10 myths about Atheism [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

Cathy C

12-27-2006, 11:36 AM

I don't think James was saying YOU were stupid for finding the line profound, kikazaru. He's saying the line is stupid. You're both entitled to your opinions because, again, even those with the same belief structure will have differing logic within that belief.

Although I would appreciate a little more "IMO" or expansion of logic rather than blanket statements, James.

What confounds me are the stats about how many people claim they believe but live totally secular lives.

What confounds you about it, Kentuk? Religion isn't the absence of secularity, IMO. When a person strives to lead a good life--meaning to love and share, while still enjoying the trappings of the bounty to further their joy in existence, why should that limit their ability to serve the tenets of their faith? I've read a number of the texts of various religions and they ALL mostly provide a guideline for life that includes some variation of: Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't be jealous, Don't be hateful, etc., etc. There's a lot of wisdom in the various texts, when taken as a whole. Merely because I haven't selected ONE underlying belief system or even think ANY belief system is the one truth doesn't lessen my desire to follow what I consider to be wise advice in co-existing with the rest of humanity.

It's when it's taken to an extreme--when following every single dogmatic tenet MUST take the place of secularity for fear of losing their place in the scheme of the religion is when intolerance sets in, and fanaticism turns to hatred. Again, IMO. :)

Bartholomew

12-27-2006, 01:49 PM

Atheists can no more be lumped together than Pagans. Hell, some atheists are Pagan.

I'm atheist, but I most certainly have spiritual beliefs. I'm atheist because I'm Buddhist which is an atheistic religion--that is, it has no gods.

Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie
That isn't a profound line, it's incredibly old and stupid line. Not only is it illogical, it's the exact reverse of the truth, and this has been pointed out bazillions of times by those on both sides of the argument who actually understand what logic is. It really is one of the dumbest things any human has ever said.

But it makes a really good sound bite for those who either don't have enough logic to see the fallacy immediately, as even most athiests do, or who just don't want to bother with actually thinking for a minute.

Do enlighten me. It seems like a logical statement to me.

Christian doctrine dismisses other Gods. Zeus is no more real to them than God is to me.

Higgins

12-27-2006, 07:19 PM

That isn't a profound line, it's incredibly old and stupid line.

I've always thought that "profundity" was essentially an old and stupid idea made even older and stupider. Or more ancient and more stupid.

It's like the "chicken and the egg" problem: which came first the memorable antiquity or the stupidity.

God knows, all of the sensible things people say are forgotten in the blink of God's omniscient, ah, incredible mental thing.

It's even worse when you consider what the oldest preserved human utterances are: inventories, loans and divinatory procedures. You could combine them all in one profoundly stupid sentence:

"If the swamp birds return so that it rains tomorrow, the three mud huts, two mud fences and one mud gate that I made to repay the Taskmaster's oldest son, will be like unto piles of mud in the eyes of the God who sent me the swamp birds to warn me of the rain."

Oh, the humanity....

Meerkat

12-27-2006, 07:32 PM

Yes, some atheists ARE arrogant.

...And I have not often found even this (as much as "some") to be the case. Many theists believe that the apologies they owe for their wrongdoings can be comfortably made much later than the offense, and directed towards entities other than the victim.

Nateskate

12-27-2006, 07:34 PM

Hi K. I generally don't post on these threads, mostly because I'm respectful of boundaries, and if atheists want an atheist forum I respect that.

I saw the topic heading and when I read the premise I sort of felt this was an open letter to non-atheists.

If you don't mind, I'll respectfully make a few comments, but not with any intention to be argumentative.

The writer who wrote the article may have claimed to be an atheist, but once he stated his opinions of not discounting a higher being could exist, he slipped into agnosticism. So, technically, he's a closet agnostic. Pure atheism is rather emphatic on the declaration. "I've come to the conclusion that God cannot exist...because" And as the argument spins to, "Well, I know that if God does exist...it isn't your God..." it really isn't a pure atheistic argument anymore and actually a statement of atheistic unbelief.

As an atheist (former), I had my reasons for believing and not believing, but that doesn't mean I never had doubts. Genetics made me doubt- how complex the entire genetic computer chip was and the processes by which permanent changes could occur in the actual code without destroying or harming the organism. The intricacies of microbiology- the complexity of the cell structure and the sub-atomic universe, made me doubt. The immune systems redundancy back-up systems, which is brilliant. And a series of what were basically accepted as highly fortunate complex accidents, made me doubt. Then some might say I was a weak atheist who missed the bigger picture. But it was very much a religious process, in that there wasn't just this one-sided argument where everything was spotlessly clear. I had to reinforce my believe (in atheism) whenever something happened that made me question it. And so I realized I was making a mental case all the time. What about injustice? What about unfairness? In a sense, I had a list of everything I saw wrong with the world as my hot list of reasons to why I had a right to stick to my atheistic convictions.

I'd like to comment further. On many points I agree, because when I was an atheist I had morals and love and values and a variety of worldviews that seem rather fiting into the clasification called "virtues". Perhaps the Good Samaratin was an atheist. All we know was that he had a different worldview, but did the right thing. So, I don't discount atheists exhibiting virtue. Perhaps in some moral sense, many atheists are more moral than religious counterparts.

I don't think of atheists as particularly immoral and certainly not stupid. In fact, perhaps if you did a pole, more atheists would come up on the higher end of the IQ curve. And I've heard this argument, "We are smarter- therefore righter" as if any of us have an IQ high enough to find or disprove God, which isn't really possible. If God wishes to hide or reveal himself, our ability to catch him or avoid him would be rather unsuccessful. But from a scientific standpoint, I believed that one could look for evidences. And in a scientific way, look at religious claims and experiences, just like any so-called psychic phenominom. "Do people experience something or anything that exists outside of the explanable Universe?" If so, what triggers it, can it be validated in any possible way?

The question which is perhaps difficult for a scientific mind- which some people have- is that it likes everything to follow a neat order that we can grasp. It does not like to fiddle around with the idea of "Revelation", a God who can meddle with nature or show himself to people. But still, a scientist can't rule that out, and doing so shows a bias towards a conclusion. So, I went on a search to try as best as I could to learn if anyone was having any sort of experiences, and what they were, and if they were in any way predictable and not simply delusions and hallucinations or wishful thoughts. To write them off because I didn't have them was simply too easy and suggested to me, that I didn't want to know the answer- that really bothered me to consider as an atheist that I really had my own bent- I wanted to believe I was correct and anything outside that would test my beliefs as an atheist, distrubed my atheist faith. Still to be intellectually honest, I had to face that crossroads and admit I could be wrong.

I didn't assume any group was incapable of having experiences that I didn't understand or some kind of affirmation that I didn't see. In other words, things could exist outside of my own reference, just like trees could grow in some parts of the world but not others. I questioned, 'Is it possible if you live in some space or even mindset, could you be more open to seeing/hearing what I never saw from where I was metaphorically standing?'

The approach to the question of God, is really, are we opened or closed to the idea? And if so, why? And if so, will that bent effect the outcome of the experiment, if indeed we are looking to see if there is any validity to anyone's faith, be if of any stripe?

Perhaps those who are born into Christian families never question faith. But this doesn't mean all who have a belief are without reason and haven't worked it in what could be called a scientific way.

Yes, some people judge atheists; and when I was an atheist back in the seventies, it was akin to outing yourself. It wasn't popular and people looked at you like a space alien. Atheists have come quite a long ways in terms of societal shifts. At least I came out of the closet and admitted I was an atheist to the amusement and chagrin of relatives and friends. I believed in intellectual honesty- and still do.

There are scientific principles that actually cause one to ponder the existence of a higher intelligence and a hand guiding the Universe. It is not without logic or reason. That is far from saying one sees RNA and believes in a religious creed; but it does bring others to a precipice of wondering if indeed God could exist. Science impacted my views when I became an atheist, and science also caused me to question atheism. I know scientists who are atheist and equally brilliant scientists that believe in God- through science- which some believe is an impossibility.

At any rate, I agree with some of the article's points, while not agreeing with some of its arguments and conclusions. Again, this is not an argument, but only a statement of my own reasoning processes and views on this person's views as I read them.

Nate

Higgins

12-27-2006, 08:28 PM

Perhaps the Good Samaratin was an atheist. All we know was that he had a different worldview, but did the right thing.

There's no reason to think that the virtuous Samaritan was an atheist. After all, he is referred to as a "Samaritan"...ie a native of Samaria which is just north of Judea. Samaritans were a religious group, in much the same way that Judeans...indeed, in a precisely parallel way...that Judeans were assumed to be Jews, ie the regional designation was also the designation for a religious group.

The Samaritan worldview cannot have been all that different from that of the Judeans. They worshipped the same God and had the same religious texts as the Judeans. They did have one important difference and grievance: the Judeans destroyed the Samaritan Temple in 103 BC or so.
After the Romans destroyed the Judean Temple in 70 AD, the Samaritans and Judeans were in similar situations except that the Samaritans were never expelled from their sacred land and some of them are still there.

The favorable notice of the Samaritan and other early stories suggest there may have been an early strand of Christianity that derived from how the Samaritans coped with having their Temple destroyed.

Sean D. Schaffer

12-27-2006, 08:34 PM

Yes, some atheists do believe that. I suspect there are some religious people who believe that too.

Yes, there are quite a few religious people--heck, some religious texts I can think of, as well--that believe life is meaningless.

Yes, some atheists ARE arrogant.

As are a lot of religious folk. I speak this as a religious person myself. I cannot begin to tell you how arrogant I've seen other people be--even how arrogant I've acted, sometimes--in the name of their religion. It's not fun to deal with at all, especially when the same people preach that you need to be humble in life. It really is a strange paradox, to be sure.

I don't like the way this is answered. It seems to say that certain emotional states are spiritual (and that, of course, atheists have these emotions), but this could be misleading as some people see the word spiritual as meaning having a belief in God. Certainly by that definition of spiritual, atheists ARE closed to spiritual experience.

I agree. The idea of a spiritual state does not always automatically mean G-d. I think there are a lot of spiritual experiences that have to do with one's own spirit, and not just a higher power.

I think you've made some excellent points.

ETA:

I apologize for generalizing all atheists together. Such was not my intent. Only after I posted did I find out that some atheists do believe in a god of some sort. I hope you'll all forgive my naivete.

Pat~

12-27-2006, 09:02 PM

There's no reason to think that the virtuous Samaritan was an atheist. After all, he is referred to as a "Samaritan"...ie a native of Samaria which is just north of Judea. Samaritans were a religious group, in much the same way that Judeans...indeed, in a precisely parallel way...that Judeans were assumed to be Jews, ie the regional designation was also the designation for a religious group.

The Samaritan worldview cannot have been all that different from that of the Judeans. They worshipped the same God and had the same religious texts as the Judeans. They did have one important difference and grievance: the Judeans destroyed the Samaritan Temple in 103 BC or so.
After the Romans destroyed the Judean Temple in 70 AD, the Samaritans and Judeans were in similar situations except that the Samaritans were never expelled from their sacred land and some of them are still there.

The favorable notice of the Samaritan and other early stories suggest there may have been an early strand of Christianity that derived from how the Samaritans coped with having their Temple destroyed.

I agree with you that the Samaritans were probably not atheistic but believed in a god (as a group); however, they didn't worship the same as the Judeans, who believed strictly in the worship of ONE God. The Samaritan race evolved as a result of the Jews intermarrying with the Canaanites in the region, who worshipped many deities. That led to the development of a syncretistic faith (they worshiped idols AND Yahweh), which is actually what led most Jews to despise them--hence, the punch of the story of the Good Samaritan.

JimmyB27

12-27-2006, 09:26 PM

While I'm technically not an athiest (don't know for sure God doesn't exist)

I think this is probably one of the more common myths about athiesm. Atheism is not a disbelief in god, it is the absence of belief in god. Yes, there is a difference.
I consider myself an atheist, and I feel it would be remarkably arrogant to suggest that there is no possibility whatsoever for the existence of a creator being. I simply don't believe there is one.
I still have room for the spiritual side of life, I just attribute it more to the human spirit, and not some big old bearded fella sitting on a cloud*.

*Yes, I know that's not what anyone really believes.

Edited because I noticed another myth about atheism - that it is spelt 'athiesm' :tongue

Higgins

12-27-2006, 09:30 PM

I agree with you that the Samaritans were probably not atheistic but believed in a god (as a group); however, they didn't worship the same as the Judeans, who believed strictly in the worship of ONE God. The Samaritan race evolved as a result of the Jews intermarrying with the Canaanites in the region, who worshipped many deities. That led to the development of a synchretistic faith (they worshiped idols AND Yahweh), which is actually what led most Jews to despise them--hence, the punch of the story of the Good Samaritan.

It appears that the low opinion that the Judeans had of the Samaritans led them to write some fiction into the Biblical tale (in Kings). According to the Samaritans themselves, they stuck to the original Yahwehistic cult and the Judeans added things later (rather than the Judean account in the Judean Bible which is apparently also the Christian account in the Christian Bible where the Samaritans added other cults). Actually, the Samaritans only have the Yahweh cult, as is clear (apparently) from their own biblical texts, which are close to that of the Judeans and Christians, but naturally doesn't say nasty things about the Samaritans' adding cults to the one basic Yahweh cult.

BruceJ

12-27-2006, 10:28 PM

It appears that the low opinion that the Judeans had of the Samaritans led them to write some fiction into the Biblical tale (in Kings). According to the Samaritans themselves, they stuck to the original Yahwehistic cult and the Judeans added things later (rather than the Judean account in the Judean Bible which is apparently also the Christian account in the Christian Bible where the Samaritans added other cults). Actually, the Samaritans only have the Yahweh cult, as is clear (apparently) from their own biblical texts, which are close to that of the Judeans and Christians, but naturally doesn't say nasty things about the Samaritans' adding cults to the one basic Yahweh cult.
That's curious and interesting. Could you give me an objective source on the "fiction in[to] the Biblical tale (in Kings)?" Also on where the Samaritans retained the "original Yawehistic cult and the Judeans added things later?" (The quote marks are not sarcasm, I just wanted to be precise). It appears you appeal to the word of the Samaritans for your rationale over the word of the Judeans. What tips the scales of truth in their direction in your estimation?

veinglory

12-27-2006, 10:50 PM

I think this is probably one of the more common myths about athiesm. Atheism is not a disbelief in god, it is the absence of belief in god. Yes, there is a difference.

Thank you. To say otherwise is to consider belief in God as the default, requiring some absolute proof to erase his presumed existence.

Maybe this comes from people raised in Christian/Theistic household who belief in God from their earliest moments. But as a person raised in a house where God was not mentioned I would need some reason to believe in him and I haven't come across it, nor am I looking.

I feel it is a pervassive flaw in writing about relgion that the writer assumes their own persective to be somehow representative of a huge group of people, and then they take the extra step of making it an 'ideal' even for those of different beliefs. The presumptions are deep and implicit in both cases and don't respect just how many different paradigms people have---

and perhaps, in this world, how little it really matters when it comes to being a good person and leading a good life.

benbradley

12-27-2006, 11:00 PM

Speaking of tolerance... ahem...

Instead of phrasing it this way, why don't you elucidate us, James? (In other words, what's so illogical about the quote?)

I'm not James, but as soon as I read his post and re-read the quote, I could see what he was saying. Here's the (what I feel is the relelvant part of the) quote:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."

The person being spoken to believes in ONE God, and so by definition is not an atheist. It is thus a lie to say "we are both atheists."

But I can see and "read through" the (ab)use of the word atheist here: The person being spoken to is an "atheist" in the sense that he does not believe in any God(s) outside his own religion. The rest of the quote about "dismissing gods" (that I don't quote above) helps explain this.

veinglory

12-27-2006, 11:05 PM

When well stated the phrase is specifc as 'You are atheist about Zeus' -- which stretched the definition but makes sense.

So an Atheist is just atheist about one more God that the theist.

I think it is an interesting statement that might provike thought in thise who can't wrap their head around how a person would not believe in God--by showing how we all don't believe in Gods that other people to beleive in. the phrasing is manipulative but the point is by no means trivial. Atheists don't believe in the J/C God like J/C Christians don't believe in the Mother Goddess or Zeus.

Nateskate

12-27-2006, 11:11 PM

It's likely you're correct. All the same, I think the Good Samaritan is a good place to make the ideological leap that spiritual understanding doesn't necessarily equate with acting in love. Non-religious people can act very spiritually. Romans 2 makes the same point that some who haven't a clue what the Law of Moses said, do by nature what the Law requires. They are a law unto themselves. I think we should always give credit where credit is due, if someone acts in selflessness.

There's no reason to think that the virtuous Samaritan was an atheist. After all, he is referred to as a "Samaritan"...ie a native of Samaria which is just north of Judea. Samaritans were a religious group, in much the same way that Judeans...indeed, in a precisely parallel way...that Judeans were assumed to be Jews, ie the regional designation was also the designation for a religious group.

The Samaritan worldview cannot have been all that different from that of the Judeans. They worshipped the same God and had the same religious texts as the Judeans. They did have one important difference and grievance: the Judeans destroyed the Samaritan Temple in 103 BC or so.
After the Romans destroyed the Judean Temple in 70 AD, the Samaritans and Judeans were in similar situations except that the Samaritans were never expelled from their sacred land and some of them are still there.

The favorable notice of the Samaritan and other early stories suggest there may have been an early strand of Christianity that derived from how the Samaritans coped with having their Temple destroyed.

benbradley

12-27-2006, 11:12 PM

I think this is probably one of the more common myths about athiesm. Atheism is not a disbelief in god, it is the absence of belief in god. Yes, there is a difference.

From online articles I've read recently on atheism (such as the Wikipedia article, which starts out with this point), both of these are considered (at least by some people) subsets of (or variations on) atheism. An active disbelief in God is termed positive or strong atheism, whereas a simple lack of belief in God is termed weak atheism.

Higgins

12-28-2006, 01:40 AM

That's curious and interesting. Could you give me an objective source on the "fiction in[to] the Biblical tale (in Kings)?" Also on where the Samaritans retained the "original Yawehistic cult and the Judeans added things later?" (The quote marks are not sarcasm, I just wanted to be precise). It appears you appeal to the word of the Samaritans for your rationale over the word of the Judeans. What tips the scales of truth in their direction in your estimation?

Well, we can go talk to Samaritans. They still live on their sacred mountain in Samaria. They claim to have worshipped Yahweh just like the Judeans. We also have the Samaritan sacred texts and they are more or less what you would expect a Yahwhist sect would have that did not adopt later customs.
Finally, the Judeans had an anti-Samaritan agenda and it was in their interest to represent the Samaritans as having an impure Yahwist cult, hence their representation of the Samaritans in Kings.
Or to restate:
Nothing suggests that the Samaritans were any less Yahweh-cultistic than the Judeans other than the Judean stories in Kings and we know the Judeans had an anti-Samaritan agenda.

Nateskate

12-28-2006, 01:59 AM

Actually historically, Samaria has a relatively interesting history. Assyria tried to repopulate the territory with non-Jews, and later, the Persians used it sort of like the Russians used Siberia and sent there political dissidents there. So there was already a mixed bag living there when the Jews came out of captivity in Babylon. Before this Ahab used Samaria as the capitol of Israel after their Civil War, and preferred Baal Worship. So you had these blends of beliefs. Baal worship was also montheistic, but cutlish. "Baal-zebub". I'm not saying Samaria had that, but it was sort of like an offshoot religion with roots in various cultures.

So the region itself had such a tainted history of "attempts to water down the Jewish beliefs and culture" that Samaritans were kind of frowned upon.

Even in Jesus times, there was a monotheistic religion in Samaria, but it was somewhat "mixed", and there was a mini debate about where God should be worshiped.

For the record, Yahweh worship might have been prevelent in various parts of the Middle East, but it wasn't the same as "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

There are blended religions which call them selves "Christian", in places around the world that aren't quite "Christian" to many Christians. But they will say it depends on whose definitions are being used as the definition.

Higgins

12-28-2006, 06:06 AM

Kentuk

12-28-2006, 06:50 AM

What confounds you about it, Kentuk? Religion isn't the absence of secularity, IMO. When a person strives to lead a good life--meaning to love and share, while still enjoying the trappings of the bounty to further their joy in existence, why should that limit their ability to serve the tenets of their faith? I've read a number of the texts of various religions and they ALL mostly provide a guideline for life that includes some variation of: Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't be jealous, Don't be hateful, etc., etc. There's a lot of wisdom in the various texts, when taken as a whole. Merely because I haven't selected ONE underlying belief system or even think ANY belief system is the one truth doesn't lessen my desire to follow what I consider to be wise advice in co-existing with the rest of humanity.

It's when it's taken to an extreme--when following every single dogmatic tenet MUST take the place of secularity for fear of losing their place in the scheme of the religion is when intolerance sets in, and fanaticism turns to hatred. Again, IMO. :)

Please don't get me wrong, I am an agnostic and don't believe but most Americans when they say they believe in God, they mean the Christian God and even a quick read of the New Testament shows that obeying rules is nothing, loving God heart, mind and soul is all that matters. It isn't for people who want to be ordinary. I think you and I are relieved that nearly all Christians don't take it seriously and leave being extrodinary to the athiests (and technical agnostics-perhaps). While relieved I still find it confounding, human beings are such perverse creatures.

Pat~

12-28-2006, 07:17 AM

It appears that the low opinion that the Judeans had of the Samaritans led them to write some fiction into the Biblical tale (in Kings). According to the Samaritans themselves, they stuck to the original Yahwehistic cult and the Judeans added things later (rather than the Judean account in the Judean Bible which is apparently also the Christian account in the Christian Bible where the Samaritans added other cults). Actually, the Samaritans only have the Yahweh cult, as is clear (apparently) from their own biblical texts, which are close to that of the Judeans and Christians, but naturally doesn't say nasty things about the Samaritans' adding cults to the one basic Yahweh cult.

Josephus was a pretty well-respected historian despite being Jewish; I suppose it's just a judgment call whether or not you think his religion biased his account on this issue.

Scarlett_156

12-28-2006, 07:54 AM

I like pie.

C. L. Richardson

12-28-2006, 08:39 AM

Speaking as a Christian, I don't buy into the myths listed in the article. I could, however, point out at least ten myths about Christianity that arise in said article. For example, the myth that Christians don't understand atheism. A lot of us were atheists once and now we know better. ;)

Nateskate

12-28-2006, 05:33 PM

Sokal, it's an interesting discussion. The term "Baal" means "the lord". Baal-Zebub means, "Lord of the Flies"

In and of itself it seems rather benign to call God "the Lord", and in fact it is a Biblical thing in both the Old and New Testaments. However, we can call a brick lord or a piece of wood. That is simply "The higher power" perspective- you can pick your own God and what God will look like. You are the dictator of truth.

But, like with Molech worship, the practices associated with Baal Worship, was a far cry from the practices sanctioned by "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

That title, by the way, was also a definition. It was sort of like a proverbial trail of Breadcrumbs. (To know God and know how to approach God, follow the trail from Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob..."

And the implications are that God reveals himself in increments through relations with various people- I.E "A God of covenants".... In the three cases, well at least in two, the individuals had to trust God to take them through the wilderness and provide for their needs. Their "Home" was never their "Home". There's all kinds of rather profound lessons in these stories.

So, what was the difference between "Baal" and "Yahwey" which I think was spelled without vowels? The answer was in the characteristics ascribed to God.

The debates of "Who was the real God- who got the promises- what is true worship- has never changed in thousands of years." And so, you pretty much have one mindset that says, "The oldest monotheistic religion is the most correct, because everything built off of this..." And there is a "We were there first..."

However, even the Bible implies that monotheism predated the authors of the Bible. The Bible is 66 books - the protestant version, by various authors over a several thousand year span. And even the Bible quotes books that are not in the Bible, such as the book of Enoch. Enoch predated the deluvian period. So it is conceivable that Noah brought books on the Ark- if you're into conspiracy theories.

But again, using the Old Testament accounts, the God of Abraham was not saying he never revealed himself before (if you consider that he revealed himself a number of times before he revealed himself to Abraham or Moses) but it is rather a clarification of the Nature of God.

Noah was given a "Law" of sorts that scattered to the four winds. It wasn't practiced even a few generations later. But there was a "monotheism" along with all the polytheistic and annimist beliefs. It existed before Judaism, alongside of Judaism. The Bible doesn't negate this, but rather makes distinctions. "Do this, but do not do these practices"

Nate

Near as I can tell, the real problem the Judeans (=Jews, literally in biblical Greek) had with Samaria was that they had a Temple that could be seen as an alternative to the Temple in Jerusalem. Ideumeans, Galileeans, Alexandrine Yahwists and so on were as "Jewish" as the Samaritans, but did not get as much bad press because they were not serious competitors for the Have a Temple to Yahweh role. Given all the odd roles that early Christian stories have for Samaria, I've always thought there was probably some direct Samaritan role in shaping proto-Christianity.

BruceJ

12-28-2006, 06:19 PM

Well, we can go talk to Samaritans. They still live on their sacred mountain in Samaria. They claim to have worshipped Yahweh just like the Judeans. We also have the Samaritan sacred texts and they are more or less what you would expect a Yahwhist sect would have that did not adopt later customs.
Finally, the Judeans had an anti-Samaritan agenda and it was in their interest to represent the Samaritans as having an impure Yahwist cult, hence their representation of the Samaritans in Kings.
Or to restate:
Nothing suggests that the Samaritans were any less Yahweh-cultistic than the Judeans other than the Judean stories in Kings and we know the Judeans had an anti-Samaritan agenda.
True, we could talk to the Samaritans. That would be a fascinating discussion, I think, in many ways. However, it represents circular logic in arguing for the efficacy of their claim. The modern Samaritans cling to the Pentateuch as being the only authoritative Divinely-inspired Scripture, although they have additional writings (e.g., The Samaritan Chronicle) they hold as wholly accurate, albeit not inspired. So, if you mean 'sacred texts' in the sense of 'inspired texts' they are one with the Judeans here in their adherence to the Torah, with the obvious addition of the Prophets and the Writings (Psalms and Wisdom Literature) to the TaNaKh accepted by the modern Hebrew. In their cultic literature they do, indeed, decry syncretism. They are, again, together with the Judeans in this point (i.e., the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament/whatever you want to call it), although syncretism is a common phenomenon across the total landscape of human history. They, too, paint a pretty rough picture of the Jews with whom they share a common heritage. In this attitude they also join the Judeans. So I'm not sure I'd characterize the Judeans as having an 'anti-Samaritan agenda' any more specifically than I would them having a generally anti-pagan agenda--or the Samaritans having an anti-Judean agenda. Neither am I sure where making a special effort to castigate the Samaritans advances their interests any more than any other goyim.

The Jews, as the chosen people of God, naturally had an exclusivistic view of their religion. Adulterating the faith through intermarriage and otherwise mingling with the inhabitants of Canaan was anathema to any devout Jew. Hence their distaste for the Samaritans, who were remnants of the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom culminating in the destruction of Samaria in 722 BC and the scattering of the Ten Lost Tribes. Add to that Nate's note below of intentional repopulation of the region by its conquerors (a practice common throughout history--even up to and including the 20th century). Intermarriage, syncretism and idolatry were the hallmarks of the Samaritans at their origin because they were the hallmarks of the tribes of the Northern Kingdom (from which they sprang) from the onset when United Monarchy split under Jeroboam I and he instituted cultic worship at Dan and Bethel--golden calves and all--and violated the Levitic line of the priesthood. And it's true, the Judeans don't wear pure white hats in the spiritual purity department, either. (Who does?) Both Kings and Chronicles admit to failings by the kings of Judah, too.

That's then, though, and this is now. The Samaritans of today (and of the first paragraph above), although they owe their heritage to the ancient Samaritans who were spiritually impure in the context of monotheistic Yahwehism, bear only some resemblance to their ancestors. The couple hundred or so remaining that cloister themselves on Mr. Gerasim do claim pure worship in their sole acceptance of the Torah (as noted above). The 'Judeans' of today, if we're using the modern state of Israel as the manifestation of the revival of the ancient Southern Kingdom (are we?), is overall pretty secular; however, to compare a ~300-person cult (used in the pure sense) to a modern state is a bit of an apples-and-oranges approach. Perhaps a comparison to the orthodox Jews of modern Israel would be more appropriate.

Finally, I guess I don't necessarily make the leap that the Judeans wrote fiction into the Bible due to their attitude toward the Samaritans, or any other group of people. It doesn't have to be fiction. It could well be true and, if we're going to be philologically honest, we should accept it at its word until it can be disproven through convincing external evidence and/or internal disconnects. Otherwise we're really only sharing the same bias we accuse the Judeans of, only in reverse.

Higgins

12-28-2006, 06:38 PM

Josephus was a pretty well-respected historian despite being Jewish; I suppose it's just a judgment call whether or not you think his religion biased his account on this issue.

Josephus was a priest of the Temple in Jerusalem. It would be impossible to come up with a more likely anti-Samarian source.

Higgins

12-28-2006, 07:03 PM

That's then, though, and this is now. The Samaritans of today (and of the first paragraph above), although they owe their heritage to the ancient Samaritans who were spiritually impure in the context of monotheistic Yahwehism, bear only some resemblance to their ancestors. The couple hundred or so remaining that cloister themselves on Mr. Gerasim do claim pure worship in their sole acceptance of the Torah (as noted above). The 'Judeans' of today, if we're using the modern state of Israel as the manifestation of the revival of the ancient Southern Kingdom (are we?), is overall pretty secular; however, to compare a ~300-person cult (used in the pure sense) to a modern state is a bit of an apples-and-oranges approach. Perhaps a comparison to the orthodox Jews of modern Israel would be more appropriate.

Finally, I guess I don't necessarily make the leap that the Judeans wrote fiction into the Bible due to their attitude toward the Samaritans, or any other group of people. It doesn't have to be fiction. It could well be true and, if we're going to be philologically honest, we should accept it at its word until it can be disproven through convincing external evidence and/or internal disconnects. Otherwise we're really only sharing the same bias we accuse the Judeans of, only in reverse.

It's actually much more simple: societies generally accuse the closest neighboring social unit of some kind of deviance as a way of marking them off...especially when the demarcation is otherwise far from obvious. Not surprisingly the cultically-obsessed Judeans accused the Samaritans of cultic impurity. Now how "true" could that possibly be? Nobody sits around being proud of having an impure cult of cultic purity. The accusation is absurd and the grounds for it are even more implausible: why would having other people settled in your area make you render the cult around which you have built your identity impure?
So the Judeans misrepresented the Samaritans in their sacred texts and histories and when they got a chance, destroyed their Temple.

As for having the same bias as a Second Temple Judean...I should be so lucky. As for reversing it...probably an equally impossible move. For one thing, I find the idea that anyone at all has an "impure cult of ritual purity" to be somewhat puzzling. In fact the whole idea of "tainted" Samarians seems just plain weird. I doubt there are many ethnic groups who a) consider themselves "tainted" and b) are not considered "tainted" by some other ethnic group for some reason or other. Gosh, how else are you going to have ethnic groups?

Higgins

12-28-2006, 07:32 PM

And even the Bible quotes books that are not in the Bible, such as the book of Enoch. Enoch predated the deluvian period. So it is conceivable that Noah brought books on the Ark- if you're into conspiracy theories.

Nate

No need for conspirators. There are enough of them already. Enoch intersects (as the seventh sage among other things) with a world-wide complex of nutty cosmic "knowledge". The Manicheans (for example) circulated a sci-fi epic under his name: "the Book of the Giants"...supposedly the most widely translated book of the 8th century AD since it was very popular on the Silk Road. Since parts of the Book of the Giants turned up in Aramaic in the Qumran caves it also had some popularity in Second Temple Judea.

BruceJ

12-28-2006, 08:35 PM

Not surprisingly the cultically-obsessed Judeans accused the Samaritans of cultic impurity. Now how "true" could that possibly be? Nobody sits around being proud of having an impure cult of cultic purity. The accusation is absurd and the grounds for it are even more implausible: why would having other people settled in your area make you render the cult around which you have built your identity impure?
So the Judeans misrepresented the Samaritans in their sacred texts and histories and when they got a chance, destroyed their Temple.
A little confused here (not foreign territory for me, unfortunately :) ). Is the "cultically-obsessed Judeans" reference just an impression or is there imperical evidence that both define and support what that means? The argument regarding the absurdity of the claim transits a sentence on self-examination ("being proud of having an impure cult of cultic purity") and I'm not sure how that validates or invalidates whether one's dogma is true/pure. I guess I need to better understand what "an impure cult of cultic purity" means. The resettlement point increases the likelihood of syncretism creeping into your dogma through social osmosis. It just happens. All the time. And the Samaritans were no more immune to it that their immediate predecessors. They didn't always cloister themselves on the side of a mountain and avoid contact with the outside world (which I guess is what "cloister" means). "Samaritans" were originally just inhabitants of the region of Samaria.

As for having the same bias as a Second Temple Judean...I should be so lucky. As for reversing it...probably an equally impossible move. For one thing, I find the idea that anyone at all has an "impure cult of ritual purity" to be somewhat puzzling. In fact the whole idea of "tainted" Samarians seems just plain weird. I doubt there are many ethnic groups who a) consider themselves "tainted" and b) are not considered "tainted" by some other ethnic group for some reason or other. Gosh, how else are you going to have ethnic groups?
Losing lock here on why having a Second Temple Judean bias would be lucky or that reversing it is impossible. In the original context of my thread I just meant that accepting a group's claim a priori with no cogent basis for its veracity, I think, indicates an innate predisposition to believe the one side. In short, a bias. Again, you got me on the "impure cult of ritual purity" phrase. Need help there. The notion of tainted Samaritans is really no more puzzling than the notion of any other group's dogma being tainted. Witness Jonestown and Waco. I'm in no way putting the Samaritans on the same level as these cults, but the raw argument stands. And, again, using as a support that a particular group doesn't consider itself tainted as justification that they aren't is circular.

I love your dance-off regarding the ethnic groups! :D Well put and how true! Got a good chuckle out of that one!
Thanks for the comments, Sokal, this is interesting and fun. :Clap:

Pat~

12-28-2006, 08:52 PM

Josephus was a priest of the Temple in Jerusalem. It would be impossible to come up with a more likely anti-Samarian source.

And therefore you assume it affected him as a historian; again, a judgment call in my books. (Do you read all historic accounts through the lens of the religious persuasion of the author? Do you believe it is impossible to record historic events in an unbiased manner? How do you feel about journalists? I could go on, but hopefully you get my drift.)

Nateskate

12-28-2006, 09:41 PM

Interesting conversation about the grand dance.

I'm actually finding this conversation interesting and think for others to follow or comprehend what's written between the lines, there has to be a historical perspective. These questions have to do with issues that are still relevent: Property lines/ a right to exist as a distinct culture.

Throughout history the question was phrased in a variety of ways: "Who has the spiritual rights/ land deeds, the true religion and all that goes with that. It's a debate as old as Esau and Jacob, Ishmael and Isaac. Where one got snubbed and the other got the blessings grab bag. (At least as it was presented)

But for those in the debate it was not necessarily a matter of what people believed, in the sense of what church/mosque or synogogue they went to, but what they believe and act upon. And history has shown this played out over and over again.

In a micocosm, it was played out between Joseph and his brothers, who didn't realize there were blessings to go around. In their minds, which couldn't see the object lessons of Isaac/Ishmael and Jacob/Esau- it appeared there was one blessing, and whoever got it was lucky and whoever didn't was out of luck.

But, unlike with their father and grandfather's generations, everyone was supposed to be blessed. So these brothers, not knowing this, competed with each other over their father's affections, who would get the "Blessing". Not getting the blessing (in their minds) meant being locked out of the country club and destined to the desert.

I won't speak for other religions. But being a Christian, I readily admit Christianity has done terrible things to others because of this Archytipical mindset- inquisitions, crusades, witch hunts, condoning slavery. (While historically many Christians opposed these openly, others were sucked into these atrocities) And most often Jews were most harmed by these events since the earliest days of the Roman Empire. Then blacks were hurt by it. Then women. But that mindset seemed to always hurt someone. "That there isn't enough blessings to go around, so I have to grab mine"

But from an Archetypical (collective think-without really thinking) mindset, I think so many have missed the grand design. (Since all monotheistic religions, including Christianity, claim Abraham as the source of their rights to exist) That whoever was/is/wants to be chosen as God's vessel, was and is supposed to fulfill Abraham's promise- to be a blessing and to bless "all" nations. So, whoever wins the metaphorical grab bag is in a sense, supposed to give it away and bless everyone else.

I can't speak for others but realize that this is something Christianity needs to grab hold of. We were told to "Bless and do not curse..." How many times throughout history did we missunderstand that line!

Nate

Higgins

12-28-2006, 09:48 PM

And therefore you assume it affected him as a historian; again, a judgment call in my books. (Do you read all historic accounts through the lens of the religious persuasion of the author? Do you believe it is impossible to record historic events in an unbiased manner? How do you feel about journalists? I could go on, but hopefully you get my drift.)

Of course it affected him as an historian. The guy worked for the oligarchy based on Temple A, the happy destroyers of Temple B. How likely is he to have a good opinion of any kind about the people involved in Temple B? There's nobody you have a lower opinion of than the people whose religion you have consigned to the dustbin of history by applauding the destruction of their Temple as the work of God and man working together to clear the way for the way the world ought to be (as Christians ought to be able to guess from their ideas about Jews and Judeans and their own text's sneaking suspicions about the virtues of the Samaritans). He's going to systematically assassinate their whole history and he does. Of course to him, its all true: the Samarians have been no good losers since the dawn of time and he is going to write the history to prove it.
What is Josephus completely reliable about? His very nastiness about the Samaritans is perfect evidence of how the Judeans systematically misrepresented the Samaritans.
This is true of a great many texts: they are completely reliable in that they can't help but show the attitudes of their writers.
For example: is Homer "right" about what happened at Troy? No. But he is a reliable source for later ideas about that earlier world and the cosmic forces at play in the cosmos.
Is Herodotus "right" about how some Kingdoms fell to the Persians? No.
But he does give perfectly good evidence for the kind of folkloric stories that circulated about the fall of kingdoms.
Are news accounts of how Nancy Pelosi ruined things by hobnobbing with Murtha very reliable? No. But they show the urge to portray politicians as doomed figures with bizare fatal flaws (just like kings in Herodotus).
Bias is just a natural part of any text worth reading. You have to work it out just like anything else that involves human motives.
Bias can in fact be assumed to exist even in supposedly neutral information-gathering systems. Again, you have to work out methods for dealing with it. Bias is quite universal and has to be accounted for in any worthwhile approach to anything of moderate complexity that is related to the natural world.

Higgins

12-28-2006, 10:56 PM

A little confused here (not foreign territory for me, unfortunately :) ). Is the "cultically-obsessed Judeans" reference just an impression or is there imperical evidence that both define and support what that means? The argument regarding the absurdity of the claim transits a sentence on self-examination ("being proud of having an impure cult of cultic purity") and I'm not sure how that validates or invalidates whether one's dogma is true/pure. I guess I need to better understand what "an impure cult of cultic purity" means. The resettlement point increases the likelihood of syncretism creeping into your dogma through social osmosis. It just happens. All the time. And the Samaritans were no more immune to it that their immediate predecessors. They didn't always cloister themselves on the side of a mountain and avoid contact with the outside world (which I guess is what "cloister" means). "Samaritans" were originally just inhabitants of the region of Samaria.

Losing lock here on why having a Second Temple Judean bias would be lucky or that reversing it is impossible. In the original context of my thread I just meant that accepting a group's claim a priori with no cogent basis for its veracity, I think, indicates an innate predisposition to believe the one side. In short, a bias. Again, you got me on the "impure cult of ritual purity" phrase. Need help there. The notion of tainted Samaritans is really no more puzzling than the notion of any other group's dogma being tainted. Witness Jonestown and Waco. I'm in no way putting the Samaritans on the same level as these cults, but the raw argument stands. And, again, using as a support that a particular group doesn't consider itself tainted as justification that they aren't is circular.

I love your dance-off regarding the ethnic groups! :D Well put and how true! Got a good chuckle out of that one!
Thanks for the comments, Sokal, this is interesting and fun. :Clap:

Oh, my. Thanks for the applause. I hope you will excuse me if I make only a few minor and not necessarily very convincing points:

1) cultically obsessed Judeans: Temples, revolts, Pharisees, John the Baptist, Christians, the scrolls at Qumran, which are almost certainly texts that were ritually removed in a ritually pure manner from circulation for reasons of ritual purity (and the proof is the Copper Scroll)...naturally their main accusation against the Samaritans is that the Samaritans don't do as much as the Judeans do to keep things in a ritually pure state...is this even a real accusation? How could the Judeans monitor ritual purity in somebody else's religious mania? I mean really. The Judeans probably said the ritual equivalent of Tomahto and the Samaritans said Tomayto or vis-versa. It is so absurd as to border on a necessary article of faith: why do things the Judean way (which is the best) if Samaritans are just as good at it but are not quite Judeans? Therefore the Samaritans MUST be doing something cultically incorrect because they are not Judeans.

It's a variation on the inscruitable (but deviant) other: eat all your food, people are starving in China/Samaria. Dutch/Samarian date. Dutch/Samarian Uncle. Dutch/Samarian Courage. Samarian Temple. Do as the Judean Oligarchy says or you'll be just like a Samarian/Dutchman.
Or there may be something French or Canadian about you if you don't wear your scarf, sweater, hat, socks right. Do as we say or you will be considered tainted, Samaritan, French, Dutch, Canadian or Christian in Name only.

Or, to look at the accusation from the Samaritan side: I, a Samaritan am propagating an impure cult of ritual purity? Not likely. Isn't the whole idea of a regime of ritual purity aimed at excluding precisely that possibility?
If the Judeans have a gripe about the purity...the fact is it more or less shows the gripe to be just the usual deviance usually ascribed to others and nothing with any basis in any facts except that Samaritans and Judeans are not precisely identical and not ruled by the same oligarchy.

2) And it really is time for 2........trival point warning.....

Which is how lucky I would be to have a Second Temple Judean bias.

Well...I'd have to be a Second Temple Judean Oligarch. Sounds fun.

And then...how to reverse from one unlikely state to another...even less likely state?

Pat~

12-28-2006, 11:23 PM

What is Josephus completely reliable about? His very nastiness about the Samaritans is perfect evidence of how the Judeans systematically misrepresented the Samaritans.

So the 'fact' that he was nasty proves he was historically inaccurate when he said they also worshiped idols...

Sorry, that just eludes my sense of logic.

Higgins

12-28-2006, 11:36 PM

So the 'fact' that he was nasty proves he was historically inaccurate when he said they also worshiped idols...

Sorry, that just eludes my sense of logic.

The nastiness is not conclusive in itself, but we do have the modern Samarians. They are in effect "cryogenically preserved" Judeans. Ie Judeans before the elaboration of the Old Testiment into a big sacred history with all kinds of special attachments.
Or to put it another way: all of the evidence outside of obviously biased Judean texts, suggests that the Samaritans were a more primitive or primordial version of the Judeans themselves, ie, obsessively devoted to a Yahwehistic cult and no more likely to worship idols than the Judeans.

Now if he had accused the Samaritans of something outside the realm of classic "deviant other" accusations such as say building model boats and hiding them in trees...we might give his evidence more weight, but just the usual stuff is pretty obviously just the usual stuff. Idol worship. Ho hum.

Cathy C

12-29-2006, 02:19 AM

Sorry, I'll have to call you on that one, Sokal.

They are in effect "cryogenically preserved" Judeans. Ie Judeans before the elaboration of the Old Testiment into a big sacred history with all kinds of special attachments.

I don't think there's any culture that's preserved from that period. Change happens, it evolves. We have little preserved from the period in this culture to ascertain whether the values/beliefs held today match up.

Or to put it another way: all of the evidence outside of obviously biased Judean texts,

Obvious perhaps to you. Not all would agree that the texts are biased at all. Remember to include IMO when stating personal beliefs in this forum. :)

the scrolls at Qumran, which are almost certainly texts that were ritually removed in a ritually pure manner from circulation for reasons of ritual purity (and the proof is the Copper Scroll)...

Not "almost certainly." Even the age of the copper scrolls is still under debate. They haven't been confirmed with C14 dating as yet. The only dating/linking to the Qumran occurred back the 1950s. There's a good discussion about the scroll debate here (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/SCR/DSS_Chicago_2000/DSS_Exhibition.html) written in 2002 while the scrolls were touring in Chicago. The labels under the exhibits were the subject of concern, because it led visitors to impressions about "fact" versus conjecture.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled discussion. :)

Higgins

12-29-2006, 06:07 AM

Sorry, I'll have to call you on that one, Sokal.

I don't think there's any culture that's preserved from that period. Change happens, it evolves. We have little preserved from the period in this culture to ascertain whether the values/beliefs held today match up.

Well, I did put up scare quotes and why do you think cultures cannot be
preserved? Or even resurrected? What alternative origin for the Samaritans is there other than their preserving a simpler form of Yahweh cult?

Obvious perhaps to you. Not all would agree that the texts are biased at all. Remember to include IMO when stating personal beliefs in this forum. :)

This is not a personal belief, it is elementry reading of a text, IMO. If Josephus doesn't have an array of biases then it would be hard to find any text that did using whatever method would find Josephus to be unbaised.

Not "almost certainly." Even the age of the copper scrolls is still under debate. They haven't been confirmed with C14 dating as yet. The only dating/linking to the Qumran occurred back the 1950s. There's a good discussion about the scroll debate here (http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/SCR/DSS_Chicago_2000/DSS_Exhibition.html) written in 2002 while the scrolls were touring in Chicago. The labels under the exhibits were the subject of concern, because it led visitors to impressions about "fact" versus conjecture.

There's only one Copper Scroll. It's age is no more debatable than the other scrolls at Qumran and they are all from the end of the Second Temple Period in the universal opinion of all who have worked with them.
Golb's observations are compatable with mine. I'm merely observing how such a diverse collection would occur and be associated with the Copper Scroll.

Nateskate

12-29-2006, 06:55 PM

Sokol, you're bright and interesting. I'm actually interested to keep learning. I like Josephus for what he is. But I don't see him as flawless or without any bias. Still, when you say that we all have biases, I think we all do and the best we can do in life is be aware of them.

Josephus was not simply Jewish, but he belonged to a separatist sect- forgive me if I mispell it. Essenes. He was also a priest, and then a general in the war. And then in some sense he was a defector, in that he refused to fall on his sword and became somewhat of a Roman historian.

So defending the perfection of Josephus isn't where I'm at. However, he was a really interesting figure that sheds a great deal of light. And in that, everything is taken within context. It was felt that his particular sect separated from the rest of Israel, because they realized that there was - and he points this out- corruption in high places.

The priests were not Levittes as required by Law, but hired guns chosen by the Herods as a political favor. You had internal strife, with different factions waring. You had zealots, and you had very religious minded people, and you had theives and bullies.

So Josephus doesn't whitewash the reality of life. He was very brutal with all the political figures of his day as well.

And Josephus even goes into the mindset of the people who likely wrote the Dead Sea scrolls. They believed the Jewish Temple would be burned. And they feared the only copies of the Torah/Law would be burned. So they began making exact copies (which only priests could do under very stringent circumstances)

I can't tell someone else what to believe, but many believe the Dead Sea Scrolls were simply confirmation that the copies of the Bible that we have today are very similar to the (non-compiled) texts that were considered scripture by those living in the first century.

That's 'a belief' in the sense that people put together pieces based on many different factors. It's perhaps impossible for us to be 100% unbiased. And that realization is the only thing that keeps us somewhat human. Again, some might question why there were four different Gospels, and not just one big super Gospel. I think the thinking is that you have four witnesses (with slightly different vantage points) who are attesting to what they saw and heard. Mark was Peter's disciple, and since Mark spent a portion of his life with Peter, was likely presenting Peter's perspective. John declares in his own writing that he is in fact that same Apostle John who was at the foot of the cross, who took in Mary- which is why he alone tells of the Wedding at Cana- which is likely because she told him what happened from her viewpoint.

In life, I think we all have a responsibility to think for ourselves, weigh the value of the evidence presented to us and come up with our conclusions. But because of the nature of the spin this conversation took, it shows how easily POV can differ on looking at the same evidence.

I almost feel bad for the guy who started the thread in that this was about atheism and became a conversation about views on religion.

kikazaru

12-29-2006, 07:06 PM

I almost feel bad for the guy who started the thread in that this was about atheism and became a conversation about views on religion.

No reason to feel bad at all, there are so many learned people here I'm enjoying reading what they have to say. Besides, it's puffed up my consequence enormously to have a thread of mine go for three pages!;)

Carry on!

Higgins

12-29-2006, 07:24 PM

Sokol, you're bright and interesting. I'm actually interested to keep learning. I like Josephus for what he is.

Thank you, Nateskate.

My impression of Josephus is that justifying his role in the Judean oligarchy, even after it no longer existed except as a object of his memorializing, remained his life-long obsession. So that even after he was adopted into the Imperial family (hence the Flavius in "Flavius Josephus"), what really bothered him was the thought that people (most of them dead and gone though still a chorus in his mind) would think he was not a worthy Judean Oligarch. The oligarchy and its power struggles remained the most vivid thing in his imagination even decades after the Jewish War.

On the other hand, he probably was not much of an Essene since he was trusted with an independent command in Galilee by the authorities in Jerusalem.

And the final observation (which I hope is not going to be too much of a shock): IMO and in that of Golb and many other current workers, the Essenes did not write more than a small fraction of the texts preserved in the caves at Qumran. I'll leave my own opinion about how the scrolls got there for another time.

Nateskate

12-30-2006, 01:16 AM

Sokol, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, and our hosts willingness to tolerate us bantering.

I get your point- to a point. Honestly, people have so many beliefs, and to be truthful, not many of them hinge upon the validity of the works of Josephus, or the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls. Rather, people from whatever walk, quote them as to say, "An impartial witness attests to what we believe"

I rather think Josephus was a remarkable person, and not so much as a historian, but just that he lived at such a time, and wrote some pretty interesting things. Cleopatra was a slut according to him, and hit on Herod. She had this "Ruler" thing going on. His works were like the rag mag of the day, who slept with who and did what. Of course it was a higher class than that, but from a historical perspective it's rather interesting that it lends to the less than Romantic ideas that people had about the day.

I'm certainly not a Christian because of Josephus. The Dead Sea scrolls didn't have a profound impact on my perspectives about the Bible and how it should be read.

I think that arguing the points on Josephus and the Scrolls doesn't really change many opinions one way or the other on the basic Tenants of Judaism or Christianity or which sect people belong to. So many other factors weigh into that, and at most these are side issues that make some say "Amen," and others say, "What idiots".

In fact, I imagine there are so many sides of life that can cause people to question what they believe and don't believe, and ultimately, what we see in the world has as much impact. What our parents were like and the things we were exposed to will have more impact than Josephus ever will.

So, to me, Josephus was a cool read. I honestly liked the guy, because he was caught in the Middle of a nation which was unraveling, and an enemy in the gates (military) and enemies within the gates ( people who were ripping off their own people and had anything but godly motives ) He didn't want to be a general, and was kind of thrust into it like in some Peter Sellers movie, accidently getting into the wrong line and someone throws a few stars on his coat. But he was placed in the place of "No matter what I do, someone is going to kill me, and I don't want to die for their cause."

The comments regarding Jesus, John the Baptist were not definitive other than to give a populist opinion, which was that they had followings and some liked them and some hated them. So they weren't quite as hated as some people thought, and the masses seemed to have at least somewhat of a positive, if not confused opinion about them. The reality was that they'd really angered some powerful enemies.

Herod was a Roman wannabe and tried to turn the territory into South Rome, and yet, he wanted to be liked by people who hated the Roman culture and all it stood for.

As much as we'd like to think we don't like the star, who married who and dumped who, we're like deers in the headlights when we see the Surreal life of history. Ceasar/Mark Anthony/Cleo. Come on, it's a must read!

Laughs,

Nate

Thank you, Nateskate.

My impression of Josephus is that justifying his role in the Judean oligarchy, even after it no longer existed except as a object of his memorializing, remained his life-long obsession. So that even after he was adopted into the Imperial family (hence the Flavius in "Flavius Josephus"), what really bothered him was the thought that people (most of them dead and gone though still a chorus in his mind) would think he was not a worthy Judean Oligarch. The oligarchy and its power struggles remained the most vivid thing in his imagination even decades after the Jewish War.

On the other hand, he probably was not much of an Essene since he was trusted with an independent command in Galilee by the authorities in Jerusalem.

And the final observation (which I hope is not going to be too much of a shock): IMO and in that of Golb and many other current workers, the Essenes did not write more than a small fraction of the texts preserved in the caves at Qumran. I'll leave my own opinion about how the scrolls got there for another time.

Higgins

12-30-2006, 03:19 AM

Sokol, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, and our hosts willingness to tolerate us bantering.

I get your point- to a point. Honestly, people have so many beliefs, and to be truthful, not many of them hinge upon the validity of the works of Josephus, or the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls. Rather, people from whatever walk, quote them as to say, "An impartial witness attests to what we believe"

I rather think Josephus was a remarkable person, and not so much as a historian, but just that he lived at such a time, and wrote some pretty interesting things. Cleopatra was a slut according to him, and hit on Herod. She had this "Ruler" thing going on. His works were like the rag mag of the day, who slept with who and did what. Of course it was a higher class than that, but from a historical perspective it's rather interesting that it lends to the less than Romantic ideas that people had about the day.

I'm certainly not a Christian because of Josephus. The Dead Sea scrolls didn't have a profound impact on my perspectives about the Bible and how it should be read.

I think that arguing the points on Josephus and the Scrolls doesn't really change many opinions one way or the other on the basic Tenants of Judaism or Christianity or which sect people belong to. So many other factors weigh into that, and at most these are side issues that make some say "Amen," and others say, "What idiots".

In fact, I imagine there are so many sides of life that can cause people to question what they believe and don't believe, and ultimately, what we see in the world has as much impact. What our parents were like and the things we were exposed to will have more impact than Josephus ever will.

So, to me, Josephus was a cool read. I honestly liked the guy, because he was caught in the Middle of a nation which was unraveling, and an enemy in the gates (military) and enemies within the gates ( people who were ripping off their own people and had anything but godly motives ) He didn't want to be a general, and was kind of thrust into it like in some Peter Sellers movie, accidently getting into the wrong line and someone throws a few stars on his coat. But he was placed in the place of "No matter what I do, someone is going to kill me, and I don't want to die for their cause."

The comments regarding Jesus, John the Baptist were not definitive other than to give a populist opinion, which was that they had followings and some liked them and some hated them. So they weren't quite as hated as some people thought, and the masses seemed to have at least somewhat of a positive, if not confused opinion about them. The reality was that they'd really angered some powerful enemies.

Herod was a Roman wannabe and tried to turn the territory into South Rome, and yet, he wanted to be liked by people who hated the Roman culture and all it stood for.

As much as we'd like to think we don't like the star, who married who and dumped who, we're like deers in the headlights when we see the Surreal life of history. Ceasar/Mark Anthony/Cleo. Come on, it's a must read!

Laughs,

Nate

Interesting remarks on Josephus. I've always found him very difficult. I think the last time I did any serious reading in Josephus I was looking for which Salome was which.

As for the Rag mag aspect, well Hellenistic histories were supposed to be entertaining, and maybe slightly uplifting while verging on some extreme images and odd paradoxes. Their idea of explaining things was a bit spotty. You're right about Surreal. I hadn't thought of that connection at all.

Maybe I'll go find my Josephuses. I have some Penguin ed of the Jewish Wars and the Complete works in Whiston's early 18th century Trans. If I'm totally desperate for a nightmarish experience, I can dig up a photocopy of some German ed of Eusibius that is 90% Josephus (but does have some parallel Latin and Greek...eg Ruffinus' "continuation" of Eusebius)....but more rationally perhaps I'll just go look at a very battered copy of a very used Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? (Golb's exposee of the very poor archaeological work on Qumran among other things)...just a glance then back to writing Sci Fi....

victoriastrauss

12-30-2006, 09:34 PM

Atheism is not a disbelief in god, it is the absence of belief in god. Yes, there is a difference.I agree there's a difference--but I think it's exactly the opposite.

Atheism is active disbelief. It exists in opposition to belief, and both requires and assumes the existence of belief, and religion, in order to make sense. In order to deny something, there needs to be something to deny.

The simple absence of belief--with no compulsion to deny, and no philosophical or emotional stake either way--is something else. This is why, although I don't and never have believed in any sort of god or higher power, I don't consider myself an atheist. Nor am I an agnostic, because it's not a case of doubting or feeling that I don't know. It's just that for me, the idea of a divine principle makes no sense in the context of what I know and perceive about the universe. This is what I feel on a gut level; there's no rejection or denial involved.

Both atheists and believers have told me that I'm splitting hairs, and that you can't make a distinction between disbelief and simply not believing. As far as I'm concerned, this goes to prove my point: neither side is able to conceive of the other except as in opposition to itself.

- Victoria

Zoombie

12-31-2006, 03:14 AM

"The search for Truth is like shining a lamp on the wall. It should not be a worship of the light, but rather using the light to illuminate the wall in all of it's beauty."

When my friend Sam and I first me, I was a hardcore atheist and he was a Catholic. We argued and we argued a lot. Then, one day, it dawned on us both that, once we took 'God' out of the equation we both believed very very similar things on what should be done. We both agree on what is wrong (murder, rape and so on). We both agree with the Fact of Evolution (It is happening, it has happened and it will continue to happen. Why it's happening and how it started is up for debate.) We both agree that criminals should be fed into the organ banks (Why just kill them when you can kill them and save ten, twenty lives in the process?)

So why were we arguing? We became fast friends and I relaxed my Atheism even as he relaxed his Catholicism. I've become an Agnostic and...I have no idea what Sam is now....

“Faith sustains us when reason tells us there's no reason to continue. Faith and reason are like the shoes on your feet. You can go farther with both than you can with one.”

A gillion points for the person to tell me where those quotes come from. Five gillion for the person who can tell me which characters they come from!

Ali B

03-30-2007, 01:14 AM

I thought it was an interesting article, but there were several phrases that disturbed me because it not only slanted the article, but unintentionally polarized those reading it. I consider the reporting faulty because it did the same thing that religious articles often do, while claiming to be free of bias.

Here's a writing quiz for NT reporting: What phrases did I object to?

From Article: Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

Yah, biased. Wow.

veinglory

03-30-2007, 01:18 AM

Atheism is active disbelief. It exists in opposition to belief, and both requires and assumes the existence of belief, and religion, in order to make sense. In order to deny something, there needs to be something to deny.

If there is a difference it must be idiosyncratic.

I support the null hypothesis (no God) based on the lack of evidence. I call that being an atheist. If there were no theists the term would be moot but the position, IMHO, would be the same. I don't deny the existence of God, I fail to support it.

Devil Ledbetter

03-30-2007, 01:38 AM

In order to deny something, there needs to be something to deny.That is circular logic, because it presupposes that anything "denied" must therefore exist.

The word atheism means one does not hold to a theism. That's all it means. It's not about being in opposition to a theism; that would be anti-theism.

Am am an atheist. It simply means I don't hold a theistic belief system.

engmajor2005

03-30-2007, 01:42 AM

Sam Harris deserves a fucking medal.

With that being said, I'm not an atheist myself. I do believe in the supernatural, I do believe in a God, and I do believe all of the world's religions are all the same thing; variations on a theme.

benbradley

03-30-2007, 02:23 AM

Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion' on NPR's Fresh Air:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9180871
I listened, he's interesting. One notable comment: Many years back he asked his US publisher about a book on atheism he was thinking of writing, and he was told there's no market for it in the US. More recently, after Bush had been president a few years, the US publisher was begging for a book on atheism. With the popularity of this and Harriss' book, it looks like the time is right for atheistic writings to get published.

small axe

04-08-2007, 04:30 PM

That is circular logic, because it presupposes that anything "denied" must therefore exist.

The word atheism means one does not hold to a theism. That's all it means. It's not about being in opposition to a theism; that would be anti-theism.

Am am an atheist. It simply means I don't hold a theistic belief system.

In early Ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek), the adjective ἄθεος (atheos; from the privative ἀ- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privative_a) + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th Century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Century_BC), severing relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than ασεβης (asebēs), or "impious".

... The term atheist, in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves", predates atheism in English,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I'm new to the forum, but I hear that AW frowns on using lengthy quotes here ... so here's a small section.

Definitions of atheism vary in range (from disbelief in specific conceptions of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God) to disbelief in anything supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural)),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-1) degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism) (from mere absence of belief in gods to positive belief in nonexistence),[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-martin.2Fcline.2Fwinston)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-2) and recognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism) (from the implicit unbelief of an infant to an explicit statement of disbelief).

Clearly, the MODERN definitions of "atheism" are broad. One of the major disputes between Atheists and Faith-folk are ... what exactly an Atheist can claim "Atheism" means.

That's an issue, when I hear statistics given that "10% of the population are atheist" or "95% of scientists are atheists" etc ... Everyone likes to claim popular support, I suppose.

And (heehee) 99.9% of all people agree with me! :)

I've had battles with self-proclaimed "Atheists" who ultimately retreated into claiming all they meant was "agnostic" (whether they found the self-description "atheist" merely more flattering, I dunno ...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists) who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist".

Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) which falls short of this standard.

... The term "weak atheism" is sometimes used interchangably with "agnosticism."

Since many self-described agnostics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) specifically distinguish their stance from that of atheists, yet would also fit the general definition of "weak atheism," the validity of this categorisation is disputed[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism#_note-0).

Another problem is whether "strong" atheists must consider themselves able to prove authoritatively that a god does not exist, or rather, if they must only disbelieve in such a god in order to qualify.

Prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) avoid the strong/weak distinction. In The God Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion) Dawkins describes people for whom the probablity of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for "I know there is no God". He categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "Strong Atheist" [2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism#_note-1)

...
The strong and weak names did not come into common usage until the early 1990s,

I apologize if I've over-quoted. (my emphasis)

This forum has very interesting and thoughtful threads on the topic, I must say. I shall study them for insights!

benbradley

04-08-2007, 07:17 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I'm new to the forum, but I hear that AW frowns on using lengthy quotes here ... so here's a small section.
...

Welcome to AW!
I've had battles with self-proclaimed "Atheists" who ultimately retreated into claiming all they meant was "agnostic" (whether they found the self-description "atheist" merely more flattering, I dunno ...)
I apologize if I've over-quoted. (my emphasis)

This forum has very interesting and thoughtful threads on the topic, I must say. I shall study them for insights!
I've seen atheism defined (by believers) as the claim of having proof of the non-existence of God, and that it is the agnostics who merely "desn't believe" in God. Not to imply that that was what you were doing (!), but it does make me wonder.

I must have glossed over the earlier messages, I've been familiar with the strong vs. weak atheism terminology, but find it interesting that it is so recent (from the 1990's). But surely the concept is much older.

Devil Ledbetter

04-09-2007, 08:28 AM

Another problem is whether "strong" atheists must consider themselves able to prove authoritatively that a god does not exist, or rather, if they must only disbelieve in such a god in order to qualify.It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Try it. There is an invisible talking carp in the pond in my backyard. His name is Conrad. Only I can hear him. Don't believe me? Prove he doesn't exist! I can prove he does because it says right here in this ancient text, and it also says in this ancient text that every word in the text is The Truth and all of it came from Conrad himself.

Declaring that atheists "consider themselves able to prove that god doesn't exist" is how theists attempt to paint atheists into a corner, when the onus is on theists to prove that what they claim exists actually does exist.

I am an atheist. The only claim I will make is that I do not believe in gods or fairies or God or Jesus, supernatural beings and other baseless wishful thinking.

Furthermore, Wiki is a weak, BS source of information.

Edited to add: Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

benbradley

04-09-2007, 09:25 AM

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Try it. There is an invisible talking carp in the pond in my backyard. His name is Conrad. Only I can hear him. Don't believe me? Prove he doesn't exist! I can prove he does because it says right here in this ancient text, and it also says in this ancient text that every word in the text is The Truth and all of it came from Conrad himself.
Oh man, this sounds a lot like "Kiss Hank's Ass":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ
Declaring that atheists "consider themselves able to prove that god doesn't exist" is how theists attempt to paint atheists into a corner, when the onus is on theists to prove that what they claim exists actually does exist.
Gee, sure makes my response look weak - I'm tempted to delete it.

I am an atheist. The only claim I will make is that I do not believe in gods or fairies or God or Jesus, supernatural beings and other baseless wishful thinking.

Furthermore, Wiki is a weak, BS source of information.
Actually I have a reasonble amount of "faith" in Wikipedia, but like any other source, it can be quoted out of context and meanings twisted.
Edited to add: Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.
He did come to the wrong side of town to pick this fight.

small axe

04-09-2007, 10:04 AM

Your hostility and defensive mud-slinging is both unwarranted and pointless, my friend. Get over it, and get over yourself.

Or throw tantrums and crap yer pajamas that I'm here, what's it to me? :) Hi.

All I did was quote Wikipedia, and all Wikipedia said was: there is disagreement about what exactly constitutes being "atheist" ...

The same could be said about a number of labels: what's a Christian, Democrat, Libertarian, Liberal, Conservative ... string theorist ... what makes you a Writer, or a professional versus an amateur?

So relax. Wikipedia wasn't backing you into a corner, it was pointing out "Atheism" has many corners and definitions, and helping people sort them out.

The strawman YOU seem to want to tilt against -- isn't me -- and wouldn't allow for the vast variety of meanings and beliefs Wiki allows (and which I offered)

It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Try it.

Which is one of the issues (and positions) that my Wikipedia reference deals with.

Some Atheists are satisfied to claim what they believe ...

Others err in claiming that their beliefs can be proven, or are supported by science or evidence.

You seem to be saying you are the former. Okay.

But YOU seem to be the one ARGUING YOUR BELIEFS here ... not me. :)

...
Declaring that atheists "consider themselves able to prove that god doesn't exist" is how theists attempt to paint atheists into a corner, when the onus is on theists to prove that what they claim exists actually does exist.

Who 'declared' that? It's an issue that Wikipedia and I consider.

I didn't come here to argue beliefs ... but if all you are stating is YOUR belief in "no God" ... then you cannot logically demand that a Christian needs to answer with anything other than their statement of Faith.

Being more interested in Science, Rational thought, and Evidence ... I'd personally put more "onus" on BOTH sides.

But I'm not angry, so why are YOU angry?

I am an atheist. The only claim I will make is that I do not believe in gods or fairies or God or Jesus, supernatural beings and other baseless wishful thinking.

Again, there you go talking about YOUR beliefs ... when I'm not talking about mine. Huh.

Furthermore, Wiki is a weak, BS source of information.

I like Wikipedia, it's a good quick oversight on topics, and can direct you to deeper research. I'm either surprised you disagree ... or am not surprised at all.

Edited to add: Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

Oh, shut up. :D

I came here perfectly politely and non-judgementally.

If I'm writing a character who has to express intelligent, thoughtful ATHEIST positions, I have a perfect right to be here.

If I quoted something you don't like to hear ... Huh. Show some tolerance.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Thank you, that's pointless advice. I'm HERE to do what is best done here, which is discuss Atheism. Or ... discuss a variety of things with a self-selected group of people with a viewpoint I'm interested in.

small axe

04-09-2007, 10:07 AM

He did come to the wrong side of town to pick this fight.

I'm not here to 'pick this fight.'
If I was picking a fight, I'd be breakin' yer nose, lad. :welcome:

Devil Ledbetter

04-09-2007, 05:02 PM

Your hostility and defensive mud-slinging is both unwarranted and pointless, my friend. Get over it, and get over yourself.
Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Or throw tantrums and crap yer pajamas that I'm here, what's it to me? :) Hi.
Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

All I did was quote Wikipedia, and all Wikipedia said was: there is disagreement about what exactly constitutes being "atheist" ...
Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.
The same could be said about a number of labels: what's a Christian, Democrat, Libertarian, Liberal, Conservative ... string theorist ... what makes you a Writer, or a professional versus an amateur?

So relax. Wikipedia wasn't backing you into a corner, it was pointing out "Atheism" has many corners and definitions, and helping people sort them out.

The strawman YOU seem to want to tilt against -- isn't me -- and wouldn't allow for the vast variety of meanings and beliefs Wiki allows (and which I offered)

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Which is one of the issues (and positions) that my Wikipedia reference deals with.

Some Atheists are satisfied to claim what they believe ...

Others err in claiming that their beliefs can be proven, or are supported by science or evidence.

You seem to be saying you are the former. Okay.

But YOU seem to be the one ARGUING YOUR BELIEFS here ... not me. :)

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Who 'declared' that? It's an issue that Wikipedia and I consider.

I didn't come here to argue beliefs ... but if all you are stating is YOUR belief in "no God" ... then you cannot logically demand that a Christian needs to answer with anything other than their statement of Faith.

Being more interested in Science, Rational thought, and Evidence ... I'd personally put more "onus" on BOTH sides.

But I'm not angry, so why are YOU angry?

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Oh, shut up. :D

I came here perfectly politely and non-judgementally.

If I'm writing a character who has to express intelligent, thoughtful ATHEIST positions, I have a perfect right to be here.

If I quoted something you don't like to hear ... Huh. Show some tolerance.

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Thank you, that's pointless advice. I'm HERE to do what is best done here, which is discuss Atheism. Or ... discuss a variety of things with a self-selected group of people with a viewpoint I'm interested in.

I'm not here to 'pick this fight.'

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, find a religious debate board.

That's all I have to say to YOU on the subject.

Mac H.

04-09-2007, 05:47 PM

Devil Ledbetter

04-09-2007, 05:57 PM

2. You can, in fact, prove that some things don't exist.
For example, if Ted claims to be wearing an invisible bullet proof vest, I could prove that it didn't exist by shooting him at point blank range.

But when the object being tested happens to have no properties that can be measured (such as the invisible carp example) - then it becomes impossible to prove whether it exists.Ah, good point!

I wonder how it would go over if an atheist posted on one of the Christian forums here and declared what those folk believe -- based on Wiki entries -- and when the Christians said "actually, that's not quite it" the atheist said, "Don't throw tantrums or crap yer pajamas! Oh, shut up! You're hostile! You're defensive! Relax! Get over yourself! I have a perfect RIGHT to be here if I'm researching a Christian character! "

I suspect the atheist would get banned for that behavior. And rightly so. So, why is it okay for Small er, Axe to do pull that crap here?

Furthermore, I didn't think this forum existed for the purpose of Christian writers doing research on atheist characters. Small Axe all but claims AW put up this forum as a fishbowl for the atheists to swim in so that he could come and gawk and feel superior, and wank himself with what it is he thinks we REALLY believe.

I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't be allowed on this forum. They should. But they should have the common decency and respect to not claim omnicience on what it is those who actually belong here think and believe, and not to stomp around picking arguments, especially if his best resource is Wikipedia - the thing any idiot can log on to and edit to suit his own ends.

Higgins

04-09-2007, 06:42 PM

Just some quick points:

1. There was a comment about how the age of the copper scrolls not being confirmed by C14 dating yet.

Naturally, C14 dating can NOT be used on copper - only carbon that was 'once living'. It could be used on, say, a wooden holder for the scroll, but that would show when the tree was cut down .. not necessarily the age of the writing on the copper scroll attached to it.

2. You can, in fact, prove that some things don't exist.
For example, if Ted claims to be wearing an invisible bullet proof vest, I could prove that it didn't exist by shooting him at point blank range.

But when the object being tested happens to have no properties that can be measured (such as the invisible carp example) - then it becomes impossible to prove whether it exists.

Of course, if something has no measurable properties, it might as well NOT exist !

Mac

There is only one Copper Scroll. It is consistant with only one reconstruction of what the Qumran scrolls represent: a complex deposit supervised by the Temple designed to:

a) remove the texts from circulation without destroying them
b) hide some items during the War with Rome in 67-70 AD.

The carbon-14 dates for the Qumran scrolls are all in the ballpark, but the paleographic dates are more exact and they all fall into the later part of the Second Temple Period, which is consistant with their contents.

To put it another way: paleographically and textually the Qumran scrolls are late Second Temple Period documents and no one has ever suggested that they are anything else. Even if the Copper Scroll is a fantasy (and it is very unlikely that it is) it is a late Second Temple fantasy.

Higgins

04-09-2007, 06:59 PM

me[/U]. :)

Here's my Christian-in-Name-Only (CINO) take on this BELIEF thing.

As a strict CINO, I can see that people enjoy having completely insane ideas about the world and themselves. It is important not to take this pleasurable experience of insanity as having anything to do with what the world is really like. As a CINO who enjoys Science more than most religious things, it seems to me that the only rational view of how Science relates to the world and people's insane ideas is that Science offers no support at all for the actual existence of any Supernatural Beings. That is the simple truth of the matter. So if you like Science and have a certain soft-spot for Religion, be a CINO (Christian in Name Only like me) and don't expect rational people to be impressed with your Religious ideas.

small axe

04-10-2007, 06:13 AM

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, find a religious debate board.

That's all I have to say to YOU on the subject.

Then you didn't have anything to say to me that applied to me.

You're :welcome:

small axe

04-10-2007, 06:38 AM

Ah, good point!

I wonder how it would go over if an atheist posted on one of the Christian forums here and declared what those folk believe -- based on Wiki entries -- and when the Christians said "actually, that's not quite it" the atheist said, "Don't throw tantrums or crap yer pajamas! Oh, shut up! You're hostile! You're defensive! Relax! Get over yourself! I have a perfect RIGHT to be here if I'm researching a Christian character! "

I suspect the atheist would get banned for that behavior. And rightly so. So, why is it okay for Small er, Axe to do pull that crap here?

Furthermore, I didn't think this forum existed for the purpose of Christian writers doing research on atheist characters. Small Axe all but claims AW put up this forum as a fishbowl for the atheists to swim in so that he could come and gawk and feel superior, and wank himself with what it is he thinks we REALLY believe.

I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't be allowed on this forum. They should. But they should have the common decency and respect to not claim omnicience on what it is those who actually belong here think and believe, and not to stomp around picking arguments, especially if his best resource is Wikipedia - the thing any idiot can log on to and edit to suit his own ends.

Comrade, I was replying to your unwarranted hostility.

If you can't take it, you shouldn't be the first to dish it out. And I just handed it back to ya because you seem to value it ... I didn't hurl it back.

I didn't think this forum existed for the purpose of Christian writers doing research on atheist characters.

Rude awakening then for you, huh? Why should THIS offend or enrage you:
I came here perfectly politely and non-judgementally.

If I'm writing a character who has to express intelligent, thoughtful ATHEIST positions, I have a perfect right to be here.

Should I make shit up about Atheists? Should I have my Atheist characters NOT express 'thoughtful, intelligent' positions?

I researched, I quoted an open-minded passage from (gasp) Wikipedia ... I came here and you got all ... well ... we have your comments above to show your reaction.

I could make some barbed comment about how you must represent all the Atheists here. But I have a far higher esteem for their positions, the ones you've embarrassed via your over-reaction.

Fart during Mozart, why don't ya? :)

I suspect the atheist would get banned for that behavior. And rightly so. So, why is it okay for Small er, Axe to do pull that crap here?

Because the only 'crap' is something you imagined, then over-reacted to.

All I did was quote Wikipedia and wondered how it applied.

You're talking about 'banning' people? That's funny. Sad too. But funny.

I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't be allowed on this forum. They should. But they should have the common decency and respect to not claim omnicience on what it is those who actually belong here think and believe, and not to stomp around picking arguments, especially if his best resource is Wikipedia - the thing any idiot can log on to and edit to suit his own ends.

C'mon ... let it go. I did no such thing. I'm new here, so I don't expect anyone here to support my innocence in writing, that's okay.

But I'd bet people know who's the loose cannon, and who 'picked the fight' here. :D

But ... you've proclaimed your out rage, okay, it's proclaimed. I spoke to my innocence.

Can we drop it and not argue needlessly here?

Inkdaub

04-10-2007, 04:06 PM

2. You can, in fact, prove that some things don't exist.
For example, if Ted claims to be wearing an invisible bullet proof vest, I could prove that it didn't exist by shooting him at point blank range.

Actually, no, you can't prove it doesn't exist. The example you show here only makes a damn good case against Ted's wearing the invisible bullet proof vest at the time of being shot.

Cathy C

04-10-2007, 08:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I'm new to the forum, but I hear that AW frowns on using lengthy quotes here ... so here's a small section.

First, since you're new, let me say that I'm the moderator in this room, so I'll let you know what I consider lengthy. I would prefer links only as even Wiki has copyright protections. It's not the issue of length (as we have our own server now) but an issue of theft.

I've had battles with self-proclaimed "Atheists" who ultimately retreated into claiming all they meant was "agnostic" (whether they found the self-description "atheist" merely more flattering, I dunno ...)

Well, this isn't the place for such battles. You've just delved into what I consider "inciting" a fight. Remember that we're all writers here. A writer's goal is to choose their words to cause emotion. The emotion you've created here is offense, bordering on anger. Stop it.

Edited to add: Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

If you want to debate religion, go find a religious debate board.

Ah, Devil. You were doing so well. Sigh... I was going to let you slide on everything in the post until you made this edit. We DO NOT tell other members to "bugger off." At least, not in my forum. Do as you will in TIO, but leave the insults outside my door, please.

Your hostility and defensive mud-slinging is both unwarranted and pointless, my friend. Get over it, and get over yourself . . . But YOU seem to be the one ARGUING YOUR BELIEFS here ... not me. :) . . . I didn't come here to argue beliefs . . . But I'm not angry, so why are YOU angry? . . . I came here perfectly politely and non-judgementally . . . If I'm writing a character who has to express intelligent, thoughtful ATHEIST positions, I have a perfect right to be here.

Actually, as I pointed out earlier, you did start the argument. You challenged people with the inference that you've started other fights elsewhere on the subject of belief and believed to have won because the person backed down to change their definition. It was, to my mind when I read it, the equivalent of walking into a bar, looking at a random stranger and snorting, with a muttered, "I kicked the tail of a bigger guy over at the bar down the block." So far, you haven't been either polite or non-judgmental. Try again.

I'm not here to 'pick this fight.'
If I was picking a fight, I'd be breakin' yer nose, lad. :welcome:

Need I say it again? Inciting. We don't do that here. Back down and rethink when you post. It's the last time I'll say please.

Devil Ledbetter

04-10-2007, 09:48 PM

Ah, Devil. You were doing so well. Sigh... I was going to let you slide on everything in the post until you made this edit. We DO NOT tell other members to "bugger off." At least, not in my forum. Do as you will in TIO, but leave the insults outside my door, please.My sincere apologies, Cathy. I assure you it won't happen again.

I'm sorry if engaging him here has caused him to track up the carpets.

WildScribe

04-10-2007, 10:04 PM

Not really interested in joining the debate, but thank you for the article - I enjoyed reading it. :)

Devil Ledbetter

04-11-2007, 01:42 AM

Actually, no, you can't prove it doesn't exist. The example you show here only makes a damn good case against Ted's wearing the invisible bullet proof vest at the time of being shot.Maybe it exists, but all you can prove is that it doesn't work as advertised.

James D. Macdonald

04-11-2007, 08:31 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/politics/25vests.html?ex=1176350400&en=5b730c0a768cf919&ei=5070

small axe

04-11-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:
Ah, Devil. You were doing so well. Sigh... I was going to let you slide on everything in the post until you made this edit. We DO NOT tell other members to "bugger off." At least, not in my forum. Do as you will in TIO, but leave the insults outside my door, please.

My sincere apologies, Cathy. I assure you it won't happen again.

I'm sorry if engaging him here has caused him to track up the carpets.

Dear Moderator:

If you read my comments to mean I somehow incited Devil Ledbetter's "bugger off" ... then you indeed have my apologies.

My intention was not to incite his insults and anger.

I re-read my comment you quoted, and I agree that my using 'battle' may have sounded like I was offering TO battle HERE. That wasn't my intention, but my word choice was vague. My bad. Again, I apologize.

I meant 'battled' in the sense of: I have wrestled intellectually and in debate (over definitions, as my example gave) with others over this issue elsewhere.

Having wrestled intellectually with others (who had claimed "atheism" but meant "agnosticism") I realized I might come here to a thread and sub-forum devoted to "Atheism and Non-Theistic Spiritual Writing" for more astute discussion and understanding.

I quoted parts of Wikipedia that pointed to my dilemma: the UNCERTAIN definition of "what is Atheism" etc. I thought my meaning was clear in doing that: to acknowledge there is an uncertainty in people's definitions, and in myself.

Actually, as I pointed out earlier, you did start the argument. You challenged people with the inference that you've started other fights elsewhere on the subject of belief

On that point, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

Even if you thought I meant "battled" in your sense of the word ... it doesn't mean you could assume I started fights elsewhere.

Here is what happened: I got jumped by people who wanted to start fights. When jumped, I fought back.

The Mods there were not so diligent nor swift in calming the troubled waters there as you (thankfully) are here. Misunderstandings snow-balled.

So, here's my thing: I apologize if I somehow offended someone here.

If any wish to justify the hostility and obvious insult of Devil Ledbetter's
Small Axe, I think it sucks that a forum meant for those writing from non-theistic viewpoint is invaded by god-believers attempting to define us, pigeonhole us and otherwise prove us "wrong." If you're so sure about what you believe, bugger off and go believe in it then, and leave those who don't share your delusions in peace.

comment here to me, as being a fair response to however they interpreted mine ... do that.

I apologize if I was unclear in my choice of words, and gave offense.

I think Ledbetter was damn clear about his meaning.

You've corrected us both ... if you as Moderator see fit to decide I incited it ...

Again, I apologize.

Sorry, Everyone. If you have future issues with something I say, please call it to my attention and call me on it. Correct me if I err. I don't think anyone needs to hurl insults, in a company of Writers.

Devil Ledbetter

04-11-2007, 05:31 PM

If you read my comments to mean I somehow incited Devil Ledbetter's "bugger off" ... then you indeed have my apologies.

I apologize if I somehow offended someone here.

I apologize if I was unclear in my choice of words, and gave offense.

Maybe it's just me, but apologies chock full of ifs don't strike me as sincere.

It seems you want to depict me as the bad guy and bake a seven-layer cake because CathyC chastised me for using the B word. I've already apologized to her for that (without ifs) yet you bring it up an additional three times in your post, as though it were the main issue.

You even invite people to justify it. I'm not even trying to justify it - I apologized for it already and promised it wouldn't happen again - so what is your point trying to drag other people into it? If it were defensible and right, I wouldn't have said I was sorry.

Your attempt to play victim and your whining about getting insulted and "jumped," falls flat when you've been hurling garbage like "Don't crap yer pajamas," "Get over yourself" and "Oh shut up!" CathyC didn't bring up any of those remarks with you, so I can't imagine she'd take offense at my rather mild reference to your tracking up the carpets.

You don't strike me as a sensitive soul concerned about the feelings of others, so don't demand that we tiptoe around yours.

Now, go clean that dog poop off your shoe.

Higgins

04-11-2007, 07:45 PM

I quoted parts of Wikipedia that pointed to my dilemma: the UNCERTAIN definition of "what is Atheism" etc. I thought my meaning was clear in doing that: to acknowledge there is an uncertainty in people's definitions, and in myself.

Atheism describes a set of ideas concerned with the overall lack of plausibility inherent in articulating the existence of any religiously-definable, cosmologically significant supernatural beings. There is naturally some uncertainty since it is not clear how religious definitions are actually supposed to work since even the religious have provided mankind with a very large number of definitions of what defines supernatural, cosmologically significant supernatural beings. It also seems that the religious are less than no help in these matters since they really are not interested in the overall lack of plausibility inherent in articulating the existence of any religiously-defined, cosmologically significant supernatural beings.

Meerkat

04-11-2007, 07:54 PM

Your "less than no help" there just made my day, master diplomat!

Higgins

04-11-2007, 08:38 PM

Your "less than no help" there just made my day, master diplomat!

I'm always puzzled by the deep need the religious seem to have in posing everything in cosmic terms. I'm moderately religious, but as far as I can see, it is the extension of religious concerns into the far reaches of the cosmos that renders everything about religion proportionately less plausible. Even Saturn is a bit too remote...as Vonegut hinted by putting his sirens on Titan and even the ancients seemed to suspect when they ascribed melancholy and great age to that poor old God/Planet. He wasn't even an Olympian since Zeus/Jupiter had overthrown him.

Really, the whole "what's up with the non-existence of supernatural beings" problem is not really a dilemma at all. Does one want to "believe in " a "God" who just makes tiny images of Gilligan's Island out of Peanuts while orbiting Saturn? And yet there are an infinite number of such possible "Gods" that could be definited for every single cubic millimeter of the cosmos. Conversely, one does not want to entertain the prpspect of spending much time contemplating the wonders of a "God" who makes 20,000 cosmoi like ours every second and really has not thought about anything remotely human ever for so much as a billionth of a nanosecond out of all of infinite time. The whole idea of applying some kind of cosmic logic to whatever supernatural a given person wants to have...well, it it even reaches the level of ordinary absurdity, that will be a wonder.

Meerkat

04-11-2007, 08:46 PM

So your feet are planted firmly on each side of a pretty steep abyss, then?

Higgins

04-11-2007, 09:06 PM

So your feet are planted firmly on each side of a pretty steep abyss, then?

If you dump the cosmologically significant supernatural stuff, then religion comes down to some very cool multimedia events. The set of artificial dilemmas that put everybody in impossible pseudo-situations such as "Prove that X does not exist" or "If you don't go Ape about something or other you can't be religious" these are essentially unpleasant and since I don't care for unpleasant religious stuff...as far as I'm concerned such artificial dilemmas are irreligious. Now that we have a pleasantly Scientific Cosmos, the only pleasant basis for religion is Atheism. From an Athiest position, you can go ahead an enjoy religion the way it was meant to be enjoyed: as locally-based non-TV-oriented festive occasions or pilgrimages. Nothing has messed religion up more than the weird dilemmas invented by theism.

Meerkat

04-11-2007, 09:20 PM

So we come up short on the pilgrimage possibilities then, eh....

Higgins

04-11-2007, 09:27 PM

So we come up short on the pilgrimage possibilities then, eh....

Hmmm.....the places I used to go are too dangerous now for the average uninformed dude such as I have become.

I guess one's pilgrimages now have to be pretty personal. Perhaps that is just as well.

Sean D. Schaffer

04-11-2007, 09:44 PM

If you dump the cosmologically significant supernatural stuff, then religion comes down to some very cool multimedia events. The set of artificial dilemmas that put everybody in impossible pseudo-situations such as "Prove that X does not exist" or "If you don't go Ape about something or other you can't be religious" these are essentially unpleasant and since I don't care for unpleasant religious stuff...as far as I'm concerned such artificial dilemmas are irreligious. Now that we have a pleasantly Scientific Cosmos, the only pleasant basis for religion is Atheism. From an Athiest position, you can go ahead an enjoy religion the way it was meant to be enjoyed: as locally-based non-TV-oriented festive occasions or pilgrimages. Nothing has messed religion up more than the weird dilemmas invented by theism.

I don't think it's so much theism that has messed up religion as it is Humanity's desire to always know everything. When I converted away from Christianity a few months ago, I received more grief from Christians than I've ever received from anyone else, all claiming to know the truth. Many of those people don't even know their Bibles, but they feel they know all the answers.

One thing I was impressed with by the religion I belong to now, is the very fact its members are willing to offer 'I don't know' as an answer to many of the questions posed to them.

My point, Sokal, is I don't think theism is the problem, so much as the need to be right and the need to believe we have all the answers. Things like saying a magical prayer and going to Heaven as a result, for example, smack of trying to answer a question that really, the average person wouldn't know where to look for the real answer for.

So to put it in simpler terms, I think it's a pride issue. A lot of people feel inadequate when they don't have all the answers, and their pride keeps them from saying the three simple words 'I don't know'.

Meerkat

04-11-2007, 09:47 PM

Welcome to Buddhism, Sean!

Sean D. Schaffer

04-11-2007, 09:57 PM

Welcome to Buddhism, Sean!

I'm actually a Noahide. It's a Gentile belief in the Deity the Jews worship.

But this brings up an interesting point. You stated I had converted to Buddhism, even though I did not. Whether this was intended as an honest comment or a sarcastic one, I cannot say. What I can say is, a person who does not know the answer to a particular question really has no place acting like he does know the answer. In all frankness, your comment cements my point quite well. Not knowing what religion I am, you basically announced to the world that I was part of a different religion. This could be used as an example -- though not meant to be degrading toward you personally -- of pride getting in the way of the three simple words so few of us are willing to say: I don't know.

Meerkat

04-11-2007, 10:01 PM

My deepest apologies--I meant no offense whatsoever, truly. And I am in complete agreement with you, particularly concerning my utterance of this: "I don't know."

Higgins

04-11-2007, 10:02 PM

My point, Sokal, is I don't think theism is the problem, so much as the need to be right and the need to believe we have all the answers. Things like saying a magical prayer and going to Heaven as a result, for example, smack of trying to answer a question that really, the average person wouldn't know where to look for the real answer for.

So to put it in simpler terms, I think it's a pride issue. A lot of people feel inadequate when they don't have all the answers, and their pride keeps them from saying the three simple words 'I don't know'.

Well, sad to say, but I do know: the truth about the way things are is a more or less unpleasant set of formulations. That being said, we are left with encountering people and in the religious realm one is greatly influenced by the relatively few pleasant encouters one has had...given the weird wealth of human nastiness that frustrated cosmologies tend to cultivate. As it happens, the great majority of my pleasant encounters have been with Christians who had some interest in the concrete, traditional more or less celebratory aspects of that religion. While I have seen perfectly rational athiests become quite nasty on difficult (theistic) theological points.

Sean D. Schaffer

04-11-2007, 10:05 PM

My deepest apologies--I meant no offense whatsoever, truly. And I am in complete agreement with you, particularly concerning my utterance of this: "I don't know."

No apologies necessary. I'm not offended. I think this is a highly informative and interesting discussion, well worth the extra time to read.

I look forward to reading more about this subject, and I hope you have an outstanding day today.

:)

Meerkat

04-11-2007, 10:08 PM

Re Sokal: Right....the formulations themselves aren't unpleasant though; some of resulting discomfort or failure to account for them are darned unpleasant side effects...

Re Sean: Thanks, and same!

davids

04-11-2007, 10:23 PM

Scotch-now there is something a man can believe in!

Meerkat

04-11-2007, 11:56 PM

In fact, if things get too heated here again, you could post a picture of a Glenlivet label.... the new 'simmer down now' kitten picture.

small axe

04-12-2007, 11:16 AM

Dear Moderator:

He apologized.
I apologized.

I don't think he's letting it drop, if he insists on attacking MY apology.
I think he's 'INCITING' ...

(After you fairly warned us both to behave, imo)

I think I have the right to REPLY, when he addresses me directly.

So I do that now.

If you read my comments to mean I somehow incited Devil Ledbetter's "bugger off" ... then you indeed have my apologies.

I apologize if I somehow offended someone here.

I apologize if I was unclear in my choice of words, and gave offense.

Maybe it's just me, but apologies chock full of ifs don't strike me as sincere.

It was sincere when I wrote it, and sincere when I offered it here.

Accept it or don't. I don't care how it 'strikes' you now.

But if it strikes you at all ... ouch, huh?

I didn't mean to offend ... I think many here didn't take offense.
So certainly I can honestly say "IF I offended ..." and then apologize.

If you insist you don't understand or approve of the word 'if' ... so be it. Perhaps that's why you took offense to my first comments too (I cannot say)

It seems you want to depict me as the bad guy and bake a seven-layer cake because CathyC chastised me for using the B word. I've already apologized to her for that (without ifs) yet you bring it up an additional three times in your post, as though it were the main issue.

Whether it was or wasn't the main issue, you apologized and she accepted.

I apologized too. Then I hoped we'd let it drop. (However, if you reply to my apology ... I'm not bound to remain silent)

I'm bound to remain civil.
I get to keep the nuance.
You get stuck with your own comments like:
'Now, go clean that dog poop off your shoe.'
Me, I wouldn't write things like that to someone who had just apologized TO YOU.

You even invite people to justify it. I'm not even trying to justify it - I apologized for it already and promised it wouldn't happen again - so what is your point trying to drag other people into it? If it were defensible and right, I wouldn't have said I was sorry.

I wasn't 'dragging other people into it' ... I was apologizing to whoever I may have offended IN THE THREAD, because the MODERATOR addressed a transgression.

Your attempt to play victim and your whining about getting insulted and "jumped," falls flat when you've been hurling garbage like "Don't crap yer pajamas," "Get over yourself" and "Oh shut up!"

Once you told me to 'bugger off' ... (and it was I think your FIRST comment to me) ... I felt free to lower myself to YOUR tone. :)

I'm new here. Gosh, maybe I thought YOU were the trendsetter I should look to for guidance, and imitate your tone! (hee hee)

CathyC didn't bring up any of those remarks with you, so I can't imagine she'd take offense at my rather mild reference to your tracking up the carpets.

I cannot imagine the conversations she has with you. I cannot imagine what she thinks of you replying to my apology like this.

You don't strike me as a sensitive soul concerned about the feelings of others, so don't demand that we tiptoe around yours.

I already said, I don't care HOW I 'strike' you, now. :) You are doing enough damage to yourself with you own comments and pointless accusations.

I didn't 'demand' anyone to tiptoe around anything.

Now, go clean that dog poop off your shoe.

After replying to your thoughts and comments ... I feel I need to do exactly that.

I will say it again: If we got off to a bad start, we've both been corrected by the Moderator, and we've both apologized.

Can we please let it be water under the bridge?

Cathy C

04-12-2007, 08:54 PM

Yes. It's done. We need to get back to the subject of the thread now, or I'll close it. Bite your tongue, swallow your words if you must, but let's start over and play nice. :)

Sean D. Schaffer

04-15-2007, 03:22 AM

This thread just kind of died. What happened?

Oh well.

I think one myth about Atheism I've noticed as a Theist is that Atheists are automatically against anyone choosing to believe in a Deity. I'm glad that's a myth, because frankly it shows some good character on the part of a lot of people. I think one of the big problems I see within the Theistic line is the desire for people not to think for themselves. I must say I am highly impressed by the amount of NT individuals who believe, for instance, in my right to freedom of speech and religion. I don't see that so much within the Theistic belief systems, from what I've experienced of them.

This is not to say all Theistic groups believe no one should ever think for themselves; rather it is to say the groups I have personally been a part of, seem to have the desire to keep people from thinking on their own. With what I was raised with, I find the beliefs to be more of an emotionalistic system than a logical system allowing individual thought processes to help make one's decision. Very few of the Theistic ways I've followed, allow for such independence of thought.

So I think the fact many Atheists are willing to let me make my own decisions based upon what I personally think is the way things should be, definitely goes against one of the major mythologies about Atheism within the majority of religions I've belonged to.

The religion I belong to now allows for individual thought and study, but I've seen within the religion I used to belong to, a tendency to keep individuals from being individuals. In a way, the myth that Atheists are against people thinking for themselves, is in fact reversed. It is generally, in what experience I've had, a large portion of the Theistic groups that do not want people to think for themselves.

Devil Ledbetter

04-15-2007, 05:12 AM

I think one myth about Atheism I've noticed as a Theist is that Atheists are automatically against anyone choosing to believe in a Deity.I appreciate you pointing that out. It's an myth I've seen frequently. I'm an avowed atheist married to a Catholic. He is an intelligent man and I respect his right to his beliefs even though I don't share them.

I find the beliefs to be more of an emotionalistic system than a logical system allowing individual thought processes to help make one's decision.I agree. I see religion/spirituality as based far more on emotion than reality. When you ask someone what they believe about God, the answer will reveal far more about the individual believer than about God. Kind people tend to believe in a kind God, vengeful people believe in a vengeful God, judgmental people believe in a judgmental God.

Sean D. Schaffer

04-15-2007, 07:29 AM

Snipped...

I agree. I see religion/spirituality as based far more on emotion than reality. When you ask someone what they believe about God, the answer will reveal far more about the individual believer than about God. Kind people tend to believe in a kind God, vengeful people believe in a vengeful God, judgmental people believe in a judgmental God.

You make an interesting point here, and I never really stopped to think about it that way before. But I think you're on to something there. The most judgmental people I've ever met also believed in a judgmental G-d. The same thing goes for the other characteristics you mentioned.

It makes me wonder what kind of G-d I believe in, and if it will show through in the kind of person I am. Thank you kindly for pointing that out to me. It's easy to be told something but not so easy to grasp ... or at least that's the way it is with me.

:)

small axe

04-15-2007, 08:39 AM

I agree. I see religion/spirituality as based far more on emotion than reality.

Would you care to re-think that comment?

Because "emotion" is reality, too. Or do you live in a world where human emotion doesn't have any effect on anything?

And whatever the
individual thought processes
no matter how 'intellectual' they claim to be, that doesn't necessarily mean they represent reality, does it?

People can make foolish 'emotional' choices ...

People can sit down and 'think' and base their choices on bad information, flawed interpretation, or simple human error.

I can either generalize here, or apply my comments directly to you and what you have just said. (I mean no offense either way)

It is an intellectual and logical error to interpret that
I see religion/spirituality as based far more on emotion than reality.
if you mean to suggest that EMOTION is somehow "less real" in the world than ... well, I cannot help you fix your statement. It simply falls apart

(in my INTERPRETATION, but you are invited as a friendly debater to convince me otherwise.

I'm not setting up an argument. Your statement is one I'd love to put in an atheist character's mouth (debating with a Believing character).

I could then ATTACK it in a work of fiction, but I'd like to know what you really meant, so I don't miss -- and falsely attack -- that character's possible meaning)

Emotions are as much a part of "reality" as "matter" or "energy" are.

I understand if you are saying emotion plays a part in people's religious attitudes. LOVE and COMPASION play a part in Humanists' attitudes.

But that's like saying one makes an emotional choice to keep your kids healthy and alive, as opposed to an materialist economic choice.
"I love my kids ... because depriving them of love will cost me $$$ if they have to go to a Psychiatrist because I didn't love them"

Both are "reality" ... but one is an emotion-based reality and one is materialistic.

Both are "reality" :D

One beautiful, one ugly.
One ethereal ... the other concrete.

I think you've mis-used the word "reality"

My issue would be this: Atheism doesn't get to make illogical or untrue statement, so as to grab sole rights to use the word "REALITY" (a loaded word, in our language and our culture)

Atheism doesn't "own" the word "reality" in this context, any more than Religion or Spirituality do.

Both Belief and Non-Belief in GOD are equally parts of "reality"

The Church exists as a cathedral of stone, and as a gathering of humans.

Again -- especially here -- please don't interpret any of this as a personality comment!

I engage you over the meanings (and mis-use) of your words.

Sean D. Schaffer

04-15-2007, 08:44 AM

So, what kind of G-d do you believe in, small axe?

small axe

04-15-2007, 08:56 AM

Sean, you mentioned the theistic way you were brought up in resisted letting you think for yourself, and then you make the statement

Very few of the Theistic ways I've followed, allow for such independence of thought.

So I'm wondering, HOW MANY 'Theistic ways' have you followed ... and what exactly do you mean 'followed' ??? For how long, and to what depth of understanding, did you follow them?

And, if you care to reply, what makes you leave them? Something other than their telling you that you cannot think for yourself?

Did you think for yourself about why you were even 'following' these 'theistic ways' ???

I ask this in good will, I've had experience with a variety of paths ... but I've always known going in what they were about, and when i left I didn't need to accuse them of limiting my freedom of thought ... I just felt "this isn't a good fit for me, really, something else is calling ... but no bad feelings, no recriminations"

I understand you were only discussing you personal experiences, I cannot debate what you've lived through.

But your experiences may not be common.

My main point would be: either you've experienced a wide variety of religious or spiritual paths (and had surprisingly similar results, given a true variety of paths) ... or you haven't really experienced enough variety to be able to judge finally.

"Jack of all trades, master of none" isn't always "in for a penny, in for a pound"

small axe

04-15-2007, 09:14 AM

So, what kind of G-d do you believe in, small axe?

Well, I came back and saw this after I asked you my own questions. :)

Here's my thing: I came here, and I got accused of being here to preach. And that's not why I'm here.

But to hold myself to the standards of others: I respectfully suggest I shouldn't speak to my own beliefs here.

I comment about others, and it's interesting to see if they can back up their own positions or not.

I'd be asking these questions even if I were a non-Believer, anyway. (which I'm not, I'm a Believer)

You know how before the Catholic Church decides to make someone a Saint, they appoint someone to play the role of advocatus diaboli (devil's advocate) to investigate and tell the Church why someone shouldn't be a Saint?

I'd be a happy advocatus diaboli to the Atheists too :D

Can they hold their ground or do they deflate like punctured balloons?

That's not WHY I'm here either.

I'm HERE to hear intelligent, thoughtful Atheism speak to (not "defend from attack" not 'battle') their position as Atheism ... so when I write my Atheist character I give her a GOOD REPRESENTATION. I want it to be a dramatic book that BOTH the spiritual and non-spiritual can read and respect ... on one's "propaganda" etc ...

So ... respectful that I'm avoiding a question after asking you one ... doesn't matter what GOD I believe in, here. Better not to go there, less hostility and misunderstandings.

'Truth is One, Though Man call it by ten thousand names' -- stuff like that. 'There is No Higher religion than Truth.'

Sean D. Schaffer

04-15-2007, 09:46 AM

Well, I came back and saw this after I asked you my own questions. :)

Here's my thing: I came here, and I got accused of being here to preach. And that's not why I'm here.

But to hold myself to the standards of others: I respectfully suggest I shouldn't speak to my own beliefs here.

I comment about others, and it's interesting to see if they can back up their own positions or not.

I'd be asking these questions even if I were a non-Believer, anyway. (which I'm not, I'm a Believer)

You know how before the Catholic Church decides to make someone a Saint, they appoint someone to play the role of advocatus diaboli (devil's advocate) to investigate and tell the Church why someone shouldn't be a Saint?

I'd be a happy advocatus diaboli to the Atheists too :D

Can they hold their ground or do they deflate like punctured balloons?

That's not WHY I'm here either.

I'm HERE to hear intelligent, thoughtful Atheism speak to (not "defend from attack" not 'battle') their position as Atheism ... so when I write my Atheist character I give her a GOOD REPRESENTATION. I want it to be a dramatic book that BOTH the spiritual and non-spiritual can read and respect ... on one's "propaganda" etc ...

So ... respectful that I'm avoiding a question after asking you one ... doesn't matter what GOD I believe in, here. Better not to go there, less hostility and misunderstandings.

'Truth is One, Though Man call it by ten thousand names' -- stuff like that. 'There is No Higher religion than Truth.'

Fair enough. But since you refuse to answer my question, I also refuse to answer yours. Fair is fair after all.

But there was a particular reason I asked that question. When Devil Ledbetter made her comments about vengeful people believing in a vengeful G-d, that got me thinking. How many of those people who claim to believe in a particular aspect of their deity, actually try to live their lives so as not to incur their deity's vengeance, or to incur the deity's blessing and/or love? It's an interesting study I would love to read about, if one such has been done.

You see, in my own personal experience, those people who believe G-d is righteous, many times expect everyone to be righteous except themselves. The same thing goes for those who believe G-d is vengeful. A lot of people I've met over the years believe G-d is vengeful to everyone except them. I myself was like that at one time, before I stopped being emotionalistic about things and started thinking with my brain. My viewpoint is, if G-d has a particular attitude toward a certain thing, then those who follow Him must be willing to live according to the particular aspect of G-d.

But I see too many people not willing to live righteously according to their deity's ways, but rather are trying to make others be righteous first.

It's like what one religious figure said, "Wouldst thou remove the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and beholdest thou not the beam that is in thine own? Thou hypocrite, first remove the beam from thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to remove the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

To apply this to the subject at hand, I would liken it to someone in the NT group that preaches one thing, but does not live according to their own belief system. If the said person advocated free thought, but then tried to force someone else to think only their way, or to pass laws to make other forms of thought illegal, surely (by my own estimation) they would not be living a 'righteous' life, if I may use that term, according to what they think.

It's an interesting topic that I think could bear more scrutiny, if others on this thread or forum would be willing to handle it.

small axe

04-15-2007, 11:28 AM

Fair enough. But since you refuse to answer my question, I also refuse to answer yours. Fair is fair after all.

Well, I think I explained the reason (above): and I don't think it can be fairly characterized as "refusing" to answer your question.

But does worrying about the other person here being "offended" by my answering your question (discussing my Beliefs) limit the freedom of conversation here now? Yes.

But, as a said, it's not why I'm here either. If I were here to discuss it, I'd do so. If you care not to answer my questions ... that's okay too.

Let's allow that neither of us needed to "refuse" to answer, and chose not to. :) It's all good.

But I see too many people not willing to live righteously according to their deity's ways, but rather are trying to make others be righteous first.

I agree with you there. It may be a failing of human nature: I see alot of people in the USA preaching "Democracy" who are then afraid when the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the Lebanese democratically elect "the wrong people" ...

I see Scientists who are pretty annoyed when other scientists remind them that their "theories" still need to be supported by "evidence" before being accepted beyond further challenge ...

I see people who declare their tolerance for free expression, who then complain when someone new might express certain thoughts (even when it hasn't been said) ...

So yeah: wanting the "other guy" to behave better than "you" have to, that's human nature perhaps.

Some people are suspicious of unbridled human nature, and would choose to promote "wise guidelines for good co-existence" ... Others may feel resentment to the suggestion of any control from outside.

It's like what one religious figure said, "Wouldst thou remove the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and beholdest thou not the beam that is in thine own? Thou hypocrite, first remove the beam from thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to remove the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

That would be ... Jesus?

Name's familiar, not quite sure about the face though! Wise thoughts.

Too bad someone didn't scribble down some of his ideas, so people who were interested in his insights could try to live by his philosophy. I'm tellin' ya ... THAT would be a best-seller!

To apply this to the subject at hand, I would liken it to someone in the NT group that preaches one thing, but does not live according to their own belief system. If the said person advocated free thought, but then tried to force someone else to think only their way, or to pass laws to make other forms of thought illegal, surely (by my own estimation) they would not be living a 'righteous' life, if I may use that term, according to what they think.

So would I.

You realize, though, that as you write that, certain people are suing school systems to prevent the guy-you-quoted's philosophy (among others') from being allowed to be taught in public schools?

A general "you cannot say that here" ...

I wonder: how many of us here would object to a straight-forward (and balanced) "Theism & Atheism" class being taught in public, tax-funded schools ... just as a sort of "Know Human Thought for the past 4000 years" educational class?

"This week we study Christian thought. Next week we study Buddhist thought. Next week we study Atheist thought." Each week taught by a guest-expert who knows their own stuff inside & out.

Scary? Are there some areas of human culture and thought too scary for some people? (I know many will answer "yes" for the other side ... but how do you answer for your own side?)

It's an interesting topic that I think could bear more scrutiny, if others on this thread or forum would be willing to handle it.

It's called "Myths About Atheism" ... why not?

I wonder how many could handle a "Myths About Religion" ??? (One being: attacking Religion isn't the same as attacking God)

Devil Ledbetter

04-15-2007, 07:30 PM

Would you care to re-think that comment?

Because "emotion" is reality, too. Or do you live in a world where human emotion doesn't have any effect on anything?Small Axe, of course emotions are real to the person feeling them, and of course how people behave, based on their emotions, effects everyone around them. My point is, those emotions tell us nothing about God.

Jack feels that God is forgiving. He's got a biblical passage that supports his feelings.

Jill feels that God is vengeful. She's got a biblical passage that supports her feelings.

June feels that if she prays just right, god will intervene in her life and make it all better. She's got biblical passages to support that. She augments her belief by attributing the good thing that happen to her to God, while blaming herself or others for the bad things, or deciding the bad things are "lessons" from God. It helps her cope, but that doesn't make God real.

Jim feels that God is all powerful but chooses not to intervene in "the fallen world." He'll do his best to please God by doing what he believes God wants, but he'll await heaven for satisifaction. Again, he can find something in the bible to support this view.

Joe believes God created the world 6,000 years ago. He's got all kinds of theories and writings to shore up this belief. It makes him feel great to believe God created him to be "above" the other animals, to have "dominion" over them, just like it says Genesis.

Nothing is more offensive to Joe than someone pointing out that he is, in fact, an ape. He finds that simple, scientific fact an outrage.

My point is, for every person you are going to have a different take on what God is, what God does, what He thinks about and cares about, what's important to Him and what He expects of people. It can't all be true, because many of the things are in direct conflict with each other (being vengeful and all-forgiving, for example).

Unless each person has their own private god, some people, if not most, if not all, are wrong about God. I believe people made God up, but I can't prove that. I can only come to my own conclusion based on the behaviors I see from people who believe in God. The contradictory nature of believers and beliefs leads me to conclude there is no God.

People say God is too much for mere humans to comprehend. Yet the same believer who will say this, in all seriousness, to a questioning non-believer, will then go on to declare what it is God is/does/feels/wants/needs/demands. IMO, it is the height of arrogance for people to claim God is all-everything in the universe, then claim they have a personal relationship with him and he's on their side. It is just this sort of delusion that has caused every holy war in history. So yes, the effect of the emotion-based belief systems is very real, but that does not make God real (any more than my child's temporarily good behavior in attempt to placate Santa makes Santa real)

God's incomprehensible, but he wants me to throw out my birth control and get pregnant every year; or not eat meat on Fridays; circumcize my infants (or not do so); drip water on my head shortly after birth, or not until I'm seven, or not until adulthood, or maybe never; marry before I have sex; not worship idols; pray to a statue of a bleeding deity on a stick; (and I mean literally bleeding, I'm American, I don't mean that as the English swear word); drink wine that has magically been turned into his blood; never let alcohol cross my lips; go to church every Sunday without fail, -- no, wait, make that Saturday! -- tithe 10% of my income; don't drive cars but take a train; eschew pork; forgive; wear a burka; dance; never dance; Sing in praise; never sing; avoid synthetics; pray silently; speak in tongues ...

If you haven't noticed how often the things a believer claims about God closely matches what it is the believer himself wants, and the cultural norms in that particular believer's world, you are not paying much attention to human beings.

Writers should pay careful attention to what motivates people.

Your statement is one I'd love to put in an atheist character's mouth (debating with a Believing character). That's flattering, but I you need to write your own material. Stuffing my words into the mouth of your atheist character isn't writing, it's plagiarism. Once again I feel the need to point out that AW didn't put this forum up to serve as your personal writing resource on atheism.

Higgins

04-15-2007, 08:30 PM

I wonder how many could handle a "Myths About Religion" ??? (One being: attacking Religion isn't the same as attacking God)

Myths about religion? Since most myths have a religious function of some sort, it seems like "myths about religion" is pretty much the same as talking about religion.

O...but you are apparently talking about myths that are not true, or mythical myths or myths that don't exist or are true and are therefore not myths or myths that are untrue about religion and are therefore myths about religion rather than religious myths.

The fact is that a thread about "myths about religion" would not be allowed by the moderators in this subforum since we are not supposed to criticize anyone's religion here. And we could not have myths about religion in the Christian area since (God knows) that area is all about feeling good about everything as much as possible as often as possible.

We could discuss it in Critical Theory and Philosophy of Language, which might work fine since very few religious people feel an urge to do much Critical Theory these days unless they are teaching religious theory to college students. I'll go start a thread on myths about religion in Critical theory and see what happens. Near as I can tell it is okay not to feel good about everything in the Critical Theory subforum....but who knows?