The Atheist Thread

Sean Trane wrote: JrKASperov wrote: rileydog22 wrote: Well, religion doesn't have an answer either; where did God come from? This is a typical sort of question that is irrelevant. Not because we don't need an answer, but because the question itself isn't about God (at least not the God of the omnipresent type). God was, is and shall be. He has no beginning and no end, so He doesn't really 'come from anymore'. Indeed, 'coming from' isn't even a verb that applies to Him. We don't ask what blue smells like or what salt sounds because those things don't apply to them.   Still, there must've been a time before your god and before he created his realm/havoc!!

    As much as there must’ve been a time before your Big Bang, and a time before the time of your Big Bang, and so on…

Sean Trane wrote: I edited some stuff for clarity's sake.   IVNORD wrote: Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote:     Hang on a second, I misunderstood your meaning of materialism: You speak of materialism as a science of the matters and atoms, where I had understood it in terms of having it all (greed) and private ownership. English not being my first language, I am not aware of the studies of the Big Bang and matter/anti-matter being called materialism. Maybe it is so, but I was not familiar with that use of materialism. Usually it is used in terms of greed and other venal matters. and since you mentioned Marx and by deduction marxism and its derivate communism, I assumed you were linking private property with communal property.   Strictly in terms of philosophy, you're right!! Atheism is not a philosophy (although it can be the base of many different philosophies, even in terms of spirituality) but neither are religions (which is why Buddhism is rejecting the religion word and replacing it with the word of philosophy: but I see monks, monasteries, hostels, altars and prayers >> religion to me) , but to strictly link atheism to matter is strongly reductive. Physics deals with matters and atoms; materialism is its philosophical base. For the purpose of our discussion, they are the same. Materialist philosophy took root well before Marx. Some ancient Greek philosophers toyed with materialist ideas. The Enlightenment and German classical philosophy developed those ideas into a philosophical movementl. In turn, Marx being the most militant (and brilliant) of materialists was heavily influenced by them and further enhanced it. He and Engels created the so-called dialectical materialism and, using it as a base, reviewed the world history, laid the foundation for political economics, and created the theory of communism. The latter along with atheism was used to fool the proletarians into thinking that paradise on earth is possible, and you know the rest. Marx is really hard to read, you would be better off reading some overview of his work.   Well the idea of a god and religion are indissociable, because of the fact that if there is a deity, it must be worshipped, which of course is the first error that every religions do. Because the worshipping is the part where you surrender and submit to the "authority". Let me correct you here if I may. A religion does need a god; God does not need religion. Neither does God need worshipping. I do believe that God exists, yet I don’t go to a church, mosque, synagogue, Buddhist temple to worship Him. I need no ritual imposed on me. Furthermore, I do not consider Marx as an authority in Atheism, just another participant. Atheism does not have any authority preaching any kind of dogma ands telling others what to think and how to think it. I believe you read somewhere that Marx is make matter a deity and therefore making your "Materialism" a philosophy. I do not know about Marx (I find his texts unreadable, so I just read a few "translations" of hiis work, but I refuse to make him some kind of prophet as you seem to want to trap atheists in that way.Marx by no means was an authority on atheism, just another follower and user. I’m not trying to trap anyone in any way. I just point out that materialism is flawed at its philosophical core and atheism as a theory is unfounded by association. Read up above. Both are indissociable. Religions need gods to exists, and if gods did not need religions, they would intervene and act against those who would abuse his image for their own needs and powers. You think God must punish the evil because you think God must be good. What if God conceived the world the way it is, with the abusers, crooks and other rogues? We just don’t know

    

IVNORD wrote: Physics deals with matters and atoms; materialism is its philosophical base. For the purpose of our discussion, they are the same. Materialist philosophy took root well before Marx. Some ancient Greek philosophers toyed with materialist ideas. The Enlightenment and German classical philosophy developed those ideas into a philosophical movementl. In turn, Marx being the most militant (and brilliant) of materialists was heavily influenced by them and further enhanced it. He and Engels created the so-called dialectical materialism and, using it as a base, reviewed the world history, laid the foundation for political economics, and created the theory of communism. The latter along with atheism was used to fool the proletarians into thinking that paradise on earth is possible >> yet all religions promise heaven after death,  because they know they cannot promise it here. And since there is no afterlife, it is a gigantic scam, and you know the rest. >> Yes, but at least they tried to change the world and if the East block ultimately failed, the West block had to adapt (this is why right-wing gov't often govern with left wing actions during the cold war) and became a much better place.     Furthermore, I do not consider Marx as an authority in Atheism, just another participant. Atheism does not have any authority preaching any kind of dogma ands telling others what to think and how to think it. I believe you read somewhere that Marx is make matter a deity and therefore making your "Materialism" a philosophy. I do not know about Marx (I find his texts unreadable, so I just read a few "translations" of hiis work, but I refuse to make him some kind of prophet as you seem to want to trap atheists in that way. Marx by no means was an authority on atheism, just another follower and user. I’m not trying to trap anyone in any way. I just point out that materialism is flawed at its philosophical core and atheism as a theory is unfounded by association.   Well the idea of a god and religion are indissociable, because of the fact that if there is a deity, it must be worshipped, which of course is the first error that every religions do. Because the worshipping is the part where you surrender and submit to the "authority". Let me correct you here if I may. A religion does need a god; God does not need religion. Neither does God need worshipping. I do believe that God exists, yet I don’t go to a church, mosque, synagogue, Buddhist temple to worship Him. I need no ritual imposed on me.  >> then I wonder if you consider yourself a christian or any other kind of current. Sounds to me that you are more of an agnostic. Read up above. Both are indissociable. Religions need gods to exists, and if gods did not need religions, they would intervene and act against those who would abuse his image for their own needs and powers. You think God must punish the evil because you think God must be good. What if God conceived the world the way it is, with the abusers, crooks and other rogues? We just don’t know >> then I wonder if you consider yourself a christian or any other kind of current. Sounds to me that you are more of an agnostic

Is it just me, or are there more religious people than atheists in this thread? 

Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote: Physics deals with matters and atoms; materialism is its philosophical base. For the purpose of our discussion, they are the same. Materialist philosophy took root well before Marx. Some ancient Greek philosophers toyed with materialist ideas. The Enlightenment and German classical philosophy developed those ideas into a philosophical movementl. In turn, Marx being the most militant (and brilliant) of materialists was heavily influenced by them and further enhanced it. He and Engels created the so-called dialectical materialism and, using it as a base, reviewed the world history, laid the foundation for political economics, and created the theory of communism. The latter along with atheism was used to fool the proletarians into thinking that paradise on earth is possible >> yet all religions promise heaven after death,  because they know they cannot promise it here. And since there is no afterlife, it is a gigantic scam What’s the difference? Both offer great things in the future. As convoluted as it is, communism has the sole purpose of exploiting its followers the way an organized religion exploits its believers. , and you know the rest. >> Yes, but at least they tried to change the world I'm not sure if they DID try (see above) and if the East block ultimately failed, the West block had to adapt (this is why right-wing gov't often govern with left wing actions during the cold war) and became a much better place.     Furthermore, I do not consider Marx as an authority in Atheism, just another participant. Atheism does not have any authority preaching any kind of dogma ands telling others what to think and how to think it. I believe you read somewhere that Marx is make matter a deity and therefore making your "Materialism" a philosophy. I do not know about Marx (I find his texts unreadable, so I just read a few "translations" of hiis work, but I refuse to make him some kind of prophet as you seem to want to trap atheists in that way. Marx by no means was an authority on atheism, just another follower and user. I’m not trying to trap anyone in any way. I just point out that materialism is flawed at its philosophical core and atheism as a theory is unfounded by association.   Well the idea of a god and religion are indissociable, because of the fact that if there is a deity, it must be worshipped, which of course is the first error that every religions do. Because the worshipping is the part where you surrender and submit to the "authority". Let me correct you here if I may. A religion does need a god; God does not need religion. Neither does God need worshipping. I do believe that God exists, yet I don’t go to a church, mosque, synagogue, Buddhist temple to worship Him. I need no ritual imposed on me.  >> then I wonder if you consider yourself a christian or any other kind of current. Sounds to me that you are more of an agnostic. Read up above. Both are indissociable. Religions need gods to exists, and if gods did not need religions, they would intervene and act against those who would abuse his image for their own needs and powers. You think God must punish the evil because you think God must be good. What if God conceived the world the way it is, with the abusers, crooks and other rogues? We just don’t know >> then I wonder if you consider yourself a christian or any other kind of current. Sounds to me that you are more of an agnostic Maybe an agnostic with a twist. Precise classification doesn't matter.

    

IVNORD wrote: That really translates it into “Religion is man-made.” If so, some men use religion to profit from it. And that’s what turns me off.   Wouldn't it be better to say that the perception of God is different in different religions?   I you read the Koran and The Bible you will find similar messages of peace but man tends to accept the more violent sections out of the context, even more clear, Christians, Jewishs and Moslems adore the God of Abraham only with a different name.   SOME men corrupt the religions while others understand it, this happens in Christian (Catholic and Ortodox included) Churches as well as in any other religion.    Iván

IVNORD wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: IVNORD wrote: That really translates it into “Religion is man-made.” If so, some men use religion to profit from it. And that’s what turns me off.   Wouldn't it be better to say that the perception of God is different in different religions? No it wouldn’t. But it would be fair to say that the idea that God gave His 10 commandments to Moses, dictated the Vedas to the Hindus, and whispered something else to Shinto monks has no other explanation except the one I have offered to you.   I you read the Koran and The Bible you will find similar messages of peace but man tends to accept the more violent sections out of the context, even more clear, Christians, Jewishs and Moslems adore the God of Abraham only with a different name. Again, it doesn’t speak in favor of your thesis. It rather reinforces the notion that people themselves wrote their holy books, however similar the original source could be.   SOME men corrupt the religions while others understand it, this happens in Christian (Catholic and Ortodox included) Churches as well as in any other religion. I didn’t mean the corrupted clergy. The commercialization of religion, the business approach to the spiritual – that’s what’s appalling.   Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 09 2007 at 17:10

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: IVNORD wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: IVNORD wrote: That really translates it into “Religion is man-made.” If so, some men use religion to profit from it. And that’s what turns me off.   Wouldn't it be better to say that the perception of God is different in different religions? No it wouldn’t. But it would be fair to say that the idea that God gave His 10 commandments to Moses, dictated the Vedas to the Hindus, and whispered something else to Shinto monks has no other explanation except the one I have offered to you.   I you read the Koran and The Bible you will find similar messages of peace but man tends to accept the more violent sections out of the context, even more clear, Christians, Jewishs and Moslems adore the God of Abraham only with a different name. Again, it doesn’t speak in favor of your thesis. It rather reinforces the notion that people themselves wrote their holy books, however similar the original source could be.   SOME men corrupt the religions while others understand it, this happens in Christian (Catholic and Ortodox included) Churches as well as in any other religion. I didn’t mean the corrupted clergy. The commercialization of religion, the business approach to the spiritual – that’s what’s appalling.   Iván       Wouldn't it be possible that God manifested to different races using a form, language and ethnic ways that they could accept?   All the messages from the sacred texts despite the formal difference have a similar message:     Chapter 3, verse 172, of the Koran: "Of those who answered the call of Allah and the messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward."   1 Peter 3 of the Bible: 9You must not do wrong things to those who do wrong things to you. You must not say wrong things to those who say wrong things to you. But ask God to bless those people. This is what you have been called to do. Then God will bless you.     Buddhism Sutta-Nip.149: Just as a mother might protect from harm the son that was her only child, let all-embracing thoughts of love for every living thing be thine. An all-embracing love for all the universe, in all its heights and depth and breadth. An unstinted love, not marred by enmity.”     Doesn't all this texts seem as narrated and/or inspired by the same God?   I'm sure that if you would show this phrases to a Christian, not expert in the sacred texte, would easily believe that the three are in the Bible.   Couldn't the same God in a different manifestation inspired the three texts?   Iván

On the flipside, however, if you pick a verse from Leviticus in which you're instructed to stone homosexuals to death or some other such matter, very few Buddhists could be led to believe that that was a verse found in the Tripitaka. Is it really so incredible that men could conceive of the notion to "do right" that it has to be attributed to some supreme being? Besides, it's not like any of those statements really reveal a commonality in message, after all to do "right" or not to do "wrong" is relative to the person who is writing it anyway, and thus doesn't mean much out of context.

Chus wrote: ^^^Again, the Old Testament is not really a good example.... Jesus told the men who were stoning Mary Magdalene "those of you who hadn't commit a sin, throw the first rock"... after that they went away in shame and he forgave her, and told her "go and sin no more"

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 09 2007 at 22:26

Octafish wrote: Nevertheless, you cannot deny that violence is not inherent in the Bible, even in Genesis God's "hardening" of the pharoah's heart and the subsequent slaughter of the firstborn is something which would hardly fit in to other religions like Buddhism.

Just to clarify (again, because I think it is an important point), Buddhism is not religion. There is no deity worship. There are members of my temple that still have Christian beliefs. It is a path to enlightenment.