Atheism

[Ponderosa]

I've noticed the moderators' subtle hints and now conclude my participation in this thread.

 

¿Que pasa, esse?

 

I am new here and didn't want to make waves.

 

Thought the light humor by you and AR was a bit comic relief. To break the tension. No?

 

Perhaps I've seen too many movies.

 

Fine.

 

En garde!

 

Sweden sucks as an example.

 

You make your case based on one little country that has just recently become a country of unbelievers? It is insufficient. Tell me you have something better.

It's akin to a person inheriting a mansion and being proud he'd 'earned it'.

 

Sweden is a socialist state, of fewer than 10M people, who in the last few decades switched from believers to unbelievers, which stands on the shoulders of Christianity,

with few threats and no standing army to speak of (nonetheless defended by United States) all the while committing demographic suicide.

 

How about a country that isn't a Western nation, one that doesn't have ties to Christianity?

 

Next issue: What does atheism/agnosticism offer?

What rights does it protect, how does it protect them? What positive vision does it offer?

A hollowed out version religion - stripped of history and meaning?

No fair looking at the other students' papers. Use your own work.

 

We're already starting to get secularized versions of holy days. And they are not great.

 

X, you said your position is, what was it...ah yes:

 

"Atheism isn't really a position. It's a reaction to a preexisting position, as I've tried to explain."

So why would I want to replace something with nothing? The very definition of nihilism. [edit - I get that wrong every time]

How do you propose to rid of the world of god(s)/religion. With persuasion?

And when you tire of dealing with stupid people such as myself then what?

 

In case you hadn't noticed, religion specifically Christianity, has changed and finally evolved in the last 2000 years.

It would be like holding modern Italy to account for the excesses of the Roman Empire.

 

Religions were brutal. governments were brutal. Culture, society and life...brutal.

What was the common element(s)? A belief in (fill in the blank ____) God?

 

 

Guess the beer is off.

[lilred]

I want to be in this conversation but I feel like the proverbial mosquito in the nudist colony (what is that from?).

[Ponderosa]

I want to be in this conversation but I feel like the proverbial mosquito in the nudist colony (what is that from?).

I've heard it recently. But I don't know the original source.

 

Feel free - all are welcome.

[1995 Huskers]

I guess ill see you guys in hell

[Husker_x]

For someone not making a case, this looks a lot like a case to me.

 

We need to backtrack a tad. You remember how this line of discussion started? You said, "Giving up one's history, culture and tradition for pure logic. I wonder how many will find it to be a good trade?" Everything since has flowed from this. My response is that you don't have to give up culture and tradition if you give up religion, because religion isn't the totality of culture and tradition. Some traditions are bad, like beheading infidels. These we leave behind. Some traditions are good, like architecture and music. These we keep. There is no all or none scenario on the table as far as I'm concerned.

 

Sweden sucks as an example.

 

You make your case based on one little country that has just recently become a country of unbelievers? It is insufficient. Tell me you have something better.

 

It's akin to a person inheriting a mansion and being proud he'd 'earned it'.

 

Sweden is a socialist state, of fewer than 10M people, who in the last few decades switched from believers to unbelievers, which stands on the shoulders of Christianity, with few threats and no standing army to speak of (nonetheless defended by United States) all the while committing demographic suicide.

 

How about a country that isn't a Western nation, one that doesn't have ties to Christianity?

 

What does size have to do with anything? About 70,000 years ago scientists tell us the entire sum of our species dropped down to somewhere around a fifteen thousand. This was long before any of the great monotheisms made their debut, and we're still here to talk about it. My only claim in this discussion was to state the obvious, which is that you don't need the lion's share of your citizens to be actively involved in belief or in religion (separate things) in order to have a society. You can argue all you want about which is the better mousetrap, but Sweden, Japan, Norway, France, England, and so on all have significantly large numbers of unbelievers or non-applicables in their societies.

 

I'd also call your attention to a Brazilian tribe known as the Pirahã. They're an interesting group, as they have no concept of God or gods or ancient history or even the idea that the earth was created. You could say they like to live in the moment. They do apparently have an idea of spirits or phantoms, but these are seen as a natural part of the environment, not quite the same way we would see them.

 

Conversely I can point to a plethora of societies mired in violence that are deeply religious. I can point to societies that are religious but atheistic. I can point to societies that are polytheistic as opposed to monotheistic. Some work, some don't. It's the religious person who's telling ME that the only way to build a healthy society is to adopt their beliefs and practices. My response is there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Next issue: What does atheism/agnosticism offer?

 

What rights does it protect, how does it protect them? What positive vision does it offer?

A hollowed out version religion - stripped of history and meaning?

No fair looking at the other students' papers. Use your own work.

 

We're already starting to get secularized versions of holy days. And they are not great.

 

X, you said your position is, what was it...ah yes:

 

Quote

"Atheism isn't really a position. It's a reaction to a preexisting position, as I've tried to explain."

 

You answered your own question. Atheism doesn't promote or protect squat. It's not a belief system. It's not even a response to a belief system. There are religions that are atheist. It's a response to a specific claim or set of claims regarding God and gods. Period. When you bring up replacing existing religious traditions––didn't name any that you liked, by the way––you are bringing up a different subject.

 

So why would I want to replace something with nothing? The very definition of nilism.

 

Why would you want to replace nothing with something you can't demonstrate and only ever have speculated on, shroud it in servile ritual, and pretend it's the only thing keeping people from beating each other with rocks?

 

How do you propose to rid of the world of god(s)/religion. With persuasion?

And when you tire of dealing with stupid people such as myself – then what?

 

You probably don't. I'm not that optimistic. I was persuaded over time to change my views on what I believed and thought I knew. You're not stupid, either, and if I ever got tired of having conversations I'd go back to playing NCAA 11, provided you weren't strapping bombs to your children or trying to undermine science class or trying to infringe on the rights of other citizens in this country because you thought God told you to do it. The reason we need to have open discussion and criticism of religion is because it tries to impose itself on society to a lesser or greater extent. The US is among the more religious countries in existence, so I don't anticipate the issue going away, although the unaffiliated category is currently the fastest-growing segment of the population.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, religion specifically Christianity, has changed and finally evolved in the last 2000 years.

It would be like holding modern Italy to account for the excesses of the Roman Empire.

 

Which is strange if it was and is and will be the absolute truth and standard of morality forever, but yes, it has. Most Christians I have total respect for and our disagreement is a philosophical or sometimes a political one. It only gets personal when someone wants to blow up a building so they'll see heaven.

 

Religions were brutal. governments were brutal. Culture, society and life...brutal.

What was the common element(s)? A belief in (fill in the blank ____) God?

 

The problem is religion can take a bad situation and make it worse by putting out some unsubstantiated drivel about how some god wants this chosen group of people to do something to some other group, and if they succeed or die in the struggle they'll be rewarded in the great hereafter. Every day priests, ministers, reverends, mullahs, shamans, and pujari mount the curb to tell people things that they might as well have made up whole cloth. They couldn't present any data to support themselves even if they thought it was worth the time to look, which most of them don't. They'd rather you just believed it on faith. Well I'm not going to believe it on faith, my friend, and I'm not going to recommend anyone else do it either. If you want to say religion is necessary for society you have to tell me why and how it does the things you claim it does, and then explain why nothing else could ever take its place, assuming you can come up with an affirmative example in the first place.

[Husker_x]

I guess ill see you guys in hell

 

I went to hell once. It looked a lot like my living room on the even of December 5th, 2009. And there was always a second left even though the clock said zero.

[Ponderosa]

I guess ill see you guys in hell

 

I went to hell once. It looked a lot like my living room on the even of December 5th, 2009. And there was always a second left even though the clock said zero.

 

 

Most on this board would agree with you X.

[Ponderosa]

For someone not making a case, this looks a lot like a case to me.

 

No I'm not! OK well maybe a little.

 

In my view, the post is a political defense of the status quo in the US; still not pro-god and not pro-religion.

 

 

The problem is religion xxxxism can take a bad situation and make it worse¹by putting out some unsubstantiated drivel about how some god leader wants this chosen group of people to do something to some other group, and if they succeed or die in the struggle they'll be rewarded in the great hereafter. Every day priests, ministers, reverends, mullahs, shamans, and pujari mount the curb politicians get on TV to tell people things that they might as well have made up whole cloth. They couldn't present any data to support themselves even if they thought it was worth the time to look, which most of them don't. They'd rather you just believed it on faith. Well I'm not going to believe it on faith, my friend, and I'm not going to recommend anyone else do it either.

 

If you want to say religion is necessary for society you have to tell me why and how²it does the things you claim it does, and then explain why nothing else could ever take its place, assuming you can come up with an affirmative example in the first place.

1. So can 'isms'.

 

2. I must say I chafe at the idea of having to present a defense - when you think things should change...

And I'm not absolutist about it. I just don't know what you would like changed and what you would propose - if anything.

 

Anyway, I have an answer that is rolling around my brain but it poorly formed.

I get my talking points must cogitate.

 

More later.

[AR Husker Fan]

Pretty sure AR was trying to be funny. He does that sometimes We all know he's a soulless, humorless lawyer though

Ooooh...why, I oughta...if I get my hands on you....AAARRRGGGGG!!!!

 

By the way, "soulless, humorless lawyer" is redundant. So THERE!

 

Wait a minute...

[Manhattan]

Who is this guy:

 

- Born on December 25th

- Born of a Virgin

- Birth Accompanied by Star in The East

- Adorned by 3 Kings

- Teacher at 12 Years Old

- Baptized at 30 Years Old

- Had 12 Disciples who he traveled with and performed miracles

- Known as "Lamb of God"/"The Light"/"The Good Shepherd"/"God's Anointed Son"/etc

- Crucified after being betrayed

- Buried for 3 days

- Resurrected

 

Who is he? He is... HORUS, EGYPTIAN GOD OF THE SUN, 3000 BC.

 

Sounds familiar?

 

This Egyptian mythological story is also found to be extremely similar (re: IDENTICAL) to the stories of:

 

- Attis, Greek God, 1200 BC

- Mithra, Persian God, 900 BC

- Krishna, Indian God, 900 BC

- Dionysus, Greek God, 300 BC

 

And many others, but of course, also of

 

Jesus.

 

 

That is why I cannot buy religion. It is such an obvious myth that it cannot be believed by any modern or rational thinking person. I find it amusing how religious Christians call other religions or ancient religions "mythology". Time to wake up.

[Manhattan]

Let's break down these characteristics:

 

Star In The East

 

The "Star in the East" is Sirius, the brightest star in night sky, which on the night of December 24th aligns with the stars of Orion's Belt, which was known then and as today as:

 

The Three Kings

 

These stars all point to the place of the sun's rise on December 25th. This is why the three kings (the magi) "follow" the start in the East. It means that it is in order to locate the sunrise, the birth of the sun (any coincidence that "sun" and "son" are similar?).

 

What of Bethlehem?

 

It actually references a place in the sky, not on Earth! Virgo - the constellation - literally means virgin - the virgin mary - and is represented in glyphs by the letter "M" (MARY). Many myths focus on this to (Mirtha, Maya). The symbol for the constellation is also associated with a woman with wheat, signifying the spring/summer harvest and rebirth. Bethlehem literally means "house of bread", referencing VIRGO, the constellation.

 

Death and resurrection?

 

As the days get shorter in the Northern hemisphere, the sun appears less and less, getting smaller, and the crops die and things get cold, associations of death. On December 22nd, the sun's demise was total. For three days, from december 22-24, it appears that it stops moving southward and settles under the "southern cross" constellation. On December 25th, it starts moving northward again.

 

Sound familiar? The sun died on the cross (southern cross), settled for 3 days, and resurrected. When it comes back, it brings salvation.

 

However, this return is not celebrated until EASTER when dark overcomes the night.

 

The 12 disciples?

 

The 12 constellations, DUH. Jesus - THE SUN - travels around with them in the Bible.

 

The cross?

 

Not Christian in origin. This is the zodiac cross (with Jesus' head in the center, because he is the SUN) adapted by pagans in shorthand (the celtic cross) and then simplified.

 

 

Really.

[Husker_x]

I might point out that nowhere in the biblical text is Jesus given a birthday. December 25th was chosen several hundred years later in part because it already coincided with other pagan beliefs and the winter solstice on the Roman calendar. You'd be trying your hand at redacting if you want to argue that the original writers had this date in mind. For instance, Bethlehem does mean 'House of Bread' but it is also an actual place (it's Nazareth that's come into question).

 

The comparisons to other gods is something you have to tread carefully with. In the case of Mithra, questions remain about who actually borrowed from whom. The Mithra cult spread from Persia to Rome and became popular with the military. Like anything that spreads, there are alterations resulting in alternate myths. Being born from a rock is not the same as being born of a virgin. The real interesting question about the virgin birth story is whether or not it's simply a bungling of a translation from Isaiah where 'young woman' is mistranslated as 'virgin', giving rise to an unnecessary story. A strong case has been made from this, and one reason you might think so is two of the gospels don't contain the story at all.

 

That's not to say there aren't corollaries or parallels with other myths. Apollonius of Tyana was a supposed contemporary of Jesus who supposedly did most of the same things Jesus did. And we know that an early argument made against Christians by non-Christians was that Jesus wasn't so special after all. To which the first apologist's response was:

 

For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?

 

In other words, the devil put similarities in history to trick us. Well it worked.

[zoogs]

(any coincidence that "sun" and "son" are similar?)

 

One thing, I don't think they spoke English there back then.

[huskerjack23]

Is Husker_x an atheist now? I remember sometime last year arguing with you about atheism vs. agnosticism as if they could be mutually exclusive and that's not really true. Gnosticism has to do with knowledge and theism has to do with belief. Most of us would probably subscribe to agnostic atheist because most of us are skeptics and logical and even though we don't believe in god claims, it would be stupid of us to make an assertion that one didn't exist. It's almost an unknowable claim. Especially because most apologists make claims about how god is outside of our universe, etc. etc.

[Husker_x]

Is Husker_x an atheist now? I remember sometime last year arguing with you about atheism vs. agnosticism as if they could be mutually exclusive and that's not really true. Gnosticism has to do with knowledge and theism has to do with belief. Most of us would probably subscribe to agnostic atheist because most of us are skeptics and logical and even though we don't believe in god claims, it would be stupid of us to make an assertion that one didn't exist. It's almost an unknowable claim. Especially because most apologists make claims about how god is outside of our universe, etc. etc.

 

Yeah I'm an atheist.