The Limitations of Atheism.

Cloud,

All beliefs have to come from somewhere. If not from actual experience of the thing (which, as you stated, is impossible) -- then whence do you derive your beief? It's incredibly strong for a belief without any supporting evidence. It's so disproportionately strong and stubborn, that an impartial observer would call it "irrational".

I say to you that the knowledge of your eternal existance and your responsibilities of existing and growing within this realm are far more burdensome of mind than the pathetically weak belief that we are nothing more than our biological makeup with no purpose in this universe.
Click to expand...

Is it more courageous and responsible to live in a dream? Besides, you must have a pretty high opinion of the human race to think that a majority of it would willingly choose a greater burden over a lesser one. If atheism is so pathetically weak, why are so many so deathly afraid of it?

It is a sad and shallow man indeed he who tells himself lies and half truths in order to protect his fragile ego and justify his carnal desires.
Click to expand...

Classic. But you have to be rather naive to believe that it is the carnal ego that drives atheists. By the way, did you know you just regurgitated the same line I have come to expect from any Christian at the start of such debates?

Strong words betray strong emotions. I admire your passion. But can you control it enough to perform a less biased examination of the issue? Do you think blanket statements about a set of people grouped only by ideology ever truly contain the real answers?

And I'm afraid you cannot scientifically argue against an unmeasurable subject.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can, as I have done in <a href="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000245.html">that thread Cris referenced</a>. The argument is only scientific in that it uses knowledge obtained through science. However, the real force behind it lies in application of logic. I have shown, from many perspectives, that the idea of soul contradicts itself, contradicts observable reality, and is indeed spurious in its very origins and nature. If you don't agree, I challenge you to take any one of my arguments and build a counter-argument to it.
But if you agree, then you have a choice: either keep your idea and reject reality, or open your eyes and toss your idea. Take your time with this one...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 24, 2001).]
 
Cris and Boris,

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">Even Atheist can't be so limited. It's funny, but we need to be serious where this is concerned.

Boris, knowledge/understanding does live and progress with time, and so can spirit. An individual's spirit can and often does take on a life of its own--good or evil.

I think you understand that, yes, this does serve as an example that we do, in one way, live beyond our physical limitations. Will my soul have the opportunity to reach down and thump you on the back of your head after I die? I don't know. I can only hope. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

If we are rewriting history:

There was never a Jesus, a Hitler, or an MLK.
The historical Jesus, Hitler, and MLK never existed.

And for your comfort...

There is no good or evil in this world.
There are no souls or spirits.
Everything that you are now and will be in the future will die with your body.




------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser,

At the risk of crowding this thread with my posts (something I seem to excel in)...

Boris, knowledge/understanding does live and progress with time, and so can spirit. An individual's spirit can and often does take on a life of its own--good or evil.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, I do not understand the distinction you seem to make between knowledge and spirit in this context. When an individual dies, whatever "survives" is the knowledge of and by that individual that is carried in others. Is that not so? If the "spirit" you are talking about is not knowledge, then what are you talking about???

<hr>

As for the revisionist history, I don't entirely agree with Cris' sentiment (so don't lump us together if that's what you are trying to do.) I find it quite plausible that Jesus the man lived, just like Mohammed the man lived, or Buddha the man. Granted, I can't PROVE that Jesus the man lived (and Cris may be right that he didn't), but then again it's not such an important item for me one way or another. That a particular personage lived or did not live bears no relationship to all the religious mumbo-jumbo that may surround that personage. I have no issue with the idea of Jesus the man. Only, I associate bullshit with the suggestion of Jesus the God.

And for your comfort...

There is no good or evil in this world.
There are no souls or spirits.
Everything that you are now and will be in the future will die with your body.
Click to expand...

Indeed, little comfort in that, is there? Thanks for spelling out one of my counterpoints to Cloud.

Concerning good and evil, though, atheism does not deny their existence. Granted, it doesn't endow them with personalities or deify them. But any rational atheist will acknowledge that there are beneficial, harmonious and positive things, and then there are detrimental, harmful and negative things. But on the other two statement, I offer complete agreement -- except for that tiny exception of knowledge, as we've already discussed.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
For the record. I have for some years been researching the early history of Christianity. It is more a study of how mythology was created. For some time I had assumed that Jesus had been a man who had existed. But I now have significant, and pretty much overwhelming, doubt.

“Jesus” in Hebrew is Yeshua and it means Saviour. At the beginning of Christianity it refers not to the name of a human individual but to a concept.

“Christ” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew “Messiah”, and is also a concept meaning Anointed One of God.

Paul is pretty much assumed to have been the true originator of Christianity. And according to the original Greek, Paul, in his writings, talks about the Christ, and as far as I can tell never uses the term Jesus, at least not as if he were referring to a person. Neither does Paul talk about the alleged works of Jesus, that is simply because those myths had not been created at the time of Paul’s writings (first century CE). Very simply Paul never knew of a man named Jesus.

The association between Jesus the concept and an actual human with the name Jesus was not introduced until the second century CE.

That is why for my frame of reference forming the basis of my arguments I have assumed that Jesus the man never existed. The evidence doesn’t seem to be apparent, and quite the reverse.

Have fun
Cris
 
"In all seriousness, I do not understand the distinction you seem to make between knowledge and spirit in this context. When an individual dies, whatever "survives" is the knowledge of and by that individual that is carried in others. Is that not so? If the "spirit" you are talking about is not knowledge, then what are you talking about???"

You might be right, Boris. I suppose you can refer to it as "knowledge of an individual." I visualize it as a release of energy which continues to effect long after the source has disappeared. Whether that release of energy is doomed to dissipate here with us, transform within others, or transend our sphere of knowledge, I do not know.

Maybe it's a resonance of minds. One sounds out loud and the others chime in kind? I believe I see that here at ExoSci.

The spirit of an individual is defined, I think, by the angle of the observer. My Franklin WordMaster <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> defines "spirit" as "an animating essence or principle held to be inseparably associated with a living being." I can't define it any better.

"I associate bullshit with the suggestion of Jesus the God."

It may be bullshit, but there it is. If you could translate its power through history into units of energy, I think you would be impressed. I'm sure that the same could be said for many other religions, probably even more so. Christianity often recieves most of the energy here.

Yawn. I've stayed up late again.


------------------
It's all very large.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top