spidergoat said:
Does incarceration only make sense in the context of government, or can it be considered separately, even though they are usually found together? Does freedom make sense only in a context of democracy? The Catholic church believed the sun revolved around the Earth, does that mean there can be no other theory that involves orbits without the earth at it's center? If heaven is more like a place or plane of existence, I happen to think that makes more sense than a being. A place doesn't have to be as complex as a being. Alternate dimensions are seriously considered as implications of quantum theory. Historical ideologies don't have a monopoly on the ideas they incorporate. My idea about it is more general, I'm not talking about a meeting at the pearly gates where you get your wings if you're good, and spend your time on a cloud singing hymns. What if other beings exist in a parallel universe, and during certain extreme human experiences like death, for some reason we are able to percieve it?
Sure, but then what you call "heaven" is something vastly different from what a Christian or a Muslim calls "heaven" -- so why use the same word then?
Unless, of course, we settle for the explanation that Christianity and atheism are using two *different* languages, whereby the surface forms, the words, may be the same, but their meanings are not. But in that case, no communication is posible between the two, as they can inherently not understand eachother (and each thinks that the other is using the words wrongly), and a translator is needed.
I agree, it's not clear. So what? That's why spiritual subjects are somewhat mystical in nature- they are speculative.
Mystical ... as in the opposition some thigns are real, and some are mystical? It's a can of worms, thank you.
Ah, choosy. Believe one line, reject another.
That's right. Since the people responsible for writing the bible were choosy themselves, I believe it's my responsibility to pick out what intuitively seems valuable.
I agree, but I wonder at what point this turns into reductionism.
I'm not alone in this, Thomas Jefferson expressed the same thing, even to the extent of cutting and pasting up his own version of the bible, which was published by congress.
Really? That's nifty. I have something similar.
* * *
SnakeLord said:
The same principle applies. I, like everyone else, was born with no belief in gods. That is the default position.
I think it is pointless to argue whether a newborn is atheistic or not. It is beyond a newborn's ability to discern between a belief in God and not having a belief in God, and as such, whether newborns are atheistic or not is a non-issue.
You were not born with god belief - that was taught to you somewhere along the line. When you were born - you had no belief at all. Now imagine how you would be if nobody taught you to believe, or you found no reason to.
That's me.
And you think you are so much better than believers, and eventually, you will even claim to take credit for growing up where you did, and to be the way you are.
Just as there are ideas of theism present in our society, ideas of atheism are present in our society.
Like what?
In books, other people you speak to.
You said:
"I didn't "invent" atheism, people long before me have also used their brains and decided what to believe or not believe."
You read about it, heard about it, this is how you learned the concept of atheism -- until you actually saw the word "atheism" written somewhere or heard it, you didn't know it existed.
Every single one of us is born, (from scratch), with no belief in gods. Atheism is right there at the start of everything.
I think it is nonsensical to debate whether newborns are atheistic or not.
Atheism is after all a conscious stance, that is supported by a certain kind of inquiry and thought processes -- and to claim newborns are capable of that conscious stance is just nonsensical.
Sure, they 'suited me'. Did someone teach me what would 'suit me' and what wouldn't?
Hard to say. When we are born, our predispositions are most likely very general, more in terms of character rather than actual thought contents. It is then up to the complex interplay of a great number of factors that values and preferences are developed. Surely, with the benefit of hindishgt, it all looks as a matter of our choice, but it wasn't a matter of our choice as it began to happen -- to be born is not an individual's choice.
Your statement that I replied to was that "we cannot but believe what someone told us", and that "atheists were told what to believe by atheists before them". As I replied, this is not true. Someone can say something of course - there can be books on a subject, and people talking about a subject, but unless we happen to agree with it, (and no, we're not taught that we must agree), we weren't told what to believe or not believe, but just given the opportunity to experience others that believe the same as we already do.
I used "told" in the sense of 'spoken to, heard, read', you understand it in the sense of 'commanded, ordered'.
You take pride in your atheism, being something you were born with.
Pride? Not exactly. I am who I am. I like The Eagles, I enjoy rum and raisin ice cream, I don't believe in a god. Nobody forced me into any of these or taught me that these are good or bad things. It is just who I am.
This is how you justify your atheism: You were "born that way".
Well, you did say that we cannot but believe what someone has told us, and that atheists were told what to believe by atheists before them - which is ludicrous. That amounts to some atheist dood coming round the house saying "don't believe in god", and me having no choice but to believe what he said. A daft notion if ever there was one.
Again: I used "told" in the sense of 'spoken to, heard, read', you understand it in the sense of 'commanded, ordered'.
Tells me something about your attitude.
You have no idea what cage *you* are living in.
* * *
spidergoat said:
Do you have to believe in heaven to be deserving of it?
Does a feral child, or an isolated human culture unable to hear of God or heaven always go to hell when they die? ...or are they spared?
It is often argued that those who are ignorant will go to hell.
It takes a lot more to be "ignorant" that some seem to realize.
If those feral children or isolated cultures didn't hear of God, then they also have no guilt to feel as far as heaven and judgement are concerned. They can still go to heaven, so to speak.
But if someone knows right from wrong -- and by this I don't mean some "objective" right and wrong --, if one has *internal* standards and feels bad or guilty for not living up to them: then this tells about his morality. His guilt is real, he has a sense of justice. Avoiding this justice, this guilt, negating it, ignoring it as if it doesn't matter (and thereby relativizing one's *own* morality, one's *own* standards) -- this is what makes a person ignorant, wilfully rebelling. People cheat on themselves, and this is a sin that can make one undeserving of heaven.
* * *
§outh§tar said:
Basics first. Drink your milk.
So. What do Ayn Rand's hemorrhoids taste like?