Print

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

[Creaca]

I identify as an Agnostic Atheist. In that, thought I do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is or is not a god, I believe there is not, because all claims for a god do not meet their Burden of Proof.

I'd argue Gnostic Atheists are just as single minded and unyielding to new information as the Theists they dislike so much, and should reevaluate their ideals.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't know, most people who I'd say count as Gnostic Atheists are less unyielding and more exasperated by the constant failure of theists to provide them with evidence that they've stopped listening to them entierly and delcared the whole thing impossible.

[Phmcw]

I identify as an Agnostic Atheist. In that, thought I do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is or is not a god, I believe there is not, because all claims for a god do not meet their Burden of Proof.

I'd argue Gnostic Atheists are just as single minded and unyielding to new information as the Theists they dislike so much, and should reevaluate their ideals.

It depend on how you take the "gnostic" part. I'd identify myself as doubtless that any version of the Christian god is completely unconvincing, but I am perfectly aware that it's impossible to prove anything flawlessly.
So that make me a gnostic atheist whenever I speak with a Christian, and an agnostic atheist if we're only speaking about the concept of god.
To arrange nothing, I think it's unfit to speak of "god" to describe anything but a revealed/active being that have designed the universe and is currently ruling it.

So my conclusion is that this pretty classification is completely meaningless.

[counting]

I identify as an Agnostic Atheist. In that, thought I do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is or is not a god, I believe there is not, because all claims for a god do not meet their Burden of Proof.

I'd argue Gnostic Atheists are just as single minded and unyielding to new information as the Theists they dislike so much, and should reevaluate their ideals.

I got a question for you westerner atheist or not, Why is this 'absolute' or 'infinite' or 'all powerful' so import to you? By the history, we already know the concept of infinity creates a lot of trouble both in philosophy and mathematics, and probably not necessary. Is this an monotheism society unique problems? (Yes, you, the monotheist atheist, why just a god not gods) Why should it be used in religious? For as we know, finite god/gods can do all sorts of miracle things (like super powerful alien) in a finite universe, or just in our planet alone.

The spiritual worlds can be flawed. Taoism deities even accept bribe from humans. And that doesn't effect their abilities to granting wishes. And taking us to a better heaven, as long as its better than here. And if we know that heaven is just another finite space-time with finite blessing, we can asked what's outside this heaven, "WHEN we actually get there first!" Is this inherent culture thing? People are more practical in religion or morale life in eastern culture.

[Grek]

Most gnostic atheists with regards to a specific diety make arguments to the effect that the diety in question is logically inconsistant or inconsistant with observed facts about the universe. It doesn't take much effort to convince someone to declare that they are certain and that they have secial knowledge about the nonexistance of, for example, a hypothetical god named Mu-Ruma devours the sun every day at precisely 3:15 PM GMT and then spits it back out at 3:17.

@counting: If a god is anything less than infinitely powerful, the westerner sees no reason to worship it or even call it a god, as they could, in theory, come to surpass that god in potency. To the west, a god must be better than the best possible man.

[Glowcat]

I got a question for you westerner atheist or not, Why is this 'absolute' or 'infinite' or 'all powerful' so import to you?

It's important to the concept of Monotheism because without an unsurpassable measure of ability, many feel the deity of Monotheism isn't worth the title of God. I find it wrongheaded in many ways, but the supposed entity's limitless power via some kind of Mind->Cause action is important to the value judgments which lead people to worship it. It's how they justify the whole One True God concept.

The logical problems inherit in infinite qualities are also the openings by which many Atheistic arguers tend to attack Monotheism.

[CJ1145]

I apologize for the delay in responding.

Interesting view about new branches in Christian believes, valid with in itself. As expected. The fact most history book enforced the idea about his claim of being Jesus's brother is probably not fair for him. He lived in an area where you either die hungry or riots against the government to live, and the only hope is by spreading a believe system to others who don't understand the concept of spiritual discovery, and only want foods or physical promises.

That is an interesting question, of whether he intentionally lied for the sake of his people. I wouldn't know whether that would make his actions truly sinful or not, that would be up to God in my opinion.

So some physical promises about heaven on earth is probably a better idea. And he had to form a new kind of government - rather than bounded by blood, but by believes in God. So some form of ideology to let the people understand his stand in this system is needed.  And since traditionally the emperor is consider the son of the heaven (descendent of deity), but if he did stay true to Christianity he can not claim that, because it's Jesus. And there is no pope of any other authority can give him the recognitions he required in China. But if he is only a mortal, than he is no better than any other prophets. As a ruler, he can't command the 100 million people by just say his has a vision, people always believe that blood tie is more important. And he can't be Jesus's son either, so he chose a compromise. Told people he is the son of God, but not Jesus, and it lead people to think it automatically means the relationship is brothers. But the claim about being children of God is valid after all if it is more spiritually than physical sense. He actually could mean he is a spiritual child of God, as everyone else. As everyone has a holy spirit in them. But the record of his words is not well documented as he alternately failed, (the one actually survived never mention anything about being brother. He even criticized in this work about the validity of Chinese emperors, since they do claim to be the son. And he helped translate old/new bible into Chinese, and adding some praises in the form of poems only, ). Also most verbal recorded are heard from survivors of those 100 million followers, at least 20 millions civilians killed/slaughter by soldiers, highest count up to 70 millions,(look at that death tolls, you can imagine the horror), those who survived probably has to say something bad about 洪秀全, and said he is a lunatic, exchange for be spared after the slaughters from government's army. What's really in he mind, no one can tell for sure after such chaos. (It's a very heavy and sad part of Chinese history, and probably result in bring down the last dynasty of China). He is probably more of a tragic missionary/prophet than a leader of heresy cult.

That's a fair way to think about it; I can't help but wonder whether he genuinely claimed to be the literal Son, or if he meant a spiritual child and just let his followers think what they wanted for their own faith. I'm not criticizing the man, if the view of him being someone who would intentionally sin just to bring people to faith more power to him, I suppose.

Coincidentally, you mentioned the pope. I don't know how much you know of Lutheranism so as a fun fact Lutherans were one of, if not the first non-Orthodox denominations to openly reject the Pope's authority, and pretty much started the Protestant movement. So naturally, Lutherans today aren't keen on the idea of the pope being in charge, and deny his claim to holiness. I can't tell if this reads as insulting or not, but it's not intended to. Just some fact-sharing.

I do have questions about trinity though, as I recalled, there is no where in the new/old bible actually says anything directly about trinity, just indirect reference like naming Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit in one sentence. Or in the old bible, appearance in the form of three man, but that's even before Jesus Christ. And the number could means many than actually number of 3. But God do present different form to different person. As far as we can tell, if Jesus is one of the old 3, than it certainly possible God using different form in different time. So even if it's true there is trinity, it can still be many incarnations be documented in the history, if they are past down by generations of story telling. Or god in fact are more than 3 forms can perceived. Or even with a simpler explanation, that the holy spirit in us human, manifest as a form perceived differently by different people, so all the deities are just our reflection of that, and Jesus still walk on the earth once. Still compatible to Trinity as well. I guess Trinity is much a fixed concept, Christian today no longer question it anymore, since early churches "set" their rules about trinity, but as long as you are not Catholic, you don't need to comply to the authority of Pope as only representative on Earth, or listen to their words as its valid as Bible itself. And the point of many faces is obvious, do you think Jesus walking in China can spread the word of God? We looked to much different! At least be user friendly to the potential believers / your children, and if you are all powerful, this doesn't hurt or hard or violated any of the teachings. Being good, following the instructions of the God, and probably much easier. (You can imagine a white Jesus says we are all brothers to a group of Chinese people? And the most probable reaction to that?) And if general revelations can not be apply, than only the selective few (special), than it will be a very restricted religions. In the form of direct revelations, it will be saints and prophets are important in such conditions, and such equal to my original theory about multiple possible way for prophets to perceive and in different cultures, it will certainly be very different. And if it was done on the time of old bible, there are hundreds thousands of nations in China at that time, it certainly will cause many many difference interpretation of a single God.

Well, if I recall the New Testament, while roundabout, does pretty clearly define God as a Trinity; no more, no less. The Old one is more vague, but there are debated areas where people claim that Jesus appeared as an avatar before actually coming down as a true human. Once as a priest in a time where there supposedly should have been none, and another when a man wrestled with him while demanding a blessing. I can't remember the names, my history is pretty fuzzy, but I know for a fact these incidents occurred and there has been at least a little speculation. Others believe that the Holy Spirit had no reason to appear in the Old Testament, as the New Covenant of the New Testament had not been made, and he had no purpose to serve on earth yet.

And in case it's not clear, while artists love to portray him as white most Christians know very well that he looked closer to an Arabic man, and likely very little like the images we have of him. Obviously he has different forms; in the book of Revelation he is portrayed as a figure that truly appears godlike instead of as a human.

About Taoism, its a rather complicated topic. The deities roles in Taoism evolves over time. At first it maybe very close to Buddhism philosophy, means no deities at all, but we can be the one with the universe, if you follow the way of the nature. The concept of creators/managers/heroes ascension into deities ranks, is the result of combining folk religions. Since there are many nations in ancient China before unification in 3rd century BC, there many many cultures and their god/gods existed. When society melt together, the folks who practice them didn't stop them, and early religions most certainly will be polytheism. But combining with the idea of ascension into equals as the universe, through 'Tao'. It construct a similar believes as Hinduism, That since you need to advance steps by steps (We still have the old sayings 循序漸進, means "step by step in an order slowly"), so its easy to imagine there are steps between as human and the almighty universe. And people/spirits/true self(真身) who are half way there will be super beings as powerful as deities can be. Less powerful when you are recently join the family of deities, and many great heroes in real life will be memorized, and combining with the ancestral worship practices and ranking government system from Confucianism, it make sense to let these historic figure into deities as well. The older you are in history, the more great legends you left behind, the higher the rank, and powerful you are. And those fictional figures may as well joins in, since they are probably some ancient deities who manifest themselves in the mind of humans to spread their words. Hence it becomes a gigantic collections of deities list / steps, and practices you need to follow in order to be chosen by these deities, and hoping one day you can become one.

So in a sense, there is only one God - the universe itself. And those deities are spirits ascension to heavens. But instead of staying there, these spirits will come back to earth, for helping their children' children's children... And, its easy to understand why folks can accept why their prayers don't come true sometimes (maybe most of the time), since 'deities' are not all powerful as true 'deities' should be. And true God never bothers little things about humans, since there are too many steps between human and God, he need to manage and listen to other deities wishes first, and assigned those jobs managing humans to them. You can perceive it like it's a human->saints->angels->God ladder, but instead of pre-chosen roles, and with much more refined roles and steps from man to God, people's soul can move up (or down, its possible for anyone even deities to get 'demoted, even ranks below human, as in Hell), all until they are one as God. And the way of getting promoted is by the doctrines of following the 'Tao'. Mostly good behaviors, karma concept borrowed from Buddhism, and secret way of training. It's quite an addictive believes really. Like playing an RPG game leveling up. (Which in term this concept resembles the castes system in Hinduism, but instead divided people in ranks, Taoism divided deities in ranks, as humans are all equal in ranks)

Huh, very interesting. Thank you for sharing; it does sound vaguely similar to Buddhism to me.

[counting]

I got a question for you westerner atheist or not, Why is this 'absolute' or 'infinite' or 'all powerful' so import to you?

It's important to the concept of Monotheism because without an unsurpassable measure of ability, many feel the deity of Monotheism isn't worth the title of God. I find it wrongheaded in many ways, but the supposed entity's limitless power via some kind of Mind->Cause action is important to the value judgments which lead people to worship it. It's how they justify the whole One True God concept.

The logical problems inherit in infinite qualities are also the openings by which many Atheistic arguers tend to attack Monotheism.

I think the cause or the source of infinite god, isn't about philosophical debates, but more practical uses. Do you think its viable to explain the concept of infinite to a group of pre-school system, none-educated farmers and hope they will convert to your believe of Monotheism? I think not.

I think more likely thing is that, when ever there is people, there is a fairly good chance for a large enough society to form some forms of theism, many with polytheism. And when a group of proto-monotheist, which are not so complicated to add the concept of almighty infinite deity but an angry god, conquered them and slaughtering them all, there is no problem. But if there are survivors, or the union is done politically (by means of force surrender), there is a problem of insurgency. People will want to maintain their old believes and gods. And it's against the doctrine of proto-monotheist (Only worship me). So rather than risking further blood shed, there is a solution, that by defining all your gods are inferior to our true god, and demote them into just supernatural beings, and keep their practices. (I believed why so many pagan holidays still remain today, since in Rome time they don't remove them by forced after it's already a unified empire, but people do forget about those failure gods). But by doing so, you need to make your GOD appear to have at least the functions and abilities of the old gods, or it won't be superior. So the power of a monotheism god growing and growing. Thus the doctrine, Never challenged a God also become integrated into it, and it has all the imaginable powers it can get, as long as the gods of the enemy have them. Until they met an enemy who are their brothers and also Monotheist. The battle will be huge, and people can no longer be convinced by 1 powerful god who took the powers of other gods, since both side have it. You can almost hear the two sides yelling "Our god is powerful", "No, ours is more powerful", "Ours can do XXX!", "Ours can do XXX, too, and he can do YYY". and so on. Like 2 kids arguing, it never stops. And finally someone say "Ours can do ALL!", and the arguing of "ALLPWOERTFUL" began.

[Glowcat]

Instead if speculating with little information, it's probably better that you study how the actual Abrahamic religious tradition formed from its polytheistic roots. It was a gradual transformation at first into Henotheism and then into something closer to actual Monotheism. Both transformations were internal group reactions caused by the collapse of both Hebrew nations. However, it was probably only the mingling of Greek philosophy and Jewish tradition that truly created a concept most today would recognize as the Abrahamic God.

Try these for a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

[counting]

That is an interesting question, of whether he intentionally lied for the sake of his people. I wouldn't know whether that would make his actions truly sinful or not, that would be up to God in my opinion.

Maybe he just can't stand people keeps dying all around him, and decide to act. The last dynasty was already on the verge of collapse, famines, plagues, floods, all kind of disasters you can imagine were happening. (And it did collapse in 60 years) There were nearly 400 millions people in China at that time (His kingdom only consist a portion of south-east of China, but dense populated area), if he didn't rise up to lead people in a new way (the reason disasters happening isn't natural causes, but lack of good managements, and corruptions), Most of the 100 million people will die anyway, As proved in Chines history, when a dynasty did collapse, up to 70%, even 90% of the original population died due to war and slaughters. And the resulting famines, plagues. History tells gruesome records, armies used woman, kids as food source, since there is no powerful central government to distribute foods and goods to everywhere, and men were drafted to soldiers, or simply killed. Bodies piles up like mountains. You can't begin to imagine how many people in ancient China were lost, during one dynasty fell, and new one arisen. If it was still the same way of wars this time, than the body counts when this dynasty fell could be an unimaginable 300 millions people.

So if he really IS a prophets and God showed him the vision of the future it might be, as a human being, he should stand by and do nothing? Maybe his sin is not about vanity, hunger for power, but just could not afford to wait, before its too late to teach people in the correct, and slow process. As I imagine he 洪秀全, may said to himself, he rather die a sinner, than let innocent people die, since Christiane conversions before his time all failed. ("Please forgive me God, I abandon you, but I have to save this people") You may said that he just didn't have enough faith. But faith can't save people. And he did in a sense.

He setup systems about open his government's treasury(聖庫) and buy foods to feed everyone, fighting injustice, against drugs(opium addictions are big problems at that time). in records, even in the official records of the dynasty, says things about their high discipline army, not like those riots in history only know about killing and pillaging. Or records about they bring those hungry an woman/children with the army and feed them, training woman to defend themselves and become soldiers, as the government generals mucking them like woman. (The other option is left them being killed, or BEING foods, I know it sounds terrible, but it has been done so many time in history, its not even funny). And his movement did bring the changes about bring down the last dynasty. Many revolutionists and fore fathers of modern China (Republic of China) are once soldiers joined his riots. This happens in 1850s to 1870s, and the modern revolution finally succeeded in 1911, but began as early as in 1890s. And this time is not to form a new dynasty, and not using wars and killings as means to bring down the government. No 300 millions people die. Those who died sacrificed for their believes and saved the others. Although modern China did sink into chaos for more wars when time comes to 1920s, as the old generations died out.

The emperors in China, usually had very open minds about other religions, but Christianity, it is the only one that's endanger the regime, since it doubts the authentic of emperor being the son of heaven. Emperors will never allow that. As Islamic religions even as a monotheism but claim no such thing as Jesus being the son of god, and founded much later than Christianity, had spread into China with no problems. (large populations in north-west China still do today, and create the movement you might know - East Turkestan(Xinjiang) independence movement, it made big news in 2008 Beijing Olympics). And many Christian missionaries come to China and failed many times (They are allowed to become officials even, but no preachings).

Interesting things about Catholic, and Pope, and even in modern China, Catholic(Rome) is not popular as well, (they are forbidden actually). Not because religious reasons though, as always in history, but a reason of political reason. (Some reasons related to Communism and keeping control about public believes), even other Christianity believes as well, they are not recognized by official as religions. Its a land not easily accepting Christianity.

As for the looks, we are structurally different in average height, facial features, the shape of the skull, the hairs growth on the face, and the hair colored, eye colored, skin color, I don't think any Arabic man, can pass as not being instantaneously recognized in Far-East. We even have words to referring to people from middle-east region 回回人, as once Mongolian Empires rules China, and Mongols conquered some of the nations there, and bring them back, it's so different the Mongolian even have laws to define people from there, its lucky Mongolian didn't conquered Europe, or you might look more like us, Mongols look although not like Han people, but closer than any Westerners. As well as we are easily recognizable in the West. So it really bothers people in the East not seen any reference of them in Bible, for them to accept it as the only true words of God. How can GOD missing so many people.

About Taoism, since it has brand in too much different religions into it, its hard to tell what really is native, what is foreign, but in a way, Taoism affected by Buddhism, Buddhism also affected by Taoism in China, forming a new kind, thus says in my nickname - Zenist 禪宗. It branches out from Buddhism, and receive the philosophy of Taoism. The path to enlightenment can't not be told, but to live by. And the illusion of things around us, the one you should doubt the most is you. Or is it?

[counting]

Instead if speculating with little information, it's probably better that you study how the actual Abrahamic religious tradition formed from its polytheistic roots. It was a gradual transformation at first into Henotheism and then into something closer to actual Monotheism. Both transformations were internal group reactions caused by the collapse of both Hebrew nations. However, it was probably only the mingling of Greek philosophy and Jewish tradition that truly created a concept most today would recognize as the Abrahamic God.

Try these for a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

I am not familiar with monotheism believes, so I have to guess. From I can gather the hypothesis and the element of Greek philosophical doctrine, only tells me about the internal influence with the religion, and evidence of a multistage merging processes of the Bible. Can you make a brief summaries about the external forces of events of possible assumption about why it is happening? and What's their effect with the society on that period? I know the creation myth in the East, and early proto-monotheist in East-Asia, and India failed. I want to know why it did emerged in the middle-east region. (Monotheism evolved many times in history, as I know at least there was a pharaoh in Egypt also tempt to do so, but alternately failed. I watched it in a program in history channel but forget about his/her name, I remember it has something to do with a queen.)

[Montague]

Ugh, again one of these topics that stretch 21 pages within the first week. Could you guys be a bit LESS active, so the slower ones can catch up, please?

As for the topic itself; how can one win an argument, when the opposition doesn't value logic or evidence? Religion can be argued against with a sentence or two, yet everyone's writing walls of irrelevant metaphysical shit. (For and against)

How about a discussion on free will instead, hmm?

Edit:

Pascal's Wager.

Because you never know.

Yeah you never know, so why assume?

Basically every decision a person makes is built on assumptions, we can't always know certainties, especially with theoretical subjects like an afterlife or whatever. There is always a random element to any sort of decision making process you make. So, almost every decision is a risk-benefit model. "I could die in a fiery automobile crash on my way to work, but odds are I won't and I certainly need the paycheck."

The problem with assumptions is when you take up so many you run into contradictory ideas. There, you check you your assumptions, at least one will always be false. The problem then, is finding out which assumption you have is false, in the case of spooky metaphysical things that are basically unknowable, this problem solving method stops working.

But yeah, religious topics are lame and are only fun if antagonizing believers, then really only if you play devil's advocate and argue the tenets of their faith from a similar, but different faith (eastern orthodoxy vs Catholicism vs protestantism, ect) here, its just varying degrees of atheist vehemently arguing about various degrees of atheism, which is sorta lame.

[freeformschooler]

Ah yes, the eternal "atheism is a religion too" argument.

Athiesm is a form of religion. Agnosticism is the lack of religion. Agnostics don't strongly believe in any gods, whereas Athiests strongly believe in exactly zero gods.

Agnosticism is not the lack of religion. Agnosticism is the strong belief that ultimate knowledge of the existance of a god and/or other religious matters cannot exist.

I am agnostic. I am also religious. I believe there is a possibility of a god, just as much as there is the possibility of there not being one, because "in the end we can't really know", so I choose to worship one.

[Glowcat]

I am not familiar with monotheism believes, so I have to guess. From I can gather the hypothesis and the element of Greek philosophical doctrine, only tells me about the internal influence with the religion, and evidence of a multistage merging processes of the Bible. Can you make a brief summaries about the external forces of events of possible assumption about why it is happening? and What's their effect with the society on that period? I know the creation myth in the East, and early proto-monotheist in East-Asia, and India failed. I want to know why it did emerged in the middle-east region. (Monotheism evolved many times in history, as I know at least there was a pharaoh in Egypt also tempt to do so, but alternately failed. I watched it in a program in history channel but forget about his/her name, I remember it has something to do with a queen.)

I can't really tell you much, as I'm not an expert on the history of Monotheism.

You might find this video interesting though. It's a perspective on the creation of the Monotheistic God backed by modern archeological understanding and scholarly sources.

[bitterhorn]

(Monotheism evolved many times in history, as I know at least there was a pharaoh in Egypt also tempt to do so, but alternately failed. I watched it in a program in history channel but forget about his/her name, I remember it has something to do with a queen.)

I believe you're referring to Akhenaton.  Also a big fan of using religion to justify conquest, this guy.