Atheism-o-Phobia Part 3

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
821

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[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. [/quote]

All, I know is what I see. And, in order to argue against God you need theology, they aren’t arguing for a different God, just an absence of God, but still with theology.

822

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[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]

Try to convert everyone else.

823

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[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]

You’ll have to explain what you mean, before I go further then. It sounded like you meant atheism, then you meant not atheism, then you said there is no community, then say they are too weak because there is no reward and punishment.

824

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< 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. [/quote] By “idiosyncratic”, I assume you mean peculiar to myself or some very small novel group I associate myself with. So, I’ll try again. An example of one of MY “idiosyncratic” interpretations, the denial of which I take as exposing someone as lost. please?

825

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[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?”
[/quote]

Well, then ask the question. Don’t be a pansy and assume, I don’t have an answer. You’ll have to decide yourself, I’m sure you probably won’t take the time, because you “already” figure it out, but this is how (not a detailed or logical way, just the general way) I came to find that the Catholic Church was the true Church and Jesus is real and did tell the truth.

In secondary, I was studying history and came about the time of Jesus, I studied Jesus and what he said. I, as C.S. Lewis did, came to three conclusions: Jesus was a mad man, he was crazy, he was delusional to be saying what he was saying and he should have been locked up for such craziness, Jesus was a criminal, had a mindset of a thief himself, set him up to be crucified in the right spot, along two other thieves, one that happened to rob his family when he was a baby going to Egypt, or that Jesus was telling the truth, he was the truth, he was the savior, he didn’t deserve to die, he was here for my sins, he was the king, and I better follow his instructions.

I didn’t need Pavlov’s bet, I just needed to read more. So, I tried to find something more historically about history. Protestant sources weren’t too good, most of them were late 1600’s and older, I wanted triple digits, early triple digits at that.

So, I had a Protestant point me towards Augustine and Aquinas, but something peculiar, they weren’t Protestant in characteristically and surely not formally. No big deal, these were heavy hitters, people that people today still use. So, I study them, then I start studying the people in the foot notes of these guys, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Pope Clement, Irenaeus, and more.

I concluded that either Jesus was so brilliant that he could deceive some of the most intelligent people for two thousand years, people that people that don’t believe in God use their material…that would mean he would have to be mad man, no guy just being a bad apple for fun would invest that much time into deceiving people, then get killed for it and be forgiving of them.

So, I had two choices, either he was delusional or he was Truth. I already believed he was the Truth, but with this knowledge I needed. I needed to know the truth. Well, I knew there was a God, there had to be, I studied Aquinas five logical arguments for a God. I now needed to determine if Jesus was in fact God that he said, well I determined that in fact through the early Father’s that if Jesus was real he established the Catholic Church. So, I studied and looked for signs that Jesus was real. I sat still for a long time, just looking, studying the everything I could to figure out if all this stuff is real.

I started coming across modern day miracles, started reading about accounts of exorcisms, started reading about the nature of Jesus. Then I realised something, Jesus was a Jew. I knew this a long time ago, but never really sunk in. Just like Jesus started a Jew, but he knew it was wrong and recreated his Father’s religion. But reading Jesus’ words and actions, he didn’t think the Jewish religion was wrong, it wasn’t strict enough.

So, I wipe the slate clean, and if Jesus was in fact telling the truth, he would have fulfilled Jewish prophesies, the Catholic Church would have fulfilled Jewish Prophecies, and so would his Mother half to, I found out eventually.

I studied for a good six months, I picked up every book I could find on Jewish Prophecies and Jesus fulfillment of those prophecies. Well, I found something double fold interesting, 1) Protestants writings rarely take on the whole spectrum of Jewish Prophesies, 2) Jesus did fulfill Jewish Prophesies.

So, I needed proof that the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac was the real God. So, I went to a Rabbi, he explained to me the fact that continuously for thousands of years Jews have been around, in that time almost every civilization has tried to exterminate them, even their own brothers. That this fact was a telling of that the God of Abraham was the true God, then he used the five logical arguments to show that no other god claimed would be able to create the universe.

So, God of Abraham is true, Jesus is true, Jesus is the Son of the Father, Jesus is God, Jesus established the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has Authority, and with that Authority has protected man’s authority to reason.

826

Most of the examples I just listed are idiosyncratic. You might think that the majority of Christians share your interpretations on those points. They don’t.

Not that being in the minority makes your faith any less a guessing game than the faith of other Christians. The difference is that at least some of them accept that joy is possible for people that may see the world differently.

827

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[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]

This is only partial:

The Fathers know Best
Faith of the Early Fathers v. I, II, III
The Fathers of the Church
The Mass of the Early Christians
The Great Heresies
We Have A Pope: 2000 Years Of Preserving The Faith

Writings of:

Augustine
Hippolytus
Justin Martyr
Pope Clement I
Hegesippus
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Gregory the Wonderworker
Council of Nicaea I
The Long Ignatius
Jerome

828

[quote]forlife wrote:
Most of the examples I just listed are idiosyncratic. You might think that the majority of Christians share your interpretations on those points. They don’t.

Not that being in the minority makes your faith any less a guessing game than the faith of other Christians. The difference is that at least some of them accept that joy is possible for people that may see the world differently. [/quote]Can we start with one specific example? Something I’ve said without vaaaaast historical representation? I’m asking nicely.

829

Why can’t you pick one from my previous list?

Ok, how about your contention that Catholics are bound for hell if they embrace the doctrines of their church? You claim they aren’t Christ’s true church, but they insist they are, and can trace their authority back to Peter.

Your faith is no better or worse than theirs. They are as sincere as you are. And because by your own definition, faith is the absence of facts, neither of you can prove your beliefs are correct.

As I said, you condemn everyone who has a different biblical interpretation than you do. And there’s no objective support for doing so, because interpretation is inherently subjective. That is why faith is insufficient as a tool for discovering truth.

830

[quote]forlife wrote:
Why can’t you pick one from my previous list? >>>[/quote]You’re the one firing accusations. Go ahead.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Ok, how about your contention that Catholics are bound for hell if they embrace the doctrines of their church? You claim they aren’t Christ’s true church, but they insist they are, and can trace their authority back to Peter. Your faith is no better or worse than theirs. They are as sincere as you are. And because by your own definition, faith is the absence of facts, neither of you can prove your beliefs are correct. >>>[/quote]Oh, I’m disappointed. This is not what you said.[quote]forlife wrote:As I said, you condemn everyone who has a different biblical interpretation than you do. >>>[/quote]This is what you said, or sorta. So I’ll ask nicely once again. Give me one example of where I so much as hinted that some doctrine or principle “idiosyncratic” or peculiar to myself or a small group I associate with, lacking vaaaast historical representation has been used as evidence of someone’s present lost state… Please?[quote]forlife wrote:<<< And there’s no objective support for doing so, because interpretation is inherently subjective. That is why faith is insufficient as a tool for discovering truth. [/quote]Faith is the ONLY basis of ANY truth at all until somebody is born with comprehensive knowledge of everything. Oops, somebody already has been. Only problem is we ain’t Him so faith it remains.

831

Why do you keep acting as if idiosyncratic means only one person or a very small group can believe it? In the broad scope of Christian beliefs, those you have expressed here are idiosyncratic. Many, many Christians disagree vehemently with your particular interpretations of the bible. Ask Brother Chris and Pat if you want to argue that point.

Faith is no basis for any truth, for exactly the reasons I’ve expressed. The millions of devout Christians who disagree with you are just as faithful as you, but clearly their faith has produced contradictory beliefs. The logical conclusion is that faith is not a reliable source of actual facts.

You can proclaim your faith until you’re blue in the face, but that won’t change the actual facts. You can judge others according to your beliefs, but that won’t magically make your judgments come to pass.

Not that I think the faith of Brother Chris and Pat is based in fact any more than yours, but at least they are less judgmental than you.

832

[quote]forlife wrote:
Why do you keep acting as if idiosyncratic means only one person or a very small group can believe it? In the broad scope of Christian beliefs, those you have expressed here are idiosyncratic. Many, many Christians disagree vehemently with your particular interpretations of the bible. [/quote]

[quote]Definition of IDIOSYNCRASY (Merriam Webster)
1-a : a peculiarity of constitution or temperament : an individualizing characteristic or quality b : individual hypersensitiveness (as to a drug or food)
2-: characteristic peculiarity (as of temperament); broadly : eccentricity [/quote]You said this “As I said, you condemn everyone who has a different biblical interpretation than you do.” So, are you ready to recant this statement or are you ready to pretty please with sugar on top give me an example of one of MY idiosyncratic interpretations, one peculiar to myself or a small group I associate with, lacking vaaaast historical representation, whereby I have declared somebody under God’s present condemnation?

Maybe you were having a vocabulary fart with your use of the word “idiosyncratic”.? Maybe you’d rather just forget the whole thing because you know by now that I wouldn’t be persisting in this line of discourse were I not prepared to demonstrate vaaaast historical representation for every last doctrine and or principle I’ve ever posited in this regard thus rendering your charge of “idiosyncrasy”, meaning personal, of my own contrivance (don’t even try n deny this) wholly inaccurate and unfounded?

I said to IrishSteel 7 months ago and many times in so many words since, right here in these forums.:
“The life and death core of the gospel of Christ can be expressed in a few sentences shared by all true Christians of all ages regardless of denomination and individual doctrinal distinctions on lesser issues.”

I accept your apology.

833

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[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. [/quote]

All, I know is what I see. And, in order to argue against God you need theology, they aren’t arguing for a different God, just an absence of God, but still with theology.[/quote]

Chris, that doesn’t even begin to make sense. You can’t argue the absence of a god with theology… theology is the study of god, religion, spirituality, etc…

You need to accept that not everyone thinks like you.

834

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[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]

This is only partial:

The Fathers know Best
Faith of the Early Fathers v. I, II, III
The Fathers of the Church
The Mass of the Early Christians
The Great Heresies
We Have A Pope: 2000 Years Of Preserving The Faith

Writings of:

Augustine
Hippolytus
Justin Martyr
Pope Clement I
Hegesippus
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Gregory the Wonderworker
Council of Nicaea I
The Long Ignatius
Jerome[/quote]

Long list, but thanks. I feel so literarily lazy now :frowning: I don’t even know who half those people are on the person list. I’ll have to take a look at some of that.

835

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[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]

You’ll have to explain what you mean, before I go further then. It sounded like you meant atheism, then you meant not atheism, then you said there is no community, then say they are too weak because there is no reward and punishment.[/quote]

One can not meaningfully use the word cult in association with atheism. That’s all.

836

[quote]
Long list, but thanks. I feel so literarily lazy now :frowning: I don’t even know who half those people are on the person list. I’ll have to take a look at some of that.[/quote]

if you feel lazy, you should begin with Hegessipus writings. His works are lost, so it won’t take too much time.

837

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[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. [/quote]

All, I know is what I see. And, in order to argue against God you need theology, they aren’t arguing for a different God, just an absence of God, but still with theology.[/quote]

Chris, that doesn’t even begin to make sense. You can’t argue the absence of a god with theology… theology is the study of god, religion, spirituality, etc…

You need to accept that not everyone thinks like you.
[/quote]

I don’t think other people think like me, otherwise who would I have a debate against…your statement doesn’t make sense.

And, yes you can argue the absence of God with theology, theology does not presume that God exists.

838

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[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]

This is only partial:

The Fathers know Best
Faith of the Early Fathers v. I, II, III
The Fathers of the Church
The Mass of the Early Christians
The Great Heresies
We Have A Pope: 2000 Years Of Preserving The Faith

Writings of:

Augustine
Hippolytus
Justin Martyr
Pope Clement I
Hegesippus
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Gregory the Wonderworker
Council of Nicaea I
The Long Ignatius
Jerome[/quote]

Long list, but thanks. I feel so literarily lazy now :frowning: I don’t even know who half those people are on the person list. I’ll have to take a look at some of that. [/quote]

Don’t worry, most of the stuff I haven’t fully read. I think I have read all of the Summa and The Confessions. The rest, I do what I like to call the start and stop and who is that. I buy a book, read it until I come across something interesting by a person, buy that book, read the original book until the other book gets to my house, start reading that book, find something interesting, and the process starts all over. I have a bad habit.

839

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[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]

You’ll have to explain what you mean, before I go further then. It sounded like you meant atheism, then you meant not atheism, then you said there is no community, then say they are too weak because there is no reward and punishment.[/quote]

One can not meaningfully use the word cult in association with atheism. That’s all.[/quote]

Well, the militant atheists, I’d could meaningful say that. I mean some of their responses and objections are on the level of JW and Mormon’s (no offense guys, I just know what your going to say before you say it) rehearsed responses. Kind of creepy/annoying to hear the same argument from so many people, feels like they have their own evangelical center or something.

840

[quote]kamui wrote:

Yes, his works aren’t whole, but you can get copies of the fragments that we still have.