Ignorance and the Bible

[IBDaMann]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God.

Atheism is a lack of theism, but you know this. Kudos.

Theism is a set of beliefs of the supernatural, not necessarily gods, but potentially of spiritual beings and supernatural forces.

I see you've encountered Cypress. He's totally dishonest, uneducated and insecure.

I see you've encountered Ross Dolan, formerly Frank Apisa. He is totally dishonest and without any sense of logic.

With them, you are correct and they won't be getting anything correct.

There are some atheists (not all by any stretch) who make a positive claim "God does not exist". This is not possible to support logically.

Incorrect. They are not atheists. The statement "there are no gods" is a theistic position, precluding atheism.

Atheism is also simply a lack of belief [in the supernatural].

FTFY. Correct. An atheist can still believe that he has enough gas to make it to Barstow ... and still be an atheist.

Just as you lack belief in elves even though Bjork says they are real. You don't believe Elves don't exist, you lack belief in elves.

To Cypress' claim that there are "militant" atheists, or that atheism is itself a religious faith, I give the following parable:

In a particular apartment building, there are sixteen single-occupancy apartments. The residents of twelve of those apartments own various types of vehicles; two own motorcycles, three own pickups, two own sedans, four own SUVs and one owns a SmartCar. The other four lack vehicles. Each one's lack of a vehicle is identical to all the other lackings of a vehicle, and the lack of a vehicle is not itself a vehicle. The owner of one of the motorcycles tried to get one of the residents who lacked a vehicle written up by the HOA for being a militant vehicle-lacker, because his lack of a vehicle was just so over-the-top. It turns out that the only ones who ever felt that their vehicles were being threatened were vehicle owners; those who lacked vehicles, for some reason, just never felt any fear of vehicle vandalism or worse.

 

[IBDaMann]

Atheism is simply a word

Great, you figured out how language works.

.A person chooses to use it as a self-descriptor

Nope. For example, I used it to describe you when you seemed to profess the atheist position, when you were too dishonest and cowardly to apply it to yourself, remember?

I was incorrect, however, because you worship the Climate Change religion, precluding atheism and, due to the nature of your religion, precludes agnosticism, i.e. you claim to be able to know about your entire pantheon, that it is thettled thienth.

...and damn near EVERY person who chooses to use it to describe self...uses it because of a "belief"...a guess about the reality of existence.

Yeah ... you're still a raving idiot ... and an intellectual coward. Your position is that a lack of belief is a belief. Too funny.

Atheism is as much a product of "belief" as is theism

Nope, but then again, I am not aware of anyone who has accused you of being able to think straight.

...although atheists want to view themselves as being without beliefs,

Nope, just without beliefs in the supernatural. I still believe that my car's ignition will turn over when I turn the key, and it always will, until it doesn't.

so they pretend the reason they use the word as a self-descriptor is because they lack belief.

Atheists don't have to pretend to not have beliefs in the supernatural. Atheists simply don't have beliefs in the supernatural.

The MAGA element among us is not prepared to see the great damage Trump is doing to our country and its values.

All the news about our country is that Trump is being uber-successful at making America great again. You should crawl out from under your rock.

 

[IBDaMann]

I am an IMPLICIT athiest which has been defined for you now multiple times with external resources.

An "impliciit" atheist is the only type of atheist. The "explicit" atheist is a theist who takes a theistic position, precluding atheism.

"Implicit atheist" = "atheist"

"explicit atheist" = "theist" of the Church of No God.

You are free to have your opinion on atheism but just be aware that actual atheists differ from your view.

Correct. You are spot on.

Just as I'm not free to tell you what your philosophy is, you are not free to define my philosophy for me when I've explicitly negated your "opinion" on it.

Well said.

 

[IBDaMann]

I did a quick Google on “core Christian beliefs” and this is what was returned.

False Authority Fallacy. Google does not determine the core Christian beliefs.

The rest of your post is dismissed.

 

[Cypress]

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'!

AI Overview
"Militant atheist" refers to a person or group that actively advocates for atheism, often by opposing religion and promoting secularism through social and political action, rather than simply lacking belief in God.

Key Characteristics:

Active Opposition to Religion:
Militant atheism goes beyond simply not believing in God to actively promoting secularism and challenging religious doctrines and institutions.

Belief in Harmful Nature of Religion:
The philosophy often posits that religion is not only false or nonsensical but also inherently harmful.

Use of Social and Political Action:
Proponents of this approach believe in taking direct measures to reduce or eradicate religious influence in society.

Historically, the League of Militant Atheists was a Soviet organization that promoted anti-religious campaigns.
In modern usage, the term can be controversial, with some humanists and atheists arguing it's a deliberate attempt to associate atheism with conflict or violence

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists​

By Lawrence M. Krauss

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

Scientists are often reluctant to disagree with religious ideas. The Kim Davis controversy shows why they shouldn’t be.

www.newyorker.com

 

[domer76]

AI Overview
"Militant atheist" refers to a person or group that actively advocates for atheism, often by opposing religion and promoting secularism through social and political action, rather than simply lacking belief in God.

Key Characteristics:

Active Opposition to Religion:
Militant atheism goes beyond simply not believing in God to actively promoting secularism and challenging religious doctrines and institutions.

Belief in Harmful Nature of Religion:
The philosophy often posits that religion is not only false or nonsensical but also inherently harmful.

Use of Social and Political Action:
Proponents of this approach believe in taking direct measures to reduce or eradicate religious influence in society.

Historically, the League of Militant Atheists was a Soviet organization that promoted anti-religious campaigns.
In modern usage, the term can be controversial, with some humanists and atheists arguing it's a deliberate attempt to associate atheism with conflict or violence

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists​

By Lawrence M. Krauss

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

Scientists are often reluctant to disagree with religious ideas. The Kim Davis controversy shows why they shouldn’t be.

www.newyorker.com

Hmmm.

How active does one have to be to be militant? What are “direct measures”?

What is wrong with challenging church doctrines and institutions? Pure logic and knowledge of historical facts tells us that the Trinity is a bogus and invented concept. We know that the Mormon’s Book of Abraham is equally flawed.

 

[Cypress]

Hmmm.

How active does one have to be to be militant? What are “direct measures”?

What is wrong with challenging church doctrines and institutions? Pure logic and knowledge of historical facts tells us that the Trinity is a bogus and invented concept. We know that the Mormon’s Book of Abraham is equally flawed.

Nothing is inherently wrong with mocking religion, and assuming an air of superiority compared to the presumed superstitious simpletons who have religious belief.

 

[Cypress]

Here is what I think deserves mocking.

Televangelist Joel Osteen has a net worth of $100 million and lives in a $10 million castle.

 

[domer76]

Nothing is inherently wrong with mocking religion, and assuming an air of superiority compared to the presumed superstitious simpletons who have religious belief.

Back to the Trinity and Book of Abraham.

 

[gmark77]

You have to use the methods of literary criticism to establish the historically reliable elements of the New Testament, just like you would have to with Herodutus' Histories.

As far as I can tell the only people treating the entire Bible as a work of analytical history and literal fact are militant Atheists, and conservative Bible thumping evangelicals.

I'm surprised that most atheists claim to be the most scientific, rational, and impartial of posters.

Fascinating. You think the resurrection story has to be understood as actually witnessed as described but then nothing else in the crucifixion narrative?

You seem to specialize in cherry picking those topics in the Bible you wish to allow for discussion of.

 

[gmark77]

Here is what I think deserves mocking.

Televangelist Joel Osteen has a net worth of $100 million and lives in a $10 million castle.

Yeah, and atheists do that. We point up the ridiculousness at the heart of the concept. I don't know why you don't see that. I guess you are simply blinded by your dislike of atheism qua atheism.

That confuses me from a supposed "agnostic". I've never seen an agnostic defend the Bible as fiercely as you do. Which is strange.

At least as an atheist I'm consistent. I don't know what it is you are doing.

 

[domer76]

You have to use the methods of literary criticism to establish the historically reliable elements of the New Testament, just like you would have to with Herodutus' Histories.

As far as I can tell the only people treating the entire Bible as a work of analytical history and literal fact are militant Atheists, and conservative Bible thumping evangelicals.

I'm surprised that most atheists claim to be the most scientific, rational, and impartial of posters.

Atheists reject the Bible as the word of a god or inspired by one. Unlike the thumpers, they actually recognize the glaring errors, inconsistencies and contradictions.

It seems to bother you that they point out those problems. Why is that?

 

[gmark77]

It seems to bother you that they point out those problems. Why is that?

^^^^THIS. This is the key question.

To be quite honest I've never met an "agnostic" like Cy who seems to fiercely defend the Bible and he seems to really hate anyone who fails to believe (atheists) and mischaracterizes them in proper strawman fashion over and over again.

If Cy would let us see behind the curtain his points might make more sense.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yeah, and atheists do that. We point up the ridiculousness at the heart of the concept. I don't know why you don't see that. I guess you are simply blinded by your dislike of atheism qua atheism.

That confuses me from a supposed "agnostic". I've never seen an agnostic defend the Bible as fiercely as you do. Which is strange.

At least as an atheist I'm consistent. I don't know what it is you are doing.

Horse shit.

Pointing out the deficiencies in your disagreements with the Bible...(mostly atheist 101 remedial stuff)...is not defending the Bible. Cypress and I both see many inconsistencies in that Book. But your kind of atheist is as much a joke to us as any theist is. You both are creations of your blind guesses about the REALITY of existence.

 

[Cypress]

Back to the Trinity and Book of Abraham.

Right, if you feel intellectually superior to religious people that's fine, and there's nothing inherently wrong with holding that opinion.

I don't really agree with it.
I don't get stressed out about the Trinity.
It's not irrational and idiotic for some people to believe in the basic NT testimony that God entered human history in the human Jesus of Nazareth, and that God's spirit guides the moral conscience. That's basically the Trinity.

As I said, there is a trail of logical inferences that leads from revelation in nature and conscience, to revelation in the testimony of the apostles and evangelists, to personal experience that suggests to me one doesn't have to be an irrational and barely sentient fool to be a Christian.

 

[Cypress]

Atheists reject the Bible as the word of a god or inspired by one. Unlike the thumpers, they actually recognize the glaring errors, inconsistencies and contradictions.

It seems to bother you that they point out those problems. Why is that?

It doesn't bother me. This is a message board, it would get boring real fast if we agreed on everything.

It wasn't written by God.

It wasn't even dictated by God.

Even if humans are supposedly spiritually inspired, the Christian Bible is still a collection of nearly 70 books written, compiled, and edited by hundreds of authors, each written with different perspectives, different literary genres, even in different languages.

Pick up any science journal, and you will see elite scientists contradicting each other. The most famous example might be Niels Bohr contradicting Einstein.

Christians don't worship the Bible. They worship God. Even the great saint Augustine wrote 1,700 years ago that the Bible would have to be periodically re-interpreted as human knowledge increased.

 

[Margot]

One measure of maturity is when a person starts thinking of others ahead of themselves. They move from the childish "me, me, me" stage to an adult "us, us, us" stage. Most religious leaders are thinking of others and the greater good. Not the televangelists or ISIS assholes, but most.

Where in atheist philosophy is the concept of sacrificing oneself for the greater good? While some individual atheists may have an upbringing that emphasizes mature views and the concept of self-sacrifice, it doesn't seem to a common ideal for people who believe we're just meat robots and "when you're dead, you're dead".

Did you read The Grapes of Wrath ,because you're quoting one of the
Chapters

 

[Margot]

I feel like the early Christians really tried to sugarcoat Pontius Pilate because they were just a small religious cult and didn't want to write anything inflammatory about the Romans. The Romans tended to be extremely suspicious of small religious cults, and the early church didn't want to draw Roman attention.

The tradition is that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome (he was Peter's secretary), and it would have been very dangerous for him to write anything negative or inflammatory about the Romans, especially since he was in Rome, lol

Each and everyone of us through are sinful actions condemned Jesus to the Cross as much as Pontius Pilate

 

[Margot]

Nothing is inherently wrong with mocking religion, and assuming an air of superiority compared to the presumed superstitious simpletons who have religious belief.

There's a huge difference between organized religion, that I have no connect to besides my baptism paper,and a personal relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit!
It's really not as complicated as organized religion makes it.

 

[Margot]

Here is what I think deserves mocking.

Televangelist Joel Osteen has a net worth of $100 million and lives in a $10 million castle.

But in spite of all you say is true, some regular people were saved because of him