in the universe -- that it's all just one big pile of molten rock flinging itself about and manifesting itself in all the forms of matter we see about. In mechanism, all things could be understood by studying the cause and effect relationships of all the little things arising out of the molten blob.
It was in this mindset in which the saying "Everything is knowable" arose. It was that mantra of the Scintific Revolution that I was poking fun at in my original post. This mantra inherently presumes that everything is matter, that there is no spirit, and that therefore there is no god. This is why I said the Scientific Revolution was the soil whence athiesm sprang.
Then as we continued to grow through the scientific developments of the the 19th and 20th centuries, two things began happening. First, the idea that "everything is knowable" started disintegrating when we could not locate whether the utimate building block for all this matter was a particle or a wave, but that instead the building block just behaved which ever way depending on the way we studied it (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). The laws of cause and effect hit their limits, and we as observing humans seemed to be able to influence the cause-and-effect relationships between things based on what we "believed" during any given observation.
Second, the debate about whether everything is matter or not continued, and when this Heisenberg thing with the particle/wave happened the debate was reinflamed even more. Just because the laws of matter can be observed scientifically does NOT mean that there is nothing in the universe but matter. In other words, knowing how the engine of a car works does not explain where the car is going, who created it or why. So no longer did science exist as a threat to "religion" or other speculation about metaphysics -- the study or belief about things beyond just the physical building blocks of the universe.
SO when I made the crack abd "nothing is knowable" I was sort-of bringing together the ideas that science somehow threatened human ideas about the existence of spirit, as well as the very notion that "everything is knowable" during the scientific revolution.
I'm not expressing myself very clearly today. Sorry if this is so long and convoluted.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 07:20 PM |
|
|
Hello Romana,
good reply from you  ...
Quote:
Belief is not the same as reality ,but it is mine. And who's gonna be the first one to explain to me what the ultimate reality is?
Noone ever will. A human Understanding the "ultimate reality" is most probably as likely as a chimpanzee flying to the moon. Or a horse becoming doctor in maths.
Iīve once read an analogy from Hoimar v. Dithfurth, that I found fascinating (I hope I donīt mess it up too much). Imagine beings who are like us, only they are 2-dimensional, and live in a 2-dimensional world, letīs say on a piece of paper. These "plainies" only know the directions left, right, forward and backward, they cannot even imagine up and down. The piece of paper has its borders where they cannot move further - itīs the edge of their world.
Now if you take the plainies away from that piece of paper, and put them on a large enough globe (letīs say planet earth), they will still believe that they are in a 2-dimensional environment. Nothing will have changed for them except - now their world would be endless. No matter how far they would walk, there are no edges anymore, and they would wonder about how such infinite space is possible. Our physics are metaphysics for them. Maybe they will, like us, create gods to pseudo-explain the unexplainable.
And maybe thereīs a 4-dimensional being sitting in front of a computer at this very moment, and writing the same story about us 3-dimensional "globies" .
Of course all this is highly speculative, what Iīd like to show is how presumtous, if not megalomaniac, I think we are, when we equate the limits of our own understanding with the existence of an omnipotent power.
But in the end, I suppose Peacemaker is may be just right when she says that weīre talking on different levels, you putting more emphasis on the intuitional, and I more on the rational aspect.
Quote:
Like everyone has their own unique Character, we also have our own unique beliefs. It's not a matter of choosing, it's just something in your body that feels right. Whether that is atheism or buddhism or whatever.
(Undogmatic) atheism is not a belief, just like not-playing-tennis is not a sport. Itīs a non-belief.
You are almost as much atheist as I am, you probably donīt believe in the existence of Zeus, Allah, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The number of gods that you and me donīt believe in differs only by 1. Not that much of a difference, donīt you think so :;?
Quote:
Can you be sure we were non-existant in those billions of years? I don't think so. Who knows? Maybe we did exist but not in the form we are today.
Yes, but just the same, we cannot be sure that UFOs donīt exist, likewise the Seamonster of Loch Ness and the Yeti. But as long as there is not a single piece of evidence, I see no reason to believe in the existence of one of those.
As Iīm not a believer, like you suggest, Iīm open to change my mind, as soon as you bring me some evidence, as soon as I find that a certain metaphysical view has better arguments than atheism and agnosticism.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 08:25 PM |
|
|
Not to break in before Romana's reponse, but Lews, you raise a very important point about the limits of human perception. Our senses do limit us to perceiving only within a certain paradigm. (Here we use the word "paradigm" a lot to refer to the limits of a given experience that draws the edges of that experience for us, just like the edges of the paper for the two-dimensional beings in Planesworld. Good analogy.)
On the other hand, what do you think about the fact that they now say humans are only employing between 5 and 10 percent of their brains??? Is it possible that our worldly paradigm could grow with the employment of greater amount of the human brain?
(Personally you sound more like an agnostic than an atheist to me, Lews. My understanding of atheism is a person who definitely believes there is no "god," one who denies the existence of a god, while an agnostic does not believe any one thing necessarily but remains open to speculation.)
Which of course raises the question of what we mean by "god." Probably one of the things we all are saying about "religion" is that we perceive it to define something (god) that we do not think can be defined by us, as lowly humans who are so limited in their perception as we are, just like the two-dimensional beings in Lews' analogy. So Lews, if we are so limited in our perceptions as I agree that we are, then we cannot "know," in the same sense we know things about our material world, what lies beyond our dimensions, right? At least not using the same methodology as we use in "knowing" things about the material world...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 08:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
On the other hand, what do you think about the fact that they now say humans are only employing between 5 and 10 percent of their brains??? Is it possible that our worldly paradigm could grow with the employment of greater amount of the human brain?
That's complete bull. I don't know where this myth started, but it's just not true. This is one of those things that keeps getting repeated so many times that people assume it's true. It's the kind of statement that will set my neuroscience friends off on a rant.
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 09:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My understanding of atheism is a person who definitely believes there is no "god," one who denies the existence of a god
hehe..that just makes me smile
And Bort, how much of our brain are we generally using then?
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 09, 2003 11:50 PM |
|
|
|
Hard to say exactly. Brain imaging generally shows that just about the whole thing is being used. Not all at the same time, of course, since that would be a seizure, but nevertheless much more than 10%.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 12:29 AM |
|
|
Interesting bit of information bort. I had not known this was a legend until just now.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 12:44 AM |
|
|
Heck, I use so much of my head God gave me a second one to do my thinking for me.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 02:22 AM |
|
|
Too bad you use it for exess bagage like funny little anecdotes , not that I'm complaining . We just Love Oldtimer
And back to the discussion..How do you feel about the subject Oldtimer?
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 04:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Heck, I use so much of my head God gave me a second one to do my thinking for me.
ROFL
sorry, got nothing interesting to add to the discussion really... but this was one of the funniest posts here for a long time
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 09:48 AM |
|
|
Making Us Think
Quote:
(Undogmatic) atheism is not a belief, just like not-playing-tennis is not a sport. Itīs a non-belief.
You are almost as much atheist as I am, you probably donīt believe in the existence of Zeus, Allah, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The number of gods that you and me donīt believe in differs only by 1. Not that much of a difference, donīt you think so :;?
Great philosophical viewpoint and very objective thinking! It makes me want to go to my basement and dust off those philosophy books I always enjoyed reading, but never had the time to complete or fully comprehend because I was too young, too lazy, and my mind was too focused on the here-and-now. Looking at things from a different perspective (or from the eyes of another) sometimes is the best way to find out exactly what you are looking at. Excellent analogy, Lews, by the way.
Quote:
As Iīm not a believer, like you suggest, Iīm open to change my mind, as soon as you bring me some evidence, as soon as I find that a certain metaphysical view has better arguments than atheism and agnosticism.
We will all experience the truth at one point in our lives, but unfortunately, that one point is going to be when we die. As horrible as that may sound, that is just the fact-of-the-matter. Nothing in religion can prove the existence of a supreme being or afterlife, just like nothing in science can rule out the existence of those either. So I guess we will just have to sit back over the remainder of our lives trying to ponder this great, unaswerable question. Until that final day comes, I think I will enjoy searching again for this answer, however fruitless the search may become, because in the search for answers you usually end up findout out more about yourself and the world around you than the original answer for which you had been searching.
By the way, great posts by all on this topic, and in a very tactful and professional manner. Really makes you think, huh? Stay safe and stay cool.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 12:16 PM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker,
Quote:
have for eons sent their Missionaries into tribal territories first as a means of gaining a foothold, and the result has typically been ethnocide and assimilation
Yes, I thought of that, too, when I made my posting ... already gave me the suspicion that we are probably not in that much of a disagreement on the whole subject .
Quote:
On the other hand, there was just something about Jesus that I find more compelling than practically any single figure in history, except maybe Ghandi, whom I suspect was Jesus's half-brother or something. While I generally abhor the entrenched and mind-numbing aspects of Christianity in general, I think it was originally intended as an attempt to spread the influence of Jesus. I think it went awry, but I think the original intend was a good one.
Hmm, yes and no (IMO).
Yes, christianity in its origins, when it was following the teachings of Jesus, had very good ideas. Isnīt it ironic that the conservative republican Christian fundamentalists are both militarist and capitalist, while the biblical Jesus was clearly pacifist and communist to the most radical extend?
Still I must disagree with you, when you consider the biblical Jesus one of the greatest figures in history. While I donīt deny the good ideas that are in his teachings, his morals IMO are rather poor by todayīs standards. He does not only preach neighbourly love, he also threatens eternal torture for those who do not follow his teachings. Just hold on for a minute, and think about what it would be like, to be tortured for eternity. Itīs the worst, the cruelest threat imaginable, the most inhuman idea that I can think of.
And it is this idea that has been hammered into the consciences of countless generations.
All this applies to the biblical Jesus, as we hardly know anything about the historical one, we cannot even be sure that he existed. I think that he probably lived as a Jewish ethnocentric, who acted rebelliously against Rome, and that the story about the Jews being responsible for his death was made up so that the sect could gain popularity among Roman citizen. But I admit that all this is just speculation.
Fact on the other hand is, that hardly anything about the biblical Jesus is unique:
The cult of Asklepios existed 400-500 years BC. Like Jesus he was believed to be a godly, miracle healer, on his altars was written "soter" (= savior). Like Jesus he healed people by touching them with outstretched hand or finger.
The following is according to the theologist Carl Schneider, Iīll try to summarize and translate:
Like Jesus, the believe in his godliness was important for the healing to work, although sometimes both also healed unbelievers. Both healed blind men, and when those blind men were healed, all they could see at first was trees. Both healed lame men, who afterwards carried their litters away. Both made no difference between young and old, poor and rich, man and woman, slaves, friends and enemies. Both silenced storms. ... and more paralells, like an extremely large number of similarities in the stories where Jesus and Asklepios resurrected the dead.
Like the biblical Jesus,Herakles was said to be persecuted right after his birth by the reigning king, due to a prophecy that suggested he would become king. And like Jesus, he died with the words "it is finished". When Herakles died, the earth trembled and the sky darkened. Like Jesus, he had an ascension, and like Judas, the one who was guilty of Heraklesī death hanged himself. Alkmene, the mother of Herakles, was a virgin at his birth. Their stories are almost identical, brought on a large mountain where they could see the kingdoms of the world, tempted - which they resisted against, followed the mission of their godly father, walked over water, called "saviour", suffered alot and finally overbeared death.
Dionysos is the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. Like Jesus, he turned water into wine, and like Jesus he did that in the village Kana. Like jesus he demands from his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood - the sacrament of eucharisty was celebrated by the Dionysos cultists, too (only they ate raw meat instead of housels. Like Jesus he suffered, like Jesus he was crucified, like Jesus he stood up from the dead and left an open grave.
I could go on an tell you about the paralells to Buddha, the sun god Mithras, Pythagoras, Apollonius, ..., but I can imagine the bored faces already , so I rather make a stop here ... think Iīve made my point.
Quote:
"We are all relatives"
Iīm not sure, but I think according to modern science we are relatives to the baking yeast, too .
Quote:
... It was in this mindset in which the saying "Everything is knowable" arose. ...
Interesting what you write about the history of science, I didnīt know about that ... now I understand the point youīve made in your earlier posting .
Quote:
Personally you sound more like an agnostic than an atheist to me, Lews. My understanding of atheism is a person who definitely believes there is no "god," one who denies the existence of a god ...
Yes, Iīve heard that alot . But atheism doesnīt define itself like this. Atheism and agnosticism donīt exclude each other.
EDIT: As the definition I tried to make here was unprecise, and Iīm not going to spend my saturday night sitting here and formulating a new one in a foreign language , Iīll just quote a good one from the "Oracle of Reason" (Jacob Holyoake and Charles Southwell, who went into prison for publishing it in 1842):
The Oracle pursued a logical course of confuting theism, and leaving "a-theism" the negative result. It did not, in the absurd terms of common religious propaganda, "deny the existence of God." It affirmed that God was a term for an existence imagined by man in terms of his own personality and irreducible to any tenable definition. It did not even affirm that "there are no Gods"; it insisted that the onus of proof as to any God lay with the theist, who could give none compatible with his definitions.
Itīs a method often used by theologists, to build up a strawman of dogmatic atheism (which exists, just like jehovaīs witnesses exist in Christianity ) and then successfully demolish that strawman.
I considered myself an agnostic for a long time, until I found that you will hardly find an atheist who defines his view as you describe it - neither nowadays nor in the past centuries.
Quote:
Hard to say exactly. Brain imaging generally shows that just about the whole thing is being used. Not all at the same time, of course, since that would be a seizure, but nevertheless much more than 10%.
Thank you Bort, didnīt know that thatīs a myth, either .
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 01:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, christianity in its origins, when it was following the teachings of Jesus, had very good ideas. Isnīt it ironic that the conservative republican Christian fundamentalists are both militarist and capitalist, while the biblical Jesus was clearly pacifist and communist to the most radical extend?
Are you saying al Conservative Republicans are Christian Fundamentalists? That is a huge generalization. I know I'm not a Christian Fundamentalist. Those Christian Fundamentalists seem liberal to me, I don't remember the US ever following those beliefs as a whole. And that is what conservativism is, holding on the beliefs of old.
Correct me if I'm wrong, as though you wouldn't.
They are not a threat to the US anyway, there are liberals who pose a far greater threat to how we live. There is a group of liberal law makers in Mass. and they are trying to ban the symbol of the Minuteman. (Clivilian Militia during the American Revolution who could be ready at a minutes notice) They say it is Racist because it is white, but think how many Blacks and Hispanics lived in Mass. in the 1700's? I'd say close to none, certainly none in the militias. They say it is against gun control because he is holding a gun, and they say it is sexist because it is a man. It is one of the most rediculous things I have ever heard.
____________
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 01:55 PM |
|
|
Huh? You talking about atheism, while we've got a temple among the longest threads? Weird .
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 05:05 PM |
|
|
I just wanted to raise another subject for discussion.
We've all talked about the good forces in religion , but I haven't seen anyone mention the bad forces.
Lews you say Jesus threatened with eternal torture. I dun see it that way. I see it as a warning. Like you would warn a child not to get to close to the flames.
And if someone believes in God, shouldn't that person also believe in the Devil? Without evil good can't exist and vice versa.
Anyways ..just wanted to hear some opinions on that subject too.
And Lews..i been thinking about what you said about conscience, where you used the example of parent teaching their child to steal thus influencing it's conscience in a big way.
Maybe in some cases it works that way, but I myself find it hard to believe such a thing as conscience can be taught.
Basically it's the same as saying that every victim is a potential violater. Like to hear what you think about that also.
Furthermore, you know people whom have suffered a great deal, kicked a bad habit (like drugs, alcohol). I never heard any of those people saying : Atheism saved me!
LOL
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 10, 2003 06:06 PM |
|
|
Yes, Lews, I think it is ironic about the Christian influence in the Conservative American community. (Wolfman, I think you are taking our generalizations too boradly -- certainly there are secular conservatives as well, but there is also a very strong tie between the Conservative Community and the Fundamentalist Christian one.) As you (Lews) are probably referencing, that's what I was talking about when I said the whole war thing seemed theoretically hypocritical to me (but I think you also brought up the same point earlier).
Second, I dont's really study the bible or anything and I am sure you and practically anybody else has more direct knowledge of it than I. But was it not the old testament where all the hellfire threats turned up? Wasn't that practically non-existent in the New Testament? I have heard debates that suggest Jesus changed that whole aspect of the bible, (but apparently it didn't take overall since many Christian religions still harp on the hellfire stuff).
Third, yes, "We are all relations" even meaning the little yeasties as well
And Fourth, hell I forgot. Oh yeah -- Romana, it's your point about believing in god implying a belief in the devil. No, I would disagree with you on the one. Personally I am of a very strong feeling that there is a Creator Spirit working in all of us, as I said, as a uniting force. But the Devil, well I think that's rubbish. I think badnees comes when we stray from love and do hateful, separating things and that the Devil was just a device conjured up by the church and the like to keep the peasants in line.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 11, 2003 05:04 AM |
|
|
From what was said by Lews and the like, it seemed that he said all conservatives were Christian Fundamentalists.
Quote:
But was it not the old testament where all the hellfire threats turned up? Wasn't that practically non-existent in the New Testament?
Yes, I remembered that too, I was going to put that in my last post but got caught up in what I was talking about and I forgot. But yes, that is how it is.
____________
|
| |
|
|
