random thoughts for atheists/agnostics

lol!!!!!
if Christianity were more mystical
Click to expand...

jenyar, christianity is about as mystical as it gets!!! in all honesty and plain sense, to look at the stories in the bible about jesus, noah, adam and eve, david and goliath(sp), moses, to name a few, i mean, come on. those rank beside santa and the tooth fairy in being as mystical as it gets. if the bible weren't so mystical i probably would believe in it. it has some sound morals and ideas, but it is ruined by the fantastical tales that is contained within its pages. i think it is probably one of the greatest works of fanatsy the world will ever see. nothing will change that for me. if it wasn't so infantile in its approach to addressing the all powerful, all knowing god that wrote it and made the universe, i would find it a hard piece of literature to ignore. but it ain't.

on a side note, if there is a god and he made the universe, do you think he made it the way computer programers make programs- through code. this could be the matrix on a grander scale. wicked.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
All I'm saying is that it depends whether you accept the evidence as proof. Some people accept fossilized remains as proof of macro-evolution, others don't.
Click to expand...
I see the point you are making. In science, there is the idea that you can never prove something, but only fail to disprove it. Perhaps, then, what differentiates faith from belief with evidence (but not conclusive proof) is that faith implies a more firm belief.

Tell you what. If Jesus wasn't resurrected by God, you win - and you can rely on Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Grolier or Brittanica to tell you what faith is, rather than someone to whom the word actually means something.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate the fact that we are looking at the word from two completely different perspectives. To you faith is very important; to me it is worthless. That will obviously have some reflection on how we argue its definition.
 
Glad you understand.

Of course, the same applies when describing the Bible as mystical. That is like describing the whole history of the Native American nation as mystical because it was conveyed orally - and stories are also such a big part of its oral tradition. If you want to experience the real mystical side of the Bible, I suggest you look up the Kabbala - you'll be able to see which parts of Genesis were influenced by it, for example. The first Christian sect, gnosticism, arose from this side - but it isn't practiced by any Christian at all.

It all comes down to what you grant as valid. I have witnessed the phenomenon first-hand here in South Africa. I went to school during the apartheid regime, and we were taught a well-defined book-based history of Dutch settlers and Anglo-Boer wars with its fair share of heros, villains and great deeds. Much like the War of the Roses, or the Confederate vs. Union. Now these stories are politically incorrect, and we hear the same history from the other side - most of the native early history used to be oral, and include lots of stories. You can almost see them clash, yet both are valid, and for the most part as true as any history could hope to be.

And you have the same with the Bible. Early history comprises a rich oral tradition - valid in its own way, and including a lot of "mystical" material, while later history includes that tradition but adds written eye-witness records. Thus you have accounts Nephilim, angels and Anakites, and also clauses like these:
1 Kings 15:23
As for all the other events of Asa's reign, all his achievements, all he did and the cities he built, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? In his old age, however, his feet became diseased.

So you have stories about angels sleeping with people, bringing forth Nephilim, from whom the Anakites were descended flowing seamlesly into confirmed history of battles with the Anakites and historic nations and locations:
Deuteronomy 2:11
Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites.
Joshua 11:22
No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive.

If all this history were mythological, Judaism and Christianity would have been, too. Remember, Jesus was a Jew, and so were most of his followers. They relied too heavily on historical events for their credibility. The Roman mythological religions far outnumbered them - so did philosophy. Mysticism was even more common. The reason that these histories are included in the Bible is precisely because we need to see God's consistent involvement in the events. It's called perspective - not mysticism.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
If all this history were mythological, Judaism and Christianity would have been, too.
Click to expand...
Judaism and Christianity are mythological. Just because the Bible records some verified historical events does not mean that everything in there actually happened (you actually believe that angels mated with humans? :bugeye: ). The Iliad and The Odyssey also record historical events. That does not mean that Zeus and Poseidon are also real.

*Edit was to fix the bugeye.
 
Last edited:
jenyar. have you ever wondered why no mystical things have happened recently (i say that as loosely as possible)? history has to be consistent with what happens today, correct? yes. so why don't we see any mythical goings on today? because in the past no such things happened either. all history is mythical- particularly oral, as it is human nature to exagerate happenings and events till they reach mythical proportion. factor in human bias and lack of knowledge in pre-modern times and i think it is fair to say that all cultures around the world are based off mythical stories that may have occured but not in the mythical sense. my point is that there is no reason to believe any of these hyped up stories apart from that at sometime they were an event- but one as normal as we might see today or tomorrow.
 
Have any of you ever thought that....

Maybe its not the concept of a God that's the issue ..its the bible.

After much thought I realised everything I know about God is through what I've read, heard and been lectured about from the bible.

Its not the idea of a God or any other such unexplained force that makes me dislike Christianity, its the bible....
I find the bible incredibly unreliable and outdated.
I simply cant believe through our history people in positions of power etc wouldn't have tampered with the bible at some stage for personal gain etc.

What if every stupid story, pathetic rule, ridiculous claim in the bible actually have nothing to do with your god at all.
What if the real god or supreme force is actually being misrepresented by a book that has pointed Christians and non Christians alike completely in the wrong direction, kinda like trial by media.. thus your all fighting, believing and discounting something that is a load of shit in the first place.

Again I say.......... its not a god or the concept of some supreme force I have issue with, after-all any thing is possible....
Its your bible I take exception too.

:bugeye:
 
"Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts -- but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. Myth tells you what the experience is. -Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth
 
Strong Atheism

I was reading your posts and became interested to know that I am not really an Atheist ! How much bullshit can one possibly fit into such a short opinion? First of all i don't deny or disbelieve( thats admitting existence) in a Deital construct , I KNOW there is no such thing in existence.Why you ask ? How could I ? Easily . Lets define God , by common understanding of the meaning. Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent... and so on. These are agreed upon by all religions I have studied, but oddly enough none of the Deital construct (s) they claim to have such attributes can live up to such assertions. So therefore i have no God(s) in which to compare. Nothing justifies them being a God according to the concept of whats accepted as being a God. So then for part of your evidence , you have the religious texts themselves ..As another part of your evidences you use ancient texts relating to deities and man-gods. In those times ( sumer and later, on up to even roman and so ) men were deitified . Their whole families in some instances along with them were deitified. Amazingly enough all these god(s) shared one thing in common , human emotions and frailities. Also things that were supposed to be spiritual used , oddly enough, physical words and actions... the "spirits" would do things that only a physical being would have need for . Can a thing not having any consisitency , or physical boundaries contain a beverage ? or food ? Can you screw a spirit ? I wouldn't think so . So you have religious texts , ancient history on Man-Gods among early cultures. You don't have to limit yourself to just christianity or judaism ,or Islam . The fact i am Atheist does not strip the religions of their influence on socieities or make them intellectually weak ( during those times) ,infact adds to their importance and the need to understand the cultural significance of them . Law reflects us not the other way around, Religion reflects the society from which it comes. Thats why you have so many gods and so much diversity among religion . In order for me to believe in a god it would have to be one I have no knowledge , in that case it doesn't matter if its a god or not, since i wouldn't know it ) or one that i could not deny.. it would actually have to fit and use the powers I attribute to being Godly. If a god does not display the attrributes you claim it to have then why call it a god ? And what justifcation do you have for labeling it as such ?Another thing to think about is , what caused this god, a complete being by definition , to have need for creation ?It went from a state of not need or wanting life surrounded it to a state of desiring the creation of alternative life. In other words a state of sleep to a state of wake . What brought or caused this change . These are all the trade marks of a mind capable of critical thought, something i have long found theists incapable of. So when you say i have no evidences to back my knowledge that no gods exist , you're false. I use religious texts , accepted definitions, history , logic, reason in a concerted effort to conclude No GOD EXISTS . And since the only def we have for a god is the one we give it , followed by examples that do not live up to the def, i have absolutely no reason to believe a deital construct concept. Sorry it was long .. but there ya go . I wish you others would expound on your theories more.
 
If all this history were mythological, Judaism and Christianity would have been, too. Remember, Jesus was a Jew, and so were most of his followers. They relied too heavily on historical events for their credibility. The Roman mythological religions far outnumbered them - so did philosophy. Mysticism was even more common. The reason that these histories are included in the Bible is precisely because we need to see God's consistent involvement in the events. It's called perspective - not mysticism.
Click to expand...
"Christianity as we have come to know it emerged from Judaism in the first century of the Common Era. The first Christians were Jews, and likely subscribed to Jewish beliefs and practices common at the time. Among these was a belief that a messiah -- a descendant of King David -- would restore the monarchy and Jewish independence. According to mainstream Jewish beliefs, the failure of Jesus to restore the Kingdom, and his crucifixion by Romans, negated claims that he was the messiah (since most Jews do not accept that Jesus was the messiah, they reject the use of the full (Christian) name." [More...]

See also: The Bible and history
 
Re: Strong Atheism

Originally posted by spherical_bastards
First of all i don't deny or disbelieve( thats admitting existence) in a Deital construct , I KNOW there is no such thing in existence.
Click to expand...
How do you figure that denying or disbelieving in God is the same as admitting his existence? :bugeye: It sounds like you are a gnostic atheist. That is, you claim to know that God does not exist (gnostic), and this knowledge affirms your belief that he does not exist (atheist).
 
how do you equate denying or disbelieving with existence was your question ...


In order to deny you must have something to deny . If you have something to deny you have admitted something in fact exits. There is no god, therefore how can i deny it ?Disbelieve... To disbelieve you must have something in order to disbelieve in .. SInce nothing is there for me to disblieve in , how can i disbelieve it ? I would be saying there was something there for me to compare belief and disbelief ..Its like when people say you can't prove a negative,its fasle , you can . Every negative has a positive.And every positive has negative. By saying I KNOW .. i take out the vice versa analogy .
 
Originally posted by spherical_bastards
In order to deny you must have something to deny . If you have something to deny you have admitted something in fact exits. There is no god, therefore how can i deny it ?
Click to expand...
To deny something means to declare it untrue. You don't have to have something exist to declare that it is not true (that would be ridiculous because then you wouldn't be able to deny anything and the word would be useless). You are declaring that the proposed existence of God is untrue. That doesn't mean that you are acknowledging that he exists.

Disbelieve... To disbelieve you must have something in order to disbelieve in .. SInce nothing is there for me to disblieve in , how can i disbelieve it ?
Click to expand...
To believe something means to accept it as true. Same reasoning as above. You do not accept the proposed existence of God as true. You therefore have disbelief in the existence of God.
 
I disagree.. Like I said its the vice versa thing. I wouldn't ever say i disbelieve or deny.. people deny true things all the time. People will disbelieve something until proven wrong. There is no evidence for me to reject. Nothing worthy of the claim to even give my disbelief to . To deny.. to declare something untrue ..give a negative answer ..to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of...there is nothing for me to deny. refuse to accept what ? Nothing there . I simply have reseached the subject found no examples of a deital contruct that fits the common concept of a god .Do you know of one? I am not the only atheist who will not say" I disbelieve in god(s) or i deny god(s)" .. Instead i take a stand and say , "gods" do not exist . I have no example of which to compare . As to whether i am a gnostic atheist or whatever ... I don't know , what would you label me ?

I agree on the meaning of the words to deny or disbleive , but its the context of which i can use it i disagree with . When it comes to "gods" or spiritual claims , i simply don't use them .
 
Originally posted by spherical_bastards
I wouldn't ever say i disbelieve or deny.. people deny true things all the time.
Click to expand...
That is true. But people also deny false things.

...there is nothing for me to deny. refuse to accept what ?
Click to expand...
The assertion that God exists.

I simply have reseached the subject found no examples of a deital contruct that fits the common concept of a god .
Click to expand...
Nor have I.

As to whether i am a gnostic atheist or whatever ... I don't know , what would you label me ?
Click to expand...
You are a strong atheist. If you want to get more specific, you are a gnostic atheist because you claim to know God doesn't exist.

I'm not trying to get you to change your stance on the existence of God. I just want you to understand that those who disbelieve in or deny the existence of God are not admitting that he exists. The majority of atheists would fall under the category of disbelief.
 
* If you use those words to your understanding of them in that context . I debate quite a bit, you really have to leave no room for the possibility of belief .A theist has an odd way of weaseling in on weak stances. In any case its a pleasure to talk to someone on here. I nearly choked when I read your " I wasn't trying to change your stance" LOL . :p As if ! You might want to join this forum . http://pub144.ezboard.com/ftheacademy67872frm12.showMessage?topicID=261.topic

If you like philosophy that is .
 
Originally posted by spherical_bastards
In order to deny you must have something to deny . If you have something to deny you have admitted something in fact exits.
Click to expand...
And that "something" is an unsupported existential claim. The Bible makes certain claims. I deny that these claims warrant belief.
 
Originally posted by spherical_bastards
I nearly choked when I read your " I wasn't trying to change your stance" LOL . :p As if !
Click to expand...
Allow me to clarify: I saw that there would be no way to change your stance, so I was willing to settle for getting you to accept that my stance is not admitting defeat. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top