Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry so slow to respond.. I thought yours was a good post.. well worth getting back to.. but I seem to be over-subscribed to too many topics at the moment.

I haven’t read Greek myths since I was a kid.. so I don’t remember them that well anymore..

I enjoy scripture.. because I can relate to what it is saying.. which in short is.. the system we presently live under stinks. Our leaders are mostly acting like fools.. our system of justice is often unfair.. and biased towards the rich and powerful.. and organized religion is a con-trick that is being run like a business.. and is not even necessary.

However.. I try to take into account that atheists don’t believe any of this........... do they..?

A great deal of organized Christianity has little.. or nothing.. to do with the bible.. apart from that the book is against what they say and practice.

Try asking a Christian.. “What does the bible say that is good about organized religion.?”

If they are honest.. they can only reply.. “Nothing”




I can sympathize that in the States religious fundies are more in your face.. which causes a back-lash of atheism..

This is why the bible was written.. to tear down organized religion.. and its unrealistic beliefs and practices.. which still continue down to this day..

So it is safe to say.. “God is on your side”.. (the atheists).. in this sense.

In Europe we don’t see signs of O.R so much. The British are not very interested in organized religion.. our churches are almost empty.. and are being closed down. In the Netherlands.. it is rare to encounter a religious fundie as well. This seems to be more of an American problem….… All I can say is… God help you....




This why I am an anti-theist.. and why I am in disagreement with both theism.. and atheism.. because they are both disputing.. seriously.. whether mythological figures existed or not.

It sounds very strange.. to me.. to hear people saying they either believe.. or disbelieve.. gods exist.. in our time.

In the bible the writers speak of a knowledge of God.. not a belief that God exists..

They then go on to define God as being the spirit of loving kindness.. righteousness.. justice.. peace.. wisdom.. truth and freedom.. which is clearly a spirit that exists in human hearts and minds.......... not a deity.

In Buddhism the god concept is done away with altogether.. while in the bible.. it gets artfully redefined to being a spirit inside mankind…

We all have good and bad in us.. and the writers choose to express this using symbols.. like God.. and Devil. Our good and bad deeds “create us”.. they make us into the person we are.

Basically Buddhism and the bible say the same thing.. but in a different way.

As for the fundie christians being mad..

Most people are mad in one way or another.. it is impossible to live in this world and remain sane for long.

The way we are destroying our environment is madness.

The way we elect strangers to act like gods and to rule our lives is madness.

The fact that people go around attacking each other is madness.

And spending every day posting on WP is madness..

Need I continue.. ?

Everyone is mad in their own way..


If people are offended by hearing what is true.. then that is their problem..

---

“Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the
taking of offence is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.”

Ecclesiastes 7:9




Which is the point I’m making when I – provocatively maybe - claim the bible was written by atheists..

According to the definitions of an “atheist” given here.. this is true.

The writers themselves make it clear that the bible stories are symbolic.. cryptic riddles.. and have nothing to do with supernatural events (miracles).. or beings. One just needs to read carefully.

Many Christians seem to have poor reading comprehension though.. There are many who read the stories of Abraham.. Moses.. and Jesus.. as if they were history.. which is a grievous error.

They are symbolic accounts.. of what occurred spiritually.. meaning.. inside hearts and minds.

---

“For example, it is written that Abraham acquired two sons, one by the servant girl and one by the free woman; but the one born by the servant girl was actually born in the manner of the flesh, the other by the free woman through a promise.

These things stand for a symbolic drama; for these two women mean two covenants, the one from Mount Si'nai, which brings forth children for slavery, and which is Ha'gar. Now this Ha'gar means Si'nai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the world today, for she is in slavery. But the world above is free and she is our mother.”

Galatians 4:21

-

A newborn child couldn't be a "weak atheist" since s/he has no concept of what the word "god" is supposed to mean. The newborn child would need to know what the word "god" means, before s/he could decide on whether or not god exists and/or if they are an atheist or not. A newborn child could technically be considered a theological noncognitivist (Theological Noncognitivism). One could also say that the newborn is an ignostic.

Atheists have and may agree on what the concept of the word "god" is suppose to mean. A newborn child doesn't have hat understanding


I will have to agree. The atheists are starting to get extremely annoying. Especially the ones that seem to enjoy mocking people of the Christian faith

Who are you to say this?


A very insulting statement, insulting to Christians everywhere.

You are an upstart.

"And I will offend the heart of many peoples when I bring the
captives from you among the nations to lands that you have not
known.”

Ezekiel 32:9

-

There is no proof whatsoever to support these stories are a physical history.

However there is ample evidence that these stories are symbolic accounts of what was occuring spiritually.

--

”In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as they do also the rest of the scriptures, to their own destruction.”

2Peter 1.19

-


-

You fancy yourself some kind of prophet?

There seems to be the concept that an atheist must be a religion denyer. What then do you call someone who has no consciousness of religion and therefor no faith in religious beliefs?

If an atheist doesn not deny religion or religious concepts, can he still be called an atheist? The answer is no.

If an atheist doesn not deny religion or religious concepts, can he still be called an atheist? The answer is no.

If an atheist doesn not deny religion or religious concepts, can he still be called an atheist? The answer is no.

There it is three times and it seems somewhat confusing. Someone who doesn't not do something is someone who refrains from not doing something. Therefore he does that thing (I think). Therefor, you say, he denies religious concepts. But wouldn't that be an antitheist? Usually an "a" before an action indicates merely not that action. Asexual means without sex. It does not mean antisexual or against sex. Anonymous means not named. It does not mean anti- named. Therefore atheist should mean simply without religion, not against religion.

Semantics.

I don't even understand what it is you're trying to convince me of.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Merely pointing out the meaning of words which is, as you said, semantics. Nothing wrong with that.

How can you convert what he said into him calling himself a prophet? Accelerator pointed out above he's not religious, he's just saying that the stories of the bible are symbolic not actual events.

Too many neologisms. These terms are all variations of what is essentailly the same fundamental idea: lack of belief in gods.

^^
agreed.
I can't imagine why you feel the need to invent new words to avoid the legitimate use of the word 'atheist,' unless you are simply afraid of using that term and what it implies.

Exactly, that would be the case when trying to find what would actually fit better and make more sense, putting the atheism label to newborns as well to animals is quite absurd.


See what things atheist fundies come up with?

A newborn baby is neither christian, muslim or atheist, why corrupting an innocent child with such nonsense?