Atheist Penelope

[tragic_pizza]

a bloo bloo bloo.

"ATHEEISTS IS SMART PEEPLES XTIANS IZ NOT."

[JonSnow]

The criteria for canonical inclusion:

Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

The "gospels" you keep harping about fail miserably in at least three of the four citeria.

and these are good rules why?
The piece by Euzebe clearly illustrates that not even the people who made the canon were sure what was written by an apostle and what wasnt. They had educated guesses, but were never sure. So the first rule is not a good one for selection

The second rule: universal acceptance, did you really think they held public fora about this: which books of the Bible do you accept and which do you reject? LOL The ruling heads of the Church where the ones who had to accept it for it to be good. So once again this rule simply states it has to fit with what, the heads of the church feel it should fit ( aka biased)

Rule 3: Is kinda the same as rule 2, as it should fit with what we have been saying all along. It only serves as a nice excuse for saying, hey look if it's been told for that long it has to be true. This rule is more for the believer then for the christian leaders at the time.

Rule 4: It must agree with what we have already written down and accepted what as right: if christians accepted texts about flying dogs and fire breathing mice, then well the Bible would be allowed to contain those. This rule just like the 2 above simply state. If I the head of the church do not believe it, preach it, or have read it somewhere and believed it, it aint true. (can you feel the hypocrisy flowing from it?)

Further,

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."

Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

They're already talking about heretics, heretics in the same religion not even 200years after the person the religion is about is dead? This heavily implies different opinions within the Christian faith. Which followingly were probably settled by the culling of the heretics by a group of christians that believe as we do now. The thing with culling is, to be culling you need to be more aggressive then the one you're culling. This points a finger at the crueler segmentations of Christianity, meaning that whoever was more willing to kill the people who believed in Jezus, but not exactly like him, would end up deciding

They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion.

This is exactly what I discussed in my earlier post, apparently rather pointlessly. The big difference between a Christian (or any follower of a religion) saying "My religion is right" and an atheist saying "No it isn't, atheism is right" is that the atheist has logic and reason to back up what they say, and the religious person does not. Atheists are just people who apply logic and critical thinking to EVERYTHING, instead of giving religion an undeserved free pass when is comes to logical criticism.

Atheist I by far not applying logic in everything, most atheist even dont. Yes there are those who become atheist out this utter belief in logic. But a lot also become atheist cause they're too afraid to believe in something that isn't tangible. And I use the term afraid cause that group of atheist really are. The first group of atheist (the ones who follow logic) are true atheist in my opinion, the others are just posers trying to get a rise out of christians. Believing by the way is not an unlogical thing to do... discrediting every shred of truth without looking at it that's unlogical,but it is what a lot of your LOGICAL atheist do

[tragic_pizza]

The criteria for canonical inclusion:

Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

The "gospels" you keep harping about fail miserably in at least three of the four citeria.

and these are good rules why?
The piece by Euzebe clearly illustrates that not even the people who made the canon were sure what was written by an apostle and what wasnt. They had educated guesses, but were never sure. So the first rule is not a good one for selection

The second rule: universal acceptance, did you really think they held public fora about this: which books of the Bible do you accept and which do you reject? LOL The ruling heads of the Church where the ones who had to accept it for it to be good. So once again this rule simply states it has to fit with what, the heads of the church feel it should fit ( aka biased)

Rule 3: Is kinda the same as rule 2, as it should fit with what we have been saying all along. It only serves as a nice excuse for saying, hey look if it's been told for that long it has to be true. This rule is more for the believer then for the christian leaders at the time.

Rule 4: It must agree with what we have already written down and accepted what as right: if christians accepted texts about flying dogs and fire breathing mice, then well the Bible would be allowed to contain those. This rule just like the 2 above simply state. If I the head of the church do not believe it, preach it, or have read it somewhere and believed it, it aint true. (can you feel the hypocrisy flowing from it?)

All of which means you are ignorant of history, nothign more. And nor does it serve to repair your arguments for the gnostic-heresy gospels.

Further,

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."

Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

They're already talking about heretics, heretics in the same religion not even 200years after the person the religion is about is dead? This heavily implies different opinions within the Christian faith. Which followingly were probably settled by the culling of the heretics by a group of christians that believe as we do now. The thing with culling is, to be culling you need to be more aggressive then the one you're culling. This points a finger at the crueler segmentations of Christianity, meaning that whoever was more willing to kill the people who believed in Jezus, but not exactly like him, would end up deciding

They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion.

Ummm, what?

Please, kind sir, offer me a textual citation for that last part before we go on.

[JonSnow]

you gave me the textual citation yourself.
The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."

Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

Both clearly state that an opinion not conform with the mainstream opinion was concidered herecy, by the people that made the Biblical canon

[tragic_pizza]

No, spanky, the textual citation for this:

"They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion."

Try and keep up.

[pwhodges]

a bloo bloo bloo.

"ATHEEISTS IS SMART PEEPLES XTIANS IZ NOT."

Well...  you see, in my mind this response sadly cancels out all your more thoughtful and interesting posts.  It simply ignores the point and offers ridicule instead of argument.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Really? What did you see the previous poster as saying?

[pwhodges]

That religion is commonly judged by different criteria and to different standards from all other aspects of life.

You can see this, for instance, in the amount of circular argument relating to the interpretation of Old Testament (in particular) geography and its relationship to the pitifully few truly ancient artefacts and archeological relics surviving in the Palestine area.  Have you read any of Kamal Salibi's books (which are not anti-religion, but aim to reinterpret early biblical history in a more consistent manner)?  Whether or not you accept the thesis laid out in them (which is not well represented in that Wikipedia article), you will find that criticism of them is enlightening for the way in which it is almost entirely partisan, and ignores the specific arguments in the books.  I'm afraid I find this quality in just too much argument about religion in general.

[jtheory]

That religion is commonly judged by different criteria and to different standards from all other aspects of life.

You can see this, for instance, in the amount of circular argument relating to the interpretation of Old Testament (in particular) geography and its relationship to the pitifully few truly ancient artefacts and archeological relics surviving in the Palestine area.

Which brings us back to my question.

Would you believe the authors themselves if they were standing in front of you, 40 years after Jesus' death (or just long enough that any possible physical evidence of miracles was long gone)?

You mean, if they hadn't been talking about, living out, relating and being punished for those things they told me about during those forty years? Probably not. But this is nto the case with the Gospels.

So if they had put enough effort and risked enough for their cause, you would accept *that* as acceptable evidence that they were telling you something that was factually true?

Is that the criterion?

You can probably see where this goes (I'm tipping my hand now either way; I'm not aiming for rhetorical tricks); just because they believed it, even believed it enough to die for it, does not make it factually true.  History does not lack for martyrs to all kinds of causes and beliefs; I'm sure you don't accept them all.

Please point out where I said it did.

eta: there is more than a single criterion to the whole canonicity/reliabiltiy question. Limiting it to a single point is not smart.

Where you said what did?  I'm missing the reference there.  I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Next: I'm not limiting it to a single criterion; I'm asking you for clarification.  I asked if you'd believe the two guys standing in front of you (see above); you said probably not: "if they hadn't been talking about, living out, relating and being punished for those things they told me about during those forty years."

That implied that you would believe if they had been punished, etc..

Now you say even that wouldn't be enough -- so I'm still trying to get a clear answer as to what you accept as "proof enough" to believe extraordinary claims when tangible evidence is lacking.

[JonSnow]

No, spanky, the textual citation for this:

"They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion."

Try and keep up.

Doesnt the Bible teach you to have an open heart towards everybody that hatred only leads to more hatred. If you try to live like Jezus you should thus open your heart to different opinions. Not claim them heretics. I cant see every christian in the time of the forming of the Biblical canon to call people heretics, let alone a fellow chirstian who shows a different opinion, forsaking pretty much everything Jezus stood for. This makes it plausible, not certain though, that less radical texts were banned in the earlier years...

[wargrafix]

I suppose the only real reason it came up as an issue is because its away from the percieved norm. If you were to say you are christian, muslim or hindu, people would simply nodd and say "oh, ok." Once you say your are atheist, they are all"burr? who, da what?"

As for the charicture of Pen's atheist as being militaristic, its tough to say if there aren't people like that in reality. But I highly doubt this is how Jeph intended to paint all atheists.

I would say by definition I'm atheist. Even then I prefer no labels.

of course my solution is to take all fundamentalist people of all persuasions and put them on an island to survive. and provide weapons. I tell you, its will make big ratings.

[Evander]

If you were to say you are christian, muslim or hindu, people would simply nodd and say "oh, ok." Once you say your are atheist, they are all"burr? who, da what?"

Really?

Because I get plenty of "burr who da what?" when I mention I'm Jewish.



I have noticed quite a few atheists, in my life, who think that some how they are treated different from any other group in the world, as though all other religions get together and hang out, but don't invite the atheists.  It just don't work that way.

[Jackie Blue]

This is exactly what I discussed in my earlier post, apparently rather pointlessly. The big difference between a Christian (or any follower of a religion) saying "My religion is right" and an atheist saying "No it isn't, atheism is right" is that the atheist has logic and reason to back up what they say

 

So, it's logical to conclude, based on what we monkeys have seen on an infinitely small chunk of rock in a vast, possibly infinite Universe, that there is no sort of higher power anywhere, period?

 

[Evander]

I'm an agnostic because I don't pretend to know things that I don't know.   

[wargrafix]

Classic example a few months ago:

I was chatting with a girl at my university and she is Muslim. stuff like that really doesn't really draw my attention (country is literally a multicultural society. lol, ask Nelson Mandela). So she was saying how shitty it is being profiled. Mind you she doesn't wear any of the garbs and such. Its her title, Mohammed. In the conversation she stops and says "being a hindu, does that happen often to you?" I laugh and simply say I'm an atheist, and I swear its like alarms went off in her head. For the next few days she was all storm and brimstone. If you could draw thought balloons over my head, "WTF??" would be read.
   I asked her why she pouncing on me so? She was all, I'm eternally sinning and all sorts of stuff. By day 3 t got a bit nasty. I told her it was getting really old, beating an old dead horse and all. Can't we agree to disagree? She was convinced I was going to hell.


I suppose in my country things are still very traditional and atheists are still an alien concept. infact aliens would be quicker accepted than atheists.

[JonSnow]

it's not wrong to believe in God, Jahwe, Allah, or any other religion. Also it's not wrong to not believe. It's only wrong to not keep an open mind to other peoples believes even if they differ from yours. You need to accept them for who they are.

[Surgoshan]

it's not wrong to believe in God, Jahwe, Allah, or any other religion. Also it's not wrong to not believe. It's only wrong to not keep an open mind to other peoples believes even if they differ from yours. You need to accept them for who they are.

But they're wrong.

[wargrafix]

lol, @ the comic excerpt.


Thats the funny thing, I completely ok with her beliefs. In the long run its not like it will matter to me. What was weird was how she reacted. It was from snarky (strangely she a bit like faye) to ultra fundamentalist. I was like "take the chill pill or chill injection in your case.


psycho people are funny.

^_^

[jtheory]

I have noticed quite a few atheists, in my life, who think that some how they are treated different from any other group in the world, as though all other religions get together and hang out, but don't invite the atheists.  It just don't work that way.

Yeah, like how all the minorities in the US seem to think that white folks get together weekly to scheme about them, right?  So silly.  Cause discrimination don't work that way.

Discrimination against atheists is quite common, though it will obviously vary based on where you live.  I think I posted about this at the beginning of this thread; atheists are still a group that is pretty socially acceptable to denigrate.  53% of Americans say they would refuse to vote for a well-qualified -- but atheist -- Presidential candidate.  Compare it to the other figures in the poll.

Also notice that atheism comes with the natural conclusion that religious people are at worst misguided and foolish.  Most versions of the major religions come with the natural conclusion that atheists are going to burn for all eternity in Hell and may tempt other good religious people to burn as well.  Many religious people don't take that completely seriously, even if they generally believe in the religion... but each time you run into some who do, it's bound to be an upsetting encounter for all involved (see wargrafix' example above).  At least that wasn't one of his parents, 'cause that really, really sucks.

So, it's logical to conclude, based on what we monkeys have seen on an infinitely small chunk of rock in a vast, possibly infinite Universe, that there is no sort of higher power anywhere, period?

 

That's a very misleading definition of atheism.  You're not going to bring out that "but you can't disprove God!" stuff, are you?
"Theism", from the British Concise Encyclopaedia (since that's what Google/Answers.com is giving me): "View that all observable phenomena are dependent on but distinct from one supreme being. The view usually entails the idea that God is beyond human comprehension, perfect and self-sustained, but also peculiarly involved in the world and its events. Theists seek support for their view in rational argument and appeals to experience."
Atheists do not hold this belief, because the "rational arguments" seem to all be deeply flawed and a priori, and experience likewise does not seem to offer any support for the theist's God.

I'm certainly open to the idea that there is (or was? or will be?) an alien life form somewhere which has far greater understanding of/control over the universe than we do.  That would be a "higher power".  There are also "higher powers" already known on Earth, like earthquakes and volcanoes (we're totally at the mercy of plate tectonics... but the plates hear not our pitiful cries).  But there's no limit to the forms you can imagine a higher power might take *outside* of a conscious, human-interested, personal, supreme being; you'd have to describe what you're thinking of, then the atheists in the thread could discuss how likely they think it is.

[Jackie Blue]

You're open to the concept of God being an alien, but not being, well, God.

...

...

...

 

[jtheory]

You're open to the concept of God being an alien, but not being, well, God.

I'm open to "higher powers" out there -- meaning things more powerful or (if sentient) more knowledgeable than humans.  Some of the more powerful forces are well-known and generally accepted (like plate tectonics!), and the universe is big & diverse enough that *somewhere* there are probably other life forms evolving like we are... obviously no guarantees at all what they might be like, but some of them may have evolved to have abilities like (or beyond) ours.  I don't know anyone who would call either of those examples "God" though (Scientologists excepted).

I'm not "closed" to the idea of the standard theist God; I was instructed in one version for 16 years or so, have thought about the question in depth, have read a lot on the subject, have had endless discussion with various believers and non-believers... and it just doesn't add up at all, so I don't hold that belief.

[Jackie Blue]

I think there's sufficient evidence that some ancient "gods" were aliens to remain agnostic about it.  Things like the Nazca Lines are just a bit too weird for me to shrug off as very bizarre and pointless expressionist art from a culture who had enough to worry about re: food, shelter and not being killed by rival cultures.   

[celticgeek]

During these tumultuous times, people of all faiths (as well as those of no faith) should
remember the Four Great Religious Truths:


1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.

2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the
   Christian world.

4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.

[jtheory]

I think there's sufficient evidence that some ancient "gods" were aliens to remain agnostic about it.  Things like the Nazca Lines are just a bit too weird for me to shrug off as very bizarre and pointless expressionist art from a culture who had enough to worry about re: food, shelter and not being killed by rival cultures.   

Ah, but they probably made them for religious reasons, so depending on their beliefs, it could have easily seemed *essential* to get the pattern completed because of a drought, attacks from rivals, and so on....  There was a lot of praying, self-flagellation, killing Jews, etc. during the Black Plague when that time could have really been better spent actually fighting the spread of the disease.

"Aliens" is a big stretch wrt the Nazca Lines, either way.  The designs have been reproduced in modern times with no modern technology, just using string and wooden stakes like those found at many corners of the designs, by a handful of people over a couple of days.  The biggest Nazca design is still under 270 m long; to put that in perspective, when I was in high school our (standard-sized 400m oval) athletic track was about 200m from outer lane curve to outer lane curve, and we didn't have bleachers or anything to watch from; most spectators just stood by the fence.  No one watched from aircraft; I'm pretty sure.

These kinds of "evidence" of alien visitors, ghosts, and so on are entertaining, and they fill tons of TV specials, but I'm yet to find one that doesn't just crumble when I dig at all to find more solid evidence.  Not that I try to chase them all down, obviously.

But even if aliens had visited and been mistaken for gods... that would be evidence for alien visitors, not for the god/gods of theism --- not any more than Cortes was evidence for Quetzalcoatl's existence.

[JonSnow]

ah if we're talking about possible alien influences in ancient cultures, I can get you some more examples.

Egyptians have vases made from one solid piece, drilled to be hollow drilled in a way that our modern equipment cant even drill (small for the neck to big for the body of the vase)
also a stone sarcophagus has been found of a rock that's almost impossible to process even with our modern tools, yet they chipped it out with normal chisels and hammers.

The lines of erosion on the egyptian sphynx run both horizontal (as to be expected with wind/sand erosion) and vertical (which indicates erosion by rain), the last time it rained in the desert was during the last ice-age, long before the egyptians came to power.

in south america a pyramid is build on a solid stone slab of a stone that can only be found half a continent more south. The truck required to move this rockslab from it's source to where the pyramid was built, has not yet been invented.

Now this is ofcourse no proof of alien visits, it could indicate aliens or an even older more advanced civilisation living on earth (cfr atlantis)

During these tumultuous times, people of all faiths (as well as those of no faith) should
remember the Four Great Religious Truths:


1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.

2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the
   Christian world.

4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.

1. Muslims dont recognize any other religion accept their own (btw nobody but Jews sees them as God's chosen)

2. Jews recognize christianity but as something inferior, and that's pretty much all they recognize

3. Protestants (anglo saxon ones) actually have only one difference with catholics, the king of england wanted to remarry and the pope wouldnt let him and thats when it was created. So they dont recognize the pope as their leader, but to be honest their leader would be the queen of england.

4. Baptists are just weird

[Evander]

Most versions of the major religions come with the natural conclusion that atheists are going to burn for all eternity in Hell and may tempt other good religious people to burn as well.

I wouldn't know: there is no hell in Judaism.

And Wargrafix, I'm sorry you had to go through that, but I've been through the same thing with people being shocked over my not believing in Jesus, or not celebrating Christmas.  Atheism is just one of the many ways that you can be different from other people.

[Evander]

1. Muslims dont recognize any other religion accept their own (btw nobody but Jews sees them as God's chosen)

2. Jews recognize christianity but as something inferior, and that's pretty much all they recognize

1. Muslim's recognize Jews as "the peaople of the book" and have actually been, historically, some of the more benevolent rulers, where Jews are concerned, current fanatical Arab rejectionism not-withstanding.

2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system.  It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".

[Jackie Blue]

I wouldn't know: there is no hell in Judaism.

There isn't even a well-defined "Hell" in a properly-translated Bible; King James really fucked that book up good.

[Evander]

I wouldn't know: there is no hell in Judaism.

There isn't even a well-defined "Hell" in a properly-translated Bible; King James really fucked that book up good.

There's no Devil in the Jewish bible either.

When it comes to christianity, that has always been one of my biggest confusions, after Jesus.  If God is supposed to be both benevolent and all powerful, then how could the devil exist?  Either God isn't all powerful, god isn't so benevolent, of the devil is just as powerful as god, meaning that there are multiple gods in the Christian religion.



It's just one of those things I could never parse.

[Jackie Blue]

In the New Testament, God isn't a chap in the sky with a beard; he is a way of thinking/living that was personified by a radical anti-establishment nutjob, so looking to the actual New Testament isn't going to give you any easy answers about the God of the Old Testament, who allegedly said and did some really wacky things, like that it's okay to sell your excess daughters off and that incest is totally cool, but jerking off is a sin punishable by death.

[JonSnow]

2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system.  It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".

tell that to hacidic jews

[Evander]

2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system.  It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".

tell that to hacidic jews

Huh?

What Hassidic Jews are you talking about?

One of the crazy fringe groups who hates everyone?

[nursethalia]

You're open to the concept of God being an alien, but not being, well, God.

I was scrolling down this page really quick and somehow read that as "You're open to the concept of God being an Italian"

 

[JonSnow]

2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system.  It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".

tell that to hacidic jews

Huh?

What Hassidic Jews are you talking about?

One of the crazy fringe groups who hates everyone?

So that's how you spell Hassidic in english

but I don't know if they're a fringe group. I always figured they were a big part, as antwerp is full of 'em.
Hassidic Jews live according to a set rules that dictate their lives. But they concider others inferior

[Evander]

2. Jews don't recognize Christianity as anything diferent from any other non-Jewish belief system.  It isn't "inferior" it is just "else".

tell that to hacidic jews

Huh?

What Hassidic Jews are you talking about?

One of the crazy fringe groups who hates everyone?

So that's how you spell Hassidic in english

but I don't know if they're a fringe group. I always figured they were a big part, as antwerp is full of 'em.
Hassidic Jews live according to a set rules that dictate their lives. But they concider others inferior

What exactly do you mean by considering others inferior?

Did one of them tell you this?  Did you see it in their own writings?

Or is this an assumption of yours/something some one else told you?



Jews have been accused of considering others inferior since ancient times, starting with the fact that they would not take their meals with non-Jews (owing to dietary laws, but this was considered a big snub back in the days of ancient egypt, greece, and rome, etc.) and later on, as Jews became a very persecuted people, owing to how they simply kept to themselves.



Judaism does not recognize itself as a privilege, but more as a burden.  In order to be a good person, a non-Jew must strive to follow seven laws (the ones given to Noah after the flood.)  A Jew, however, must strive to follow 613 laws.  Conversion in to Judaism is also a difficult process, not because of worthiness or anything like that, but because it is a commitment to following those laws.

Jewish communities can tend to be isolationist, but don't mistake that for xenophobia.

[Mabus_Zero]

Seems Pen-Pen is still in the 'you lied to me!' phase. After that, perhaps she will evolve into the existentialist/nihilist/hippy phase of 'whatever'.

[Is it cold in here?]

I think Pennelope is too passionate about her beliefs to settle on "whatever" as an answer. Unless she mellows a whole lot with age.

[BreakAtmo]

This is exactly what I discussed in my earlier post, apparently rather pointlessly. The big difference between a Christian (or any follower of a religion) saying "My religion is right" and an atheist saying "No it isn't, atheism is right" is that the atheist has logic and reason to back up what they say

 

So, it's logical to conclude, based on what we monkeys have seen on an infinitely small chunk of rock in a vast, possibly infinite Universe, that there is no sort of higher power anywhere, period?

 

Err... no. It's logical to conclude that based on what we have scientifically observed, there is no good evidence to believe in a supernatural God of any kind, and thus logically should assume he doesn't exist until evidence for such an existence is presented. That's simple logic - all claims should be considered untrue unless they are backed up by evidence, and it applies not just to the God concept, but to everything. I don't say 'there is no God', because that's an active statement that would require evidence. There's a huge difference between 'There's no evidence for a supernatural God, so I don't believe in one', and 'There is there is no sort of higher power anywhere, period'. Don't put words into my mouth, or the mouth of any atheist like me, just because you don't seem to understand my position. 

[Jackie Blue]

That's a nice semantic trick, saying that assuming something doesn't exist isn't the same as believing it doesn't.

Whether you like it or not, some atheists do say "There definitely is no God, period."  If you think you're not one of them, that's between you and... well, the Tooth Fairy, I suppose.   

[Evander]

That's a nice semantic trick, saying that assuming something doesn't exist isn't the same as believing it doesn't.

Whether you like it or not, some atheists do say "There definitely is no God, period."  If you think you're not one of them, that's between you and... well, the Tooth Fairy, I suppose.   

Assuming and believing IS different, though.

There are different levels of non-belief and different levels of belief-against



Painting with broad strokes does nobody any good.

[wargrafix]

Here's what happened recently;
I was on msn and she messaged me and asked in a detectable sarcastic tone "if I still didn't believe in god".
I simply told her," I not sure if you think that fighting over religion is kinky or something. But its like fucking under a bees nest while being coated in honey. Some people might find that kinky. But its a great way to get your ass stung."

[Mr. Skawronska]

Kissing Hank's Ass

Somehow this link popped into my head during my lack of attentiveness over this discussion.

No, it's not a Rickroll.  It's funnier than that.

S

[Evander]

Kissing Hank's Ass

Somehow this link popped into my head during my lack of attentiveness over this discussion.

No, it's not a Rickroll.  It's funnier than that.

S

I think I've seen that somewhere before.

It does a shitty job of making a real argument (prefer to just minimalize things to make them absurd instead) but it does point out what I consider to be the big issue of Christianity, which is the emphasis on belief in God.  It is not enough to be a good person or do good things, but that what God really cares about is that you believe he is God.  I've always felt that if that is really the case, and it's all real, then I'd rather not spend all eternity with that kind of a conceited asshole anyway.

Of course, I say this having been born in to a religion where the afterlife is an afterthought, not the primary focus, and actions are considered more important than belief when judging a person.  If I can from a different background, who knows what my opinion of religion would be.

[Jeans]

3. Protestants (anglo saxon ones) actually have only one difference with catholics, the king of england wanted to remarry and the pope wouldnt let him and thats when it was created. So they dont recognize the pope as their leader, but to be honest their leader would be the queen of england.

You're talking about The Church of England, which is separate from the Protestant faith. King Henry VIII created The Church of England when the pope wouldn't let him divorce his then-wife, Catherine of Aragon (the first out of a grand total of eight). The Protestant faith was founded - or, rather, the initial idea was sparked - when Martin Luther posted a set of 95 theses on a church door, originally called Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, more commonly known as The 95 Theses.This was basically a list over shit he didn't like with the catholic church, a lot of it was about the unfairness of how you could pay the church to be relieved of sins - he believed in a more personal God, and less requirement of a middle man, like the church, or a priest.

[JReynolds]

Minor nitpick: Henry VIII had six wives, not eight. A simple mnemonic to remember their fates:

Divorced, Beheaded, Died; Divorced, Beheaded, Survived.

[Evander]

3. Protestants (anglo saxon ones) actually have only one difference with catholics, the king of england wanted to remarry and the pope wouldnt let him and thats when it was created. So they dont recognize the pope as their leader, but to be honest their leader would be the queen of england.

You're talking about The Church of England, which is separate from the Protestant faith. King Henry VIII created The Church of England when the pope wouldn't let him divorce his then-wife, Catherine of Aragon (the first out of a grand total of eight). The Protestant faith was founded - or, rather, the initial idea was sparked - when Martin Luther posted a set of 95 theses on a church door, originally called Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, more commonly known as The 95 Theses.This was basically a list over shit he didn't like with the catholic church, a lot of it was about the unfairness of how you could pay the church to be relieved of sins - he believed in a more personal God, and less requirement of a middle man, like the church, or a priest.

What I find funny about Martin Luther is how convinced he was that the Jews would flock to his new form of Christianity.  His later writings have made him out to be something of a notorious Anti-Semite, but he only got that way through disappointment that his changes weren't just the thing that Jews were waiting for in order to accept Jesus.

[JonSnow]

Luther did not inspire modern Anglo Saxon religion, Luther inspired modern Dutch and some other mainland european protestants, but not the English.
He wanted a belief where pretty much everything was predetermined and that we could have faith that everything we do is the will of god

[Jeans]

Luther inspired the entire Protestant movement, more or less - whether it was in England, Germany, Norway or France. England's official religion changed with whatever religion the current monarch had - Henry VIII founded The Church of England, and his son - or rather, the placeholder king until his son was old enough to rule, Edward Seymour (self-pronounced Duke of Somerset) - continued Henry's attempt to make it a uniform English religion. He was later arrested and beheaded for seizing complete control, opposing Henry's intended line of placeholder regency. He was replaced by John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, who was a fierce Protestant (as inspired by Martin Luther). After Edward VI (Henry's son) came of age, Dudley effectively acted as Lord Protector (effectively ruling the country while Edward milled about doing kingy stuff). He ordered all churches to be stripped of Catholic symbolism, which is why churches in England are pretty plain today, compared to churches in other countries like France or Spain. He also released a revised Common Book of Prayer, the prayer book of The Church of England, which was closer to the Protestant faith (he wasn't so much aiming to instate protestantism as removing Catholicism, really). Then Edward became ill, which made Dudley fear that Edward's successor in line, Lady Mary, who was fiercely Catholic, would try to undo all his work. Edward, however, did a U-turn and made the country Catholic again just before he died, and making his successor Lady Jane Grey. More than a little strange, considering she was a Protestant. Dudley married away his youngest son, Guildford Dudley, to Jane, to at least hang onto little bits of the Protestantism he had worked so hard for. Lady Jane was deposed after just nine days, however. Her successor was Lady Mary I. One of the first things she did was ordering Dudley be executed, and later on, when she couldn't turn Lady Jane to Catholicism, both she and her husband was beheaded as well. When Mary died she was replaced by Elizabeth I, a moderate protestant, who again made the country follow The Church of England. She was the daughter of Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's first mistress and second wife.

Wall of English Monarchy crits you for ten thousand.

tldr: The Church of England was not the only church in England, and the British Isles were far from unaffected by Martin Luther's reform movement.

[dps]

4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.

Q:  What's the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist?

A:  A Methodist will say, "Hello" to you when he runs into you at the liquor store.

I'm a Methodist, BTW.  If my joke offends any of my fellow Methodists, get over yourselves.  If it offends any non-Methodists, non-Baptists, well, double that get over yoursevles and then take it to the 10th power.  If it offends any Baptists, good!   

(Still just kidding about that last part.)

[Phisioni]

I just read through this whole thread, and it makes me a bit tired and hungry.  Also, I'm amazed at the various arguments both for Christianity and atheism.  I've only heard a couple for Christianity before (grew up in a religious sort of town, never have heard much in favor of atheism except on the internet (and most of that was idiotic tripe)), so I really appreciate the whole debate.  Stirs my brains, to say the least.  Now, I need pizza!  Pizza parlor, ho!