Do atheists indocrinate their children into their belief system?

[SnakeLord]

Look at it this way the supreme original cause is the origin of all effects, therefore there can only be one. Is that simple enough for you so far?

This would be the third time I've told you I will accept your unsupportable claim that there is one god entity.

If the personality that is worshiped is characterised by this trait, then it must be the same personality.

You're talking nonsense. The actual entity can be one of millions of different claimed entities while still being the god. Those entities differ - in name, way they created everything, what they demand and expect from their creation etc etc etc and so on and so forth. Enough with the avoidance lol.

LOL!!
If it is, as you say, a supreme being, then you couldn't worship the wrong one, because it is the supreme being.

Which one?? It's supreme, we get that. It's the only 'real' one, we get that too. Which one is it lol? Is yahweh the one supreme being or not?

I'm not interested in religions that are not based on scipture.

Religions? :bugeye: Are we even having the same discussion?

An answer to the question will suffice. If you are able.

Was answered several times on my last post.

"...There is a general use of Elohim in reference to God Himself (Exodus 18:11, Psalm 82:6). Both Angels and men are called "Elohim" in special circumstances (Exodus 4:16, Exodus 7:1, Judges 13:22, Psalm 8:5)."

While nobody is ever going to get far gathering their data from fundie website that believe we're living in the "end times" and that jesus is going to come zooming through the clouds sometime next week and that evolution can't be true because bombadier beetles look funky, I did have a read through it. Of course time would be better spent on a site that doesn't have such blatant bias, (or lack of education).

The site claims that men are called elohim etc but this is patently false. It is as seen in Genesis when the gods say "man has now become like one of us.." As seen in the exodus passage it mentions, Moses is likened to one of the gods, not told he is a god. The very sentence itself indeed shows multiple gods because the one and only god would never have cause to say he will make a person like gods because he's the only one. He would say "I'm going to give you some of my powers", or "make you like me", but it is quite clear that this god does recognise the existence of many other gods.

The power of some of these other gods can be seen, (notably when they throw gold into a fire and a fully formed calf pops out... its clear from the text that yahweh had no part in it's creation and calves do not just form themselves out of melted gold).

The fact of the matter is, as shown already, that the very first sentence of the bible says that "gods created the heaven and earth". And, once again, it isn't just a case of the word elohim but the very manner with which they speak "let us make man in our image.."

 

[GeoffP]

I think the definition tends to have quite a bit of smugness in it. I have addressed this elsewhere:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1763785&highlight=indoctrination#post1763785


http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1762285&highlight=indoctrination#post1762285

Yeah there's a bit of that. Hell, I do it too. Bloody rationalism. (irony) Ah well. I think rationalism too actually does succumb to human nature. You can change the oil, but the engine stays the same.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

This would be the third time I've told you I will accept your unsupportable claim that there is one god entity.

My claim is supported by all scriptoral references.
If you disagree, explain why.

You're talking nonsense. The actual entity can be one of millions of different claimed entities while still being the god.

If you can bring your rational mind under control, I would advise that you distinguish between God and gods, by upper and lower case g's. That way I know what you're talking about.
You claimed you understood the unique position of a supreme cause, and that there can only be one. How can such a being suddenly be one of millions of different entities?

Those entities differ - in name, way they created everything, what they demand and expect from their creation etc etc etc and so on and so forth. Enough with the avoidance lol.

Scriptoral reference?

Which one?? It's supreme, we get that. It's the only 'real' one, we get that too. Which one is it lol? Is yahweh the one supreme being or not?

Is Yahweh described as the original cause?
You decide.

Was answered several times on my last post.

sure it was.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

greenberg,

However, SnakeLord actually has a good point.

You think?

Those of us who grew up under the pressure of fire and brimstone Christianity tend to apriori have a deep distrust in the mere notion of a supreme being, to say nothing of the deep-seated distrust in ourselves.

Then find out for yourself by studying scriptures, and talking to people who have a deep rooted understanding of them.
I used to feel the same way about spiders, but I've come to understand that there is truth in "there more afraid of you than you of them".

When I think of even just the word "God", my immediate reaction is to shudder (and the fire and brimstone Christians would claim that this is just my willful rebellion against God and proof that Christianity is right). I shudder at the thought of "God", and this probably has more to do with fire and brimstone Christianity being beaten into me before I could even spell my name, than it has to do with God.

Now that you know what the cause of your reaction is, I suggest you question the philosophy, and look to the source of their preaching, and decide for yourself.

I think though that those who argue for theism should take this into consideration. Instead, much of the religious discussion is for many of us just a reliving of the painful past, and of course we endure it, we're used to endure it.

It is pointless to take it into account, for the theist or the atheist. If you want rid of this depression, then take the steps to do so. You seem like an intelligent person, and you have an idea as to the cause of your anxiety.
You are weary of what others say, and most probably have a built in mechanism which is in denial of anything pro God. So the onus has to be on you, either you stay as you are, or you move on.

Jan.

 

[Myles]

greenberg,



You think?
Then find out for yourself by studying scriptures, and talking to people who


have a deep rooted understanding of them.
I used to feel the same way about spiders, but I've come to understand that there is truth in "there more afraid of you than you of them".




Now that you know what the cause of your reaction is, I suggest you question the philosophy, and look to the source of their preaching, and decide for yourself.



It is pointless to take it into account, for the theist or the atheist. If you want rid of this depression, then take the steps to do so. You seem like an intelligent person, and you have an idea as to the cause of your anxiety.
You are weary of what others say, and most probably have a built in mechanism which is in denial of anything pro God. So the onus has to be on you, either you stay as you are, or you move on.

Jan.

The Pali canon is a collection of scriptures which exort one to become self reliant and not depend on others. There is no mention of god or GOD. Are you also interested in scripture of this type and others such as the Upanishads ?

 

[iceaura]

My claim is supported by all scriptoral references.

Are you by chance restricting yourself to the Christian Bible in the uncorrected (standard) English translations when you refer to "scriptures" ?

It is pointless to take it into account, for the theist or the atheist.

It is extremely rude (as well as self-misleading) for a fundie theist to overlook such obvious context for what they are saying.

 

[spidergoat]

Many religions don't even mention an "original cause", only the cause of things like Earth and nature. Some describe, for example (paraphrasing from memory) Earth as being born out of the mating of two dieties in the forest in the sky, not mentioning why there were entities or sky forests.

 

[greenberg]

The Pali canon is a collection of scriptures which exort one to become self reliant and not depend on others. There is no mention of god or GOD.

There is mention of God in the Pali Canon.

For example:

DN 11 - To Kevatta

MN 49 - The Brahma Invitation

AN 3.61 - Sectarians


Also see Buddhism and the God-idea by Nyanaponika Thera.

 

[Myles]

There is mention of God in the Pali Canon.

For example:

DN 11 - To Kevatta

MN 49 - The Brahma Invitation

AN 3.61 - Sectarians


Also see Buddhism and the God-idea by Nyanaponika Thera.

I have read large portions of it without finding a reference to god but I accept what you say. Am I not right in stressing the Buddha's insistence on self -reliance ? I am not aware of exortations in the Canon to worship God or gods.

 

[SnakeLord]

My claim is supported by all scriptoral references

You've read them all or are you just guessing and hoping? The Enuma Elish, to name just one, mentions at least two original deities that then gave birth to many other deities (who then ultimately waged war upon each other).

Unless you've read them all, what exactly makes you think you're in position to make the statement you have?

If you can bring your rational mind under control, I would advise that you distinguish between God and gods, by upper and lower case g's. That way I know what you're talking about.

If you can focus for more than 2 seconds I would advise that you recognise that the god with the capital changes from believer to believer. In one instance the 'G' is yahweh', in another it's abellio, in yet another it's tiamat - all of which are different entities in appearance, description, way they formed the cosmos etc.

Scriptoral reference?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm

Many to choose from.

Is Yahweh described as the original cause?

To the Jews and Christians perhaps, not to the Aztecs, Inca, Navajo, Wiccans, Hopi, Zuni, Cherokee, Hindus, Muslims, Celts etc to name just a few.

So, the question yet again, (which I shouldn't have to given that it is blatantly obvious you know what I am asking).. which one is the master of the universe?

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

You've read them all or are you just guessing and hoping? The Enuma Elish, to name just one, mentions at least two original deities that then gave birth to many other deities (who then ultimately waged war upon each other).

LOL!!
These are descriptions of "gods".
I posted definitions of "gods", and "God", earlier for Superluminal. Apparently the difference must have slipped his mind also.
Read it, then get back to me.

Unless you've read them all, what exactly makes you think you're in position to make the statement you have?

I don't feel like going down this road with you, as there is no point.

If you can focus for more than 2 seconds I would advise that you recognise that the god with the capital changes from believer to believer.

You mean, name changes, various aspects (due to time place and circumstance)? But if he is classed as the supreme, original cause, then they are relating to the same personality because as you have agreed, only one being can be the supreme cause.
Hasn't it hit home yet?

In one instance the 'G' is yahweh', in another it's abellio, in yet another it's tiamat - all of which are different entities in appearance, description, way they formed the cosmos etc.

In which scripture are these personalities capitalised?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm

Many to choose from.

Scraping the barrel are we?

To the Jews and Christians perhaps, not to the Aztecs, Inca, Navajo, Wiccans, Hopi, Zuni, Cherokee, Hindus, Muslims, Celts etc to name just a few.

If his description is that he is the supreme cause, then it doesn't really matter who believes it or not, does it?
In fact the only position anyone can take is one of belief, or disbelief, end of.

So, the question yet again, (which I shouldn't have to given that it is blatantly obvious you know what I am asking).. which one is the master of the universe?

SnakeLord....give it up.
You cannot go any further.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura,

It is extremely rude (as well as self-misleading) for a fundie theist to overlook such obvious context for what they are saying.

"Fundie theist"?
I think your extremely rude, period.

Jan.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Yeah there's a bit of that. Hell, I do it too. Bloody rationalism. (irony) Ah well. I think rationalism too actually does succumb to human nature. You can change the oil, but the engine stays the same.

I certainly noticed your Dawkins thread. I truly appreciated a rationalist taking him to task. At least, in general, you have seemed to be on the rationalist end of things.

 

[Myles]

iceaura,



"Fundie theist"?
I think your extremely rude, period.

Jan.

The bible is worse than rude. Have you read about the gang rape described in Judges ( ? ), the story of the visitor and his concubine who is raped by a number of men all night long and is found dead the following morning. That's not rude; it's salacious.

 

[superluminal]

The bible is a poorly written propaganda device used to influence the ignorant masses. Simple.

 

[iceaura]

"Fundie theist"?
I think your extremely rude, period.

Jan.

You don't take the label as a compliment ? Why not ?

 

[greenberg]

However, SnakeLord actually has a good point.

You think?

Yes. His posts strike me as a sign of a deep-seated problem common to many people, and nobody so far had the wisdom and the goodwill to address them in a manner to assuage his doubts. For the most part, all is simply blamed on him, or on "this is just how it is". And the discussions go on and on, going nowhere.

I would imagine that someone with superior knowledge -which monotheists, by the content of their claims, have by definition- would be able to do a better job in explaining the doctrine about God, and cut unhelpful discussions short.

Now that you know what the cause of your reaction is, I suggest you question the philosophy, and look to the source of their preaching, and decide for yourself.

Obviously, this is what I need to do. But it sure would be good to have some admirable companions on the way.

It is pointless to take it into account, for the theist or the atheist.

I disagree.

The story of the Buddha's first sermon makes my point very well:

After his Enlightenment, when the Buddha first went back among people to teach the Dharma, to the first person he came across he introduced himself as "I am the All-Enlightened One!" The man shook his head and left. After that, the Buddha changed the way he approached and taught people. And as the story goes, he was successul then, many people were receptive of his teachings.


Unenlightened people have no real use of absolute declarations, they only put them off and make them spiteful, resentful. And they should not be blamed for that: They are subject to ill will, sensual desire and delusion - how could they possibly know whether someone is enlightened or speaks The Truth or not?! They would have to take it in blind faith. Blind faith is not reliable.
They are subject to ill will, sensual desire and delusion - how could they possibly act as if they were not subject to ill will, sensual desire and delusion? The decisions many monotheisms put before other people require just that: blind faith, or acting as if one were not subject to ill will, sensual desire and delusion.

Someone who really wants to help others will find a way to reach them without manipulating and abusing them, without putting them before decisions they cannot make.

Someone who really wants to help others will take into consideration that those others are subject to ill will, sensual desire and delusion and that these skew their perception.

A lot of unnecessary talk and trouble can be eliminated simply by taking into account the person's specific background and qualification.

And this same goes for the way one treats oneself, too.

If you want rid of this depression, then take the steps to do so. You seem like an intelligent person, and you have an idea as to the cause of your anxiety.
You are weary of what others say, and most probably have a built in mechanism which is in denial of anything pro God. So the onus has to be on you, either you stay as you are, or you move on.

Agreed.

 

[greenberg]

I have read large portions of it without finding a reference to god but I accept what you say. Am I not right in stressing the Buddha's insistence on self -reliance ? I am not aware of exortations in the Canon to worship God or gods.

To be noted that in Buddhism, "self-reliance" does not mean "Care only about what you think, and dismiss everyone else".

In Buddhism, admirable friendship is seen as the whole of the holy life.

 

[Myles]

To be noted that in Buddhism, "self-reliance" does not mean "Care only about what you think, and dismiss everyone else".

In Buddhism, admirable friendship is seen as the whole of the holy life.

I never said it did. I was referring to the bit where he is supposed to have said" work out your salvation with diligence; Buddhas do but show the way". which I am quoting from memory, having read the original some fifty years .

 

[SnakeLord]

LOL!!
These are descriptions of "gods".
I posted definitions of "gods", and "God", earlier for Superluminal.

What? If, for instance, the flying spaghetti monster is the causer of all etc then it is the 'supreme being' absolutely regardless to how many capitals you want to give it. If there are two entities that have always been and are of equal power - gave birth to the other gods etc, then they too are 'supreme beings'.

I don't feel like going down this road with you, as there is no point.

Of course you don't, I caught you in a lie. But there most certainly is point, and that is to bring into question your own claim and statement. You said "all" scripture without clearly having read the majority of it. Can you say you've read more than... 3? 4? If not, where do you get off making a claim to all scripture?

But if he is classed as the supreme, original cause, then they are relating to the same personality

Not at all. Of course you're working on the idea that the universe is anything remarkable when to a god or gods it would be quite simple work and could just as easily have been a joint operation between several of the eternal gods. Can you at least answer why you assume there can't be many existing eternal gods?

because as you have agreed, only one being can be the supreme cause.

I don't agree at all, I said I would agree for the sake of asking a particular question that still remains unanswered. But let's look at the phrase.. "supreme cause". Supreme cause of what? The universe? Why couldn't it have been a joint operation?

In which scripture are these personalities capitalised?

? In every scripture? I don't understand the question, even "Adam" is capitalised and he was just a human. It's a language thing.

Scraping the barrel are we?

I'll take it that means you don't intend to go and read any of them and thus educate yourself? Interesting.

SnakeLord....give it up.
You cannot go any further.

Well, you're right. It's not like you're going to actually answer anything or offer decent debate. Oh well.