I’m a little late, but I don’t care. Tiribulus confess most closely to something that can be called a cult on this thread. You people interested in religion should all know this. Atheism may become a cult, who knows, but as it it isn’t. A cult is something that is done communally and that is against the grain of society. There is no community of atheists, maybe it is in the forming, we’ll see, but against the grain of society? Wasn’t the problem just that, the atheification of society? (Is that a word?, I don’t even dare to check it)
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Noticed a “stations of the cross” thing today. Story where Jesus carries the cross and falls three times.
Remember, this is the sonself of GOD, the omnipotent. He could make blind men see, raise men from the dead, come back from the dead himself, magically change water into wine, walk on water …
but carry a chunk of wood? Too fucking difficult. Can not handle.[/quote]
Hohoho.
Extending the above - I just don’t get the concept of a sacrifice when … well, when it doesn’t actually hurt/kill you since you are the son of god.
Sacrifice implies a loss of some sort. Where was god’s loss in all this? There wasn’t.[/quote]
Jesus Christ was both man and God (as he was born of a woman). Therefore, he felt pain, stress and all sorts of emotions. He even cried when he heard his friend Lazarus was dead - And he knew he could bring him back!
Some get this whole thing and some don’t so here’s what you could do:
Have a few of your good friends beat you relentlessly for a few days, spit on you, and insult you and then place a crown of thorns on your head. Make sure you ask them to shove that crown down nice and hard if you’re still able to talk. Then have them nail your hands and feet to a cross and you can hang there for a few hours. But unlike Christ, just before you die have them take you down. Then when you are all healed up, which will take quite a while, post back about your experience.
And keep in mind this was God doing this for us, so that through our belief in this great sacrifice we can live eternally in heaven. Now I know you guys don’t believe any of this but try to scrape up a modicum of tolerance for those of us who do. [/quote]
- Guilt trip them. It makes zero sense that someone made a sacrifice for your sins back before you existed (and thusly couldnt sin), but tell them someone died FOR THEIR SINS. Attack their sense of guilt, make them feel like they owe someone something.
This is why I’m as abusive with christians as I am. Jesus didn’t die for my sins, you saying so is just an attempt to manipulate me (and everyone else).
See, good people feel certian things when someone else makes a sacrifice for them (guilt, gratitude, etc). Good people admit when they dont know things.
These and other “good” qualities are exactly what christians pounce on in order to manipulate others. So I simply discard them. You believe in dumb shit and can go fuck yourselves. [/quote]
That was a nice display of hatred. But I’m not surprised I’m starting to think that the entire atheist movement is based on this type of stuff. Not many of you are actually happy in your non belief. The only time you even approach happiness is when you are trying to step on another persons faith.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, I do recognize that, but you’re not seeing it from my angle. Religion isn’t limited to deities, or formal religious groups. When there is an apparition, or a someone dies the Catholic Church sees if there is a cult around that apparition or person in part to determine if it is an apparition or if the person is a saint, at least canonically.[/quote]
As interesting as that is…
The point is that you can’t call atheism a cult. It’s pretty much the opposite of a cult. [/quote]
Every religious group has its own form of cult. The word itself derives from the Latin cultus, which means worship.
To tell me some Atheist don’t worship the theology of atheism is ridiculous, I see some of my classmates jizz in their pants every time they get the chance to say that God does not exist.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rich coming from someone who thought it was appropriate to bring my beliefs into an internet argument.
Who do you think you are to insult me because of my beliefs?[/quote]
Your religious beliefs are not the same as my mother. I don’t make remarks on your parents, you could at least try to extend the same courtesy.[/quote]
Well, my comment was never to insult your mother, my comment was to rib you about that you couldn’t convert your mother. Your mother being a Hindu has no effect on me, and shouldn’t be an insult to you or your mother. I hope that you see that I was not insulting your mother, just your lack of ability to convert.
Sorry if you felt I was insulting your mother.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
why do you deny the Church’s Authority? Do you think that two thousand years of thinking they have not got it right? >>>[/quote]I think they got it wronger the longer they went.
[/quote]
They that begs the question, what makes you think you got it right?[/quote]
Exactly what I’ve been asking in this thread. When you rely on faith instead of evidence, you have no valid reason for thinking you got it right, which is why there are so many deep disagreements in faith based religions. [/quote]
The reason why I know I have it right is because I know that the Church’s authority is true.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
I’m a little late, but I don’t care. Tiribulus confess most closely to something that can be called a cult on this thread. You people interested in religion should all know this. Atheism may become a cult, who knows, but as it it isn’t. A cult is something that is done communally and that is against the grain of society. There is no community of atheists, maybe it is in the forming, we’ll see, but against the grain of society? Wasn’t the problem just that, the atheification of society? (Is that a word?, I don’t even dare to check it)[/quote]
I’ll tell you this.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Cult: “A system or community of religious worship or ritual.” Every religious group has its own form of cult. The word itself derives from the Latin cultus, which means worship. It is the root of other words with positive connotations: culture, cultivation.
There is no community of atheists? http://www.atheists.org/
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, I do recognize that, but you’re not seeing it from my angle. Religion isn’t limited to deities, or formal religious groups. When there is an apparition, or a someone dies the Catholic Church sees if there is a cult around that apparition or person in part to determine if it is an apparition or if the person is a saint, at least canonically.[/quote]
As interesting as that is…
The point is that you can’t call atheism a cult. It’s pretty much the opposite of a cult. [/quote]
Every religious group has its own form of cult. The word itself derives from the Latin cultus, which means worship.
To tell me some Atheist don’t worship the theology of atheism is ridiculous, I see some of my classmates jizz in their pants every time they get the chance to say that God does not exist.[/quote]
Chris, there is no theology of atheism. What you see in your classmates is most likely an excited defense of their position.
The more you insist that atheists must be just replacing pieces of your cognitive structure with less suitable alternatives, the less you will actually understand atheists.
I understand atheists just fine. They don’t exist, no matter what sinful intellectual gymnastics they perform in their attempts to escape the living God. One more time. Romans 1:18-25 (ESV)
[quote]18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.[/quote]If nothing else were to come out of my time in these forums with all you folks, the blaring confirmation of this divine truth would be enough.
Tiribulus, if there were a black and white divide between atheists and believers as the scripture implies, that might be more palatable. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. The divisions even within Christianity are myriad, as we’ve seen even here in our small community. You’re not just pointing a finger at the evil atheists, but are turning full circle and condemning everyone, believer or not, who fails to echo your idiosynchratic beliefs. That says more about your narrow perspective than about the passage you cite, imho.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rich coming from someone who thought it was appropriate to bring my beliefs into an internet argument.
Who do you think you are to insult me because of my beliefs?[/quote]
Your religious beliefs are not the same as my mother. I don’t make remarks on your parents, you could at least try to extend the same courtesy.[/quote]
Well, my comment was never to insult your mother, my comment was to rib you about that you couldn’t convert your mother. Your mother being a Hindu has no effect on me, and shouldn’t be an insult to you or your mother. I hope that you see that I was not insulting your mother, just your lack of ability to convert.
Sorry if you felt I was insulting your mother.[/quote]
Why the hell would I convert my mother?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
I’m a little late, but I don’t care. Tiribulus confess most closely to something that can be called a cult on this thread. You people interested in religion should all know this. Atheism may become a cult, who knows, but as it it isn’t. A cult is something that is done communally and that is against the grain of society. There is no community of atheists, maybe it is in the forming, we’ll see, but against the grain of society? Wasn’t the problem just that, the atheification of society? (Is that a word?, I don’t even dare to check it)[/quote]
I’ll tell you this.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Cult: “A system or community of religious worship or ritual.” Every religious group has its own form of cult. The word itself derives from the Latin cultus, which means worship. It is the root of other words with positive connotations: culture, cultivation.
There is no community of atheists? http://www.atheists.org/
[/quote]
Chris, that’s a website. Sorry that I used the word community, it obviously sent you on wrong track. What I mean to say is that there is no community of atheists that can be called a cult and there will not likely ever be such a community, atheism alone is too weak for that. There is no reward or punishment, exept in getting reactions from believers. When believers are out the party is over.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]wfifer wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Odd… I posted a lengthy response to that video, and JSOZ hasn’t responded to it…, even though he has moved on with the thread.
On the assumption of our own existence, the veracity of our senses, and our ability to reason. There are essentially three ways that I am aware of, of treating these topics:
-
Work within the assumptions… because it is the best we have to work with. It is the most plausible scenario that our cognitive tools are both real and useful.
-
Seek out philosophical, spiritual, cognitive, etc… transcendence. This is obviously a popular trend in human history… more so in the Eastern traditions as it relates specifically to this topic.
-
Examine these things as thoroughly as possible from a scientific perspective. Penrose and Eccles (among others) have been examining the relationship between nerve impulse timing and our reaction times to stimulus… our brains’ treatment of disjointed visual stimulus, etc… There are a number of inconsistencies that may hold proofs to our consciousness, etc…
It is also entirely possible to trace the origins and evolution of cognition. To find comfort in this, though, requires that you be able to accept useful knowledge in stages. It’s not at all different from cosmology. At some point, you have to be able to accept the current level of progress in the field and work to build on it in reasonable steps… as opposed to demanding that an all-encompassing solution be available.
Demanding absolute knowledge is one way to wind up religious. [/quote]
Descartes tried to assume nothing and failed epically. You’ve separated “working within the assumptions” from the other two points…but isn’t it still a prerequisite for both? In any case, I intend to explore all avenues. Transcendence is a really interesting idea. So many ways to treat it, too.
Can you go into more detail about the third point (the “inconsistencies”)?[/quote]
Now that I think about it, there are actually a number of other possibilities… this topic has been in ht aback of my mind for a few days… thanks for reminding me. I suppose there could be a way to “transcend” cognition without first making the leaps in faith required by religion, spirituality, or mysticism.
This is a topic I have some interest in and may try to follow up on when I have the time.
Anyway, the last few chapters of About Time deal with the human brain’s interaction with the world around it… specifically its pace. As it stands, there is an inconsistency between the understood speed of nerve impulses and the “pace” at which we experience reality. Basically, we experience immediate interaction with stimuli, etc… but it may take as long as 6 seconds for the mind/body to actually react to them. That’s the more extreme end of the inconsistency, but there are clearly some gaps that we have trouble explaining.
It could come down to distributed functions, but the little bit I read was interesting.
[/quote]
I’m sure they have some way to figure that out, although my knee-jerk reaction is to say, "well how would you measure “experience?” I’m not really up on that science.
For the life of me I don’t understand why we don’t have a thread for just us non-religious folk. I don’t mind the faithful, it’s the dogmatic I’m concerned with.
[quote]wfifer wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]wfifer wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Odd… I posted a lengthy response to that video, and JSOZ hasn’t responded to it…, even though he has moved on with the thread.
On the assumption of our own existence, the veracity of our senses, and our ability to reason. There are essentially three ways that I am aware of, of treating these topics:
-
Work within the assumptions… because it is the best we have to work with. It is the most plausible scenario that our cognitive tools are both real and useful.
-
Seek out philosophical, spiritual, cognitive, etc… transcendence. This is obviously a popular trend in human history… more so in the Eastern traditions as it relates specifically to this topic.
-
Examine these things as thoroughly as possible from a scientific perspective. Penrose and Eccles (among others) have been examining the relationship between nerve impulse timing and our reaction times to stimulus… our brains’ treatment of disjointed visual stimulus, etc… There are a number of inconsistencies that may hold proofs to our consciousness, etc…
It is also entirely possible to trace the origins and evolution of cognition. To find comfort in this, though, requires that you be able to accept useful knowledge in stages. It’s not at all different from cosmology. At some point, you have to be able to accept the current level of progress in the field and work to build on it in reasonable steps… as opposed to demanding that an all-encompassing solution be available.
Demanding absolute knowledge is one way to wind up religious. [/quote]
Descartes tried to assume nothing and failed epically. You’ve separated “working within the assumptions” from the other two points…but isn’t it still a prerequisite for both? In any case, I intend to explore all avenues. Transcendence is a really interesting idea. So many ways to treat it, too.
Can you go into more detail about the third point (the “inconsistencies”)?[/quote]
Now that I think about it, there are actually a number of other possibilities… this topic has been in ht aback of my mind for a few days… thanks for reminding me. I suppose there could be a way to “transcend” cognition without first making the leaps in faith required by religion, spirituality, or mysticism.
This is a topic I have some interest in and may try to follow up on when I have the time.
Anyway, the last few chapters of About Time deal with the human brain’s interaction with the world around it… specifically its pace. As it stands, there is an inconsistency between the understood speed of nerve impulses and the “pace” at which we experience reality. Basically, we experience immediate interaction with stimuli, etc… but it may take as long as 6 seconds for the mind/body to actually react to them. That’s the more extreme end of the inconsistency, but there are clearly some gaps that we have trouble explaining.
It could come down to distributed functions, but the little bit I read was interesting.
[/quote]
I’m sure they have some way to figure that out, although my knee-jerk reaction is to say, "well how would you measure “experience?” I’m not really up on that science.
For the life of me I don’t understand why we don’t have a thread for just us non-religious folk. I don’t mind the faithful, it’s the dogmatic I’m concerned with.
[/quote]
Nor am I… Actually, I am VERY far from where I want to be on most science. It’s an interest that i did not develop until my early thirties, and now I’m looking to pursue it through at a minimum a bachelor’s degree. It’s never too late!
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, if there were a black and white divide between atheists and believers as the scripture implies, that might be more palatable. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. The divisions even within Christianity are myriad, as we’ve seen even here in our small community. You’re not just pointing a finger at the evil atheists, but are turning full circle and condemning everyone, believer or not, who fails to echo your idiosynchratic beliefs. That says more about your narrow perspective than about the passage you cite, imho.[/quote]
By your own definition you have an even more narrow perspective as you do not believe in God. At least all Christians have one thing in common.
2 Timothy 4:3:
"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. [b]For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears (lit., "itched as to the hearing") they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.[/b] As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry." (2 Timothy 4:1-5)
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, if there were a black and white divide between atheists and believers as the scripture implies, that might be more palatable. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. The divisions even within Christianity are myriad, as we’ve seen even here in our small community. You’re not just pointing a finger at the evil atheists, but are turning full circle and condemning everyone, believer or not, who fails to echo your idiosynchratic beliefs. That says more about your narrow perspective than about the passage you cite, imho.[/quote]Gimme an example of one of my idiosyncratic beliefs without which I declare someone lost. It is very telling though that you proclaim the once utterly mainstream, instantly recognized gospel of Jesus Christ “idiosyncratic”. I’m asking honestly. An example of an “idiosyncratic” doctrine or principle I have propounded as exposing the lostness or saved-ness of somebody please?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
why do you deny the Church’s Authority? Do you think that two thousand years of thinking they have not got it right? >>>[/quote]I think they got it wronger the longer they went.
[/quote]
They that begs the question, what makes you think you got it right?[/quote]
Exactly what I’ve been asking in this thread. When you rely on faith instead of evidence, you have no valid reason for thinking you got it right, which is why there are so many deep disagreements in faith based religions. [/quote]
The reason why I know I have it right is because I know that the Church’s authority is true.[/quote]
Ah, the obvious question game.
Religious folk purposely make dealing with them unnecessarily frustrating.
They answer questions with vague nonanswers. “I know I have it right because I know that the Church’s authority is true” tells the questioner nothing because it then begs the question “How do you know the Churches authority is true?”
Its like watching someone punch someone else and asking “Why did you punch that guy?”, only to have the person answer “Because I wanted to punch that guy!”. It doesnt answer the question, but puts another question-and-answer step to getting to the reason for the punching. The next question, obviously, is “Why did you want to punch that guy?”
But the Christians know this. They know that answering with vague nonanswers that only lead to other obvious questions is a stupid and pointless way to avoid actual discussion – but they HAVE to do this because otherwise they would be forced to admit they have no valid reason for their belief.
So the answer of why they believe as the do is because they are right, and the answer to why they are right is because of the churches authority, and the reason they believe in the churches authority is because the bible says so, and the reason they believe in the bible is because the bible is inerrant, and the reason they believe the bible is inerrant is because the bible was divinely inspired by god, and the reason they believe the bible was divinely inspired by god is because the bible says so.
So you have a long and frustrating series of questions and answers that amounts to “I believe the bible is right because the bible says so.” Bad and stupid logic and a lot of attempts to avoid admitting to the bad and stupid logic.
Also, Tirib and Chris, please dont even try to bring up the “The Church has been around for 2,000 years!”
Skeptics like me have been around long before christianity. They (I say they rather than we because I tend to group people positively rather than negatively) were calling bullshit on claims that the sun was being pulled across the sky by a chariot, that lightning was Zeus throwing bolts around, and that winter happened because some chick ate some seeds.
But, of course, people are much smarter now, they dont believe in those myths – they’ve replaced them with equally nonsensical ones.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1992/may1992p10_753.html
A little about the history of pre-bible Christianity.[/quote]
You should see my history section on the early Church and early Father’s. [/quote]
I’d love to take a gander if you wouldn’t mind.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, if there were a black and white divide between atheists and believers as the scripture implies, that might be more palatable. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. The divisions even within Christianity are myriad, as we’ve seen even here in our small community. You’re not just pointing a finger at the evil atheists, but are turning full circle and condemning everyone, believer or not, who fails to echo your idiosynchratic beliefs. That says more about your narrow perspective than about the passage you cite, imho.[/quote]Gimme an example of one of my idiosyncratic beliefs without which I declare someone lost. It is very telling though that you proclaim the once utterly mainstream, instantly recognized gospel of Jesus Christ “idiosyncratic”. I’m asking honestly. An example of an “idiosyncratic” doctrine or principle I have propounded as exposing the lostness or saved-ness of somebody please?
[/quote]
I’m referring to the numerous points of disagreement between you and other Christians, even within this one thread. You insist the Catholic church is corrupt, and others are equally convinced it is God’s holy church passed down from Peter. You claim that people are chosen by God to be saved or damned, by no will of their own, while other Christians affirm that you must voluntarily and proactively embrace Jesus in order to be saved. You insist good works are only a sign of faith, while other Christians believe that we must do everything we can to follow God’s will, and only then will the grace of Christ bridge the gap to heaven. You are convinced that homosexuality is a corruption that will keep people from heaven, while other Christians don’t care who people choose to love, as long as they accept Jesus as their Savior. You assert that true joy and peace are only possible for those that agree with your beliefs, and those that disagree will never know the same peace and joy. In short, you set yourself on a pedestal and insist that you know the REAL Christ, and anyone who claims to have a REAL relationship with Christ while disagreeing with your idiosynchratic interpretations, must be self-deluded spiritually dead zombies who are bound for hell.