Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Serena Woodward on May 16, 2011 at 5:09pm

You logic is flawed.  Religion, just like any other belief system, isn't grounded in rational thought.  It's based on emotion and "belief".  You can not "shock" someone out of believing in god anymore than someone could "shock" you into believing in god. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony Bishop on May 15, 2011 at 8:35pm

Calling them 'people who believe the Bible is true' would at least position Christians (the majority of which don't know what is in the Bible) as ignorant of their own beliefs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony Bishop on May 15, 2011 at 9:16pm

It could help get to the point that they worship on Sunday (not a biblical idea), eat shrimp (prohibited), allow women to speak in church (prohibited). All the nonsense that they ignore is a powerful tool once you can point it out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Choscura on May 16, 2011 at 2:50pm

If we're going down this road, the typical biblical ignorance of many (most?) christians can be attributed to a few things:

 

-modern interpretations of what were originally 'Jews only' commandments as meaning "all people" instead of "just Jews".  This is not because of the teachings of Jesus or his disciples, but by the teachings of Paul- with some collusion by Peter.

-the inadequacy of western european languages for expressing the ideas actually recorded in the original scripts of the various books of the bible.  Hebrew and Aramaic stand out as wonderful, beautifully logical languages with rich expressive capabilities and virtually no ability to translate that meaningfully into english- despite an odd trend of overlapping hebrew and english words (albeit... backwards, for example "shark" in english is "Karesh" in hebrew).

-further compounding of the inadequacies of translation by the political or moral zeitgeist of any particular translation's era.  Anything ambiguous is translated in the 'safest' way possible for the person doing the translating.

-a complete and utter ignorance of the pagan traditions adopted by christianity, or worse, denial of these.  Common examples include church buildings (added by Constantine in an effort to give the new state religion legitimacy), the architecture of these and even the interior decorations (the altar with candles on it are from roman state buildings; the podium is from Iol Invictus religions, even today many church buildings are aligned along an east-west axis- also from Sol Invictus- with the express purpose of casting the speaker at the head of the congregation in the light of the sun), stained glass (a gothic addition, inspired by the philosophies of the greeks), impressive cathedrals intended to inspire awe or a feeling of grandeur (primarily- but not exclusively- gothic), and even the ritual of communion is directly adapted from a greek pagan ritual (for catholics) or watered down and slightly modified, but of the same origins (protestant): the original communion was not really ritualistic: it was simply a meal eaten together by the early Christians in their houses- which were the actual places they came together to worship, before Constantine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by anti_supernaturalist on May 16, 2011 at 1:10pm

** Freer than any fundie can stomach

The US Constitution offers each citizen a radical freedom which millions of fundies in Ameristan would deny to all.

Even should some god exist, no law may compel anyone give up a sovereign right to reject any claim that it must be acknowledged, accepted, or worshiped.

The fundie god, the gods of the Big-3 Monster Theisms, the deistic god-of-the-state referred to on US coins and bills are beneath belief. No officer of the state or religious institution can command otherwise. Further no one is limited to mere defense; religious institutions enjoy no immunity.

• Language which presupposes a supernatural reality is logically incoherent

Supernatural claims are not false; they are vacuous. There are no supernatural agents, locations, states, events, or communications which can be described or spoken about. Supernatural discourse is fiction:

1. No supernatural agents: minds, souls, spirits, ghosts, godlings, gods, God (Allah, YHVH), cosmic soul, the absolute.
2. No supernatural locations: hell, purgatory, heaven, buddha realms, moral world order, transcendental existence
3. No supernatural states:  the numinous, sin, grace, revelation, life after death, illumination, nirvana, buddha mind.
4. No supernatural events: mysterium tremendum, redemption, resurrection, rapture, mystical union, karma, or reincarnation.
5. No supernatural communications: prayer, sacrifice, visions, apports, theophany, mysticism, inner light.

There are altogether no supernatural phenomena, only supernatural interpretations of phenomena.

the anti_supernaturalist

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Luka Rek on May 16, 2011 at 4:21pm

I agree completely that there are no supernatural phenomena. However, some of the terms you mention can be defined as very natural phenomena. For example a soul. One may define it as what is left of a person after that person dies. You can claim that the term soul does not, in reality, refer to anything because there is nothing left of us after we die, but you cannot call it nonsensical (or vacuous, as you said) because it does refer to an abstract notion of "what is left of us after we die". An example of a vacuous term would be a square circle or the current white president of the U.S. of A. because we know both terms do not refer to anything that can (in the case of the circle) or does (in the case of the president) exist. When talking about the soul we don`t know and that is exactly why we use such a vague term as "what is left of us when we die". So the term "soul" refers to that "what", whatever it may be (i. e. our memories, feelings, character, or simply nothing)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Luka Rek on May 17, 2011 at 8:34am

The mind is what the brain does. Yeah, I wouldn`t be so sure about this one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by anti_supernaturalist on May 16, 2011 at 12:17pm

** God is dead, but not “Its” powerful proxies

• There are no religions only religious institutions.

Religious institutions have two components, one imaginary and one real:
1. faith-based mythological and cultic claims —  a fraudulent supernatural component  
2. demands to exercise secular power — an illegitimate political component.

In the US, a *secular Republic* there is *no executive privilege for "God".*

• Faith claims are lies — Pretensions to secular power based on them are dangerous. “God” has been dead since Copernicus. But, 460 years later the US teems with religious institutions, many malign. They do exist, in disgusting abundance. 

• So, I say unto you, “Followest thou the money.” Where else can an uneducated, self-righteous bigot, and male supremacist find employment? Fundie xianity has proven well-paying for lying anti-intellectuals since P/Saul of Tarsus. Look at Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin. In the US, hate plays and pays very well.

Religions are ponzi schemes perpetrated by institutional frauds. Priest and televangelist, Pope and Supreme Ayatollah, bishop and imam -- Liberty “U”, Focus on the Family, and Faux News are not "God"s proxies. They are political demagogues hiding behind supernatural nonsense, making illegitimate demands for secular power.

They finance pedophile priests, birth-at-any-price ranters, holy brown-shirts harassing women and murdering physicians. All this illegal activity is bankrolled by fraudulently obtained donations, illegal tax concessions, and taxpayer subsidies. They are aided by complicit judges, prejudiced federal police, fundie dominated state and local governments, perverse school boards of unintelligently designed liars.

• Since state and local governments are short of cash -- let them tax religious institutions as the businesses they are. Tolerance does not include subsidies to intolerant organizations which openly desire the overthrow of the Republic and the establishment of theocracy.

the anti_supernaturalist

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Serena Woodward on May 16, 2011 at 3:18pm

If you are going to apply this logic, then it must be applied equally.  Because Christians do believe in god they would be allowed to say there is no such thing as an atheist.  Your belief that there is no god directly contradicts what they believe, making your belief the fallacy.  Belief isn't quantifiable.  It simply is.  Individuals identify in many different ways.  There are people who believe homosexuality is a choice, not a biological fact. Is it then okay to say "There are no homosexuals"? Of course it doesn't. 

 Christianity is not a definite truth, but to those who believe it, it is a certainty.  To belittle that belief, even if you don't share it, is the same as a person who identifies as Christian telling you that you will go to hell because you don't share their belief in god.

When you choose to try and find a way to raise what you believe above the beliefs of others it simply looks as though you are trying to justify your own belief system.  And atheism is a belief system.  You trying to use the argument that because you don't believe there is a god that means there are no Christians sounds as if you are trying to convince yourself that your belief is justified and correct.

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page