Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (Egyptian, myth, worship)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seldom? I think there are some highly successful attorneys who specialize in Contract Law (for example) would strongly disagree with you.
they are playing word games mink. Logical fallicles are really only needed by people that don't know what they are talking about. People that do move on to discussions about what the observations mite say. I do not necessarily agree what you say but this "Its on you to prove it and I do not have to say anything" is almost like a faith claim at this point.
Its fine to start with. But at some point we have to man up and start listing all the claims next to each other to try and sort out what traits of a belief match what we see. Also, common sense is being left out with "I don't have to say anything. I only have to tell you that you are wrong.". To me, its just not rational when we reach thousands of post only telling people they are wrong. Especially when we are claiming that belief and religion are irrational.
If we atheist would say, we are not telling anybody that there is a more logical way (our way) of thinking. We are only stating that our faith states there is no god or gods of any type. I would probably be more on board with them.
if we list the observations, compare our assigned weights to the observations, and talk about unifying theories that link those observations, then believing in some thing more (what ever that is) becomes the focal point to help us know ourselves better.
Just repeating "I don't have to discuss this with what I think. I only have to tell you where you are wrong." just doesn't make any sense outside of religious looking atheism. ,
There is no such thing as "not believing"...you either DO Believe, or you DON'T Believe
"Not Believing" is like "trying to think of nothing"...it's illogical.
Even if you are trying to think of nothing...you are thinking.
Many have taken the phrase "Believe in X" (have faith/confidence/trust in X), when referring to God, as being about God existing...not having confidence/trust in God.
They do this to intentionally muddy the waters...so they don't actually have to take a stand on what they believe relative to the existence of a God.
Also...it then aligns with the assessment of existence of childish "imaginary" things (e.g. "I don't believe in Leprechauns or the Tooth-fairy")...and is a way to insult those that believe God exists, by lumping God in with puerile make-believe.
Anything else one would say they "don't believe in"...would indicate a lack of confidence or trust, not whether it/they exist.
One you have considered or contemplated anything, you necessarily have a belief about it.
One either believes God exists...believes God doesn't exist...believes they are unable to make a determination.. or has never considered the matter.
There are no other positions.
One you have considered and/or contemplated whether a God exists...there is no such thing as "not believing" about it.
he has a point gld. Both you and him are kind of right to me.
To start out "I don't believe you" is ok. I may not have a belief, yet, I just don't believe you now. Then we move on to "I believe you are wrong". Then you become correct also.
Then what do we do?
Where I diverge from their religious looking atheism is that a faith claim in "there is no god or gods of any type". "I don't have to say anything but you're wrong", "ok but just do not fight us. we are on your side too". And "be careful what we say so theist don't use it and make atheism harder to sell". Is not the best method we have in sorting through the noise. It adds more noise to try and sway people. to me.
You know the statement we are only fighting a deity belief and all others are strawman type religious thinking.
To bad (no punn intended) agenda filled discussions, the waters get very muddy. And any attempt to clear the waters is shunned. But some people feel thats bad for ffr. To me, atheism is way stronger than that.
You're missing the point, Mink. It many be just your naïvety getting in the way of the reality of the situation. I don't say all women--many women aren't as naive as you. But there is a covert effort among many in Christianity to portray Jesus as this hunky, sexy guy that a young girl not fully mature in her sexual feelings can fail to distinguish between what is "brotherly" love" and what is "incestuous" brotherly love. Check out the images in the link below. Gives a whole new meaning to "The Body of Christ", doesn't it? Trust me these pics of a shirtless buff muscular Jesus are in a lot of places. There's no mistaking what these images are designed to do: to attract young people, especially young girls to get interested in Jesus as the kind of loving, caring superhero he-man they could never find in real life. Jesus is becoming a surrogate lover for women who believe they have no hope of every finding one in real life. The lyrics are not the decent loving type; they are covertly hyper-sexualized:
Fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again (Is it really love Amy Grant wants Jesus to fill her with, or something else) I open my heart and soul for you to enter me (is it really her heart and soul Amy is opening to Jesus to enter--or something else) And fill me with Your love again
Psychologists would have no problem recognizing what these lyrics are suggesting.
"There's a covert effort among many in Christianity..." Oh, really? You latch onto one web page that portrays Jesus (in your opinion) as this "hunky, sexy guy", in one calendar and you claim that "many" in Christianity are doing this? Sorry thrill. I'm not naive enough to believe that.
I'd say they may be in some places. Not "a lot". Had you not posted the link, *I* probably never would have seen it.
That's a wild stretch, thrill. One that's unsubstantiated.
You're doing the same thing with Amy Grant's lyrics that you often do with Bible verses: You're taking the lyrics you posted out of context with the rest of the song:
"But there are so many
Who don't know the reason
Their lives are wasting away
Just souls without purpose
They wonder in darkness
Without a thought for the day
Well, I'm no Savior
I'm just a window
Through which Your sweet love light can shine
So clean out the corners of my darkened pane
And fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again
I open my heart and soul for you to enter me
And fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again
Fill me with Your love again I open my heart and soul for you to enter me
And fill me with Your love again
I open my heart and soul for you to enter me
And fill me with Your love again"
-------------------------------------------------------
Taken in proper context, the lyrics are not even close to being "covertly hypersexualized".
Mink, anytime a lyric graphically states,
I open my **** for you toENTER ME"
there is ALWAYS a covert suggestion for a girl to open a part of her body that is NOT her heart and soul.
Now maybe you are so naive that you cannot feel it or see it but it's there.
Several woman have written articles that you can find on the Internet that deal with this sticky topic:
"Jesus is not your Boyfriend"
Drawing close to God is a biblical concept. But the line “to feel the warmth of your embrace” moves the song into an image of romantic love. There is nothing in this song that could not be sung to a lover instead of to Jesus (Lyrics).
How He Loves (Dave Crowder Band) So heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss
And my heart turns violently inside of my chest
I don’t have time to maintain these regrets
when I think about the way. . .
And this:
The More I Seek You (Kari Job) I wanna sit at your feet
Drink from the cup in your hand Lay back against you and breath, feel your heart beat
This love is so deep, it’s more than I can stand
But in context it sound more like two lovers in an embrace.
“Jesus as my boyfriend” theology has been around much longer than you might think.
Reality (Natural Forces) has been perceived as God for way longer than any representative characters in Ancient metaphorical and allegorical writings.
Longer than the existence of any "Religion".
Everything is just One Thing...and it has always been considered God, and even currently formally defined as such.
So......
OH! Like we don't know all the many different imagination manifestations that we humans have applied to what we don't understand? Going all the way back to the beginning? So? So what?
Primordial
In the history of Greek gods, there is a group of gods that came before all else. These primordial gods are almost conceptual in nature, representing much vaster domains than those that would come after them. These gods continue to pop up in tale throughout the span of Greek myth, usually functioning more as places or concepts than actual characters.
The First Gods
The first god to appear in Greek myth is CHAOS (or Kaos), who represented the void. He was shortly thereafter he was joined by GAIA, who both was and represented the Earth.
Chaos would give birth to two children, the NYX (Night} and EREBUS (Darkness). They in turn would give birth to AETHER (Light) and HEMERA (Day). Gaia would soon give birth to her own primordial children, URANUS (Sky) and PONTUS (Sea).
All quite fascinating of course. Long in the making. Much we might even call "epic!" How much is about truth and how much is about something else altogether?
Why does nobody find it odd that a god who made the vastness of the universe can feel the petty priggish jealousy of an immature little teenager schoolgirl?
For I the Lord your god am a JEALOUS god and I will smite the living daylights out of you if you so much as even glance at another god.
I'm not sure where odd begins or ends with all these notions about god or gods, but I for one find most of this reason and logic quite odd indeed...
All science does is study The Divine, and try to figure God out.
First time I've read anything like this in terms of describing science. Most people pretty easily and readily accept a definition that does not make the age-old mistake of always inserting a notion about god wherever it is that the learning about the truth of these matters continues. Something more like this...
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Not true, mordant. MOST of our legal system is based on the party making the negative claim. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember? The burden of proof isn't on the one accused; it's on the 'accuser'...
Just to give you a bit of heads up, satan is known as the 'accuser'.
I guess my comment about this went "in one ear and right out the other." Or maybe I haven't yet caught up to all comments posted after I resigned from here yesterday...?
OH! Like we don't know all the many different imagination manifestations that we humans have applied to what we don't understand? Going all the way back to the beginning? So? So what?
Primordial
In the history of Greek gods, there is a group of gods that came before all else. These primordial gods are almost conceptual in nature, representing much vaster domains than those that would come after them. These gods continue to pop up in tale throughout the span of Greek myth, usually functioning more as places or concepts than actual characters.
The First Gods
The first god to appear in Greek myth is CHAOS (or Kaos), who represented the void. He was shortly thereafter he was joined by GAIA, who both was and represented the Earth.
Chaos would give birth to two children, the NYX (Night} and EREBUS (Darkness). They in turn would give birth to AETHER (Light) and HEMERA (Day). Gaia would soon give birth to her own primordial children, URANUS (Sky) and PONTUS (Sea).
All quite fascinating of course. Long in the making. Much we might even call "epic!" How much is about truth and how much is about something else altogether?
No.
I am talking about the perception of All That Is as "God".
Before the Greek god characters represented various parts, processes, and aspects of God...Thor for thunder, Zeus for the sky & lighting, Venus for love, etc. Like the Egyptians had Ra for the sun.
I am referring to the perception of All That Is (animate & inanimate...in totality) as "God".
Obviously, that's your opinion, to which you're entitled. But I don't think "the Divine" or "God" is necessary to explain what science does. I prefer to see it as Alan Guth sees it: "science is.... an ongoing detective story, in which scientists passionately search for clues in the hope of unraveling the mysteries of the universe."
I like it!
Much better than some of these personal home-spun descriptions from way back in the way back machine...
Accusing a person of a crime is not a negative claim but a positive one. One seldom gets accused of not doing someting which would be a negative claim
It is very comforting to see you and mordant doing your best to untangle some of this pretzel logic, but by now we can all see and should probably accept that no one is moving anyone else's needle here. Takes more than all efforts to explain this sort of thing in this forum to overcome the obvious bias that simply will not oblige.
"The important thing, I think, is not to be bitter. You know, if it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that He's evil. I think that the worst you can say about Him is that, basically, He's an underachiever." [Woody Allen]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
