Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[darkflagrance]

So this is awesome, right. We have one book of oral traditions that been heavily censored, and edited through the thousands of years, who then also cite work of nother fictional work to help with proselytizing.  Hell is fannon.

I believe we have archeological evidence for both the various texts of the New Testament and the listing of books in the canon already in the first and second centuries, as opposed to "thousands of years of censored oral traditions." Christianity actually has strong historical documentation. I've even heard it called a historical religion.

The Old Testament I can say less about.

[MrWiggles]

So this is awesome, right. We have one book of oral traditions that been heavily censored, and edited through the thousands of years, who then also cite work of nother fictional work to help with proselytizing.  Hell is fannon.

I believe we have archeological evidence for both the various texts of the New Testament and the listing of books in the canon already in the first and second centuries, as opposed to "thousands of years of censored oral traditions." Christianity actually has strong historical documentation. I've even heard it called a historical religion.

The Old Testament I can say less about.

The new testiment went through several editing periods, and for a few centuries there were competing bibles. The only other major one that comes to mind is the Gnostic bible.

[darkflagrance]

So this is awesome, right. We have one book of oral traditions that been heavily censored, and edited through the thousands of years, who then also cite work of nother fictional work to help with proselytizing.  Hell is fannon.

I believe we have archeological evidence for both the various texts of the New Testament and the listing of books in the canon already in the first and second centuries, as opposed to "thousands of years of censored oral traditions." Christianity actually has strong historical documentation. I've even heard it called a historical religion.

The Old Testament I can say less about.

The new testiment went through several editing periods, and for a few centuries there were competing bibles. The only other major one that comes to mind is the Gnostic bible.

Actually, the gnostic gospel was created by a group with fundamentally different beliefs from Christianity that wanted to take advantage of the Jesus craze. Gnostic tradition predates the existence of Christianity.

[MrWiggles]

So this is awesome, right. We have one book of oral traditions that been heavily censored, and edited through the thousands of years, who then also cite work of nother fictional work to help with proselytizing.  Hell is fannon.

I believe we have archeological evidence for both the various texts of the New Testament and the listing of books in the canon already in the first and second centuries, as opposed to "thousands of years of censored oral traditions." Christianity actually has strong historical documentation. I've even heard it called a historical religion.

The Old Testament I can say less about.

The new testiment went through several editing periods, and for a few centuries there were competing bibles. The only other major one that comes to mind is the Gnostic bible.

Actually, the gnostic gospel was created by a group with fundamentally different beliefs from Christianity that wanted to take advantage of the Jesus craze. Gnostic tradition predates the existence of Christianity.

As does the Savior mythos. I'm not speaking to the one popularized by Religiousacity. Given a few hours I can get some examples if needed.

[Grek]

Actually, the gnostic gospel was created by a group with fundamentally different beliefs from Christianity that wanted to take advantage of the Jesus craze. Gnostic tradition predates the existence of Christianity.

This is fundementally disingenuous. The fundemental idea of gnosticism is that some individuals experience Gnosis or an epiphany about the nature of the Divine. Thus, there can be jewish gnosticism and buddhist gnosticism or even atheistic gnosticism. The fact that gnosticism predates christianity is not at all weird or an arguement against gnostic traditions of christianity. Dismissing gnosticism as being unchristian and a cynical attempt to "take advantage of the Jesus craze" is as offensive as it is inaccurate.

[Andir]

I think somewhere along the line the subject of the thread has changed from the Topic of Atheism to the History of Religion... 

[alway]

I think somewhere along the line the subject of the thread has changed from the Topic of Atheism to the History of Religion... 

And thus, Judaism begot Christianty, begot Catholocism, begot protestantism, begot.....

[MrWiggles]

Anyone ever notice how much more the world make sense with the woo aspect?

[Lord Dakoth]

I think somewhere along the line the subject of the thread has changed from the Topic of Atheism to the History of Religion... 

The History of Religion: According to the Atheists of Bay12. A must read! Reviewed by acclaimed critics across the world! The next international bestseller!

[DeKaFu]

Man, it's interesting.
I'm an atheist - and I did go through an argumentative phase in my teens. Some of it was what people have mentioned, just wanting to show people that they were wrong and I was right and feel smug about it. Some of it was something I sort of suspect many religious people can relate to: A feeling that I've realized something beautiful, and they (with their differing beliefs) are unable to see it, so by arguing about it I could somehow show it to them. Some of it was just wanting to talk about what I thought.

It'd be dishonest if I implied that the mood doesn't still grab me sometimes. I have a few triggers (mostly related to disbelief in evolution - I'm a biology student) that tend to get my hackles up. But I haven't actually argued about it in years. I guess I just realized that I'm comfortable with what I think and I don't need to change other people's minds, unless they're actually causing harm somehow.

I went to church (well, sunday school mostly) when I was very young, but stopped after a few years. I came by my disbelief on my own, and my parents were good for letting me make up my own mind. I did meet and spend time around some extremely religious people during my school life, and we got along okay, though I found the religious aspects of their lives intimidating. The fact that their entire view of the world was completely alien to mine made me feel like I had no point of reference on how to interact with them socially. I imagine that probably helped foster the "me vs. them" mindset I had/occasionally still have when arguments come up.

But yes. I'm an atheist because it makes logical and scientific sense to me, because the existance of a god seems completely unnecessary for the world to exist as it does, and because my impression of christian religions seems too human-centric (as in, the world was created for humans) and that doesn't sit right with me.
It's also because of a few purely irrational personal reasons: Because I can never find anything man-made as beautiful as something naturally formed, because man-made objects are made with a purpose or meaning already in mind, and creationist/"intelligent design" effectively paints the entire universe as a "made" thing.
Also because I feel, on a purely emotional level, that the idea of this world as the product of billions and billions of tiny chance encounters over time as infinitely more beautiful than the idea of a world where things have a purpose and design. I guess these are the things I wanted to share with people, but I understand now that it might be a pretty nonstandard way of seeing things.

Sorry for the wall of text, tl;dr and all. Just trying to offer some insight into where people can come from on the topic without being argumentative, I guess. And talk about what I think. I'll readily confess that I know very little about actual religions or philosophies, so it's mostly based on my own experiences with people I've met.

And on the off-chance that people are actually going to talk about atheism: I'm curious about what other atheists think about death. No afterlife is probably a given, but does it scare you, or not? And why?

[MrWiggles]

Death. No.

As Mark Twain and other remarked loosely. I wasn't alive for the million of years before I was born, that has never bothered me. Why would the million of years after I'm gone be any different?

Dying. Dying can be slow, hard and incredibly painful. The transition is worrisome.

Afterlife on the face of it, to place it bluntly, is retarded in most of its forms.  The only form of afterlife that I like and think its achievable and has been is through memory of those still alive.

[Euld]

If anything, Jesus' sayings indicate the saved will live forever while the un-saved will simply stay dead. No indication of anything involving eternal torture, other than the cryptic phrase "outer darkness with wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Errrm?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16&version=NIV
Luke 16:19-31
"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Even by putting this quote here, I feel there's a vicious cycle going on in this thread that will bite me in the butt right away:  Person #1 says Bible doesn't discuss subject A.  Person #2 posts Bible verse that shows Bible does discuss subject A.  Person #3 says the Bible is horribly flawed, historically incorrect, badly written, badly copied, messed up in every imaginable way, therefore, Bible does not in fact discuss subject A.

@DeKaFu
That was quite beautiful actually xD  I don't quite see the appreciation for a random assortment of the universe, although I am trying to see it your way.  I see the logic though; with an infinite universe and infinite chances for a planet like ours to form, then we could occur, and then that very rare chance would be us.

[MrWiggles]

Rare chances along, the law of large number state that life has to happen. The visible universe must be teeming with. Even with low number for drake equation, the number is quite large.

The main kicker is that space, and the distance between life is larger still. We're functionally the only race in the universe.

[Neruz]

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Because, of course, someone rising from the dead is far less convincing than some guy who listens to the voices in his head.

This, by the way, is the fundamental flaw in religions like Christianity that makes it impossible for me to accept them.

[Jackrabbit]

Yeah, that's really weird considering he convinced a prophet by raising people from the dead.