atheists

[Paul98]

I would be wary of this kind of logic, because it leads to presupposing that all things called supernatural by someone cannot be natural; therefore they are not studied, therefore they cannot be shown to be natural. Many natural phenomena were once thought to be supernatural in origin, and it is far better to keep an open, but skeptical, mind, than it is to dismiss all supernatural events out of hand.

I don't think you understood my point, if ghosts exist then they can be studied and are not supernatural. If someone has good evidence of ghosts then they can be studied and are not supernatural.

 

[child of wonder]

I wish to clarify that I am not simply an atheist:



Jesus wore a crown of thorns

Jesus wore a halo

Jesus walked on water

Jesus is the most high god

Jesus is an anthropomorphism of the sun, which is why his artist depictions always look similar to this (face in front of the sun):

The signs of the Zodiac are represented multiple times in the bible. The following are just a few examples:



Face of a man = Aquarius "The Water Bearer"
Face of a lion = Leo "The Lion"
Face of an ox = Taurus "The Bull"
Face of an eagle = Scorpio "The Scorpion\Eagle"



Bread = Virgo "House of Bread" aka Bethlehem (literally translates to House of Bread)
Fish = Pisces "The Fishes"

The Age of Pisces began in 1AD. This is the time of Jesus. The Age of Aquarius (Neil Mann interpretation: begins AD 2150) is upon us, thus Jesus' time is up.

/anti-theist

A Freke and Gandy fan?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I think that if you looked at the facts as collected on wikipedia you would have a fuller understanding of the limited quality of the argument you just proffered.

The Historicity of Jesus
Your particular argument

The books of the Bible that focus on Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), they were written between 30 and 50 years after Jesus's supposed death. Why such a gap? Did the authors simply forget to write this down for a while, or did they just make this stuff up?

Pretty good . Keep at it,
The Anti-Christ Maybe 13th Zodiac, The true anti- christ being more than man.
OR

The 13th Zodiac Ophiuchus the only zodiac represented as MAN
Cold be THE ONE Its like THE ONE as the servant is tamed by him . Much like the staff of moses,

Interesting...

A Freke and Gandy fan?

Thanks for the recommendation.

 

[child of wonder]

Thanks for the recommendation.

Their earliest book "The Jesus Mysteries" is pretty eye opening but their later stuff like "Jesus and the Lost Goddess" and "The Laughing Jesus" starts to go off the deep end into pseudo New-Age minutia.

Still, I highly recommend "The Jesus Mysteries" to people who are unaware of the outright plagiarism the story of Jesus commits.

 

[bfdd]

The books of the Bible that focus on Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), they were written between 30 and 50 years after Jesus's supposed death. Why such a gap? Did the authors simply forget to write this down for a while, or did they just make this stuff up?



Interesting...



Thanks for the recommendation.

They were written after because the "early Christians" were mostly underground passing shit down by word of mouth. Same shit happened in Buddhism and we know more about the physical attributes of Buddha than we do any other religious figure. Not saying things couldn't have changed, but it's a pretty weak argument.

Again, I am not religious. I just don't see what the big deal is. I hate militant ideologues of all types.

 

[Olikan]

Jesus is an anthropomorphism of the sun, which is why his artist depictions always look similar to this (face in front of the sun):

Jesus was a real dude, a jew, who was a leader of the esseni*, he teached the esseni scholl to the jews, and it became more popular than the zealots scholl
*esseni is a latin name, idk in english

what's why...
for the esseni.... god is a peacefull guy (new testament)
for the zealots... god is a revange machine (old testament)


God, is the anthropomorphism of the sun...(or some men-killer animal)

all religions started like this...many "animal like gods", The god we know it, is probably a "war type god", like the nordic's thor...
the rest just became less popular and forgotten, because the jews were allways in war

 

[child of wonder]

They were written after because the "early Christians" were mostly underground passing shit down by word of mouth. Same shit happened in Buddhism and we know more about the physical attributes of Buddha than we do any other religious figure. Not saying things couldn't have changed, but it's a pretty weak argument.

Again, I am not religious. I just don't see what the big deal is. I hate militant ideologues of all types.

It's a legitimate criticism. The Bible records that Jesus performed incredible miracles and that at the time of his death immense spectacles occurred that were witnessed by many, many people. The Jews of the time had historians in the area but none of them bothered to record that the Earth shook, people rose from their graves, the great veil at the Jewish temple mysteriously tore, or that a 3 hour solar eclipse occurred. Phlegon is the earliest record of any of this but his writings come several decades after the events would have transpired and we only know of this through quotes of his work from much later.

The person "Jesus" probably existed and taught things contrary to standard Jewish dogma which eventually resulted in his betrayal and crucifixion. However, the extra-ordinary claims made in the Bible surrounding his life and death bear no evidence.

 

[bfdd]

Atheists also tend to support more socialist like ideals as well. The majority of them have substituted the "fake" God for one they consider "real" in Government. So instead of a faceless unaccountable entity living in the sky, they have a faceless unaccountable entity living on land. Deny it all you want, but I'm not the first to think this shit. Far greater more influential minds have stated similar.

 

[bfdd]

child of wonder, I disagree with it being legitimate criticism. Sorry. Many things throughout history were oral traditions for many years before being written down and this goes for parts of recorded history we view as just regular history. If we threw out everything that was written significantly after the fact we would have almost no idea of the ancient world. So again I reinterate, it is unfair to attack Christianity just for the fact their books were written later. If you want to attack Christianity for their books use the fact that someone actually sat down and discarded the majority of the Gospels and basically constructed the Bible as the stories "he saw fit". Not a God, but a mere man. Why would a God who had instructed so many to write so much, turn around and have most of it tossed out? Much better question.

 

[child of wonder]

child of wonder, I disagree with it being legitimate criticism. Sorry. Many things throughout history were oral traditions for many years before being written down and this goes for parts of recorded history we view as just regular history. If we threw out everything that was written significantly after the fact we would have almost no idea of the ancient world. So again I reinterate, it is unfair to attack Christianity just for the fact their books were written later. If you want to attack Christianity for their books use the fact that someone actually sat down and discarded the majority of the Gospels and basically constructed the Bible as the stories "he saw fit". Not a God, but a mere man. Why would a God who had instructed so many to write so much, turn around and have most of it tossed out? Much better question.

When it comes to the historicity of "Army So-and-so marched east" vs "marched west," I'd agree that we don't need to have the strictest of eye witness accounts to verify such a claim. However, when people claim "god made himself be born of a virgin, then he performed incredible miracles for thousands to see, then he was killed and the entire earth shook and the sun went dark, but he rose from the dead and floated into the heavens, and if you don't believe this you're going to be punished forever and ever and ever" then I think a higher burden of proof is required than someone stating 50 years after the fact "I think there was an earthquake 50 years ago."

 

[yh125d]

When it comes to the historicity of "Army So-and-so marched east" vs "marched west," I'd agree that we don't need to have the strictest of eye witness accounts to verify such a claim. However, when people claim "god made himself be born of a virgin, then he performed incredible miracles for thousands to see, then he was killed and the entire earth shook and the sun went dark, but he rose from the dead and floated into the heavens, and if you don't believe this you're going to be punished forever and ever and ever" then I think a higher burden of proof is required than someone stating 50 years after the fact "I think there was an earthquake 50 years ago."

Yeah but what you don't understand is that the fools who believe such fairy tales don't really have the intellectual capacity for that sort of rational thought.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This thread is full of so much fail -- particularly on the part of MotionMan, who I ordinarily hold in relatively high esteem.

Atheism is not anti-theism.

Atheism is not believing a god exists. Anti-theism is believing that a god does not exist. The distinction is precisely the difference between the statements "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X," -- the two are not equivalent.

Yes, there are anti-theist atheists, but there are also agnostic atheists (the majority, in fact). Please reflect on the following illustration:

 

[ShawnD1]

This thread is full of so much fail -- particularly on the part of MotionMan, who I ordinarily hold in relatively high esteem.

Atheism is not anti-theism.

Atheism is not believing a god exists. Anti-theism is believing that a god does not exist. The distinction is precisely the difference between the statements "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X," -- the two are not equivalent.

They are pretty much the same. I do not believe Kia vehicles are good; I believe they are shit until proven otherwise. If one is to take a negative position on something with no evidence of existence, then that would be the position of atheism - there is no god at this time because there is no evidence at this time.

believing there is a god until proven wrong - theism
believing there is no god until proven wrong - atheism
knowing there is a god - liar
knowing there is no god - liar
having no position in one direction or the other - agnosticism

I'm on the atheist side. I grew up Catholic, but I'm done with that. Over the years I've started to doubt everything, and I don't believe things until I see evidence. If some guy says he cured HIV, I assume he's lying until he has numbers to back him up. Someone a bit more religious minded might be more inclined to believe him to some extent before evidence is shown.

 

[MotionMan]

This thread is full of so much fail -- particularly on the part of MotionMan, who I ordinarily hold in relatively high esteem.

Atheism is not anti-theism.

Atheism is not believing a god exists. Anti-theism is believing that a god does not exist. The distinction is precisely the difference between the statements "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X," -- the two are not equivalent.

Yes, there are anti-theist atheists, but there are also agnostic atheists (the majority, in fact). Please reflect on the following illustration:

And none of that disputes my assertion that atheism is like a religion.

MotionMan

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived

 

[AnonymouseUser]

This thread is full of so much fail -- particularly on the part of MotionMan, who I ordinarily hold in relatively high esteem.

Atheism is not anti-theism.

Atheism is not believing a god exists. Anti-theism is believing that a god does not exist. The distinction is precisely the difference between the statements "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X," -- the two are not equivalent.

Yes, there are anti-theist atheists, but there are also agnostic atheists (the majority, in fact). Please reflect on the following illustration:

Actually, Anti-theism is:

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is dangerous or destructive. One example of this view is demonstrated in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), in which Christopher Hitchens writes: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

Basically, anti-theists believe in one fewer god than adherents to a religion do. Christians believe Islam and Judaism are harmful, Muslims believe Judaism and Christianity are harmful, etc., etc, ad nauseum. Anti-theists believe all of those are harmful. I should point out though, that if someone wishes to be spiritual I have no problem with that. It's only when they try to force their beliefs on others that I have a problem.

 

[destrekor]

And none of that disputes my assertion that atheism is like a religion.

MotionMan

it does entirely

Agnostic-atheism is most certainly not religious in any sense of the word. It is simply not acknowledging the entire concept, because you view the available information simply cannot provide a 100% certain resolution to the God question.

Gnostic-theism, you might argue, is more like a religion. It's an active denial, with an absolute conviction and ultimately a reliance on faith that the natural laws provides zero allowance for any such God as depicted by religions.
As noted earlier, it's essentially an anti-theist position, and one that relies on a good deal of faith that what we currently know now (and including what we will discover in the future, as we obviously don't know everything though some may even believe we do in fact know everything there is to know about the universe) allows a certainty in stating no God currently or has ever existed. To hold such a belief is arguably a full-blown religious belief - but still, it cannot be truly compared to organized religion. It's religious in nature, due to the inclusion of faith, but it can only be described as a loose religion (failing to come up with a proper distinction - not everything can be called a religion on the same level as the major theistic religions, so there must be distinction for an accurate picture).

I consider myself an agnostic-atheist, in that, I do currently view the world as devoid of a/any Deity/ies - but I cannot reasonably, with conviction, argue that God absolutely does not exist, that it is impossible, etc etc. I merely use available data to deduce it most unlikely a God of OT/NT stature actually exists - this includes the datum of man's history, both at the physiological and cultural layers. It's an educated, scientific argument that there is no God - but there is absolutely no faith, no conviction, that God(s) absolutely do not exist.
And there are many who use a similar Scientific-approach to the question, and use such an approach to argue/debate the existence - but you must accept that, unless they clearly position themselves as a Gnostic-Atheist, they are more or less approaching the debate in a scientific manner: i.e., they are not employing bias or belief, rather data as is available, and letting it speak for itself - they merely compile data from multiple sources and interpret it together.
Thus, that is not a religion, because they are holding certain convictions that data cannot ever manipulate (as opposed to the normal method: with new data, you adjust course - you don't put the blinders up or defend against).

Unlike Theistic religions, where the religious fall under both Gnostic and Agnostic-Theism, Atheists can only be grouped with the religious, by definition and in practice, if they Gnostic-Atheists.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And none of that disputes my assertion that atheism is like a religion.

Look, I'll say this once nicely, but if you don't start making the distinction between what something can be like and what something is like, you're quickly going to lose the considerable respect I previously held for you.

I will stipulate that there are atheists that behave with religious fervor in opposition to theism, but these are some atheists, not just atheists.

Moreover, theism isn't a religion. It is an attribute of many religions. In precisely the same way, atheism is not a religion. It is an attribute of some religions -- Mahayana Buddhism, for example.

There is no requirement for atheists to practice a particular religion, however, and it is not only possible, nor in fact astonishingly easy, but actually most common to find atheists that are not religious in any way whatsoever.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

They are pretty much the same.

Feel free to attempt a logical derivation of one from the other.

I do not believe Kia vehicles are good; I believe they are shit until proven otherwise. If one is to take a negative position on something with no evidence of existence, then that would be the position of atheism - there is no god at this time because there is no evidence at this time.

This may describe your atheism, but it does not describe mine.

believing there is a god until proven wrong - theism
believing there is no god until proven wrong - atheism
knowing there is a god - liar
knowing there is no god - liar
having no position in one direction or the other - agnosticism

The chart above explains why this is nonsense.

 

[destrekor]

Actually, Anti-theism is:



Basically, anti-theists believe in one fewer god than adherents to a religion do. Christians believe Islam and Judaism are harmful, Muslims believe Judaism and Christianity are harmful, etc., etc, ad nauseum. Anti-theists believe all of those are harmful. I should point out though, that if someone wishes to be spiritual I have no problem with that. It's only when they try to force their beliefs on others that I have a problem.

Let's expand on this, because it is crucial to the understanding of the fundamental viewpoints different people hold.

Anti-Theism is not Gnostic- or Agnostic-Atheism, not by definition. In practice, it can be found as a viewpoint many of either category hold close to the chest, but it is not exclusive.

Someone can actually hold a belief in a Deity, and still "practice" Anti-Theism.
One should be able to easily understand the someone might believe in a God (of any sort), yet also reach the conclusion that religion in of itself is dangerous and must be vanquished from mankind if we are to progress.

This is ultimately where we need to go, imho. People can have [a] personal God(s), but it should remain just that - no organization, no cultural distinctions, no group-based religious practices and holidays, etc etc. That is to say, religion is out of the public mind entirely, save for idle chitchat, drunken banter and musing. I thoroughly believe this is what mankind needs, along with a more unified global society (preferably, one with a "global government" that, at the minimum, provides equal representation and decision making for every individual territory. We're too tribal/territorial to truly maintain independent civilizations yet continue to interact with the global community at large. It's impossible to continue this approach while maintaining our fundamental human nature - one of them has to give if we're to truly make any further progress (and not regress), and I don't expect we'll defeat our genetics and behavior anytime soon.

Sorry to take this that direction, but it was to showcase the importance of accurate definitions and which ones are involved when arriving at certain deductions (or convictions).

The vast misinformation on Atheism is at the very heart of the average anti-Atheist bias and thus decides how some Theists view Atheists in such a negative light. It's greatly misunderstood, which is also holding back the progress of Enlightenment. :awe:

 

[Paul98]

There is also a problem the belief or disbelief in "God" is how do you define "God"? I can say for sure certain god's don't exist since they have been defined and can be shown to not exist. The problem is when you talk about the general "God" is what is this "God" I could say I am god and I exist so therefore I believe in god.

 

[destrekor]

There is also a problem the belief or disbelief in "God" is how do you define "God"? I can say for sure certain god's don't exist since they have been defined and can be shown to not exist. The problem is when you talk about the general "God" is what is this "God" I could say I am god and I exist so therefore I believe in god.

A God - in the religious context - is a Deity. You are not a Deity. Therefore, not a God.

Now, if you want to state you are a god, that is, a lesser god, you could. Say, for example, you wish to claim you are an Angel. Well there you are, you are now elevated to the status of a lesser god.

Or you could claim you are Jesus, and thus, a rebirth of a segment of the Holy Trinity, or in other words, the reincarnated "Face" of God. If this one, well... you're simply in need of a visit to the loony bin, like all the other "I am a supernatural being!" types.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Let's expand on this, because it is crucial to the understanding of the fundamental viewpoints different people hold.

Anti-Theism is not Gnostic- or Agnostic-Atheism, not by definition. In practice, it can be found as a viewpoint many of either category hold close to the chest, but it is not exclusive.

Someone can actually hold a belief in a Deity, and still "practice" Anti-Theism.
One should be able to easily understand the someone might believe in a God (of any sort), yet also reach the conclusion that religion in of itself is dangerous and must be vanquished from mankind if we are to progress.

This is ultimately where we need to go, imho. People can have [a] personal God(s), but it should remain just that - no organization, no cultural distinctions, no group-based religious practices and holidays, etc etc. That is to say, religion is out of the public mind entirely, save for idle chitchat, drunken banter and musing. I thoroughly believe this is what mankind needs, along with a more unified global society (preferably, one with a "global government" that, at the minimum, provides equal representation and decision making for every individual territory. We're too tribal/territorial to truly maintain independent civilizations yet continue to interact with the global community at large. It's impossible to continue this approach while maintaining our fundamental human nature - one of them has to give if we're to truly make any further progress (and not regress), and I don't expect we'll defeat our genetics and behavior anytime soon.

Sorry to take this that direction, but it was to showcase the importance of accurate definitions and which ones are involved when arriving at certain deductions (or convictions).

The vast misinformation on Atheism is at the very heart of the average anti-Atheist bias and thus decides how some Theists view Atheists in such a negative light. It's greatly misunderstood, which is also holding back the progress of Enlightenment. :awe:

Good points. A+ :thumbsup:

 

[Paul98]

A God - in the religious context - is a Deity. You are not a Deity. Therefore, not a God.

Now, if you want to state you are a god, that is, a lesser god, you could. Say, for example, you wish to claim you are an Angel. Well there you are, you are now elevated to the status of a lesser god.

Or you could claim you are Jesus, and thus, a rebirth of a segment of the Holy Trinity, or in other words, the reincarnated "Face" of God. If this one, well... you're simply in need of a visit to the loony bin, like all the other "I am a supernatural being!" types.

You totally missed the point.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I don't think you understood my point, if ghosts exist then they can be studied and are not supernatural. If someone has good evidence of ghosts then they can be studied and are not supernatural.

I know what you mean, but it's just a small stretch to get from what you mean to what I was pointing out. And moreover, it's an easy step to take when you're constantly bombarded by stupid hoaxes and uncritical accounts that turn out to be unsubstantiated.