trvlr2
Muse
Yes, indeedy LW-really confusing- just repeat after me-I'm a xian. (over) (over)
Doesn't seem to be any really cohesive stuff-Possibly, due to the incohesive nature of the claims.
Why don't christians know more?
- Thread starter DRBUZZ0
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christians
Yes, indeedy LW-really confusing- just repeat after me-I'm a xian. (over) (over)
Doesn't seem to be any really cohesive stuff-Possibly, due to the incohesive nature of the claims.
The definitions posted use the term "disbelief." According to The American Heritage Dictionary, "disbelief" means:
That seems to apply to one who has no belief in the existence of god.
-Bri
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I can imagine somewhere on planet X a race so intelligent and so grounded in reality that they find satisfaction in the universe as it is and understand what they need to understand without resorting to faith. For them faith would be an aberration, or at least a quirk, and God a perverse and unnecessary contrivance. They would be natural atheists and a word for atheism would not be necessary. Terms denoting a sane and normal view of reality would be so devoid of cultural references to faith, and faith so inimical to the default view, that the word for a deist would be a "non-whatever," or an "a-saneviewoftheworldist."
However, since we're not on planet X, (at least I'm not - you'll have to speak for yourself), we're stuck with a language which defaults to faith and in which atheism requires an "opt-out." Non believer, disbeliever or atheist, the reality of our culture and education is that to be an atheist and admit it likely requires a conscious decision more akin to disbelief than the purer-sounding absence of belief, even though the distinction may have importance in your own understanding of your motives. Still the common language forces you to describe your position by negation, and ultimately the terms overlap so much that to worry too much about the distinction smacks of linguistic nitpicking or wishful thinking.
I must be from planet X, because I do indeed find satisfaction in the universe as it is, and have absolutely no desire to make firends with imaginary sky faries to wish away that which is perfectly explicable iny naturalistic terms.
Alareth
Philosopher
Many years ago when I was still in the Navy, a friend of mine and I were watching the "Merlin" miniseries the was NBC a while back.
Someone else came in and sat down. After a few minutes he announced that we should not be watching this because it was evil.
We asked him why and he told us that it was about magic and therefore evil, followed with the interjection, "You need to read the Bible, then you would understand."
We then engaged in debate with him about it, often quoting actual scripture to support our arguement against him. His sole defense seemed to be "You need to read the Bible." The fact we were quoting from the Bible seemed not to phase him in the slightest.
After about 30 minutes of this he finally admitted that he had in fact never read the Bible himself, and all knowledge about what was contained in it had been given to him by his grandmother.
Needless to say we reccommend he go read the Bible and then come back to continue the debate..
------------------------------
In areas of Louisiana (and I'm sure other parts of the world) you find some real old school Catholics who belive that it is a sin for anyone but a priest to read the Bible.
------------------------------
Recently I had a debate stemming from my statement that if the Bible truly the word of an Almighty God, it wouldn't be open to interpetation.
The person in question told me that the Bible wasn't open to interpetaion and that every person that reads it understands what is written the exact same way.
Of course he shied away from any discussion on why there are different Christian religions all claiming they are right or numerous translations of the Bible.
Someone else came in and sat down. After a few minutes he announced that we should not be watching this because it was evil.
We asked him why and he told us that it was about magic and therefore evil, followed with the interjection, "You need to read the Bible, then you would understand."
We then engaged in debate with him about it, often quoting actual scripture to support our arguement against him. His sole defense seemed to be "You need to read the Bible." The fact we were quoting from the Bible seemed not to phase him in the slightest.
After about 30 minutes of this he finally admitted that he had in fact never read the Bible himself, and all knowledge about what was contained in it had been given to him by his grandmother.
Needless to say we reccommend he go read the Bible and then come back to continue the debate..
------------------------------
In areas of Louisiana (and I'm sure other parts of the world) you find some real old school Catholics who belive that it is a sin for anyone but a priest to read the Bible.
------------------------------
Recently I had a debate stemming from my statement that if the Bible truly the word of an Almighty God, it wouldn't be open to interpetation.
The person in question told me that the Bible wasn't open to interpetaion and that every person that reads it understands what is written the exact same way.
Of course he shied away from any discussion on why there are different Christian religions all claiming they are right or numerous translations of the Bible.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
I have had so many people glow about that book--I found it trite and idiotic. The worst sin of all is--guess? Rape? Pedophilia? Torture? Murder? Warmongering? World destruction? Nah...It's (are you ready) PRIDE! I got that and many other equally enlightening morsels from that work of idiocy--but I suppose if you've been twisting the bible into stories of wonder--maybe it's easier to do it with a book written in the 40's (and though pride is bad, it's okay to feel giddy about killing others for your country according to C.S. Lewis--and men love to drink beer, smoke cigars, and hate.) I learned a lot. Christianity is a pretty scary religion. Plus it makes you stupid.
http://thebibleletter.com/
Ah C.S. Lewis, the guy who thinks that scientists are pure soul sucking evil who answer directly to Satan because knowing things about biochemistry is wrong! Seriously, he wrote a trilogy about it. It was the Reefer Madness of scientific inquiry.
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
What on earth are you talking about? Are you referring to Lewis's space trilogy? I have read it several times and the ONLY implication I got out of it about science is that science (like just about anything else) can be and has been used for evil and dangerous purposes. But I never understood him to be saying that science in and of itself is evil.
You might also remember (if it is indeed the space trilogy you have in mind) that it was FICTION.
Of course, if you're talking about something else, then...never mind.
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
I'm sure it was unintentional, but that's a false dichotomy. I think it's quite possible to not believe in god(s) in the same way that most people "believe" in gravity; that is to say, on the basis of existing evidence (or lack thereof), to think there is no god, but to be open to evidence to the contrary, while simultaneously considering it supremely unlikely that any such evidence will ever be uncovered. That goes beyond agnosticism, since one holds a stated position (and believes the nature of god is not unknowable), but falls short of being a position of utter conviction (so-called "strong" atheism).
Moreover, the conflict between theist and atheist hinges to very large extent on what one understands to be a "god." In many cases, the atheist allows the theist to set the criteria which an entity must meet to be considered a god, and then argues that the particular concept to which the theist subscribes fails to meet those criteria, as in, for instance, the old "Problem of Evil" conundrum. In such a case, the point is not necessarily that the entity in question does not exist, but that the entity does not make the cut to be considered a god. In effect, atheism is not so much about saying "I do not believe the entity to which you refer as 'God' exists," but rather "I do not believe the entity to which you refer as 'God' (if it exists at all) is a god, worthy worshipping and obeying."
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Or maybe the Spinal Tap of christian wing nut opinion on science. Do tell more about this trilogy of terror. I am up for a laugh.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Point taken on the first paragraph - there certainly are degrees of atheism, and "convinced" was probably too strong a word.
On the second, though, I would have said that if you accept some sort of god, whether or not it meets someone else's criteria, you're not really an atheist, even if your theist friends call you one. If you accept the existence of the thing your theist friends call God but say it isn't good enough to be your god, then I don't know what you'd call it, though it sounds a bit like gnosticism and it sounds a little dangerous too. I mean, if you were to decide that Jehovah actually exists as the bible says, but then say you can't worship such a botched-up half-assed excuse for a god, you have to reckon with the possibility that, God or not, he's going to treat you badly.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
On this same topic...my brother contends that the North Koreans are atheists, but this isn't true. They believe their leader was born of a god and, is therefore, a demi-god at least (sort of like Jesus even...their books say he was born under a star on a hill)--so that makes them theists. And all those who believe in prophets amongst the living or the dead must be theists too, I think...right?
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,092
I disagree. As I said--albeit perhaps not clearly enough--the (extremely provisional) acceptance of the existence of an entity does not equate to the acceptance of the notion that this entity is a god. It's not just a matter of whether or not I, personally, consider the entity worthy of worship, but whether there is any evidence to support the notion that the entity in question can and will punish me if I transgress its dictates.
By way of illustration:
Let me state for the record that it is not my intention to make light of the Holocaust. But if Yahweh actually existed as described in the Old Testament, one might reasonably have expected Him to have mounted some kind of intervention when the Nazis sought to wipe out--not merely enslave, but eradicate--His chosen people, right? But famously "the skies did not darken over Auschwitz." Look, if the guy can't smite a few thousand assorted krauts and collaborators when His chosen people need him most, what's he going to do to me? Besides, I'm 35, I've been an atheist since I first became aware of religion (at age 3, when the kid from the heavily Calvinist family next door told me about going to church, and after hearing her out I responded "So you go to this place and talk to some guy who isn't there? That's just stupid!"), and somehow I haven't incurred the wrath of Yahweh yet. Or if I have, nobody's noticed.
Sure, "but what about the afterlife?" I hear you cry. Problem is, if the Bible is anything to go by, Yahweh isn't content to wait until you die of natural causes to exact retribution. He sends some plague, or a brute squad of Jews with swords, or you get stoned with stones, or you just burst open or get turned into a pillar of salt or *****. So, evidently, if the entity referred to as Yahweh did exist, He obviously falls well short of the descriptions given in the Bible. And having established that some of those descriptions are bogus, why shouldn't we assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that all of them are, up to and including the very existence of the deity itself? What, Yahweh will smite us for suggesting it? He should, but somehow I predict this will not be my last post.
The same applies to every theistic concept of god ever created: when it comes to the crunch, they don't perform as advertised. At a minimum, this means they're not worth worshipping, but applying Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation for their failure to intervene on their followers' behalf is, very simply, that they don't exist.
All too often, I've seen a theist challenge an atheist to prove the non-existence of any kind of god, and when the atheist points out he can't prove a negative, the theist crows victory and claims his viewpoint is no less rational than the atheists's. Thing is, the theist tends to field a highly wishy-washy concept of god in the debate, which bears zero relation to the far more specific concept of god the theist actually believes (or professes to believe) in, said concept being demonstrably incompatible with reality. This is the sort of thing that gives rise to the formulation of the atheist position that "I may or may not disbelieve every concept of god, but I sure as hell don't believe in yours, all right?"
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I basically agree, except I'm a little more liberal in what I'd accept as qualifying as a god, or even a possible, speculative god, sufficiently to disqualify you as an atheist, but where you draw the line may just depend on whether or not you're comfortable labeling yourself an atheist. Theists have had the privilege not only of describing their god but of setting the definition to include perfection, omniscience, and the like. My inclination is to accept neither. In the prickly, endless and unrewarding debate over terms, and the question of how much of a word's meaning is "definition" and how much is "usage," I could argue, after all, that much of what most people claim to qualify a god as a god is mere usage, imosed by gangs of organized theists, and not necessary to the definition. Of course that may also just be a culturally induced reluctance on my part to plant myself so firmly in the atheist camp, despite my inability to muster up any kind of faith in the sort of god that most people mean when they say the word, At least in the old New England culture of my forefathers, there's a strong tradition of deism that kind of straddles the line, and gives rise itself to endless and unproductive debates about whose god is god enough. Of course, even deism has its strong and weak proponents, and the older I get the weaker the impulse becomes to bother even with that.
Of course you could point out that this is a cop-out and I'm adjusting definitions to suit myself, for which there is no defense.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
No good reason. It's cultural baggage.
You've completely misread Lewis. As he commented after the trilogy's publication, what humanity is up against in that story are "not scientists but officials". After the Nazis, Lewis was worried about the possibility of people in the future once more using scientific pretexts to carry out evil and inhumane agendas.
Lewis was very critical of scientism, of course, but so far as I know, never hostile to science or scientists as such.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I always wondered why the 25th, and not the Winter Solstice. I only recently learned that the 25th was chosen because, at the time it was chosen, it WAS the Winter Solstice. The Julian Calendar slipped a bit. The Mithraic celebrations were on the Winter Solstice and a Pope (Gregory the Great? I'm not certain.) encouraged Christians to adopt the date, keep the pagan elements, like fir trees, but rededicate it to Christ. At the time he did that, the solstice occurred on the 25th.
And the Easter Bunny is really a pagan fertility symbol. I quite fancy the idea of hoding Roman-style orgies to celebrate the coming of spring...