Atheists
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Returntosender
Well-Known Member
Returntosender
Well-Known Member
menotyou
bella amicizia
This is sad. These people need to get a life.
Atheist group demands Rhode Island city remove cross from atop war memorial | Fox News
Atheist group demands Rhode Island city remove cross from atop war memorial | Fox News
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
That's my hometown.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Returning to the astral influence of religious dogma and doctrine, What about the celestial influence of Isaiah 14's "son of the morning?"
wkmac
Well-Known Member
And more on the 3 Kings of Orion and the star Sirius.
And what about the ancient synagogue Beit Alpha from the Byzantine period with a complete Zodiac mosaic built into it's floor?
Even in judaism, the debate continues about the effects and influence of the Zodiac.
Even certain chrisitian sects and adherents are adopting the zodiac to further it's own evangelical agenda.
And what about the ancient synagogue Beit Alpha from the Byzantine period with a complete Zodiac mosaic built into it's floor?
Even in judaism, the debate continues about the effects and influence of the Zodiac.
Even certain chrisitian sects and adherents are adopting the zodiac to further it's own evangelical agenda.
I don't know about that, wk. C.S. Lewis was a noted atheist of the 20th century and his bood "Mere Christianity" is a very honest and analytical disection of Christianity that explains why he became a believer. However, not everyone questioning faith will have the analytical skills that Lewis posessed. If you have a day some time, read through it if you haven't already. I would be very interested to hear your views on it.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
First off, I think we'd both agree that to do Lewis justice, we'd need dozens of posts that each max'd out the character limit and still we'd not cover everything. As to Mere Christianity, I did skim it back in the 1980's so it's been quite some time but 2 points I do kinda remember. The first was that Lewis described christianity like a big hall or room and that the denominations were like hallways or corridors leading off the large hall. Obviously outside the hall is the world of disbelief which if I remember would include anyone not a christian. His goal was to get everyone in the great hall which is the Mere Christianity he spoke of. Problem is as I see it, there is no Mere Christianity to begin with. Get 100 christians in a room and start asking questions and it won't take long before the differences or contradictions arise and each one can be supported by various bible verses more often than not from different books and even testaments. Such differences could be holy spirit before or after salvation? Infant baptism or older age of decision baptims? Immersion or sprinkling? Rapture or we go through it all? Pre-millennial, post-millennial, amillennial? 666 is George Bush, Barrack Obama or was it Nero Ceasar? Was Mary outside original sin thanks to Immaculate Conception or was she just another woman picked from the crowd for a special purpose and once done she returned to pursue her average life? Of course we could go on but the point is, there is no Mere Christianity and I don't think there ever has been. Even the gospels themselves have their differences and contradictions just as on the one hand Paul tells us we have the law and then he tells us we don't. IMO Lewis should have left off the great hall and just stuck to the hallways or corridors and then he'd be close to having that part right.
The other part and this is not as clear (the years and memory) was his argument that because we have morality, there must be a god. In other words, he proposes, "there is no morality without god, we have morality so there is a god." In the case of Lewis, it takes the argument one step further making the claim that natural law of morality is proof that god did it. At one time, that explanation might have made sense but evolutionary anthropology and even biology suggests a morality arising out of need for mutual cooperation. We learned not to steal from one another because to do so risked the expending of energy and resources thus making for extra work. In hunter-gatherer societies, this became quite important for obvious reasons. Same could be said of murder because if we have to guard ourselves and our stuff all the time, going out and gathering becomes problematic to say the least. Lying came into play as trust became necessary in order to insure survival. Tribes and later communities understood how important trust was and therefore it emerged as a moral truth. But morals are still a part of our evolutionary process and slavery would be a good example of such. Most christians today balk when it's said that the bible provides for and even regulates slave ownership and regardless of objection, the bible clearly allows for slavery and was widely used 150 years ago in this country to justify it but ironically at the same time other christians were using other parts to argue against the practice. Over the last 150 years we once again morally evolved to now slave ownership regardless of the bible is considered morally wrong. The curse of Ham 150 years ago was a yoke hung on the neck of black society and culture and yet now so few consider that teaching as applicable if not downright BS. Again an evolution in moral understanding. What about the role and position of women? The bible considers women little more than property to the point that if a man rapes a non-betrothed virgin, the man pays the father 50 sheckels and takes the girl for wife, never to divorce her. Now such barbaric ideas were rejected long ago but again this proves an evolution in moral beliefs.
For morality to be a natural law written by god on the hearts of all men, seems to me that law would be fixed and never changing because god is perfect, therefore his law is perfect. Change would suggest imperfection seeking perfection, therefore this can't be an action of god. I'll also add in concluding this point that Lewis' stance of we have morality so there is a god argument IMO is a kind of "god of the gaps" argument.
Another point I'd like to address is that "Lewis was atheist but is now christian" argument. First off, I consider this as nothing more than an appeal to authority in that Lewis because he was an atheist but now a christian is in itself to have standing of credibility. If that's the case why stop there. What about my neighbor who for her entire life was atheist and yet when her son was born, it didn't look good at all and yet her son lived and is now a 23 year old graduate college student. Doctors told her that her son was a miracle and the event was so powerful, she concluded there was a god and after retiring she just finished her Ph'd in divinity and religious studies and yes she loves to discuss religion and religious history with me while she and my wife kill a pitcher of Mimosa cocktails. She's not a literalist and observes just as much value in Allah, Yahweh, Jesus or any other god because she sees all religious belief as the same god just expressed in different ways based on culture.
But if Lewis and my neighbor are evidence of proof then how do you square that proof in the growing numbers of clergy who are joining the Clergy Project or the likes of Dan Barker who is a noted christian musician and preacher now an atheist and founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. What about Seth Andrews who for years was a christian broadcaster having come from a family of christian preachers whose now an atheist and created one of the best atheist websites on the web in "The Thinking Atheist." What about Professor Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies University North Carolina Chapel Hill who studied at Moody Bible Institute, was a preacher who got his Ph'd at Princeton, written numerous book on the New Testament and yet is an admitted agnostic? Or John Shelby Spong, Episcopal bishop who has called for a fundamental change in christianity completely away from theism? And what about Michael Aus who just 3 weeks ago came out publicly on network TV about his departing belief.
If we want to go down that road, fine but does it really mean a whole lot at the end of the day? I do agree with Mike Aus that most people do not read the bible and I highly recommend all christians read the bible cover to cover. I did that starting in the mid-80's and like Mike I began to jettison doctrines and by the early 90's I was done with belief but it was another 10 years before I finally came to grips with where I was at. Mike is also right in that christianity has great appeal for it's community spirit and I honestly believe this is one aspect or legacy of christianity that be maintained and even encouraged. And the lady in the video who makes the point about Robert G. Ingersoll, she is absolutely right. His "Some Mistakes of Moses" is a great read.
I'll conclude this here and I have no expectation that I'll convince you from what you believe and in fact if you've yet to read your bible cover to cover I don't want to nor I doubt I could. As I've already said, ever christian should read their bible cover to cover making detailed notes. Doing so may not make you an atheist but it will cause you to read and ponder the many contradictions and problems found within it's pages.
I will assume from your response that the back pain has been alleviated? Praise God!
You are right that disecting Lewis would be a daunting task. But I am not suggesting that Lewis' conversion means anything in and of itself. I simply find the analytical nature of the conversion interesting.
To go from atheist to believer by in depth analysis opens up the honest possibility that further analysis would lead the individual back to non-belief and there is nothing wrong with that. But that analysis has to be concise, honest, and thorough. There is nothing easy or flippant about it. If, for instance, there is something that challenges my faith, is faith easily thrown away or do I reexamine what the church actually teaches? Believe it or not, often there is a vast difference. What if I "ask of it in the Lords name" but do not receive it? Is this proof of God's nonexistence? Of course not, but I think many fail to adopt a maturity of faith to accept that fact.
The one thing I don't understand about people who become non believers is what they believed in the first place. How do these very learned people lose something that seemed so at their core? I venture that Lewis speaks of this when he speaks of the "sin" of Pride. These people have come to believe in their own knowledge, in their own wealth of experience and determined the quest over. There is no wonder, no majesty, no mystery that they cannot explain away. They still have faith, but it has been redirected toward their own brilliance. It's not a failing that I or any other human shouldn't be able to see in our own lives but we so prefer to ascribe it to "them" instead.
You are right that disecting Lewis would be a daunting task. But I am not suggesting that Lewis' conversion means anything in and of itself. I simply find the analytical nature of the conversion interesting.
To go from atheist to believer by in depth analysis opens up the honest possibility that further analysis would lead the individual back to non-belief and there is nothing wrong with that. But that analysis has to be concise, honest, and thorough. There is nothing easy or flippant about it. If, for instance, there is something that challenges my faith, is faith easily thrown away or do I reexamine what the church actually teaches? Believe it or not, often there is a vast difference. What if I "ask of it in the Lords name" but do not receive it? Is this proof of God's nonexistence? Of course not, but I think many fail to adopt a maturity of faith to accept that fact.
The one thing I don't understand about people who become non believers is what they believed in the first place. How do these very learned people lose something that seemed so at their core? I venture that Lewis speaks of this when he speaks of the "sin" of Pride. These people have come to believe in their own knowledge, in their own wealth of experience and determined the quest over. There is no wonder, no majesty, no mystery that they cannot explain away. They still have faith, but it has been redirected toward their own brilliance. It's not a failing that I or any other human shouldn't be able to see in our own lives but we so prefer to ascribe it to "them" instead.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I will assume from your response that the back pain has been alleviated? Praise God!
You are right that disecting Lewis would be a daunting task. But I am not suggesting that Lewis' conversion means anything in and of itself. I simply find the analytical nature of the conversion interesting.
To go from atheist to believer by in depth analysis opens up the honest possibility that further analysis would lead the individual back to non-belief and there is nothing wrong with that. But that analysis has to be concise, honest, and thorough. There is nothing easy or flippant about it. If, for instance, there is something that challenges my faith, is faith easily thrown away or do I reexamine what the church actually teaches? Believe it or not, often there is a vast difference. What if I "ask of it in the Lords name" but do not receive it? Is this proof of God's nonexistence? Of course not, but I think many fail to adopt a maturity of faith to accept that fact.
The one thing I don't understand about people who become non believers is what they believed in the first place. How do these very learned people lose something that seemed so at their core? I venture that Lewis speaks of this when he speaks of the "sin" of Pride. These people have come to believe in their own knowledge, in their own wealth of experience and determined the quest over. There is no wonder, no majesty, no mystery that they cannot explain away. They still have faith, but it has been redirected toward their own brilliance. It's not a failing that I or any other human shouldn't be able to see in our own lives but we so prefer to ascribe it to "them" instead.
As to the back pain, the cause is a sprained hip and I have a very high threshold for pain but I can tell you that this hurts. I was doing really good yesterday and then last night I slept wrong (we think the root cause is mattress related) and this morning it was not good. Just got back from the doctor and I was hoping to go back to work Monday but that is now on hold. Likely mid-week at this point. My daughter is traveling doing some music gigs so I'm going to sleep on her bed (very firm mattress) and see how that works. If it does, we or at least my wife is off to buy a new mattress tomorrow. Problem is our mattress is custom made, my long legs hang off standard length King so how quick but we are going direct to the maker so hopefully in a couple of days. Appreciate the thoughts.
There is much to which I could respond here but I think the first order would be to answer why and how a believing christian could or would ever abandon faith? How can that process ever occur beyond "sinful pride"? My own journey took 2 decades and didn't happen all at once but like Mike Aus pointed out, the layers and layers began to become peeled away until very little was left. I could tell you the process but 2 decades worth would take time. Since what you asked about is how could such happen and what is the process, I'd suggest the documentary, "Why I Am No Longer A Christian" which I found at the Top Documentary Films website. It is over 3 hours long but broken up into YouTube segments, it makes for easy watching and then stopping to come back later and pick up should you choose too. At the very least, watch the first 2 segments which total less than 10 minutes where Chris talks about his christian life and the fact that he was a christian and Chris also gives this life deep respect. This video series is about him and not about what you or anyone else should believe as true. If you really want to know how a christian goes from A to B and rationalizes or resolves it, this documentary film which BTW is not completed yet will give you a good idea of how that process might work.
I certainly mean no offense. It is simply that with the vastness of what is to know of religion, God, a "power greater than ourselves" and when the scientific universe will confess point blank the limits of what we have discovered in only the last two decades, how does one stop questioning and begin attacking?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
If I were you I wouldn't bring this subject up at the wedding.
I won't because it would be a one way conversation. A questioning agnostic is fascinating. A nonquestioning christian is a pathetic bore.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
No offense taken. I actually believe these conversations of benefit for a variety of reasons beyond the obvious. Attacking? Hmmm. Interesting in how you see that. If a christian began to express his understanding to me, for example he/she shares his/her testimony, I don't consider that an attack. An atheist comes along to share what he/she understands and now it is an attack?
BTW: If a salesman comes to the door and proclaims he has the next great product of mankind, is it up to you, the customer, to disprove the product for it's claims with evidence or is it up to the salesman to prove with evidence for what he claims of his product?
But would you buy that product if the salesman belittled you because you lacked faith and are just too prideful to buy the product on his word only like so many of his other customers? Why would it be wrong to read the owners manual and upon finding errors, to then point them out and then if enough errors accumulated to disprove the claims of the product to then abandon said product and in the interest of consumer information to make that knowledge known so others can consider that information for themselves?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
In that context I completely understand and that is an excellent question. Each person is going to be different and have different circumstances upon which he/she will react. Some people even keep it quite out of fear from rejection by family, friends, etc. and just live in silence. I think there are a lot more of those people than one realizes. And the same question in opposite can be asked of christians, who do so many christians not go forth and proselytize when the great commission speaks otherwise? I think a lot of that is personality, shyness if you will so again it's just people being people. If you watch the first few segments of the documentary I linked, some of that question you posed might get answered or at least some light shined on it.
As to this topic here in this place, the initial discussion as it were began over the discussion of evolution verses creationism and for the life of me now I don't remember the thread title. May have been "Sharkline Baby Blanket knitting" as we have a bad habit of going way off topic in any given thread after a page or 2. OK I was being funny but I don't remember the thread. And then Moreluck starts an Atheist thread so at that point I figure she threw down the gate so I figure why not.
As for me, mid 80's after reading, tracing the greek and hebrew and a lot of history digging, the first doctrines that begin to fall were the Trinity, burning hell, devil, then eternal life (greek aeonian means "of an age" and not eternal) and with that heaven and then the kicker, Jesus is just a mere man. This all took place over about a 5 year period and by the early 90's I was at least done with organized religion. For the next 10 years, did a lot of reading not just about the details of the bible but also archeological evidence as well as historical evidence of other religions and their belief systems. About 2005' I finally had the courage at least to myself to admit not what I'd become but in fact what I'd been for the last 10 years or so. At first like most it was hard and even still there are times it's tough. You don't spend what is nearly 40 years in a life, abandon it and not had to deal with residue.
There are some atheists who claim that a Jesus never existed as a historical figure and I'm not prepared to make that leap. That claim may be true, I'm just not prepared to go there yet. The bible narrative of Jesus as we know it IMO however did not exist but I think it possible that there may have been several individuals over a hundred or more year period who were seen as messiah like to various jewish sects and community areas. Over the years those varying traditions may have found themselves married into one and then over the next 500 to 1000 years the Jesus narrative we know today would take shape. Don't forget, the gospel of Mark is the first known gospel to exist and it's suggested to have been written around 70 CE and John was the last to have been written and suggested around 100 CE and make note that no original source documents exists but rather copies of copies of copies from later periods. Even John as the author of the gospel John emerged as a tradition in the 2nd century so there is no definite proof of this gospel being written by John and serious questions of authorship are also out there in regards to the other gospels so if authorship is in question, what might this say about the text itself? And what of the gospels excluded from the cannon, many that contradict accepted gospels? What do we say here? BTW, ever read Paul and wonder why he appears at times so different for the gospels? Would it matter in historical timeline and context if Paul's writings appeared on the scene several decades before the gospels even existed?
Let me share another interesting tidbit about me. I'm the only one in my family who is an admitted atheist or atheist period. My wife has jettisoned many doctrines and organized religion but she still holds onto some aspects of belief and I'm cool with that. My middle daughter who is a guitarist does go to church regular as she plays in the church band and is a visiting guitarist at another church and I completely support her and a few months ago even went to church to watch her play. None of my other kids do church and they hold varying christian beliefs of their own. The step I took towards disbelief is my journey and mine alone. Their journey will require them to seek their own understanding and whatever that is I support them. Non-force libertarian even with my wife and kids I am. LOL!
And let's deal with what the term atheist means to begin with. Non belief in god but in atheist circles there is a greater debate in that there is a strong atheism and a weak atheism. The strong atheism means there is no god nor can there ever be a god under any circumstances. Big problem, to hold that position would make one omniscient (all knowing, you'd have to be to know that as absolute fact) and therefore one who holds such is a god (omniscient being a character trait as proof of god's existence) thus negates one atheism as being true. Weak atheism or what some might call agnosticism means there is no evidence that a god exists and there is no justification for a belief in god. Weak atheism only sez no evidence at this time exists but leaves the door open in the future should such evidence arise. Most atheists fall into the weak atheist category. Just throwing that out there for information clarity and nothing more.
I'm not opposed to everything in the bible as there are some things in it that do have value. A lot of the moral teachings of Jesus for example have value and even the concept of church as in a community of support and fellowship not only have appeal but also have value. As to Jesus teachings, it's another reason I mock christians who in rightous indignation on one hand scream at the rogue atheist and yet on the other ignore the very teaching of christ that are his essence. And let me say when I do mock, it's rare that I even have you in mind. IMO you do a pretty good job of trying to get it right so I give you credit there. But some of the Cross and Flag wavers here, they better hope I'm right or otherwise they'll hear the words, "depart from me for I never knew you!"
This is another reason I'm also supportive of John Shelby Spong who wants to move christianity away from theism and I think it's an excellent idea and I think there would be lots of preachers ready to move in that direction were it to begin to happen. I'd even be tempted in returning to church for such a wonderous day just in support of the principle but I think we are a generation or 2 away from it.
It will happen in time because even the history of western faith has been an evolutionary process. Even the God of Adam and Noah evolved into the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and that God evolved into the God of Moses and the early Israelites. That God who was displeased at Israel wanting a King (a type topdown gov't) became the God of Kings as in David and Solomon who later became the merciful god of the captives and then finally evolved into the god we see expressed through Jesus today. Taking the bible at face value, with 6k years of evolution of the supreme deity, why should we not expect that evolutionary process to continue? But then if this be true, it does raise a far, far greater and deeper question does it not?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Years ago, I was always perplexed by the hebrew words Elohim and Yahweh as translated God in the bible and there were other places where the term EL was also used. Most preachers of whom I inquired would typically give me some simplistic quasi-apologist view or in the case of one, told me I was reading into the text what by his authority he could assure me was not there. One even tired to make it out as some kind of old Catholic meddling with the ancient scripts. But as the years went by I'd get small pieces here, not much in clarity, mostly more questions but it wasn't until the latter 1990's I came across Karen Armstrong's book, "The History of God" that those questions started to get answered with clarity. At that point archeology, specifically biblical archeology became an important subject for consideration.
A few years ago, Armstrong, a former nun and now journalist/writer, made "The History of God" into a documentary which helped to really open up the discussion of what it is we call god and it's historicity. The PBS NOVA series "The Bible's Buried Secrets", a 2008' production, added more clarity and now the BBC most recently in it's own series entitled "The Bible's Buried Secrets", a continuing series exploring a variety of biblical subject has still further added to the understanding but at the same time may have breeched a wall that neither Armstrong or the NOVA series seemed to be willing to connect. That connection was that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of Moses and ancient Israel was not monotheistic but rather polytheistic as were the people themselves and that the bible itself may be a masterful attempt to hide that fact. An attempt that fails as it's own pages reveal just as I stumbled upon but lacked the archeological evidence for clarity. And in the efforts to transform this polytheism into monotheism as we have today, the polytheism is still all around us and even with us if we know how to see it for what it is. But the BBC episode poses a remarkable question, "Did God Have A Wife?" and the answer may very well shock you while at the same time being introduced to the polytheism of the bible.
A few years ago, Armstrong, a former nun and now journalist/writer, made "The History of God" into a documentary which helped to really open up the discussion of what it is we call god and it's historicity. The PBS NOVA series "The Bible's Buried Secrets", a 2008' production, added more clarity and now the BBC most recently in it's own series entitled "The Bible's Buried Secrets", a continuing series exploring a variety of biblical subject has still further added to the understanding but at the same time may have breeched a wall that neither Armstrong or the NOVA series seemed to be willing to connect. That connection was that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of Moses and ancient Israel was not monotheistic but rather polytheistic as were the people themselves and that the bible itself may be a masterful attempt to hide that fact. An attempt that fails as it's own pages reveal just as I stumbled upon but lacked the archeological evidence for clarity. And in the efforts to transform this polytheism into monotheism as we have today, the polytheism is still all around us and even with us if we know how to see it for what it is. But the BBC episode poses a remarkable question, "Did God Have A Wife?" and the answer may very well shock you while at the same time being introduced to the polytheism of the bible.
