It was supposed to happen in THEIR lifetime...

[bdv]

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (NIV Matthew 16:27-28)

Yet they died, 2000 years ago (give or take...), without seeing anything of the sort.

Matthew 10:5-8, 23
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim the good news, 'The kingdom of heaven has come near.' 8 Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment...23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

How could Jesus say that "these twelve" wouldn't have finished their mission in Israel before the Son of Man came if the reality is that 2000 years (give or take...) and counting would actually elapse?...

The NT makes it clear that the prophecies of Jesus' second coming failed when the apostles died. Thus, I think it's safe for us all to stop waiting. :thanku:

[orangeatheist]

Yet they died, 2000 years ago (give or take...), without seeing anything of the sort.



How could Jesus say that "these twelve" wouldn't have finished their mission in Israel before the Son of Man came if the reality is that 2000 years (give or take...) and counting would actually elapse?...

The NT makes it clear that the prophecies of Jesus' second coming failed when the apostles died. Thus, I think it's safe for us all to stop waiting. :thanku:

Now, go bring that up with a Preterist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) and see what you get.

I'm tellin' ya, if there's a way to get around failed prophecy, leave it to some Christian to find (or invent) it.

[doonwise]

Every Christian that has ever lived believed they would see Christ return in their lifetime. This is one of Christianity's greatest hooks and it is propagated down through the generations.

Simply put, it is a brilliant marketing tool.

The End Is Near! Again.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The Spirit of God did come, and the disciples were witnesses to it. Jesus said that it would come when he left, and it did. All of those things that Jesus said that they would do, they did.

The Kingdom of Heaven is near. It is here now.

Jesus never said that he was an earthly king, but that the Kingdom of Heaven is within.

He still reigns and is alive.

Hallelujah.

[bdv]

The Spirit of God did come, and the disciples were witnesses to it. Jesus said that it would come when he left, and it did. All of those things that Jesus said that they would do, they did.

The Kingdom of Heaven is near. It is here now.

Jesus never said that he was an earthly king, but that the Kingdom of Heaven is within.

He still reigns and is alive.

Hallelujah.

How do you know that the disciples witnessed the second coming of Christ during their life here on earth? Do you have a scripture to back up this claim?

How would our lives here on earth have been different over the last 2000 years if the Kingdom of Heaven had not been hear all that time? What changed on earth upon Jesus' second coming? How did the disciples' lives get better upon the Jesus' second coming?

Lastly, what are Christians still waiting for that Jesus prophesied would happen?

[Beantown Bronco]

If Jesus were alive and walking the Earth today, or at any time in history really, he would be committed for saying/doing the things he would likely say/do.....so who's to say he hasn't "been here" multiple times over the last 2,000 years. Just because nobody believed "that crazy guy on the street corner/TV/etc." and nobody wrote about him doesn't mean he wasn't the real deal.

[BroncoInferno]

If Jesus were alive and walking the Earth today, or at any time in history really, he would be committed for saying/doing the things he would likely say/do.....so who's to say he hasn't "been here" multiple times over the last 2,000 years. Just because nobody believed "that crazy guy on the street corner/TV/etc." and nobody wrote about him doesn't mean he wasn't the real deal.

Huh? So, you're saying that maybe Jesus returned, was thought to be nuts, then left the Earth obscure and without fulfilling prophesy? Interesting angle on your apologetics.

[BroncoInferno]

How do you know that the disciples witnessed the second coming of Christ during their life here on earth? Do you have a scripture to back up this claim?

How would our lives here on earth have been different over the last 2000 years if the Kingdom of Heaven had not been hear all that time? What changed on earth upon Jesus' second coming? How did the disciples' lives get better upon the Jesus' second coming?

Lastly, what are Christians still waiting for that Jesus prophesied would happen?

And, if you don't mind, be sure to include some extra-Biblical evidence to support your answers.

[pedro]

How do you know that the disciples witnessed the second coming of Christ during their life here on earth? Do you have a scripture to back up this claim?

How would our lives here on earth have been different over the last 2000 years if the Kingdom of Heaven had not been hear all that time? What changed on earth upon Jesus' second coming? How did the disciples' lives get better upon the Jesus' second coming?

Lastly, what are Christians still waiting for that Jesus prophesied would happen?

I think he's referring to Pentecost and not the Second Coming.

[epicSocialism4tw]

And, if you don't mind, be sure to include some extra-Biblical evidence to support your answers.

I'm sorry, but it doesnt make much sense at all to look at the least-informative information to make a conclusion about a specialized subject. You can find all of the information you need to form an educated opinion by using the bible and other historical documents of the period.

[BroncoInferno]

I'm sorry, but it doesnt make much sense at all to look at the least-informative information to make a conclusion about a specialized subject. You can find all of the information you need to form an educated opinion by using the bible and other historical documents of the period.

Well, then, lay out your case.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Well, then, lay out your case.

The Gospels were included in the scriptural canon because they provide multiple sources of many of the same events. These Gospels also contain consistent philosophy, behaviors of Jesus, personality of Jesus, teachings, etc. The Gospels are without a doubt the best sources out there as historical documents. The synoptic gospels specifically.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Now, go bring that up with a Preterist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) and see what you get.

I'm tellin' ya, if there's a way to get around failed prophecy, leave it to some Christian to find (or invent) it.

this is the same tired argument that Bertrand Russell uses...it's clear that he hasn't spent adequate time exegeting the WHOLE of Scripture and would rather lazily bank his entire argument on this sole verse and interpret it in an incomplete and really embarrassingly inaequate way.

if he had spent time in Daniel, Ezekiel, then the Olivet Discourse and finished up with Revelation, then this prophecy of Jesus would make a whole lot more sense. it's clear that you're unfamiliar with apocalyptic language and that anything more than a perfunctory understanding of Scripture is what fuels this argument.

in 70 AD, the Romans wiped the Temple from the face of the Earth. this is the focal event that you should be focused on, not the 'parousia' or second coming of Christ and it's not some ridiculous 'rapture'. making a case on these boards would be a waste of time, as Christian threads (specifically Catholic ones) quickly degenerate into innuendo and not scholarship.

[Smiling Assassin27]

The Gospels were included in the scriptural canon because they provide multiple sources of many of the same events. These Gospels also contain consistent philosophy, behaviors of Jesus, personality of Jesus, teachings, etc. The Gospels are without a doubt the best sources out there as historical documents. The synoptic gospels specifically.

The Gospels were included in the Canon because the Church preceded them and determined them to be historical, apostolic, authentic, and true to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, so the Catholic Church canonized the collection of 27 books in 397 AD.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The Gospels were included in the Canon because the Church preceded them and determined them to be historical, apostolic, authentic, and true to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, so the Catholic Church canonized the collection of 27 books in 397 AD.

Thanks for the info.

I just wanted to illustrate the point that the church was diligent in pursuing the truth when compiling books. I'm sure that you could do a much better job of it than I. Biological and chemical sciences are my forte...my Christian education is informal.

People who are unfamiliar with the Bible tend to disregard the centuries of scholarship that has come along with it because they are unfamiliar with church history.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Yeah, the argument for inspiration can get muddy very quickly. The Canon, on the other hand, is pretty straightforward.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yeah, the argument for inspiration can get muddy very quickly. The Canon, on the other hand, is pretty straightforward.

One of the things I have always enjoyed about Catholic Christians is the devotion to education.

I have met devout laypeople who are have a very nice education through the church.

[Smiling Assassin27]

One of the things I have always enjoyed about Catholic Christians is the devotion to education.

I have met devout laypeople who are have a very nice education through the church.

unfortunately, we don't read our Bibles NEARLY enough anymore...something we should learn from our Protestant brothers and sisters.

[epicSocialism4tw]

unfortunately, we don't read our Bibles NEARLY enough anymore...something we should learn from our Protestant brothers and sisters.

Paul said to put on the full armor of God, and made a point to describe the "Bible" (for lack of a better term..it wasnt a bible when Paul "armed" himself with the word) as the most important tool, giving us the spiritual resources to navigate life with power to overcome evil.

I need to read it more as well. When you teach kids, you tend to use the prep time as your substitiute (or at least I make that mistake).

[Smiling Assassin27]

Paul said to put on the full armor of God, and made a point to describe the "Bible" (for lack of a better term..it wasnt a bible when Paul "armed" himself with the word) as the most important tool, giving us the spiritual resources to navigate life with power to overcome evil.

I need to read it more as well. When you teach kids, you tend to use the prep time as your substitiute (or at least I make that mistake).

here's the rub...Paul never said that Scripture ALONE was the armor of God, but also the traditions the Apostles taught by word of mouth (2 Thes. 2.15) and those appointed by the Apostles (Heb. 13.17). The problem is that we Catholics got lazy over the last generation and forgot that Scripture was inspired by God and useful to us in so many ways.

[bdv]

this is the same tired argument that Bertrand Russell uses...it's clear that he hasn't spent adequate time exegeting the WHOLE of Scripture and would rather lazily bank his entire argument on this sole verse and interpret it in an incomplete and really embarrassingly inaequate way.

if he had spent time in Daniel, Ezekiel, then the Olivet Discourse and finished up with Revelation, then this prophecy of Jesus would make a whole lot more sense. it's clear that you're unfamiliar with apocalyptic language and that anything more than a perfunctory understanding of Scripture is what fuels this argument.

in 70 AD, the Romans wiped the Temple from the face of the Earth. this is the focal event that you should be focused on, not the 'parousia' or second coming of Christ and it's not some ridiculous 'rapture'. making a case on these boards would be a waste of time, as Christian threads (specifically Catholic ones) quickly degenerate into innuendo and not scholarship.

Please review my OP. There were TWO passages in Mathew that I referenced. Not one "sole verse."

You are arguing in a circle. Why would I accept your doctrine (i.e. your interpretation) of the "WHOLE of Scripture" as an atheist? Since I don't yet believe in the supernatural, I don't yet believe the bible to be inspired, or, for that matter, that the books that were canonized were done so by supernatural means. Thus I don't believe the disparate writings of your religious text to be interconnected, as you claim. These would be things I could only believe once I came to the conclusion that the bible had a supernatural origin. Yet that is what you would be trying to prove. You are using what you would like to prove in order to prove what you are trying to prove.

As an atheist, all I can do is read the bible without the filter you call doctrine. Why would an atheistic biblical scholar (which I am not) apply one of the many contradictory biblical doctrines to what he reads? Such a person would simply take what he reads at face value, and not assume the ancient writings to necessarily be supernaturally interconnected over the hundreds of years they were written.

So, first prove the existence of the Christian god. You claim he's real, you prove it. (You can use the bible to prove this, but don't, in essence, ask me to believe in the supernatural origin of the bible in an attempt to prove the supernatural origin of the bible.) Then we will have a starting point for you to demonstrate that those ancient writings were supernaturally canonized, and from there, that your decrypting of the seemingly contradictory and unrelated parts of said religious text is the correct decryption (AKA doctrine).

Then, and only then, can you claim that I am omitting your doctrine from my analysis out of 'laziness.'

[orinjkrush]

if we could just focus on the here and now and spend more time on helping one another with reality based problems,
then the here after will sort itself out alright.
'sides, God doesn't play dice or favorites.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Please review my OP. There were TWO passages in Mathew that I referenced. Not one "sole verse."

You are arguing in a circle. Why would I accept your doctrine (i.e. your interpretation) of the "WHOLE of Scripture" as an atheist? Since I don't yet believe in the supernatural, I don't yet believe the bible to be inspired, or, for that matter, that the books that were canonized were done so by supernatural means. Thus I don't believe the disparate writings of your religious text to be interconnected, as you claim. These would be things I could only believe once I came to the conclusion that the bible had a supernatural origin. Yet that is what you would be trying to prove. You are using what you would like to prove in order to prove what you are trying to prove.

As an atheist, all I can do is read the bible without the filter you call doctrine. Why would an atheistic biblical scholar (which I am not) apply one of the many contradictory biblical doctrines to what he reads? Such a person would simply take what he reads at face value, and not assume the ancient writings to necessarily be supernaturally interconnected over the hundreds of years they were written.

So, first prove the existence of the Christian god. You claim he's real, you prove it. (You can use the bible to prove this, but don't, in essence, ask me to believe in the supernatural origin of the bible in an attempt to prove the supernatural origin of the bible.) Then we will have a starting point for you to demonstrate that those ancient writings were supernaturally canonized, and from there, that your decrypting of the seemingly contradictory and unrelated parts of said religious text is the correct decryption (AKA doctrine).

Then, and only then, can you claim that I am omitting your doctrine from my analysis out of 'laziness.'

it's YOU that's arguing from an inconsistent position. you don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture, yet use selected verses from it to try and disprove a teaching from it. you are exegeting the Bible--this boils down to whether you interpret it correctly or not, regardless of your belief in its inspiration or not. you chose the 'turf' from which to argue but are not willing to accept the criticism of your use of that turf. instead, you'd rather tell me you don't care what Scripture says, yet use it to make a very weak argument. If i quoted from the Communist Manifesto to prove that Marx contradicted himself, it really doesn't matter if I consider Marxism useless. I chose to argue from that piece, and would be willing to stay on that turf and argue it. this is an exegetical issue, not an 'i believe in inspiration' issue. the reason i see this argument as laziness is because you haven't bothered to see what the answer might be for yourself. you've exegeted Scripture in a way that renders your conclusion invalid, regardless of supernatural origin or not.

i don't use the Bible to prove the existence of God, sorry. that's what fundamentalists do. i don't prove the inspiration of scripture from the Bible, either. i arrive at the inspiration of scripture using the Gospels as nothing more than a history book (as the starting point), not as doctrine. what you describe is a bunch of giant circles, and many Christians go that route. but many do not.

if you want to turn this into a 'prove God' thread, so be it. we both know that 'proving' God is silly since a person can have all the evidence necessary in front of them but still not make the rational leap. all i can do is give you the evidence i find based on reason alone, not doctrine or some book. again, a thread as complex as that would be convoluted and useless for all involved here.

[bdv]

it's YOU that's arguing from an inconsistent position. you don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture, yet use selected verses from it to try and disprove a teaching from it. you are exegeting the Bible--this boils down to whether you interpret it correctly or not, regardless of your belief in its inspiration or not. you chose the 'turf' from which to argue but are not willing to accept the criticism of your use of that turf....

First of all, amigo, there is no such thing as one Christian "Bible." A long time ago, your Christians cherry picked certain books to be put into the NT and left others out simply because of what was written in them. The "Bible" is a collection of hundreds (maybe thousands) of ancient writings from two religions. It should hardly be thought of as one book, but as a library of sometimes related, sometimes unrelated, often incomplete, ancient, ignorant religious texts. "The Bible," as most people lazily think of it, does not exist.

Your religion is based on this ancient, incomplete library, you call "the bible." I'm not going to participate in an argument where I have to pretend to believe that this library is a cohesive puzzle, when not even the Christians, let alone secular bible scholars, can agree how the "puzzle pieces" should fit together. I will, if you're interested, debate certain passages, as with the OP, provided we remain in the mutually agreed context of those passages.

But if you insist that such scriptures can only be understood from examining other parts of your library, texts written from a different religion ("Daniel, Ezekiel") and from an entirely different time, then I guess at best we have a stalemate regarding the passages I've chosen.

Are there no texts from your incomplete 'bible-library' that can stand on their own? Any that can offer me the 'extraordinary proof for you extraordinary claims'? If not, in a nut shell, where should I go for such proof? I don't blame you for not wanting to type for the next year about all of the this, but do you at least have a link? ;)

i don't use the Bible to prove the existence of God, sorry. that's what fundamentalists do. i don't prove the inspiration of scripture from the Bible, either. i arrive at the inspiration of scripture using the Gospels as nothing more than a history book (as the starting point), not as doctrine. what you describe is a bunch of giant circles, and many Christians go that route. but many do not.

Seriously, that's an interesting paragraph. Okay... what is your source? Why do you have such extraordinary faith in such extraordinary claims? Is your evidence equally extraordinary?

Do you ever wonder whether your god is real?

[epicSocialism4tw]

First of all, amigo, there is no such thing as one Christian "Bible." A long time ago, your Christians cherry picked certain books to be put into the NT and left others out simply because of what was written in them. The "Bible" is a collection of hundreds (maybe thousands) of ancient writings from two religions. It should hardly be thought of as one book, but as a library of sometimes related, sometimes unrelated, often incomplete, ancient, ignorant religious texts. "The Bible," as most people lazily think of it, does not exist.

The Bible as you think of it does not exist...and that's a fault of your own.

Your religion is based on this ancient, incomplete library, you call "the bible." I'm not going to participate in an argument where I have to pretend to believe that this library is a cohesive puzzle, when not even the Christians, let alone secular bible scholars, can agree how the "puzzle pieces" should fit together. I will, if you're interested, debate certain passages, as with the OP, provided we remain in the mutually agreed context of those passages.

Show me a subject more thoroughly subjected to academic rigor than the Bible and associated scriptures which have been analyzed by scholars all over the globe (especially in the west) for centuries.

Its not possible...you know why? Because all of the other disciplines dont have the global interest, or the cultural relevance.

But if you insist that such scriptures can only be understood from examining other parts of your library, texts written from a different religion ("Daniel, Ezekiel") and from an entirely different time, then I guess at best we have a stalemate regarding the passages I've chosen.

A different religion? You do know that Jesus is Jewish, right?

The only stalemate is the one going on inside your own head. You havent caught up to the scholarship that already exists, much less any imagined truth that you think you have stumbled across in your "intellectual superiority".

Are there no texts from your incomplete 'bible-library' that can stand on their own? Any that can offer me the 'extraordinary proof for you extraordinary claims'? If not, in a nut shell, where should I go for such proof? I don't blame you for not wanting to type for the next year about all of the this, but do you at least have a link? ;)

You can google "textual criticism" and come up with a pretty decent idea of whats going on.

Seriously, that's an interesting paragraph. Okay... what is your source? Why do you have such extraordinary faith in such extraordinary claims? Is your evidence equally extraordinary?

The small minded man concludes that he has mastery over the wonders of the universe and beyond. Every elegant truth revealed to man is something of a wild discovery. One that throws mens ideas into the garbage bin. In a universe of such truths, it would be silly to conclude that something as simple and yet elegant as the existence of a creator would be impossible. The greatest theories to be spawned from science are simplicities that wreck and consolidate complex information. The reason people have trouble with the sciences is because they think that they are more difficult than they are.

The God of the Bible is described as something of an uncontainable, wild lion. Dont expect him to fit into your predetermined mold of what you think is true. If that is your thinking, then you understand nothing of science or theology.

Do you ever wonder whether your god is real?

You should know that every human on the planet is confronted with doubts. There is an account of a disciple of Jesus who doubted him even though he was right there with him for three years. God gave this disciple special attention when he needed it, and dont doubt that you could get the same personalized attention as well. That personalized attention is what makes the God of the Bible so wonderful.

[bdv]

A different religion? You do know that Jesus is Jewish, right?

As the story goes. Now how many apostles started out as Jews? How many early Christians started out as Jews and then converted? The Jews of Jesus' time were right: Jesus did not fit the prophies...

The only stalemate is the one going on inside your own head. You havent caught up to the scholarship that already exists, much less any imagined truth that you think you have stumbled across in your "intellectual superiority".

I don't for a second believe that 'I have the truth,' I just think that believers in talking donkeys, 900-year-old people and demigods are wrong. But it is true that agnostics/atheists are statistically better educated than god-believers.

Also, I have no desire to 'catch up' fully with theological scholarship. Why would I? Have you fully caught up on all the nonsense-apologetics of all the religions and gods you don't believe in? I can think of better things to spend my time learning: "anything else" comes to mind. Tell your god to send me a miracle, good or bad, then I'll have a reason to spend my time on him. Until then, my knowledge of the bible and your god will remain as cursory as yours.

The small minded man concludes that he has mastery over the wonders of the universe and beyond.

Nice platitude.

...it would be silly to conclude that something as simple and yet elegant as the existence of a creator would be impossible.

I don't claim the existence of a creator would be impossible. Neither do 99.9999999999999999% of atheists. Where do you get this stuff? The default position for any extreme claim is skepticism. Or are you gullible? Atheists are simply without a belief in gods, but almost NO atheist formally denies that gods exist. Can't prove an unrestricted negative. It sounds like you've got some catching up to do.

"Elegant"? Your "bible," the Jewish part mostly, describes him as a bestial, hateful, selfish, narcissistic, crude, misogynistic, genocidal, frequent baby killer: an anthropomorphized maniacal human. But perhaps you meant something different different when you said, "simple and yet elegant"? Like the trinity? Are you a trinitarian? Some are, some are not. Man!!! It's so simple! I wish Christians could just make up their minds on how I'm supposed to interpret their "bible."

The God of the Bible is described as something of an uncontainable, wild lion. Dont expect him to fit into your predetermined mold of what you think is true.

He can be how he is, if he is. My only 'expectation,' based on "the bible," is that he not behave as a shy little girl.

You should know that every human on the planet is confronted with doubts.

Most of the hard core Christians I've met claim they do not have doubts as to his existence. angryllama, I don't have any doubts that my earthly father exists, why have you had doubts about your heavenly father's existence?

....That personalized attention is what makes the God of the Bible so wonderful.

That, and his scat fetish as illustrated in Malachi 2:3.

Review scripture here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mal%202:3;&version=9;

[baja]

Well here in Mexico we are following Jesus' instructions to the letter, when Jesus left he told the Mexicans, " Don't do anything until I get back".

What I don't get is why Atheists are so driven to push their non beliefs on others, what's the pay off to show everyone how smart (you think) you are?

[Smiling Assassin27]

First of all, amigo, there is no such thing as one Christian "Bible." A long time ago, your Christians cherry picked certain books to be put into the NT and left others out simply because of what was written in them. The "Bible" is a collection of hundreds (maybe thousands) of ancient writings from two religions. It should hardly be thought of as one book, but as a library of sometimes related, sometimes unrelated, often incomplete, ancient, ignorant religious texts. "The Bible," as most people lazily think of it, does not exist.


You've been reading too much Dawkins. This is false and you really should know that it is false. Let me give you an example. If you're compiling a book about Einstein and his theories, you will have to do two things--you will have to determine which writings (out of say, hundreds) are actually HIS writings and you will also have to determine which writings actually rightly explain his theories. This was what the Catholic Church did, since the Bible was written by Catholics for Catholics under inspiration (i know, i know, you don't believe this part) of the Holy Spirit. Of course, we'd need to go back to the authority issue to determine who made the most logical sense to do this. The early Christian church was Jewish and so the continuity between Testaments is seamless, IF you read it as a first century Jew and not a 21st century Atheist.

But if you insist that such scriptures can only be understood from examining other parts of your library, texts written from a different religion ("Daniel, Ezekiel") and from an entirely different time, then I guess at best we have a stalemate regarding the passages I've chosen.


Apply my example above. If you were going to read a book on Einstein's theories, you would have to know some fundamental things about Physics. If you read 'E=MC2', it would only make sense IF you knew and understood certain things. First, you would have to know what the INTENT of Einstein was in proposing this theory. Second, you would have to know that 'E', 'M', and 'C' were not letters, but numeric values. Third, you would have to know the basic laws of Physics that would even posit such a theory. Finally, you would have to know/understand the setting of the experiment/proof. Same with the Bible. For you to understand what Jesus, a first century Jew, was saying, you need to understand things like the intent of the author of the Scriptures he refers to, the Semitic idioms/apocalyptic language he uses and refers to, and finally, how he uses this in the verses you reference. You clearly don't. In Christianity, we have a group that pulls one or two verses from Scripture and says, 'This PROVES (insert inane point here)--we call them Fundamentalists. You have done the same thing here--pulled two verses, interpreted them inadequately, and claim they disprove the credibility of the Christian faith.

Seriously, that's an interesting paragraph. Okay... what is your source? Why do you have such extraordinary faith in such extraordinary claims? Is your evidence equally extraordinary?


It's called 'REASON'. One can use reason alone to arrive at the Christian God. No 'source' is required, only consistent logical processes. If you want me to provide a link that says 'God exists', it's not hard to find, but I don't rely on others to tell me what to believe, I use reason, much like you use reason to arrive at the conclusion that no God exists. If you want to discuss that here, it'll prolly get ugly (not because of you or I).

Do you ever wonder whether your god is real?

Anyone who arrives at a conclusion by reason alone will wonder if their conclusion is 100% right based on the evidence. This is where faith comes in--in Christian thought, it's a gift. We pray for it and rely on it, just like you do in anything you cannot prove fully.

[Smiling Assassin27]

As the story goes. Now how many apostles started out as Jews? How many early Christians started out as Jews and then converted? The Jews of Jesus' time were right: Jesus did not fit the prophies...


All of them. Every convert in the early Church was Jewish. The Christians were treated as a sect of Judaism by every Gentile nation and their worship was actually in the Jewish synagogues in addition to their homes. Now why would you try to exegete OT prophecies? We've already established that you aren't familiar with the nature of those prophecies, nor their context so how can you speak with ANY credibility about Jesus fulfilling prophecy?

I don't for a second believe that 'I have the truth,' I just think that believers in talking donkeys, 900-year-old people and demigods are wrong. But it is true that agnostics/atheists are statistically better educated than god-believers.


Got a link to prove this statistic? I have yet to see one Atheist alive who can adequately refute, let alone understand Aquinas' five ways. Oh sure, they THINK they understand it and they treat it as shallow, but their answers only reveal that they don't understand it. Why does 'education' translate into 'correct'? Do you believe that Truth can be known?

Until then, my knowledge of the bible and your god will remain as cursory as yours.


Nice try, but if a person reads God Delusion 12 times, they will be much more intimately in tune with Dawkins' position than one who reads it once. You admit that you biblical understanding is 'cursory' and yet you still try to make arguments using it.

I don't claim the existence of a creator would be impossible. Neither do 99.9999999999999999% of atheists. Where do you get this stuff? The default position for any extreme claim is skepticism.

This is an arbitrary claim. Skepticism is NOT the default position and is not the same as Agnosticism, which IS the rational default position.

Your "bible," the Jewish part mostly, describes him as a bestial, hateful, selfish, narcissistic, crude, misogynistic, genocidal, frequent baby killer: an anthropomorphized maniacal human.

There's that weak exegesis again. Such a dogmatic claim despite your admitted 'cursory' knowledge of the Bible. This is where knowing about the literary style, allegorical senses, Hebrew and Greek knowledge, etc. would really help you in your assessment.

That, and his scat fetish as illustrated in Malachi 2:3.


Dawkins and the rest of these Fundamenalist Atheists make this image look like an Irish Spring commercial. This is figurative language. God's not gonna find a giant pile of dung and give them facials. By the way, your translation is incorrect but I know it doesn't matter to you as long as a particular isolated verse 'supports' your position.

PM me if you'd like to get deeper into this, as I gotta work and the thread is already strewn about like the dung on the priests faces in Malachi 2...Good talkin' with you, b.

[orangeatheist]

What I don't get is why Atheists are so driven to push their non beliefs on others, what's the pay off to show everyone how smart (you think) you are?

No, we just want Christians to put up or shut up. Come up with the goods. But they can't. Hank's A$$.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't for a second believe that 'I have the truth,' I just think that believers in talking donkeys, 900-year-old people and demigods are wrong. But it is true that agnostics/atheists are statistically better educated than god-believers.

Not so sure about that. You know, its funny...evangelical atheists push their atheism on others regardless of their own qualification in either the scientific or religious genres. We'll take the field of genetics for example. While Richard Dawkins squawked angrily like a bully from pop philosophy books, he relied on the critical work of believers who decide not to force their beliefs on their peers or laypeople. Francis Collins headed the Human Genome Project and is a believer. Gregor Mendel, the founder of Mendelian Genetics and thusly the other half of the modern theory of Evolutiom, was a believer. While atheists like to argue otherwise, Charles Darwin died a believer.

Einstein wrote about the place where great science and great faith meet...a "cosmic" inspiration. Eistein was Jewish, and was a believer. He believed that great science was revealed in the same type of consciousness that great spiritual revelation was revealed.

So...the greatest scientists of our time were all believers. You can include Newton, Galileo, etc on the list.

Why dont you know they are all believers? Because they didnt squawk it like angry children.

Also, I have no desire to 'catch up' fully with theological scholarship. Why would I? Have you fully caught up on all the nonsense-apologetics of all the religions and gods you don't believe in? I can think of better things to spend my time learning: "anything else" comes to mind. Tell your god to send me a miracle, good or bad, then I'll have a reason to spend my time on him. Until then, my knowledge of the bible and your god will remain as cursory as yours.

You might want to try to understand the topic on a detailed level if you would like to really try to get the bottom of it. As it stands, you appear to only want to complain about things that you do not understand. To find the truth, you must first find the end of yourself.


I don't claim the existence of a creator would be impossible. Neither do 99.9999999999999999% of atheists. Where do you get this stuff? The default position for any extreme claim is skepticism. Or are you gullible? Atheists are simply without a belief in gods, but almost NO atheist formally denies that gods exist. Can't prove an unrestricted negative. It sounds like you've got some catching up to do.

Atheism is the complete denial of God, gods, or the possibilities of. Agnosticism leaves the door open for some type of explaination, whether it be the God of the Bible, or another explaination.

"Elegant"? Your "bible," the Jewish part mostly, describes him as a bestial, hateful, selfish, narcissistic, crude, misogynistic, genocidal, frequent baby killer: an anthropomorphized maniacal human. But perhaps you meant something different different when you said, "simple and yet elegant"? Like the trinity? Are you a trinitarian? Some are, some are not. Man!!! It's so simple! I wish Christians could just make up their minds on how I'm supposed to interpret their "bible."

An ant would have a heck of a time describing you or I.

He can be how he is, if he is. My only 'expectation,' based on "the bible," is that he not behave as a shy little girl.

He will not force you to do anything. He wont force you to believe.

Most of the hard core Christians I've met claim they do not have doubts as to his existence. angryllama, I don't have any doubts that my earthly father exists, why have you had doubts about your heavenly father's existence?

Here I have to refer again to trying to predetermine what parameters you place on a God that creates fusion, fire, death, cell division, cell metabolism, hyperthermophilic life forms, competition, beauty, love, friendship, violence, unexplained loss, sadness, the ceolocanth, the amblypygids, the black widow, pirhanas, top predators, dynamic environmental conditions, sex, birth, names, language, music, gravity, natural selection, extinction, sunspots, nuclear explosions, and explosions that release even greater destructive forces, etc.

God is the God of all, and we are very small.

[BroncoInferno]

Not so sure about that. You know, its funny...evangelical atheists push their atheism on others regardless of their own qualification in either the scientific or religious genres.

That's because there is a little order of business to take care of before theological expertise even enters the discussion. Namely, proving that a creator even exists. Religious folks have never come close to going beyond this first step. Besides, more times than not, even self-professed Christians do not themselves know a lick about theology.

While atheists like to argue otherwise, Charles Darwin died a believer.

That's a myth:

Darwin died on April 19, 1882, at the age of 73 and all the evidence says, "no", he did not make a deathbed conversion nor did he renounce evolution. This has been verified by Darwin's family, who have written a variety of articles on this very subject shortly after his death.

The story was believed to have been fabricated by Elizabeth Reid Cotton who claimed to have made several death bed visits where she experienced Darwin’s confession. However, at best, it was concluded that her visits were always under the watchful eye of a family member. It was later determined Ms. Cotton was a deeply religious woman who was troubled by Darwin's naturalistic ideas of which may have influenced her to fabricate such a story.

http://www.creationapologetics.org/createqanda/diddarwin.html

Einstein wrote about the place where great science and great faith meet...a "cosmic" inspiration. Eistein was Jewish, and was a believer. He believed that great science was revealed in the same type of consciousness that great spiritual revelation was revealed.

Wrong again. From Einstein himself:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Atheism is the complete denial of God, gods, or the possibilities of.

Wrong again. It IS the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods...the "possibilility of" part is your addition. I deny the existence of unicorns. But if someone placed before my eyes a horselike skull with a horn protruding from it, I would certainly reconsider. Does that make me agnostic about unicorns? Are YOU agnostic about unicorns? Or other gods that you presumably reject like Zeus?

I sit and wait with baited breath for some theist to provide evidence for their claim.

[Rohirrim]

Well here in Mexico we are following Jesus' instructions to the letter, when Jesus left he told the Mexicans, " Don't do anything until I get back".

What I don't get is why Atheists are so driven to push their non beliefs on others, what's the pay off to show everyone how smart (you think) you are?

Manana. :wiggle:

When my mother first bought that house in Mexico we thought "manana" meant tomorrow. :rofl:

[BroncoInferno]

What I don't get is why Atheists are so driven to push their non beliefs on others, what's the pay off to show everyone how smart (you think) you are?

The religious folks have had it their way for thousands of years now. It's high time they were called to the floor to support their beliefs, many of which add to the surplus of human suffering.

[Rohirrim]

Personally, I believe the so-called "Christian" religion that was created after Jesus died has very little to do with Jesus, or his teachings.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Darwin died on April 19, 1882, at the age of 73 and all the evidence says, "no", he did not make a deathbed conversion nor did he renounce evolution. This has been verified by Darwin's family, who have written a variety of articles on this very subject shortly after his death.
The story was believed to have been fabricated by Elizabeth Reid Cotton who claimed to have made several death bed visits where she experienced Darwin’s confession. However, at best, it was concluded that her visits were always under the watchful eye of a family member. It was later determined Ms. Cotton was a deeply religious woman who was troubled by Darwin's naturalistic ideas of which may have influenced her to fabricate such a story.
[/url]

I didnt refer to a deathbed "confession" or some other sort of dribble, which is aside of the point altogether. Part of the reason Darwin sat on Origin of Species is beause of his convictions of what it would do to the faithless.



Wrong again. From Einstein himself:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

How was I wrong? I said that Einstein belived in God, which he certainly did. Whether he believed in a personal god or not is immaterial to the point I made. One thing that we do know, is that he was NOT an atheist by any stretch, and that he equated the great spiritual revelations with the great scientific discoveries in both intellectual achievement and contribution to mankind.



Wrong again. It IS the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods...the "possibilility of" part is your addition. I deny the existence of unicorns. But if someone placed before my eyes a horselike skull with a horn protruding from it, I would certainly reconsider. Does that make me agnostic about unicorns? Are YOU agnostic about unicorns? Or other gods that you presumably reject like Zeus?

Another round-and-round with "atheists" that dont even know what they are, but they are darn well sure that they want to act like they know something about the subject, by golly!

I sit and wait with baited breath for some theist to provide evidence for their claim.

Look for yourself.

[TailgateNut]

Another round-and-round with "atheists" that dont even know what they are, but they are darn well sure that they want to act like they know something about the subject, by golly!



Look for yourself.


Don't even know WHAT they are? You arrogant follower of a non-existant being. Proove his existance beyond the "stories" in one of the versions of your bible.
Why would we want to look for ourselves? We get enough of the BS dribble from the likes of you.

Poof! Six days later all had been created. A touch up here and there and the world as we know it was in full swing.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Don't even know WHAT they are? You arrogant follower of a non-existant being. Proove his existance beyond the "stories" in one of the versions of your bible.
Why would we want to look for ourselves? We get enough of the BS dribble from the likes of you. Poof! Six days later all had been created. A touch up here and there and the world as we know it was in full swing.


The next guy that says he's an atheist, but isnt even convinced himself of his own atheism should volunteer to get up and exit this board. Stage left, even. Its ridiculous.

[Bob]

No, we just want Christians to put up or shut up. Come up with the goods. But they can't. Hank's A$$.

Perhaps the best way to "put up" is to behave more consistant with one's own convictions...

[Bob]

What if John did not die, but was allowed to "tarry" until the Second Coming? This belief is interpreted from John 21:21-23 which reads: [21] Peter seeing him (John) saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? [22] Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. [23] Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?'

Elsewhere it reads "... ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me. Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven."

There is always two ways of considering things -- assuming that all Christains hold to conventional doctrine, which is based on false ideas that sprouted from blending pagan and early Christainity is the first of several mistakes you have made here.

[TailgateNut]

The next guy that says he's an atheist, but isnt even convinced himself of his own atheism should volunteer to get up and exit this board. Stage left, even. Its ridiculous.


Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[5] and naturalism,[6] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[7]

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.[8] With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.


How 'bout this. (using Lone Bolts' logic) Proove the existance of you gods! Otherwise STFU about anyone who doesn't believe in your "make believe world" having to leave (exit stage left).

BTW: the bible isn't proof (anyone can conjure up a story/ see the Science fiction channel )

If it weren't for religious nutcases, many wars would have never occurred. It's the "my god(s) is(are) better than your god(s)" attitude.

[Rohirrim]

I believe there is a Creator. Unfortunately, one second on his watch is a thousand years to us so as much as he'd like to get involved with us on an individual level, we're just not around long enough. ;D

[Smiling Assassin27]

OP has officially gone kaput here...

my answer to the OP: it DID happen in their lifetime. your problem lies in exactly what 'it' is.

[BroncoInferno]

I didnt refer to a deathbed "confession" or some other sort of dribble, which is aside of the point altogether. Part of the reason Darwin sat on Origin of Species is beause of his convictions of what it would do to the faithless.

Damn, if you are going to strut around like a peacock spouting off assertions, you'd think you'd at least do some cursory research lest someone decide not to take you at your word and do some fact checking for themselves.

From Darwin's autobiography:

....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian....
....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine....

Yep, that Darwin sure was a theist Hilarious!

How was I wrong? I said that Einstein belived in God, which he certainly did. Whether he believed in a personal god or not is immaterial to the point I made. One thing that we do know, is that he was NOT an atheist by any stretch, and that he equated the great spiritual revelations with the great scientific discoveries in both intellectual achievement and contribution to mankind.

You are correct that Einstein referenced god and religion at times, but let's examine some of his quotes to see what he might have meant when he used the terms:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

In the first quote, he is speaking of an impenetrable knowledge that we can be aware of, and "in this sense and this sense alone" he is religious. In the second quote, he sounds at best a deist. If I were a deep believing theist, I'm not sure how you could consider Einstein a feather in the cap.

As far as your assertion that Einstein equally revered the intellectual contributions to mankind made by "spiritual revelations" as he did scientific discovery, I've been unable to find any statements that in any way corroborate this. Can you please provide an example that clearly demonstrates the veracity of your assertion?

At any rate, even if Darwin and Einstein had been religious, what of it? Because Darwin was a brilliant naturalist and Einstein a brilliant physicist gives neither any special credibility re: the question of god's existence.

Another round-and-round with "atheists" that dont even know what they are, but they are darn well sure that they want to act like they know something about the subject, by golly!

I know what the definitions and applications of the term mean. I also know a fraud when I see one. Your religion (and all others) of the pious variety, your speciousness of the intellectual type.

Look for yourself.

You're making the claim, buddy. It's up to you to support it.

[Doggcow]

This can all be summed up very easily, "Jibba Jabbah"

[bdv]

OP has officially gone kaput here...

my answer to the OP: it DID happen in their lifetime. your problem lies in exactly what 'it' is.

Been busy... Keeping up still. I've found your responses interesting. I think modern, philosophically minded Catholics have much more credibility than other Christians, Jews or Muslims. Makes for good dialogs. Of course, you know... Catholic philosophies are sophistry ;). But that's alright, I'm sure you think the same of the many atheistic philosophies and ethics.

Special pleading and other fallacies notwithstanding, you guys are much more stimulating and challenging than listening to the mental gymnastics fundamentalists perform on the bible. One very serious intellectual contrast is that Catholics don't reject evolution. A sheer mass of enriching, fascinating science is made opaque to fundamentalists due to creationism - even more so for the young-earth creationists.

Unfortunately, as much as I would love to speak highly of your religion, Catholic orthodoxy says it is a sin to use modern birth control. I hope for the sake of a fast-growing worldwide population of poor people that God and the Pope change their minds on this moral issue. Quick!

The catholic position on abortion is completely reasonable and understandable. While their modern position on the death penalty and war makes them uniquely consistent and admirable. But birth control!? Your religion even says it's okay to have sex with one's spouse while intentionally preventing conception using the rhythm method. Can't they just take it one small step further? It would save so much misery around the world. Do you agree with your religion on this one?

Okay, back on topic: yes. I would love to know what 'it' is. Also, how much agreement is there among Catholics, Protestants and secular bible scholars over what 'it' (my OP) is?

Thanks again for your responses to my posts.
-Tim

[BroncoInferno]

Unfortunately, as much as I would love to speak highly of your religion, Catholic orthodoxy says it is a sin to use modern birth control.

Oh, let us not forget limbo, which has lead to much unnecessary psychological suffering. From 2005:

Limbo, an Afterlife Tradition, May Be Doomed by the Vatican

ROME, Dec. 27 - It may seem half a shame to get rid of a church tradition, however cruel and antiquated, if it can inspire poetry like "The Inferno" or spooky lines like these from Seamus Heaney: "Fishermen at Ballyshannon/Netted an infant last night/Along with the salmon."

The concept of limbo was never official church doctrine, but has been an enduring theory.

But limbo, that netherworld of unbaptized babies and worthy pagans, is very much on the way out - another lesson that while belief in God may not change, the things people believe about him most certainly do.

This month, 30 top theologians from around the world met at the Vatican to discuss, among other quandaries, the problem of what happens to babies who die without baptism. They do not like the word for it, but what they were really doing, as theological advisers to Pope Benedict XVI, was finally disposing of limbo - a concept that was never official church doctrine but has been an enduring medieval theory of a blissful state among the departed, somehow different from both heaven and hell.

Unlike purgatory, a sort of waiting room to heaven for those with some venial faults, the theory of limbo consigned children outside of heaven on account of original sin alone. As a concept, limbo has long been out of favor anyway, as theologically questionable and unnecessarily harsh. It is hard to imagine depriving innocents of heaven. These days it prompts more snickers than anything, as evidenced by the titter of press coverage here along the lines of "Limbo Consigned to Hell."

But it remains an interesting relic, strangely relevant to what the Roman Catholic Church has been and what it wants to be. The theory of limbo bumps up against one of the most contentious issues for the church: abortion. If fetuses are human beings, what happens to their souls if they are aborted? It raises questions of how broadly the church - and its new leader - view the idea of salvation.

And it has some real-life consequences. The church is growing most in poor places like Africa and Asia where infant mortality remains high. While the concerns of the experts reconsidering limbo are more theological, it does not hurt the church's future if an African mother who has lost a baby can receive more hopeful news from her priest in 2005 than, say, an Italian mother did 100 years ago.

"You look at the proper theology, but if there is more consolation, all the better," said the Rev. Luis Ladaria, the Spanish Jesuit who is secretary general of the International Theological Commission, the official body working on limbo. Unlike many issues - the recent emotional debate over homosexuality in the priesthood, for example - limbo seems to garner unanimity that it should exit the church's stage, even if, at the moment, the exact doctrine that will replace it is unclear.

"Limbo has never been a definitive truth of the faith," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Benedict XVI earlier this year, said in an interview in 1984, during his long term as Pope John Paul II's doctrinal watchdog. "Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis."

As pope, Benedict has said nothing on the subject, though many experts - but not all, it should be noted - say the controversy over limbo began with one of Benedict's spiritual heroes: St. Augustine.

The theology is complicated, but the bottom line is that Augustine, believing in mankind's original sin, persuaded a church council in 418 to reject any notion of an "intermediary place" between heaven and hell. He held that baptism was necessary for salvation, and that unbaptized babies would actually go to hell, though in his later writings he conceded that it would entail the mildest of conditions.

It was "a pretty grim doctrine," said the Rev. Gerald O'Collins, an Australian Jesuit and co-author of "A Concise Dictionary of Theology" (Paulist Press: 2000). "You're either in hell or you're not."

In the Middle Ages, theologians, notably St. Thomas Aquinas, postulated a slightly cheerier idea: limbo, from the Latin "limbus," meaning a hem or a boundary. Here innocents would live forever in what Thomas called "natural happiness," if not in heaven.

This was the Limbo of the Babies. There was also a temporary Limbo of the Fathers, where Dante located, among others, Virgil, his guide through hell; Moses; Socrates; Plato; even the gentlemanly Muslim warrior Saladin (to whom Saddam Hussein, incidentally, often compared himself).

Though limbo had no firm scriptural basis, and so was never official church doctrine, it remained a major part of church tradition - as well as one defining image of Catholicism - as either a neat theological compromise or as a bit mean, depending on whom one asked.

It remained strong in 1905, when Pope Pius X stated plainly, "Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either."

But ideas began to change with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960's, in which the church held that everyone - baptized Christians or not - could be eligible for salvation through the mystery of Christ's redemptive power. Pope John Paul II continued the decline of limbo, omitting the term from the most recent catechism and last year, not long before his death, asking the theological commission to officially consider the question of unbaptized babies.

John Paul, who brought the issue of abortion to the fore of the church's concerns, appeared interested for a special reason: the fate of aborted fetuses. In his 1995 encyclical, he wrote to women who had abortions, "You will also be able to ask forgiveness of your child, who is now living in the Lord." He did not say if they were in heaven or limbo.

The mystery of God, and man's ignorance before it, is, according to Father Ladaria, the starting point for the commission's work. To some observers of the church, which holds the pope's judgment infallible on certain matters, the questioning of limbo is a rare, welcome admission of error.

This will attract attention "as something that does look like an ability to pull back," said James J. O'Donnell, the provost of Georgetown University and a professor of classics. It is, he said, essentially saying, "Let's progress back to ignorance rather than remain mired in assertion that brings with it perhaps more complication and more trouble than it is worth."

Mr. O'Donnell, author of "Augustine: A New Biography" (HarperCollins: 2005), said it might also be interesting to see limbo killed off under the rule of Benedict.

Benedict, he noted, is also an Augustine scholar, and the issue of unbaptized babies aside, Augustine was a man who generally argued for a broader view of who should be allowed in the church.

Over the years before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger propounded several doctrines that had the "appearance, and sometimes more than the appearance, of exclusivity and separatism" of Catholics over other faiths, Mr. O'Donnell said. Getting rid of limbo, he said, could be read as a sign of Benedict's endorsing a greater inclusivity into God's plan.

"Even though Augustine himself would not be particularly tolerant of a doctrine that is kinder to unbaptized children, you could still say that a move in that direction would have an Augustinian quality to it," he said.

It is often said the church moves in centuries, not days or even years. So Father Ladaria looked up to heaven when asked when the final report on limbo might be finished. Probably no less than a year, he said, when the commission meets here again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/international/europe/28limbo.html?pagewanted=2

This month, 30 top theologians from around the world met at the Vatican to discuss, among other quandaries, the problem of what happens to babies who die without baptism.

Seriously, can anyone just imagine an exercise more intellectually forlorn and a waste of human effort than this?

[baja]

Personally, I believe the so-called "Christian" religion that was created after Jesus died has very little to do with Jesus, or his teachings.

Ain't that the truth.

[bdv]

Atheism is the complete denial of God, gods, or the possibilities of. Agnosticism leaves the door open for some type of explaination, whether it be the God of the Bible, or another explaination.
You've been engaging in these discussions long enough to know Atheists do not define "Atheism" this way. Yours is the popular, Christian definition of "atheism," not the academic definition. Just as the popular definition of "myth" and "rhetoric" are incomplete, and thus wrong, the same is true with the popular definition of "Atheism." Are you intending to mislead people with your pedestrian definition?

Tell me, are you a Republican or an American? Are you a Christian or a Protestant? The definitions of "Atheist" and "agnostic" overlap in much the same way. "Atheist" is a more narrowly defined word, always, in contrast to "agnostic," referencing gods, and always meaning "not a theist." There are certainly some differences in the definitions of these two words, but they are NOT, as you claim, mutually exclusive.

I'll say again, almost no atheist would make a "complete denial of God, gods, or the possibilities of" gods. That would be an absurd assertion. It is true, however, that while engaging in philosophy, Atheists are more likely to informally suppose the probability of the existence of deities to be quite low, a lot lower than 50% (agnostic) but virtually never 0%. Where as agnostics may claim to have no opinion on the matter. I could go on with the differences and similarities in the two words, but you knew most this already. You did not simply make a mistake. You are a liar.

An ant would have a heck of a time describing you or I.
Your metaphor only serves to elucidate your world view, not to prove that it is accurate. Telling me WHAT you believe does not SUPPORT what you believe.

He will not force you to do anything. He wont force you to believe.
I'm so tired of this small-minded argument. Does my biological father "force" me to believe in his existence? My freedom has not been taken away because the existence of my dad is empirically undeniable. On the contrary, with this knowledge, I am given freedom: to agree with him, to follow in his footsteps, to reject him, etc. In the same way, because your god does not make his existence obvious, your god has taken away my freedom to choose whether to obey him, to worship him, to suck his dick, etc.

By your logic, only the highly credulous will go to heaven.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yours is the popular, Christian definition of "atheism," not the academic definition.

:yep:

Just like his definition of "propaganda" = "any inconvenient fact or uncomfortable reality re: Bush, the GOP, movement conservatism, or Christian fundamentalism."

Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Personally, I believe the so-called "Christian" religion that was created after Jesus died has very little to do with Jesus, or his teachings.

QFT. ^5

No problem with Jesus here - it's his fan club that makes me want to throw up.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This board has been through this many times...

The agnostics here that claim they are atheists cant figure out the difference between an agnostic and an atheist.

The theists bow out for the most part because of the timbre of the conversation.

So, like usual, I predict that this thread will have a quick death at the hands of the anti-Bush propaganda machine.

[BroncoInferno]

llama, of course, ignores my utter exposure of him as an intellectual fraud. No surprise there.

[TheDave]

Iit's times like these that i'm reminded of the many benefits of not giving a **** about religion... Every once in a while it's good to be Dave ;D

[epicSocialism4tw]

llama, of course, ignores my utter exposure of him as an intellectual fraud. No surprise there.

You might get more of a discussion if:

1) You took the time to read and understand things in context without jumping to conclusions.

2) Could come up with a working definition of any of the key terms of the subject matter you choose to discuss. Until then, you are not worth the time or the effort.

[BroncoInferno]

You might get more of a discussion if:

1) You took the time to read and understand things in context without jumping to conclusions.

2) Could come up with a working definition of any of the key terms of the subject matter you choose to discuss. Until then, you are not worth the time or the effort.

That transparent attempt at sophistry aside, you said Darwin believed in god. I proved with the man's own words that he emphatically did not. You claimed that Einstein believed in god and considered spiritual revelations on par with scientific discovery. I showed that the first claim is a bit dubious in terms of what Einstein meant by "god", and in the second found no evidence to support the claim and you refuse to provide any evidence yourself. I can only conclude you were either woefully misinformed or else out right lying.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You claimed that Einstein believed in god and considered spiritual revelations on par with scientific discovery. I showed that the first claim is a bit dubious in terms of what Einstein meant by "god",

You "showed" that you were pretty good at quoting out of context to prove a point that was never made in the first place. It doesnt matter what Einstein meant to describe as pertaining to what I "claimed" (as you so love to say). It was pretty obvious that I made very little claim to anything other that Einstein was absolutely NOT an atheist. His theology found in his essays and various articles submitted and published by popular American papers like the NYT are more similar to reformed Judaism than any of the Protestant or Catholic sects. I would suggest hunting them down for your own knowledge. I have been there, done that. There are many compilations that you can find published on the subject, if not the originals.

You can find direct quotes that equate great spiritual "revelation" with great scientific revelation. Had Einstein been a theologian, he might have been able to better describe this from a religious perspective, but as a brilliant man he did a fine job as an amateur.

and in the second found no evidence to support the claim and you refuse to provide any evidence yourself. I can only conclude you were either woefully misinformed or else out right lying.

How 'bout you use your own time to do the research, and not mine? I have preciously little.

If you disagree with my "claim" (goodness...have lawyers even ruined language?), then come up with your own ideas from other texts. Dont depend on me or anyone else to spoon feed them to you like a child.

[BroncoInferno]

You "showed" that you were pretty good at quoting out of context to prove a point that was never made in the first place. It doesnt matter what Einstein meant to describe as pertaining to what I "claimed" (as you so love to say). It was pretty obvious that I made very little claim to anything other that Einstein was absolutely NOT an atheist. His theology found in his essays and various articles submitted and published by popular American papers like the NYT are more similar to reformed Judaism than any of the Protestant or Catholic sects. I would suggest hunting them down for your own knowledge. I have been there, done that. There are many compilations that you can find published on the subject, if not the originals.

Nice side-step of the Darwin issue. You were wrong and misinformed.

Whatever Einstein was, he certainly did not believe in "God" in the sense of the Judeo-Christian God, or the god of any religion. As he said himself, he believed in Spinoza's "God", which hardly fits the definition of mainstream theism. To Spinoza, nothing could exist outside of nature. God, therefore, could not exist outside of nature. Nothing could exist outside of nature, including spiritual revelation. Essentially, God IS nature in the Spinoza model. I am not sure why you believe this to be some sort of feather in the cap for theists.

At any rate, as I said before, Einstein's brilliance as a physicist gives him no special credibility to answer the question of god's existence. I'm not sure why you seem to think it does.

You can find direct quotes that equate great spiritual "revelation" with great scientific revelation. Had Einstein been a theologian, he might have been able to better describe this from a religious perspective, but as a brilliant man he did a fine job as an amateur.

How 'bout you use your own time to do the research, and not mine? I have preciously little.

If you are going to participate in debates, it's generally accepted that you come to the table ready to support your assertions. You made the assertion and have refused to provide a single quote or piece of evidence to support said assertion. You made the claim; it is up to you to support it. Otherwise, you're just full of ****.

If you disagree with my "claim" (goodness...have lawyers even ruined language?), then come up with your own ideas from other texts. Dont depend on me or anyone else to spoon feed them to you like a child.

I don't. I expect people who choose to participate in a debate to come prepared to support their assertions. That's also what most people expect. If you are going to come strutting into a discussion as if you are some sort of authority on the subject, you ought to be prepared when your hand is called. Anything else is meaningless chest-thumping.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Whatever Einstein was, he certainly did not believe in "God" in the sense of the Judeo-Christian God, or the god of any religion. As he said himself, he believed in Spinoza's "God", which hardly fits the definition of mainstream theism. To Spinoza, nothing could exist outside of nature. God, therefore, could not exist outside of nature. Nothing could exist outside of nature, including spiritual revelation. Essentially, God IS nature in the Spinoza model. I am not sure why you believe this to be some sort of feather in the cap for theists.

Whatever governing principle Einstein claimed as his explaination, whether naturalistic or not, Einstein viewed as a "god" and said as much several times. If you want a place to start, I looked up a book for you that has some of his essays in it called "Ideas and Opinions"...check out the science and religion chapters.

At any rate, as I said before, Einstein's brilliance as a physicist gives him no special credibility to answer the question of god's existence. I'm not sure why you seem to think it does.

Again, go back and read in context within the thread, and find out why it was referenced.

If you are going to participate in debates, it's generally accepted that you come to the table ready to support your assertions. You made the assertion and have refused to provide a single quote or piece of evidence to support said assertion. You made the claim; it is up to you to support it. Otherwise, you're just full of ****.

Just like the "claim" that atheism allows for the possibility of god(s)...one that you still havent been able to figure out.


I don't. I expect people who choose to participate in a debate to come prepared to support their assertions. That's also what most people expect. If you are going to come strutting into a discussion as if you are some sort of authority on the subject, you ought to be prepared when your hand is called. Anything else is meaningless chest-thumping.

You were given the places to look. Dont be upset if someone doesnt spoon feed you your information.

You love wikipedia, so use that as a starting place.

Quit using the fact that you have to do your own research as a copout.

[orangeatheist]

Just like the "claim" that atheism allows for the possibility of god(s)...one that you still havent been able to figure out.


Think about this: You're trying so hard to make atheists into "believers" who have "faith" like you do --so you can level the same criticisms at us as you obviously know are valid against your own position-- that you've created this straw man instead of actually taking the time to let the atheist speak for his- or herself.

Atheism is LACK of belief in god(s). We are not so dogmatic as to completely rule-out some future falsification of our position. We are NOT like you, who has unshakable faith in your beliefs that no matter what is presented you won't be shaken off your foundations. We're not that stupid. What we ARE saying is that you theists have not been able to provide evidence or make a convincing case that your god exists. Thus we do not ("a-") believe in your gods ("-theist").

Get it now?

Of course not. It's SO much easier for you to beat up on your straw man with your irrelevant Funk and Wagnals than to actually deal with a flesh-and-blood position.

EDIT TO ADD: To anticipate the inevitable, "Then you're an agnostic!" tripe, NO, I'm not an agnostic. It's not that I don't ("a-") know ("gnostic") that there isn't a god. I don't hold out that the two positions ("There is a god"; "There isn't a god") are equally valid and I'm a fence sitter. I state categorically that theists have NOT proved their case for a god; not even close. Therefore, without any due cause to believe in such a being, I state there is none. There wasn't any evidence of a god before the argument and after the endless prattling of the theist, there still remains no evidence of a god. It really is that simple, regardless of how the theist tries to cloud the issue (queue angry's entrance).

[bdv]

The default position for any extreme claim is skepticism.
This is an arbitrary claim. Skepticism is NOT the default position and is not the same as Agnosticism, which IS the rational default position.
I state categorically that theists have NOT proved their case for a god; not even close. Therefore, without any due cause to believe in such a being, I state there is none.

Assassin, et el., I regularly talk to advanced aliens who are presently orbiting our planet. They use their advanced technology to remain undetected by our comparatively ant-like, primitive technology. In fact, their technology is so advanced that I can tell they are speaking to me by sending electrical communications directly to my brain. I communicate back to them with my thoughts. The aliens and I actually have a personal relationship! It's not just me. The aliens communicate with others, too.

The problem is that these aliens are preparing to blow up the earth in the near future. They didn't tell me exactly when, but I was promised it will be "very soon." They will let me and the others whom they communicate with live. I feel happy when I think of you guys, because the aliens have told me that if I convince people to believe in their existence, and then to help them in various ways, their lives (your lives) will be spared as well! We will live a very long, and very happy life due to our willingness to believe.

Sadly, I'm finding that most people simply will not listen! When I testify, they always sound so skeptical. It seems Ironic to me, the well-educated have been the least willing to learn what I am teaching. They say it's up to get ME to provide "evidence of a magnitude worthy of such claims." "The evidence is my testimony," I've told them. But they just kept wanting me to do all the work for them. "I've told you the truth," I assured them. "If you need more evidence, I'm sure you can find it; and if you can't find it, this clearly proves that you really don't want to know." Upon hearing me say this, I could tell they were becoming even more defiant and close-minded.

At the very least, I would think, they should assume that the probability of the aliens being real is equal to the probability that they are not real. They can't prove these aliens do not exist, so what are they basing their doubts on? They are not only insolent, but illogical! On this point I was told, dismissively, that "the default position for claims like mine is not agnosticism, but skepticism." You read that right, they were so arrogant and close-minded as to actually doubt what I had to say - without even wanting to hear all my details!

Well, eventually I had enough. They needed to look in the mirror and finally know what their worldview really was. So I told them: "YOU THINK THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT WHAT I CLAIM IS TRUE!!!" You bet, I was yelling.

With my outburst, came their patronizing insults. "Calm down," one of them said to me, "we're not saying we have absolute knowledge that you are wrong, your claim is not impossible, just improbable." "No need to worry, it's surely all in your head," another one of them imprudently 'informed me.' When I tried telling them of the many others who also knew what I was saying to be true, I was only mocked some more, "okay, tell them to bring us the evidence." I was then condescendingly informed, "no need to get emotional, your delusion is common, and quite curable." It was as if they thought I was either lying or even crazy!

As you can tell, I was essentially talking to a brick wall. There was no hope for these self-described "scientists" and "freethinkers," who were really anything but. "You have the freedom to believe me," I warned them, "the choice is yours!" But I needed to stop wasting my time with them so I could testify to people who would actually believe me. Before I left, however, I felt I had to ask them one last question, "why don't you require the same type of evidence for religious claims?" "Religions!?" one of them enigmatically replied. His friend then blurted out, "didn't you know!?" As I began to ask the question again, I was interrupted with the answer, "religions are largely exempt from open skepticism, they were grandfathered in under the old 'special pleading' clause." Hmmmm... "I wish my claim could qualify for 'special pleading,'" I thought to myself.

Oh well. Don't worry, you guys. I will never give up the fight to save those with a strong willingness to believe.

[TailgateNut]

:thanku: :thanku: :thanku:
!


That's great.!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Think about this: You're trying so hard to make atheists into "believers" who have "faith" like you do --so you can level the same criticisms at us as you obviously know are valid against your own position-- that you've created this straw man instead of actually taking the time to let the atheist speak for his- or herself.

It has nothing to do with "reducing" the argument to debate over atheism as a position of faith. It has everything to do with the fact that most of the people here who claim atheism are, in fact, unknowing AGNOSTICS.

There is distinction between atheism and agnosticism for a reason. It is because they are inherently different and minced at the core.

Atheism...anyone with even a basic college-level understanding of linguistics should be able to understand that in the jargon of philosophy, the prefix "a-" specifically means "without" or "no". In science (particularly biology), the same prefix always denotes the abscence of a trait. Asymmetry, asexual, etc. Atheism is made into a simple term because it communicates a simple idea...that's the idea that NO god(s) or the possibility of god(s) is taken into account in the philosophy.

Let's get down to brass tacks:
If you believe in the possibillity of any type of god at any point in time, you are NOT an atheist. Period. End of discussion.

Atheism is LACK of belief in god(s). We are not so dogmatic as to completely rule-out some future falsification of our position.

Now you are discussing something other than atheism. You claim that you could change your mind if given sufficient evidence. That may be all well and good, but an atheist does NOT believe in god(s). It believes in something else in a god's place, and if an athiest is honest, they say that they havent the slightest idea as to what fills that space in the causal chain beside causality itself, thus elevating causality to "holy" status.

If an athiest changes their mind to believe in god(s), then they are no longer an atheist at all, but something else. Because the characteristic, foundational belief of the philosophy has changed.

So, if an atheist has concluded that the possibility of god(s) exist, then they are admitting that they arent totally convinced of their own atheism, and if that is the case, then are they an atheist at all? I think that that is a legitimate question.

Then the issue becomes more of style than of substance. Its culturally stylish to be an atheist in America. To stand against the mainstream in what some think is a superior intellectual position. But what of the substance? Is an atheist really convinced of their own philosophy? I think that you find very few who are.


We are NOT like you, who has unshakable faith in your beliefs that no matter what is presented you won't be shaken off your foundations.

That's what a philosophy is built on: foundations of truths that are relevant and convincing to the beholder.

I guess that you are choosing to be more of a Nihilist than an atheist. For that, you may need to do a little more introspection to find out why you believe what you believe.

We're not that stupid.

Okay, so atheists as a whole are all just beacons of brilliance? Explain Murray O'Hare for me then, who by all appearances was just a hardheaded, bitter redneck.

What we ARE saying is that you theists have not been able to provide evidence or make a convincing case that your god exists. Thus we do not ("a-") believe in your gods ("-theist").

And this is anything new? Their are tomes of information out there at your disposal (and whoever else "we" includes...is it the agnostics, the nihilists, or the atheists?) for the understanding of the being that I believe exists both superdimentionally and superuniversally.

If you disagree with what you understand of this God, then that's fine. It is my belief that God will not make any attempt to force himself on you, but instead gave himself up as a sacrifice to provide a path out of spiritual death and torture for the existential beings he created that went astray.

Get it now?

It's an old, old argument. Nothing new. It only has become more convoluted as atheism has laid arrogant claims to the science that spiritual and religious individuals have worked into reality.

Of course not. It's SO much easier for you to beat up on your straw man with your irrelevant Funk and Wagnals than to actually deal with a flesh-and-blood position.

Ah...so "flesh and blood" positions are positions that dont have any particular standard meaning.

I see.

Atheism in flesh and blood is a position of waffling and creating imaginary standards until they become useless, which is most of the time.

At least you were willing to admit it.

EDIT TO ADD: To anticipate the inevitable, "Then you're an agnostic!" tripe, NO, I'm not an agnostic. It's not that I don't ("a-") know ("gnostic") that there isn't a god. I don't hold out that the two positions ("There is a god"; "There isn't a god") are equally valid and I'm a fence sitter.

Then you are categorically NOT an athiest, and atheism to you is clearly a matter of style over substance.

I state categorically that theists have NOT proved their case for a god; not even close. Therefore, without any due cause to believe in such a being, I state there is none. There wasn't any evidence of a god before the argument and after the endless prattling of the theist, there still remains no evidence of a god. It really is that simple, regardless of how the theist tries to cloud the issue


I am not an Idealist. Im a naturalist for the most part, but a well-versed Idealist could run rings around you with the above statements that infer what you believe are absolutes in truth.

[TailgateNut]

Hilarious!

Hey llama, what the definition of "IS"?Hilarious!

It really is confusing for you when you are asked for proof of the existance of your god, and can't find any to produce. So you resort to questioning the mindset of the atheist.

[baja]

This is the best explanation of what God is I have ever encountered.

http://store.chopra.com/productinfo.asp?item=449

[BroncoInferno]

This is the best explanation of what God is I have ever encountered.

http://store.chopra.com/productinfo.asp?item=449

The best explanation of god is a fictional character created by man to attempt to explain what is beyond his knowledge (at the time).

[baja]

The best explanation of god is a fictional character created by man to attempt to explain what is beyond his knowledge (at the time).

Hey I got an idea why not watch the movie and then voice an opinion

[Hogan11]

Isn't all this supposed to be over with on 12/21/2012?

[alkemical]

Somewhere around there.....

[bdv]

Isn't all this supposed to be over with on 12/21/2012?
Since I can't prove otherwise, I am logically compelled to take an agnostic position on your question. Agnosticism is the "rational default position," after all.

Isn't that right, Assassin?

[orangeatheist]

It has nothing to do with "reducing" the argument to debate over atheism as a position of faith. It has everything to do with the fact that most of the people here who claim atheism are, in fact, unknowing AGNOSTICS.

You may very well be right. I can only speak for myself I can tell you, without hesitation, that I’m not one of them. I’m a non- (“a-“) believer in gods (“-theist”).

Glad we got that cleared up.


There is distinction between atheism and agnosticism for a reason. It is because they are inherently different and minced at the core.

I agree. Agnostics claim that they “can’t know” if a god does or does not exist. I’m not that wishy-washy. A theist comes up to me and states his/her position: “There is a god!” And then they go about all their hand-waving and special pleading to make their case. I remain unconvinced. I don’t say, “Gee, you might right. I have no way of knowing now if your god really exists or not.” That would be an agnostic position. My position isn’t like that. I say, “You have given me no evidence, no reason, to believe your god exists. Therefore, my position regarding belief in your deity remains unchanged. I no more believe in the possibility of your god now than I did before you started your argument. In fact, due to your failure to produce any evidence of your deity, I am more convinced now that it doesn’t exist than before you opened your yap.”

However, does that mean that I close to door, PERMENTLY, on ANY and EVERY other attempt to convince me that there’s a god that exists? ANY god? No. Everyone gets an equal chance to make a boob out of his- or herself and try to convince me that their god exists. And, even if everyone on the planet took a shot at some different type of god, I’d STILL say the POSSIBILITY of some divine being (in some heretofore un-thought of form, MIGHT exist out there. However, in order for me to give that possibility more than the obligatory chance, I’m going to need to seem some sort of convincing evidence for its existence).


Atheism...anyone with even a basic college-level understanding of linguistics should be able to understand that in the jargon of philosophy, the prefix "a-" specifically means "without" or "no". In science (particularly biology), the same prefix always denotes the abscence of a trait. Asymmetry, asexual, etc. Atheism is made into a simple term because it communicates a simple idea...that's the idea that NO god(s) or the possibility of god(s) is taken into account in the philosophy.

You failed to define “theism”, big boy. That’s key here. Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities. So, “a-“, given your admission above, means “without” or “no.” Thus, atheism means, “Without belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.” It’s what I –and others here—have been saying all along. I don’t know why you like to argue for a position that no one holds.


Let's get down to brass tacks:
If you believe in the possibillity of any type of god at any point in time, you are NOT an atheist. Period. End of discussion.

Wrong. I lack belief in the existence of divinities or deities. If I were ever to be convinced that such a thing exists through substantiated evidence, I’d drop that position. It’s the same position held by every true scientist and every reasonable person. Why would one cling to a belief in the face of contradictory evidence? Wouldn’t that make me an idiot…..OH! I see! That’s why you want atheists to be like theists. You want us to be so dogmatic in our position that we become as big of idiots as the theist! You want us to say we believe in the non-existence of divine beings SO STRONGLY that we committed to that non-belief even if God himself were to descend from the clouds, shake our hands personally, take us on tours of Heaven and Hell, introduce us to Moses, Elijah, Adam and the gang and grant us three wishes (79 virgins included!).

Sorry, angry, at least I’m not like that. I don’t have “faith” in my atheism. It is a position I’ve been forced to take due to the absolute failure of theists to evidence their position. And I will remain an atheist –a person without belief in divinities—until you guys get your act together. My belief that you will ever get your act together? About 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~1%. But hey! At least I give you SOME chance!


Now you are discussing something other than atheism. You claim that you could change your mind if given sufficient evidence. That may be all well and good, but an atheist does NOT believe in god(s).

Right. I lack that belief due to the theists’ poor attempts at convincing me otherwise. Same goes for mermaids, interstellar-traveling space aliens and the Lock Ness Monster. I do not believe any of these exist.


It believes in something else in a god's place, and if an athiest is honest, they say that they havent the slightest idea as to what fills that space in the causal chain beside causality itself, thus elevating causality to "holy" status.

WTF are you talking about?


If an athiest changes their mind to believe in god(s), then they are no longer an atheist at all,

Well that seems rather obvious. Sort of like if a theist changes their mind to not believe in god then they are no longer a theist at all.


but something else.

Yes. It’s called a theist.


Because the characteristic, foundational belief of the philosophy has changed.

So, if an atheist has concluded that the possibility of god(s) exist,

I never said that (and if I did, I didn’t mean it in the way you are implying). You are very clever in the way you’re spinning this. I said I remain OPEN to the EVIDENCE that a god exists. That may be fine-tuning it, but there’s a major difference here. I don’t go around saying “I don’t believe in god. There’s no place in the universe, or outside the universe, for a god to exist.” And then secretly hold out a little pocket at the edge of our solar system in which I allow the “possibility” for god to exist. My worldview does not include a god. Nowhere. Not a single sliver of my universe contains a pocket for god to fill if he/she/it so chooses to take up residence there.

What I am saying is that I remain unconvinced that god exists based upon the lack of evidence for such a thing as well as the philosophical absurdity of such a thing’s existence. However, this is based upon the theists’ many definitions of god. Perhaps, someday, “god” will be defined in such a way that evidence for its existence will be forthcoming. Or, on the other hand, perhaps the theists do have it right and they will finally be able to prove the existence of their being. I doubt the latter very much and the former would likely rip the teeth right out of the theists’ mouths. So both are very unlikely.


then they are admitting that they arent totally convinced of their own atheism,

I am totally convinced in your –as a theist—lack of ability to prove your case. That is the source of my atheism. I’ve been given no good reason to assume a god exists; I’ve been given no good evidence that such a thing should exist; therefore I lack belief that such a thing exists. I’m convinced of my position.


and if that is the case, then are they an atheist at all? I think that that is a legitimate question.

As you’ve tried to pigeon-hole it, yes. But that’s a straw man atheist. Like I said, you can beat that thing up all day. Won’t get you anywhere.


Then the issue becomes more of style than of substance. Its culturally stylish to be an atheist in America.

Oh, please. That’s so full of sh!t that I can smell it from here. Atheism has never been fashionable in America. In fact, ask Representative Monique Davis of Illinois if it’s fashionable to be an atheist in America (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/rep-monique-dav.html). If it was so fashionable to be an atheist, why did The Golden Compass not do as well in the theaters as Narnia or Passion of the Christ? And it can’t be the film-making. Narnia and Passion sucked to high heaven (forgive the pun).


To stand against the mainstream in what some think is a superior intellectual position. But what of the substance? Is an atheist really convinced of their own philosophy? I think that you find very few who are.

I don’t care about the few, nor can I speak to what they do and don’t believe. I can only speak about what I believe. I can, however, tell you that a great deal of theists are full of sh!t. Ever go to a good Christian funeral? Everyone’s crying and carrying on, all the while hugging each other and saying, “He’s in a better place now.” “God has a new angel.” “Jesus has kissed all her pain away.” Sheesh, what a bunch of hypocrites.


That's what a philosophy is built on: foundations of truths that are relevant and convincing to the beholder.

But theism isn’t built on a foundation of truth. It’s built only on a foundation of faith. That’s why it’s unfalsifiable. That’s why it’s nonsense. It explains everything and thus explains nothing at all.


I guess that you are choosing to be more of a Nihilist than an atheist. For that, you may need to do a little more introspection to find out why you believe what you believe.

I have no idea what gave you the notion to think I’m a Nihilist. Care to explain?


Okay, so atheists as a whole are all just beacons of brilliance? Explain Murray O'Hare for me then, who by all appearances was just a hardheaded, bitter redneck.

Sometimes I think I could get further talking to a brick than to you. Can you please read my responses in context? Unlike theists who will REFUSE to accept contrary evidence or arguments to their position, atheists of the type I describe allow the possibility of being convinced otherwise of their position. Here, let me demonstrate the point:

What would it take to get you to give up belief in God?


And this is anything new?
What? Lack of ability of theists to prove their case? No. It’s nothing new. You guys haven’t come up with anything yet going into your –what?—seventieth millennium now (if we assume the invention of god coincided with recent discoveries http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=offerings-to-a-stone-snak)?


Their are tomes of information out there at your disposal (and whoever else "we" includes...is it the agnostics, the nihilists, or the atheists?) for the understanding of the being that I believe exists both superdimentionally and superuniversally.

I’m not asking for tomes written by people who invited the nonsense in the first place only to study nonsense, get a degree in nonsense and pontificate on nonsense. I’m asking for objective, scientific evidence; not mental masturbations.


If you disagree with what you understand of this God, then that's fine. It is my belief that God will not make any attempt to force himself on you,

See? More nonsense! Your god can’t be falsified because if he “moves his Spirit” to open your eyes to his existence, then that’s proof that he’s there. If he doesn’t move his Spirit to convince you then that’s proof he won’t force himself on anyone! It’s a win-win situation! It explains EVERYTHING! It explains why some believe in him (moved by the Spirit) and others do not (won’t force himself on anyone)! It thus explains NOTHING at all and is evidence of NOTHING at all! Nonsense.


but instead gave himself up as a sacrifice

Huh? More nonsense. So, he gave himself up as a sacrifice to himself to appease his own anger about things that you do. And, of course, he really didn’t sacrifice anything because he didn’t lose anything. He gave absolutely NOTHING up. How is that a sacrifice?

Also, in the theme of this conversation, care to provide the evidence that this god sacrificed himself? I’m not talking about giving evidence that some desert preacher died a few thousand years ago on a Roman cross –thousands of others did the same thing. I’m asking you to provide the evidence that it was GOD who died (boy, there’s a hurdle you can’t leap) and that this death was atonement for something called “sin.” You might first want to define “sin” and then provide evidence that there is such a thing called “sin”.


to provide a path out of spiritual death

More nonsensical assertions. I know what death is. It’s the cessation of bodily functions that keep a biological organism alive. I have no idea what “spiritual” death is, though.


and torture for the existential beings he created that went astray.

You’ve got enough to work on before I need you to focus on “existential beings” and “astray.” I’ll save those until….oh, who am I kidding? You won’t even get past the first hurdles!


It's an old, old argument. Nothing new. It only has become more convoluted as atheism has laid arrogant claims to the science that spiritual and religious individuals have worked into reality.

Wow. There’s the pot calling the kettle black. Science can move forward without any need of religion. Religion, however, has constantly needed to adapt itself to scientific findings in order to survive. Then, the funny thing is, religion claims to “have known it all along.” Isaiah 40:22 ring a bell? LOL!


Ah...so "flesh and blood" positions are positions that dont have any particular standard meaning.

I see.

Atheism in flesh and blood is a position of waffling and creating imaginary standards until they become useless, which is most of the time.

By YOUR definition, “a” means “without” or “no.” Theism means, “belief in deities or a deity.” Atheism means no belief in deities or a deity. Works just fine without your need to make it into something akin to theism. You’re beating up a straw man, Angry. I keep telling you that.


Then you are categorically NOT an athiest, and atheism to you is clearly a matter of style over substance.

You misread what I wrote. I didn’t say I was a fence-sitter. I said I was NOT a fence-sitter. I sit on side that proclaims, “There is no god.” And why? Because the theists have failed at their job to convince me otherwise.



I am not an Idealist. Im a naturalist for the most part, but a well-versed Idealist could run rings around you with the above statements that infer what you believe are absolutes in truth.

Well, that’s just one more belief you have. Obviously, you can’t run rings around me. This post of yours is living evidence. You’re running rings. No doubt. But they’re not around me.

[BroncoInferno]

llama's sophistry exposed yet again. I have to hand it to him, though; the bastard takes beating after beating and comes back for more.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

llama's sophistry exposed yet again. I have to hand it to him, though; the bastard takes beating after beating and comes back for more.Being the OM's resident hypocrite explains a lot of his "moxy (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moxy)" .

[alkemical]

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the tracts which favor that theory. - Thomas Jefferson

[BroncoInferno]

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the tracts which favor that theory. - Thomas Jefferson

Wise words. Sums up the "god" theory quite well. And, knowing your usual schtick, I'm sure you are trying to throw atheists onto that pile, too. But the atheist has proposed no theory. He or she has merely examined the theory of god posited by theists and rejected the theory because the supporting evidence is so lacking (nonexistent, really).

[alkemical]

Wise words. Sums up the "god" theory quite well. And, knowing your usual schtick, I'm sure you are trying to throw atheists onto that pile, too. But the atheist has proposed no theory. He or she has merely examined the theory of god posited by theists and rejected the theory because the supporting evidence is so lacking (nonexistent, really).

No, it's true with any "ism".

[BroncoInferno]

No, it's true with any "ism".

Whatever you say, bud.

[alkemical]

Whatever you say, bud.

I know :thumbs:

[BroncoInferno]

Whatever governing principle Einstein claimed as his explaination, whether naturalistic or not, Einstein viewed as a "god" and said as much several times. If you want a place to start, I looked up a book for you that has some of his essays in it called "Ideas and Opinions"...check out the science and religion chapters.

But a "naturalistic" god would be a much a different entity than a "supernatural" god. It doesn't even sound like an "entity" at all, but rather the totality of nature itself. It's two totally different--though equally incoherent-- ideas about how to define the term "god." And therein is part of the problem. Theists can't even formulate a consistent, coherent definition of what the term "god" refers to. Einstein, at the very least, disagrees totally with the concept of "god" as defined by the Christian religion, and really every religion that I'm aware of. Perhaps in the ballpark with the Buddhists. In any case, I certainly wouldn't be hoisting Einstein up as some sort of representative of theism in the scientific community. His membership in that club is tenuous at best, and irrelevant in either case since, as I've said, his brilliance in one realm does not make him any sort of expert on the question at hand.

Again, go back and read in context within the thread, and find out why it was referenced.

I know the context. I don't see the relevance either way. I'm certainly not claiming that all atheists are smarter than theists. I only claim that on this one particular subject--that is, the existence of "god"--they have reached the more reasonable conclusion.

Just like the "claim" that atheism allows for the possibility of god(s)...one that you still havent been able to figure out.

No. You want to twist it so you can make some silly point of equivalency. The root word, as has been pointed out, means without (a-) belief in deities (-theism). You tried a sleight of hand when you added "or possibility of", but that aspect is your addition and is not part of the root word.

You were given the places to look. Dont be upset if someone doesnt spoon feed you your information.

This is the frustrating thing about trying to debate with theists. They want to change the standard rules and expectations of debate. In any other realm, one would be expected to back up their assertions with evidence. But, when it comes to their religion, the theist claims it is up to the atheist to dig around and support their assertion for them. What?

You love wikipedia, so use that as a starting place.

No, I love supporting or debunking assertions with the most accurate information possible and not merely spouting platitudes.

Quit using the fact that you have to do your own research as a copout.

Quit expecting other people to dig around and support your assertions for you. That's your job.

[alkemical]

http://www.technoccult.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/religionperception.gif

;)

[bdv]

To anyone still unclear on the definition of 'Atheist':

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

[alkemical]

sounds like my argument for enlightened-anarchy....

[BroncoInferno]

To anyone still unclear on the definition of 'Atheist':

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

Don't bother. The theists have dug their heels into that position strictly so they can say "see..you're using faith, too!" and similar inane arguments.

[Arkie]

I thought atheists believed that gods absolutely do not exist. That requires faith because it can't be proven. They would be agnostic if they believed a god was even remotely possible.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I thought atheists believed that gods absolutely do not exist. That requires faith because it can't be proven. They would be agnostic if they believed a god was even remotely possible.Why, because something doesn't exist you have to have "faith" to understand that? Sorry but that doesn't wash at all although I'm sure the "believers" insist it does.

[bdv]

I thought atheists believed that gods absolutely do not exist. That requires faith because it can't be proven. They would be agnostic if they believed a god was even remotely possible.

A very common misunderstanding. This probably demonstrates that you have a life... 8') Anyway, 'atheist' and 'agnostic' do not have mutually exclusive definitions. It is true that the one out of every thousand atheists who claim to know that supernatural deities do not exist are also relying on an absurd amount of faith. But still, they are atheists just like the other 999 because 'atheist' always means one thing:

Not a theist.

[Bronco Yoda]

Wrong again. It IS the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods...the "possibilility of" part is your addition. I deny the existence of unicorns. But if someone placed before my eyes a horselike skull with a horn protruding from it, I would certainly reconsider. Does that make me agnostic about unicorns? Are YOU agnostic about unicorns? Or other gods that you presumably reject like Zeus?

I sit and wait with baited breath for some theist to provide evidence for their claim.[/QUOTE]

http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs26/i/2008/109/f/b/European_Pygmy_Unicorn_Skull_by_Zhon.png
sorry, just could resist :giggle:

[BroncoInferno]

LOL

The sad thing is that hoax represents more convincing evidence than any theist has ever been able to bring to the table.