History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedAtheism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 789
Author
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 17:07
I totally agree with Search. But I think he forgets one powerful argument in his description of the councils: time and history.

Lets take two examples:
- Purgatory was unknown until some "enlightened" Italian clerics came up with their new found toy. First of all one may wonder why it took God and her church 11 centuries to find out that there was something between hell and heaven. Secondly, one may remark how timely this discovery was as the Italian church was depending increasingly on the merchant class of the Italian towns and less on the strong arm of the military elite. Rich and traders were not allowed in the house of God until someone found a good way to mitigate traditional theology and modern needs: a sinner by trade who has been a good man otherwise (understand gave a lot to the church, see the bronze doors of the Amalfia church) may have only some time to wait in purgatory before getting into heaven.
Now the point I'm making is not to make fun about anybody's belief but to remark that these "mere mortals" supposedly inspired by the holly spirit also had a surprisingly down-to-earth agenda.

-How many voices does God have? Lets admit that some "mere men" once inspired by the holly spirit come up with some stuff She didn't think fit to reveal earlier (say the fact that the pope is always right or the fact that God is on our side). The problem arises when people just as human but pretending to be just as inspired come up with a rival claim. How can I know who is right and who isn't? Me, personally who doesn't have my front head transformed into a frying pan every once in a while (sorry for the sarcasm but sincerely there are things anybody in its right mind can't believe in). Who am I to decide whether Saint Peter had a successor or not or whether Mary was a virgin or not. If decision so important as these are left to me mere mortal, may as well not believe in anything.

No don't get me wrong. I have a large amount of love for the Catholic church and I admire many aspect of the Jewish religion. I also feel sometimes somewhat jealous towards my friends whose faith seem to please so much. But if you ask me if I can believe deep down in any religion I'd say no.

The other problem is geography. Lets just consider the Americas in 1800. All was not that simple but basically on the North of the Rio Grande they believe that the pope was a dangerous maniac and on the South they believe that he was representing God on Earth (and lets say for the sake of the argument that half of the population was on the North side and half on the South side of the river).
This is very odd. The fact that people disagree is purely normal, the fact that they are divided by a river is strange and seem to indicate that one doesn't make up his mind according to his heart but that religion is a largely inheritable trait. If there was a real "market" for religion people on top and below the Rio Grande would have been just as likely to become protestant as they were to become catholic.
As it was not the case one can assume that the choice one's have when it comes to religion is less than perfect. Of course, an American is more likely now to become a buddist or muslim if her parents were christian than he was two centuries ago. On of the effect of globalisation is to make the market for religion more perfect (you even have mormons from the Cook Islands to Botswana) but, how do you want me to believe that the spread of word of God has more to do with the Internet, low cost airlines and modern management than with theology?
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 19:28
It is a persons right not to believe in a creator, god or whatever but I still agree with the ancient proverb, "The fool says in his heart there is no God!!"
How can any one mortal be 100% for sure?
Just an opinion-
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 20:09
If you put that hairy old saying the other way around it would come out as "In the heart of God there is no fool". But that is illogical, if God is perfect then there can be no fools around, and even in the deepest recesses of his alleged heart, but this earth is littered with them. What's worse he is supposed love all these damn idiots, now days but not then. To talk about now days what did God ever do or say about the religious fool stuffing up the environment to make an extra buck?

This simplistic piece of jargon about God creating a super race and rest being mentally defective came from a time from a time of sleazy empire building. Those of the Middle East were trying to write wise sounding books to justify ghastly wars of slavery and profit that led to whole areas becoming a desert. 
elenos
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 4581
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 22:18
Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

I"The fool says in his heart there is no God!!"

The fools says it in his heart indeed, the wise man says is to the world
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 22:32
Could we all stop mouthing platitudes and get back to whatever the point of this thread was? LOL
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 22:50
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

I"The fool says in his heart there is no God!!"
The fools says it in his heart indeed, the wise man says is to the world


My point was that it is ok for someone not to believe in a god, creator etc but no one can ever be sure, until death of course.
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 23:37
Akolouthos, I wasn't aware of mouthing platitudes! However I did however bring up serious questions that never get answered on any forum because all the "experts" run scared. Perhaps by your silence you are indicating there are no usual set answers to fall back on perfected over the centuries. I for one get fed up with hearing about the ravings of psychopathic spin doctors that wrote ancient texts about God making the world and all in it to serve man. They would never get away with that mind control stuff now days, even the UN would condemn their message if written in present times. There's the plain facts, so shoot me I'm just being the messenger.
elenos
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 00:36

Take a deep breath, elenos; I have no intention of shooting you. LOL

Originally posted by elenos elenos wrote:

If you put that hairy old saying the other way around it would come out as "In the heart of God there is no fool". But that is illogical, if God is perfect then there can be no fools around, and even in the deepest recesses of his alleged heart, but this earth is littered with them.
 
Well, first, the quote isn't the other way around. If you can explain what purpose there can possibly be in coining a phrase just so that you can attempt to demolish it with rather poor, mechanical logic -- that is as obviously unsuited to the task as it is, well, obvious -- I'm all ears.
 
Quote What's worse he is supposed love all these damn idiots, now days but not then. To talk about now days what did God ever do or say about the religious fool stuffing up the environment to make an extra buck?
 
I don't really understand the rest of the point you're trying to make here. Please clean it up a bit if you wish to discuss it.
 
Quote This simplistic piece of jargon about God creating a super race and rest being mentally defective came from a time from a time of sleazy empire building. Those of the Middle East were trying to write wise sounding books to justify ghastly wars of slavery and profit that led to whole areas becoming a desert. 
 
Once again, please restate this in an organized and specific fashion if you wish to discuss it.
 
Originally posted by elenos elenos wrote:

However I did however bring up serious questions that never get answered on any forum because all the "experts" run scared. Perhaps by your silence you are indicating there are no usual set answers to fall back on perfected over the centuries.
 
By my silence I was, in the case of the first portion of your post, indicating what I thought you would be capable of seeing as obvious -- mea culpa. Wink By my silence in the second case, I was indicating that I don't really have the time to sift through disorganized ramblings. As for set answers, while there is, indeed, a non-relative standard by which we are to determine how to act in individual situations, the idea that there is a set code which specifically deals with everything is nonsense. Your tendency to speak in wildly general terms will not serve you well here.
 
Quote I for one get fed up with hearing about the ravings of psychopathic spin doctors that wrote ancient texts about God making the world and all in it to serve man.
 
Well that's not strictly true, now is it. And as for "ravings", well... Wink "Psychopathic spin doctors" certainly has a nice ring to it, eh?
 
Anyway, here you need to understand the proper role of Man as the steward of God's creation. I think -- but am not certain -- that you may have been trying to address the environment above. If so, the "steward" archetype recurs throughout Scripture. And I think that the UN would probably condone the image of Man as the steward of Creation. I can't think of a single thing that fits better with the message of ecological responsibility.
 
Quote There's the plain facts, so shoot me I'm just being the messenger.
 
Well then here's a tip, "messenger": Please try to organize your thoughts before you post. Please also try to avoid sweeping generalizations. And, never fear, I seldom blame the messenger for the message he carries; generally it is the message that is flawed, and the messenger simply misled. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
 
 


Edited by Akolouthos - 07-Dec-2007 at 00:39
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 644
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 15:03

Constantine;

What you arent grasping is that you dont need religion to go to war. You can do it as an Atheist too. Humans have been warring for thousands of years and Islam came 1400 years ago. So is religion responsible for all the thousand previous years? Or is it an inherent human characteristic?

 
Atheism is a concept = no religion. Yet religion is a set of morals applied in life. What determines war or not is the human being, not a set of beliefs.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 23:10

Thankyou for your answer Akolouthos I admire your eloquent style and you are an inspiration to us all in your replies, keep up the good work. Mea culpa, I was trying to be provocative to elicit an answer and I'm sorry I still am. I first wrote early in the morning over my toast and coffee, so perhaps my logic was not up to the pre-set standards that have been polished by the holy believers over thousands of years. I apologize for my thoughts not being as well organized as those trained the in the arcane art of kicking an opponent in the guts while uttering blessings.

You are taking the usual high moral ground developed over the millennia by saying nobody can turn the same old religious phrases around, I just did. I could use the same (God approved) lingo and say about those that ears and hear not, but I wonít.  The point is to say that words mean what you want them to mean when your favorite beliefs are challenged has to be the poorest belief in history.

The second poorest answer is to call your opponent misled. Of course they are for your side has the true message! Surprise, surprise, for this message is for age and any other - such belief always stops wars and hurt feelings? All Iím saying is I donít buy the arguments of divine existence based on suspect ancient documents for times have moved on.

 



Edited by elenos - 08-Dec-2007 at 23:16
elenos
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 00:32
Originally posted by elenos elenos wrote:

Thankyou for your answer Akolouthos I admire your eloquent style and you are an inspiration to us all in your replies, keep up the good work. Mea culpa, I was trying to be provocative to elicit an answer and I'm sorry I still am. I first wrote early in the morning over my toast and coffee, so perhaps my logic was not up to the pre-set standards that have been polished by the holy believers over thousands of years. I apologize for my thoughts not being as well organized as those trained the in the arcane art of kicking an opponent in the guts while uttering blessings.
 
Well, I certainly wouldn't kick anyone in the guts while offering blessings; if you really want to get someone moving, the rear is the natural target. And by the way, I am self-taught. Wink
 
Quote You are taking the usual high moral ground developed over the millennia by saying nobody can turn the same old religious phrases around, I just did. I could use the same (God approved) lingo and say about those that ears and hear not, but I wonít.  The point is to say that words mean what you want them to mean when your favorite beliefs are challenged has to be the poorest belief in history.
 
Not at all; perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I said the following:
 
Well, first, the quote isn't the other way around. If you can explain what purpose there can possibly be in coining a phrase just so that you can attempt to demolish it with rather poor, mechanical logic -- that is as obviously unsuited to the task as it is, well, obvious -- I'm all ears.
 
I was not questioning your ability to change the wording around, I was questioning what purpose you felt you had achieved in doing so. In essence, you made a statement and then tried to deconstruct it. Since nobody had made the statement before you, I was simply wondering why you felt it was an issue. All you did was create an off-topic sham argument so that you could "refute" it.
 
And words certainly can't mean "what you want them to mean" in any absolute sense; after all, they do possess definitions and historical interpretations in and of themselves. This has nothing to do with the discussion here; I'm simply checking your semantics. Wink
 
Quote The second poorest answer is to call your opponent misled. Of course they are for your side has the true message! Surprise, surprise, for this message is for age and any other - such belief always stops wars and hurt feelings? All Iím saying is I donít buy the arguments of divine existence based on suspect ancient documents for times have moved on.
 
Well, since the statement you refer to was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek response to your claim to be some kind of eminent "messenger" bringing up "serious questions," and since I felt that you had been nothing of the sort and done nothing of the kind -- at least based upon the superfluous nature of your first post -- I don't believe I can be accused of making an argument, much less a poor one. Indeed, my point was that there was no argument, or at best only one which you were having with yourself. Perhaps instead of the winking emoticon, I should have used this one: Cheeky, eh? LOL
 
Oh, and as for the documents, if you want to have a discussion in specific terms, there is no shortage of existing threads on this subforum. If you wish to cast about broad, unfounded generalizations, I wish you much joy of finding someone else to listen to them. LOL
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 09-Dec-2007 at 00:36
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 00:50
All of this talk of needing religion for true war is completely ridiculous - although religion is present in many wars, it is only so as an aspect of a culture clash. When looking at the blurb for Richard Dawkins book, one can see something like "women and children being mutilated, people being killed all because of a god that lacks any proof of its existence" - that's a load of rubbish, the intitation to war - all of those aspects are present in cultural clashes, and since religion is one of the larger representatives of culture, then this becomes relevant.
 
Quote
Atheism is a concept = no religion. Yet religion is a set of morals applied in life. What determines war or not is the human being, not a set of beliefs.
 
A sterling quote from a sterling forumer! I wholeheatedly agree...except for one point which I find to be more debateble - that Atheism is a concept, which you placed below. One could say that Atheism has now grown so extreme (at least the Dawkinist brand...) that it has itself turned into a dogma. Because people mainly associate ideological dogmas in this way with Atheists, they just can't seem to even concieve that Atheists could also be dogmatic.
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 01:41
Sorry Akolouthos. I didn't mean you kicking anyone, If you took it that way I unreservedly apologize I was speaking in general of the ancient tendency to promulgate an untenable set of beliefs. I would agree the better place to kick the disbelievers (of your own beliefs) may be in the rear, but not all will offer to bend over once knowing the end results. To achieve the more of desired effects you have to catch them by surprise. I should be the one to apologize for not being as clear as I should be.

You are self taught? Congratulations on being such a fine representative of the set of beliefs that I'm unfortunately disputing. If I say "you" I mean that as a challenge to all our readers some whom understand the point I'm making. Semantically to use "you" in the accusative tone is only said in a general sense.

Don't forget we are talking about semantics, namely; "The fool says in his heart there is no God." (notice I did show respect by using a capitol letter for God) In modern medical terms nobody ever did speak through their heart. The heart is the major organ for pumping blood and for a long time has been proven as nothing to do with pumping our emotions. The whole terminology for this modern world has changed.

These are simply the facts of the modern age and all those who say different are living in denial of the circumstances providing the standard of living they currently enjoy. Sorry that you don't find anything serious in talking about real time facts. Put downs of those that may speak the truth is not nice. May God bless you (or should I say the forces that you believe make life).

Edited by elenos - 09-Dec-2007 at 01:51
elenos
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 01:59
Originally posted by elenos elenos wrote:

Sorry Akolouthos. I didn't mean you kicking anyone, If you took it that way I unreservedly apologize I was speaking in general of the ancient tendency to promulgate an untenable set of beliefs. I would agree the better place to kick the disbelievers (of your own beliefs) may be in the rear, but not all will offer to bend over once knowing the end results. To achieve the more of desired effects you have to catch them by surprise. I should be the one to apologize for not being as clear as I should be.

You are self taught? Congratulations on being such a fine representative of the set of beliefs that I'm unfortunately disputing. If I say "you" I mean that as a challenge to all our readers. Semantically to use "you" in the accusative tone is said in a general sense.

Don't forget we are talking about semantics, namely; "The fool says in his heart there is no God." (notice I did show respect by using a capitol letter for God) In modern medical terms nobody ever did speak through their heart. The heart is the major organ for pumping blood and for a long time has been proven as nothing to do with pumping our emotions. The whole terminology for this modern world has changed.

These are simply the facts of the modern age and all those who say different are living in denial of the circumstances providing the standard of living they currently enjoy. Sorry that you don't find anything serious in talking about that and resort to put downs of those that do. May God bless you (or should I say the forces that you believe make life).
 
"God" will do just fine, but if it upsets your moral sensibilities you may offer whatever blessing you wish. Wink
 
So I guess the way I'll go about treating this by referring to your discussion of the term "heart", as it is an excellent -- and specific -- example of the development of historical interpretation surrounding those wonderful little verbal morsels that we so playfully toss about -- that is to say, "words".
 
No one will dispute that the term "heart" can refer to the physical organ, but it has also been interpreted in several other contexts throughout history -- the emotional center, the spiritual center, etc. In essence, the term "heart" used in reference to the physical organ, refers to a thing quite distinct from the meaning of that same term used in reference to the seat of emotions; the two are homonyms. I don't believe anything in the modern era has rendered these distinct uses of the term "heart" anachronistic.
 
And I'm not resorting to "put-downs", old boy; simply stating the facts. If there had been anything "serious" to discuss stemming from your earlier post, never fear, I would have discussed it. Instead, I took serious issue with your tendency to get off-topic; a tendency, as you can see, that has spread to me, eh? LOL 
 
Thicker skin, elenos; thicker skin. Someone is bound to disagree with you again at some point in your life. Wink
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 09-Dec-2007 at 02:05
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 05:13

The upsetting of individual moral sensibilities is indeed the question. One hopes they donít override too many for fear of upset of those who are being overridden. However this doesnít seem to be a two way street. To be quite candid I blame the historical selfishness of religions for the current environmental crisis, it could have been avoided. One must reserve the right to question motives or the ones in charge of religions will become dictatorial and use any trick of word or wit to negate responsibility to this world with unproven promises of another.

People go along with the many forms of religion when they may not have to do with being genuine. Some very dubious organizations claim the moral high ground by pretending to be the arbitrator of public decency. Am I being a Richard Dawkins? I hope not for he is setting up his own virulent form of contempt for others. IMHO to have a church of science would be entirely unbecoming.

Thick skin? How can one care for the real world with a hide like a rhinoceros? I do care and my life is filled with troubles and concerns. Is not caring for others and evasion of real issues called bliss? Perhaps I should learn some of this.

elenos
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 789
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.154 seconds.