|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted September 29, 2010 01:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Fair enough. It also says in the Lev bit, though, that:
20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
What if the Fritzl cult taught that this was one of those ancient teachings of the old testament that got run over by time, like the ones I quoted - or, rather, what if the Fritzl cult wasn't an Abrahamic one at all, and worshiped its own scripture that told them to reach salvation by raping and imprisoning their kids?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2010 11:47 AM |
|
|
the bible really says that?
I knew it is against homosexuality and adultery, but is it really sentenced to death?
moreover, I see nothing wrong with homosexuality. adultery is still a big problem, but the problem isn't adultery itself, it's possessiveness. because people think they own their wife/husband like they own a car, adultery is a problem.
I was laughing at Krishnamurti's sayings about mariage, basically it's like a contract allowing you to have a prostitute available for you and only you whenever you want  but it's exactly that, a contract which gives you the right to possess someone else.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 29, 2010 12:27 PM |
|
|
That's the Old Testament.
Weird stuff.
That's why Jesus came down, tried to update people's view of God and tell them they kinda missed the point, and got nailed to a wooden plank for it.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 01:30 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:34, 30 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
It also says in the Lev bit, though, that:
20:9 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
What if the Fritzl cult taught that this was one of those ancient teachings of the old testament that got run over by time, like the ones I quoted
Civil punishment for sin was for the Old Covenant nation of Israel. The church is not authorized to punish any sinner beyond disfellowshipping somoene who claims to be a Christian but who refuses to stop living a sinful life after being confronted several times about the issue.
Also it should be noted that Isreal did not seek out sinners to punish in other nations, the punishment was confined to those in the nation of Israel. Additionlly, children were not held accountable for the law-breaking until they reached a certain age of maturity.
A trial was also held at the city gates and there had to be at least two witnesses to the crime. If the person was found guilty the witnesses must cast the first stones then the remainder of the community joined in. False witness at a trial was a death penalty offense.
Quote:
- or, rather, what if the Fritzl cult wasn't an Abrahamic one at all, and worshiped its own scripture that told them to reach salvation by raping and imprisoning their kids?
The United States was founded by primarily Christians and the laws of the US are based on the Bible mainly. Rape is not acceptable in the US for any reason nor is locking your children away in a cellar for 20+ years.
On the other hand, the founding fathers specificly said the Constitution was made for a moral people and would not work otherwise.
You don't have the right to hurt another person in practicing your religin, that violates their rights. So you don't have a right to sacrifice your children to some pagan god or claim that some pagan god wants you to have sex with little boys (as was a common practice in Roman pagan temples.) A Muslim is free to be a Muslim but he is not free to kill non-Muslims or Muslims he thinks are not following the Qu'ran propherly.
@JJ
Quote:
It would certainly be interesting to know, Elodin, what exactly made you such an insufferable, preachy fanatic who drones endlessly on and on, always using the same devoid-of-sense words like mantras, always repeating the same unconnected, husks of sentences which are an insult for every normal human being who does not share your particular religious delusions, always bashing everyone not sharing your specific religious hell as atheists, Marxists, Communists, Liberals, loony tunes, never even bothering to answer the points... but I'm afraid it wouldn't make things less offensive.
It would be nice if you could learn how to present your case without insulting community members.
Anyways, I'm not the one who wants to interfere with the rights of others to practice their religion by forcing my religion on them. Like I said, you should learn to tolerate the rights of others to practice their religion. But certainly feel free to be an atheist evangelist if you wish but just don't think you have the right to use force to make others follow your religion.
Teach your own children your religion and lets others teach their children theirs. Liberty is much better than some loony government official trying to force everyone to follow his religion.
Quote:
We know studies AND have evidences of people who work for the church, (so they are at no means atheists!!) raping and molesting children.
Jesus said that anyone who does not follow his teachings is not his. We do know that child molesters quite often chose carreers that put them in close proximity to children. So some gay men who are pedophiles chose the profession of "priest."
I'm not Catholic but I don know the Catholic church (and the Bible) teach against homosexual activity and against rape. So Christianity can't be blamed for gay pedophiles raping little boys. I would surmise that in all likelyhood such men are in fact atheists. They certainly are not followers of Jesus Christ.
Quote:
You have any sources for your claims?
Clicky
Another traditional bastion of atheism has been the belief that religion is a form of psychological pathology. This view was promoted by Freud, and more recently by R. Stark & W. S. Bainbridge in their work, Theory of Religion. The traditional argument was that religion was both the result of neurosis, and the cause of further deterioration into neurosis.
Recently, however, these ideas have come under fire by medical and psychological research. The Mayo Clinic did an analysis of 850 mental health studies involving religious belief and involvement and found that mental health was positively affected by faith. [2]
Subsequently, 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions. For example, Psychologie Heute, a German journal, cites the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District because of "spiritual resources." [3]
Professor Vitz did a study of the most prominent professed atheists in the last 400 years; it appears that those individuals neither were nor are paragons of mental health, and that a disproportionate number had strained relationships with their fathers. [4] [5]
Some challenge Prof. Vitz's argument that the temperament of an atheist arises from a strained relationship with his father, without addressing the possibility that both the atheism and the strained paternal relationship may have stemmed from the child's native cantankerous and rebellious temperament.
As a result of these facts, many have become convinced that religion is psychologically beneficial, and that it is atheism which is both a cause and a result of mental illness.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577
Quote:
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303
Quote:
Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder.
I have good links about the subject on my other computer (I have posted them previously.) If I get the time tomorrow I will post them again.
As a side note (which will bring joy to JJ, no doubt) I will posting less for at least a couple of months. I got a call last week that a certain business opportunity oppened up for me. Being an etrepeneur evil capitalist pig I jumped on it. I have lots of work to do in expanding into another city my slave plantations and exploiting new workers with new job opportunities who are my slaves and whom I shall beat continuously as every good Christian does. I'm sure JJ will be happy to verify that. Additionally, as a good American I must take my turn terror bombing random cities in peaceful nations next month. The latest steath bomber is quite nice and fast so I should be able to take care of that while still beating an appropriate number of slaves personally. I can't let the plantation overseers have all the fun!
____________
Revelation
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 04:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As a result of these facts, many have become convinced that religion is psychologically beneficial, and that it is atheism which is both a cause and a result of mental illness.
No, the only conclusion one can possibly draw from those studies is that when it comes to preventing suicide and illness religion can be beneficial, not that atheism is destructive or a cause and a result of mental illness.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 05:20 AM |
|
|
Turning the discussion away from ancient Israel (though I'm sort of interested at what age of maturity was it allowed to stone a child), forbidding your child to undertake a blood transfusion can practically be regarded as hurting them by practicing your religion. Whether a sect claims to be Christian or not, I think it shouldn't have the right to do those things.
See, I have nothing against grown-ups declining medical aid to themselves, though I feel it's a sad waste of human life, but I think that at least the children should be kept away from those things until they grow up and are able to make their own decisions. Anyone who ever read any passage from the New Testament understands that the God that Jesus spoke of is kind and understanding enough to not have any problem with that.
My family's a Christian one, yet they not only never forced me to fast but even preferred I didn't do it, until I grew up enough. They thought that some things just shouldn't apply for children, especially since they're growing and need to eat as diversely and healthily as possible. And I consider neither them or myself less Christian for it.
I think a country claiming to be as free and civilized as America should battle religious fanaticism of that kind, and preventing medical aid to one's child for religious reasons is some truly heavy shyte. Words cannot describe how sorry I am for those kids who suffer needlessly from various illnesses, injuries and worse in the name of God; a spit in the face of every true Christian, in my opinion.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 09:13 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 09:16 AM |
|
|
Dear Elodin, since you opted for a moderate response this time, I'll answer you just as moderate.
I'll try again to explain a couple of things to you - it amounts to some really simply things.
Quote:
You don't have the right to hurt another person in practicing your religin, that violates their rights. So you don't have a right to sacrifice your children to some pagan god or claim that some pagan god wants you to have sex with little boys (as was a common practice in Roman pagan temples.) A Muslim is free to be a Muslim but he is not free to kill non-Muslims or Muslims he thinks are not following the Qu'ran propherly...
Anyways, I'm not the one who wants to interfere with the rights of others to practice their religion by forcing my religion on them. Like I said, you should learn to tolerate the rights of others to practice their religion. But certainly feel free to be an atheist evangelist if you wish but just don't think you have the right to use force to make others follow your religion.
Imagine this: I agree with your quote! EXACTLY SO!
And this includes ESPECIALLY children. And the TEACHING of children. It wouldn't do if PARENTS hurt no one and so on, practicing their religion, but taught their children to kill all infidels.
What is more - it's extremely difficult to teach someone that on one hand things are evil or godless and so on, but on the other hand to RESPECT those who do those things. Think gays. How difficult is it to teach a child that homosexuality is something that god doesn't want, that it's sin, that god will probably damn those people for all eternity - but that you have to respect those sinners? How difficult will that be to understand?
Lastly, since this is the issue here, parents cannot be allowed to kill their children because of their religious ideas. There is no difference in killing a child by rejecting a necessary blood transfusion due to a superstitious fear for the child's salvation or in killing a child themselves due to a superstitious fear the child was the anti-Christ... or about to do something that will cost the child it's salvation. It doesn't matter that no one can prove that the parents are wrong - you can always claim something that you cannot prove to be a lie, and you can always IMAGINE these things.
You can't expect people like doctors to throw away everything they work for, as soon as someone flashes the sign "religious belief".
NOR is a child able to fully understand the consequences of their actions in terms of life and death. Children are not supposed to think much about death. For children it's about LIFE, growing up, developing potential, experiencing things and LEARN.
THEN and only THEN ADULTS may make decisions concerning their own life that should be respected.
Which means ULTIMATELY, if you think about it, that it is WRONG to teach children that they have to reject a blood tranfusion in order to not endanger their salvation - it is wrong to confront them with such stuff, and a religion which ignores that, CANNOT be right (and if that religion was true, it would still be wrong as was the pertaining god).
If it IS right, that people are supposed to make THEIR own decisions about things, and if it IS right that younger children are not able to fully grasp things and make halfway informed decisions about things, then you have to conclude that all decisions OTHERS have to make for them for whatever reason have to be geared towards allowing them to make these decisions THEMSELVES sometime in the future. Letting a child die therefore cannot be right.
Lastly, something from personal experience. I wouldn't say I was an atheist, when my daughter was born - agnostic would describe it better, even though I was rather sure that certain gods would have been improbable to exist. My wife was certainly a theist, and when she wanted to baptise our daughter, I, after a not very long discussion conceded. My daughter, however, was not raised in ANY religios way, neither positive or negative, instead we answered all questions as best as we knew, ALWAYS pointing out that it was our opinion, that there was others, and that she should read stuff, inform herself and later make use of the internet and so on. My daughter started out Catholic (baptised so), but switched to Protestant later, while still in school. She took an interest in things herself.
She's a grown-up now, and while I'd describe her as a Christian she is neither Catholic nor Protestant since she disagrees with too many things in both. Still, she is against abortion, for example (except in cases of rape, as far as I know), and we disagree in a couple of other things - but that's not important.
What IS important is, that my daughter found her own way, not a wide boulevard, but a pretty meandering dirt road, but still, it's HERS.
Which is what matters. And which is what *I* am fighting for. Let the children be children, for God's sake, and don't believe in stupid stuff that would force you to sacrifice your children out of some superstitious fear.
As a PS, Elodin, see, the key to everything is moderation. That's what human life is all about, since humans ARE that way, neither good nor evil, fallible, imperfect, in-between. And when we attempt to leave the middlegrounds we should attempt so moderately; deliberately; carefully. Following that, it wouldn't matter much what system, what -ism, we had installed, capitalism, communism, feudalism and so on or what religion we followed, if any. Same is true for science, progress, change... too fast, and we may stumble and fall, too slow, and we may bog down and stall.
So I have no problem with you being a capitalist pig - I am one myself, I think.
But there is a limit for everything where to draw a line, and things are not either black or white
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 09:17 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 09:18, 30 Sep 2010.
|
@ Bixie's link
I've seen that before. It's the worst sort of science. It's not even science, it's just rubbish.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 01:01 PM |
|
|
That helmet is not only not a real argument, it's also creepy as hell.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 03:15 PM |
|
|
well, I thought it was interesting.
sorry to offend anyone.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 04:58 PM |
|
|
Nothing offensive about it. It's just creepy
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2010 07:56 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 20:01, 30 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
As a result of these facts, many have become convinced that religion is psychologically beneficial, and that it is atheism which is both a cause and a result of mental illness.
they are convinced, that doesn't make it the truth. lots of people are convinced of things which are likely to be false.
and I don't see the difference between being religious and being atheist, in both case it consists in believing in something that may be false.
and there are people who are religious and dangerous. you'll probably say such people aren't religious, but that's what they think anyway.
and it depends a lot on how you define mental illness.
I think a common definition of someone mentally ill is someone who have beliefs too differents from yours
Quote:
What is more - it's extremely difficult to teach someone that on one hand things are evil or godless and so on, but on the other hand to RESPECT those who do those things. Think gays. How difficult is it to teach a child that homosexuality is something that god doesn't want, that it's sin, that god will probably damn those people for all eternity - but that you have to respect those sinners? How difficult will that be to understand?
no one proved that God exists ==> problem solved
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2010 09:06 AM |
|
|
@ Fauch Quote:
and I don't see the difference between being religious and being atheist, in both case it consists in believing in something that may be false.
Think again, please. Not believing in the existance of something for which there is no tangible proof, is not the same as believing in something there is no tangible proof.
I mean, if people are fantasizing about something - say, a 6-headed Hydra - the fact that people's imagination creates this being has no effect on the ACTUAL existance of it. You can STILL safely say, such a being doesn't exist on Earth. You are not an A-Hydraist because of that.
Quote:
Quote:
What is more - it's extremely difficult to teach someone that on one hand things are evil or godless and so on, but on the other hand to RESPECT those who do those things. Think gays. How difficult is it to teach a child that homosexuality is something that god doesn't want, that it's sin, that god will probably damn those people for all eternity - but that you have to respect those sinners? How difficult will that be to understand?
no one proved that God exists ==> problem solved
Huh?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 01, 2010 01:27 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:28, 01 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
Think again, please. Not believing in the existance of something for which there is no tangible proof, is not the same as believing in something there is no tangible proof.
I mean, if people are fantasizing about something - say, a 6-headed Hydra - the fact that people's imagination creates this being has no effect on the ACTUAL existance of it. You can STILL safely say, such a being doesn't exist on Earth. You are not an A-Hydraist because of that.
It's not the same thing. Atheists tend to view God in his physical and material aspects, which are easier to discard. For example, they adore presenting him as "an invisible bearded man controlling our lives from the sky", and similar - they feel superior knowing such a thing probably doesn't exist and sprouting that argument whenever they get the chance. What they fail to realize are the philosophical aspects of the story. God is a hypothetical thing, concerned with the metaphysical aspect of reality, and various definitions of God given throughout the ages ensure that it's indeed a wide enough term, which may or may not be the root of reality - but most philosophers contemplating the subject reached the conclusion that reality, indeed, needs an idea such as God. They often reached logical and philosophical dead ends which made perfect sense with the introduction of God. For them and their level of knowledge, the chance of such a thing existing was greater than chance of the opposite. Things aren't that different today, as there haven't really been any groundbreaking inventions in philosophy and metaphysics since then - everyone became concerned with proving or disproving God with science.
Belief in God is not half as arbitrary and random as you may think, no matter how many pink unicorn and six headed hydra arguments one tosses at it. And the amount of faith required for belief or disbelief is indeed similar, with the exception of the atheist road being easier and requiring less thought (if God existed, of course it would take insane amounts of thinking to find that out for sure). If most atheists cared to look beyond their idea of what Christianity is, they'd probably understand how an intelligent person can still be a theist. But there is always quite enough quasi-Christians and other imbeciles giving radical atheists material for pointless discussions.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2010 02:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Think again, please. Not believing in the existance of something for which there is no tangible proof, is not the same as believing in something there is no tangible proof.
I mean, if people are fantasizing about something - say, a 6-headed Hydra - the fact that people's imagination creates this being has no effect on the ACTUAL existance of it. You can STILL safely say, such a being doesn't exist on Earth. You are not an A-Hydraist because of that.
It's not the same thing. Atheists tend to view God in his physical and material aspects, which are easier to discard. For example, they adore presenting him as "an invisible bearded man controlling our lives from the sky", and similar - they feel superior knowing such a thing probably doesn't exist and sprouting that argument whenever they get the chance. What they fail to realize are the philosophical aspects of the story. God is a hypothetical thing, concerned with the metaphysical aspect of reality, and various definitions of God given throughout the ages ensure that it's indeed a wide enough term, which may or may not be the root of reality - but most philosophers contemplating the subject reached the conclusion that reality, indeed, needs an idea such as God. They often reached logical and philosophical dead ends which made perfect sense with the introduction of God. For them and their level of knowledge, the chance of such a thing existing was greater than chance of the opposite. Things aren't that different today, as there haven't really been any groundbreaking inventions in philosophy and metaphysics since then - everyone became concerned with proving or disproving God with science.
Belief in God is not half as arbitrary and random as you may think, no matter how many pink unicorn and six headed hydra arguments one tosses at it. And the amount of faith required for belief or disbelief is indeed similar, with the exception of the atheist road being easier and requiring less thought (if God existed, of course it would take insane amounts of thinking to find that out for sure). If most atheists cared to look beyond their idea of what Christianity is, they'd probably understand how an intelligent person can still be a theist. But there is always quite enough quasi-Christians and other imbeciles giving radical atheists material for pointless discussions.
I'd say that you are mixing things up on one hand and are wrong on the other.
What philosophers do is trying to make a picture of things that is based on incomplete information, vague assumptions, unclear definitions and speculations. It is centred around a desire to find answers, purely with the force of thought, logic and ration. Whether SOME (not nearly all) find it necessary to introduce a god IDEA or not, is completely irrelevant - it's STILL speculation.
Second, the philosophic idea of one or more god-like forces, is completely different from the religious one, that worships a specific GOD, that is described, has doen speciofic things, said specific things and so on.
"Atheism" has a religiously defined meaning - you CAN believe in the existance of one or more "forces" and STILL be an atheist. Atheism is not the same thing as materialism (the philosophic materialism).
Atheism simply denies the existance of "known" (as in "described" by any known religion) gods. MATERIALISM is the active belief in that there is NOTHING else except "matter".
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted October 01, 2010 03:14 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:19, 01 Oct 2010.
|
Talk about mixing things up and unclear definitions...
You're mentioning speculation as an argument. Are you trying to say that claiming God doesn't exist - isn't speculation? Speculation is there to analyze possibilities, and it has reached the conclusion, in the works of numerous philosophers, that there is a high chance that God does exist (and often, indeed, that there is no chance he doesn't). Just like atheist thinkers concluded that there is a high chance that he doesn't. It's all about speculation.
What you were trying to say before is that atheists have more of a probability of being right than theists, which various thinkers and philosophers, through various ages, have deemed (and proven) wrong.
Secondly, I've never seen your definition of atheism anywhere. It's possible that I just never ran into it, but it still feels awkward, as any definition of an atheist I know of implies clearly and unambiguously that you can't be an atheist if you believe in the existence of anything that can be regarded as God.
Calling God a "force" and believing in him does not make someone an atheist. Even if it does, there are thousands of people who think the same and call themselves theists, so the division is completely pointless. Two same groups of people calling themselves different names.
Like I said, that's the problem with atheists arguing on the internet. They are, for some reason, incredibly frustrated by Abrahamic religions, and go a long way to disprove the Old Testament view of God; not actually disproving that there is a God.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2010 04:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What is more - it's extremely difficult to teach someone that on one hand things are evil or godless and so on, but on the other hand to RESPECT those who do those things. Think gays. How difficult is it to teach a child that homosexuality is something that god doesn't want, that it's sin, that god will probably damn those people for all eternity - but that you have to respect those sinners? How difficult will that be to understand?
Quote:
no one proved that God exists ==> problem solved
Huh?
if you can't prove that god exists, you can't prove he said such things. actually, even if you could prove he exists, that still wouldn't prove he said those things.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted October 01, 2010 04:19 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 19:12, 01 Oct 2010.
|
@ Bak
Tomato, tomahto... The Great Architect of the Universe has nothing to do with the god who bans blood transfusions. While a discussion on a demiurge between a gnostic or agnostic and an atheist would be infinitely more interesting (not to mention civil), I'm afraid it's off topic.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2010 04:32 PM |
|
|
Bak, you are completely mixing up definitions and throw things about that have nothing to do with each other.
Religions and their gods are strictly DEFINED.
Philosophers may be Christian and speak about the Christian god - or they my try to generalize things to "god" as a "concept".
However, god as a concept is ABSTRACT. God as a concept has nothing to do with religion at all - the name "god" is a bit awkward, with "god" being just nother name for everything missing to explain what is.
For example: would "god" - the philosophical one - be required to be STILL existing? Could "he" HAVE existed to start things over, but died, vanished, disappeard, dissolved and so on after that?
These questions, however, are irrelevant for the RELIGIOUS debate, since with religion you are not free to "reconstruct" the specific gods there. Because religion is NOT philosophy.
See, he angle is different. With religion you get: This is what happened ad this is how it is: a SPECIFIC god, a SPECIFIC history, a fixed story.
With philosophy ideas are analyzed (which is very difficult because language and logic has some pitfalls).
Now, the actual problem is that a belief in a specific religion or god is not the same thing than atheism in terms of belief, because RELIGION isn't based on logic, ration, or reason. It's just STORIES - not THAT different from Harry Potter. And there are differet stories, al of wich are supposed t be true. There is NOTHING whatsoever that would indicate the truth of any of those stories, but there is a wealth of things that indicate that these stories are just that.
And now, the main conclusion. ABSTRACTING from those different stories as in, "yeah, admittedly, actual religions look a bit silly, BUT there MIGHT be some being LIKE that somewhere around, is like saying, well the explanations suck, but there should be one, and it might very well be similar to what those religions hint at.
THAT, however, isn't a dramatic theory, right? It's actually nothing, snce it lacks any concrete definition.
What YOU term as Atheist, is in fact a materialist - materialists are people who believe there doesn't exist anything except matter (consequently there are no higher beings, no life after death and so on).
Atheists, however, are simply not buying the stories any religion tells.
There is a difference whether you buy a story as true or whether you actually don't. Not believing a story as true and real does't need belief in any way, because the story in itself never leaves the realm of imagination.
And before you start again about definitions of atheism ad how silly it is - define hat you mean when you say "God" (deus).
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
