Billboards Declare Prayer, Bibles Not Helping Disaster Victims

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I got the two PMs but not the long reply did it have to do with my question on Deism? Hmm as far as what people attribute to atheism I find it amazing on the things people try to add to it. We simply do not believe in deities. I have no idea where they got all those ideas I have a feeling that they came from somewhere in the church.

As far as keeping track of everything on this thread I have been slacking. I haven't felt too well and some of the circular thinking is giving me a headache. Plus today this turkey day and I have consumed mass quantities of tryptophan so I am tired. By the way I have been having same problems with posting, don't know it's a glitch but I've been writing everything to Microsoft Word then doing a copy paste.

You may want to check out this

thread

That's an atheist outreach program that seems to be having some success in helping people understand what atheists actually are. The more I read on these threads the more I am certain that what they are doing is probably doing more good for atheists and theists alike than any amount of talking and places like this will ever do. For one thing when they go to churches they are invited so people there are open to learning and are not determined to hold onto their preconceptions. You should check it out especially in the section that people have written how it helped them.

Anyway my headache is coming back.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


the phrase "god doesn't exist" is indeed a dogma as it is what an atheist believes, atheists need to stop acting as if they are different, as if they are above those of faith, as if they have proof with our limited knowledge. i mean if you lived on a mountain in an isolated tribal village all your life would you believe an ocean existed, would you be right saying a great body of water can't exist just because you never saw it?

deism doesn't say god doesn't or can't exist, it merely states that it or whatever is beyond our universe and that our universe acts on its' own will with its' own thoughts(per se). we don't say god doesn't exist, just that if he/she/it does that there's no proof of such but to always look and never declare anything as absolute because as knowledge expands so our perceptions will keep changing, we live by reason and always open ourselves up to new knowledge and understanding, but even if i say that not all deists think god "never" intervenes, but even they believe that "god" doesn't dictate lives individually and that our "fate" is based on our own actions and the rest is chance.

we always keep an open mind, because think about it, could an atom see your whole form? no, it would see mostly empty space with some other atoms here and there, it couldn't prove "you" exist or ever see you even if that atom was part of your body, even if that atom was proof itself it would never know unless it looked within itself to find the connection.

reply to post by namehere

the phrase "god doesn't exist" is indeed a dogma as it is what an atheist believes

Dogma entails a belief(s) that's meant to be accepted without questioning its authenticity. Such as the Bible is the infallible 'word of god'. Most atheists are 'soft atheists'. Also known as agnostic atheist. They are atheists because there is a lack of evidence to substantiate the belief. So if evidence presents itself they may change their position depending on the evidence. It's open. Just provide the proof. Religious dogma holds its truth to be infallible. It knows absolutely and definitively. What you're saying is an atheist taking that same stance. The atheist that is dogmatic would be the 'hard atheist' or 'gnostic atheist'. They are a minority. Quite rare in my experience.

atheists need to stop acting as if they are different, as if they are above those of faith

Obviously they are different.

As far as being above those of faith. Please! Religious essentially say they deserve this glorious eternal paradise and non-believer don't. They are eternally special. Above it all!?? Their view is the epitome of that notion! Also, just in this thread we have Christians claiming atheists are void of morality and even love. They have sole domain over morality and even frggin love?? Sweet Jesus, pot calling the kettle black.

Truth be told I think both sides clearly think they are above the other. Lets be honest here.

as if they have proof with our limited knowledge.

Fair is fair. Turn that around on the religious as well. Because the Bible is believed to be the word of god. Religious believe with their very human very limited brain they have captured something infinitely intelligent and infinitely powerful and all-knowing. Where is the 'limited knowledge' you just talked about there? It's absurd for an atheist to make the claim god doesn't exist, but it's not absurd for a religious person to claim what they do?? However, most atheists being 'soft atheists' are not making the claim 'god doesn't exist nor will there ever be proof showing god exists'. That's a 'hard atheist'. Most atheists are not claiming to know in the gnostic sense. They just don't see the evidence for it. As such don't believe in it. Show them it.

i mean if you lived on a mountain in an isolated tribal village all your life would you believe an ocean existed, would you be right saying a great body of water can't exist just because you never saw it?

'I don't believe it exists' and 'it can't exist' are functionally different declarations. Again soft atheist and hard atheist respectively. If I was that tribal person, and had never seen an ocean, I wouldn't believe there was an ocean unless the tribal dude selling me it coughed up the proof. Neither would you Would I say it can't exist? I would have no need to take it that far.

I need to point out though. Belief in a creator god is just a piece of what's being asked of non-believers. For instance the Mormons are not wanting me to believe in Vishnu. Why not? Because this isn't about belief in a creator god. It's about a belief in their particular version of god and the belief they know what that god thinks.

deism doesn't say god doesn't or can't exist

You need to go back and re-read my posts. I never said anything of that sort…

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by namehere

 

the phrase "god doesn't exist" is indeed a dogma as it is what an atheist believes

Dogma entails a belief(s) that's meant to be accepted without questioning its authenticity. Such as the Bible is the infallible 'word of god'. Most atheists are 'soft atheists'. Also known as agnostic atheist. They are atheists because there is a lack of evidence to substantiate the belief. So if evidence presents itself they may change their position depending on the evidence. It's open. Just provide the proof. Religious dogma holds its truth to be infallible. It knows absolutely and definitively. What you're saying is an atheist taking that same stance. The atheist that is dogmatic would be the 'hard atheist' or 'gnostic atheist'. They are a minority. Quite rare in my experience.

atheists need to stop acting as if they are different, as if they are above those of faith

Obviously they are different.

As far as being above those of faith. Please! Religious essentially say they deserve this glorious eternal paradise and non-believer don't. They are eternally special. Above it all!?? Their view is the epitome of that notion! Also, just in this thread we have Christians claiming atheists are void of morality and even love. They have sole domain over morality and even frggin love?? Sweet Jesus, pot calling the kettle black.

Truth be told I think both sides clearly think they are above the other. Lets be honest here.

as if they have proof with our limited knowledge.

Fair is fair. Turn that around on the religious as well. Because the Bible is believed to be the word of god. Religious believe with their very human very limited brain they have captured something infinitely intelligent and infinitely powerful and all-knowing. Where is the 'limited knowledge' you just talked about there? It's absurd for an atheist to make the claim god doesn't exist, but it's not absurd for a religious person to claim what they do?? However, most atheists being 'soft atheists' are not making the claim 'god doesn't exist nor will there ever be proof showing god exists'. That's a 'hard atheist'. Most atheists are not claiming to know in the gnostic sense. They just don't see the evidence for it. As such don't believe in it. Show them it.

i mean if you lived on a mountain in an isolated tribal village all your life would you believe an ocean existed, would you be right saying a great body of water can't exist just because you never saw it?

'I don't believe it exists' and 'it can't exist' are functionally different declarations. Again soft atheist and hard atheist respectively. If I was that tribal person, and had never seen an ocean, I wouldn't believe there was an ocean unless the tribal dude selling me it coughed up the proof. Neither would you

Would I say it can't exist? I would have no need to take it that far.

I need to point out though. Belief in a creator god is just a piece of what's being asked of non-believers. For instance the Mormons are not wanting me to believe in Vishnu. Why not? Because this isn't about belief in a creator god. It's about a belief in their particular version of god and the belief they know what that god thinks.

deism doesn't say god doesn't or can't exist

You need to go back and re-read my posts. I never said anything of that sort…

edit on 28-11-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

is a "hard atheist" like fundamental christian?
never heard of that or "soft atheist"

i don't get it, you either believe or you don't.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I am religious.. as in, I believe in a certain set of beliefs, although I must point out I am not Christian.

However, I do not believe I deserve heaven. If it were my own accord what I deserve is hell... I simply happen to believe in a God who forgives even though I did nothing to deserve that forgiveness.

I just wanted to point out that there are some who do not believe themselves special or deserving. If anyone feels they deserve heaven, their attitude toward God and honesty about themselves are very much not right.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

It knows absolutely and definitively.

well if you're gonna practice a belief system that encourages the power of positive thinking (faith) in the face
of insurmountable odds (death, war, hell, taxes hehe), it is a definite plus, psychologically, to be plugged into
something bigger and better than yourself, that has a sort of parental love for you, for guidance. even more dramatic if that something that's bigger and better, is also omnipotent.

i'm currently convinced that many of god's appearances in the old testament were enlil, with a few appearances from enki and amen (anu). however, i think some of the appearances were not gods in the traditional sense, but pharaohs, who were sons of god in the traditional sense and were considered god men, like demi gods in a way. (i think these are somehow connected to the second adam, some of which are fallen and some of which are not)

reply to post by Grimpachi


well for every thing people who aren't atheists don't know and assume about atheism, the same thing happens to every world view. nobody understands anyone else, unless they put real time and effort into doing so, and if the conversations always start off on the wrong foot, the communication lines crash immediately and the whole thing degrades into an insult match. this thread is indicative of just that.

let me tell you something, and you can take or leave it as you see fit.

i contracted a mysterious brain infection that the doctors were never able to isolate a bacteria or virus as the culprit. it put me in a coma, on total life support. i was no longer breathing on my own and was not responding to stimuli. i had barely any reflex response on one side, and no reflex response on the other. machines were keeping my body alive. almost every automated body system was down. the docs said if i did survive, i would paralyzed and a vegetable.

enter stage left, my wonderful husband who refused to give up on me. while the insurance company had sent a man to convince my hubby to take me off life support and let me die, he insisted that i was going to be okay, as soon as my sister came out and talked to me. he called her on the phone and convinced her to come out and talk to my comatose body. now my sis talks to large groups of women as her profession and particularly about things like women's health, both physical and mental, and relationships and home issues, and all the things pertinent to a woman of faith in this day and age. but even knowing that she had the gift to inspire, she was really scared that my husband was expecting too much of her, because he told her if she flew out to the hospital where i was at in the intensive care unit, and talked to me, i would wake up from the coma.

ironically, her husband told her, "well you know, god does sometimes use our voices to cure others". here she was, helping women for decades with issues like stress disorders and health topics, and it hadn't dawned on her that it was a form of healing. anyway, they got on the plane, she came and talked to my comatose body and asked me to open my eyes, and i did.

yeah...

she says to the nurse,
" hey, she's opening her eyes on command." the nurse said, "as far as i'm concerned that did not happen. i have seen her MRIs and there's no signal, nothing". so my sis leaned in and asked me to open my eyes again, and i did. the nurse ran off down the hall to tell the doctor (this was in neurocritical care, like the intensive care unit but on steroids). she tells the doctor and the doctor says, "now you know better than to encourage the family members of comatose patients." then he basically repeated what the nurse had said "as far as i'm concerned, that did not happen. her latest tests show no activity" but the nurse insisted, so the doc came to check it out.
and the same thing happened. sis asked me to open my eyes again, and i did.

now that doesn't prove anything to an atheist, i'm aware of that. but the point is, both of my neuro docs, and pretty much all my nurses, said it was a miracle and this wasn't a religious hospital, in fact, it was a non-religious university hospital. the message here is that faith can do amazing things in an emergency. let them have their bibles.

reply to post by tsingtao

is a "hard atheist" like fundamental christian?
never heard of that or "soft atheist"

I certainly wouldn't say like a fundamental Christian but in the sense of being dogmatic I think so. This was in response to someone saying atheists have dogma.

i don't get it, you either believe or you don't.

Right. You believe or you don't believe in the existence of god(s). If you don't you're an atheist. It is that simple.

Think of a religious person that believes in their religion. One might believe through faith whereas another believes because that person claims to be in direct communion with divinity itself. Both believe. How they arrived at the belief is what differs.

A hard atheist could be thought in this manner to be akin to the religious claiming direct knowledge. That atheist would not only lack the belief in god(s) existence but also assert they don't believe god(s) exist because they know definitevly they don't exist. Whereas the soft atheist is merely arriving at the conclusion because the premise wholly lacks evidence. Intrinsic to that is the possibility evidence could be presented to change that atheists mind, since it was the lack of evidence that made them atheist to begin with. The 'hard atheist' is denying that possibility.

That's how I understand it at least. These are also sometimes worded 'agnostic atheist' 'gnostic atheist'.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I can certainly appreciate what you're saying I am sure there are exceptions amongst the religious. Wasn't meaning to speak for you or anyone in particular, just making a general observation. From my viewpoint most of Christendom (as a pertinent example) believes if they are good Christians they will be rewarded with Heaven. Intrinsic to that belief, since you need to be a Christian to be a good Christian, atheists, non-religious, the 'wrong faiths', won't make the cut. That's very much elevating the Christian in importance above the rest. Like infinitely so. What could make someone more special than being chosen by the creator of everything to live eternally in perfect bliss? It's truly outlandish for a Christian to make a comment like "atheists need to stop pretending like they are better". What the hell lol

I just wanted to point out that there are some who do not believe themselves special or deserving. If anyone feels they deserve heaven, their attitude toward God and honesty about themselves are very much not right.

Well…

Often what I hear is everyone is basking in sin. Everyone's a sinner and everyone is falling short in the eyes of the Lord. So why would I say they are saying they are deserving of Heaven? Simple. I am not using Bible speak. I am observing the implications of their words from an outside perspective. If a Christian believes they are sinning, falling short in the eyes of god, but accepts Jesus and everything else that particular denomination says they need to do to be saved, god will forgive and they will be permitted everlasting life next to the All Mighty. Break that down and remove the Bible speak. The person has to do certain tasks, and if they are met, that person earns the reward. Earns aka deserves.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


personally, i think people misunderstand the passages about "making the cut"
what i think the text is saying is: you are not your body. you are an eternal being. your body is a temporary environmental suit that allows the part of you that is eternal, to experience this dimension. however, you have the option, upon death of your temporary environmental suit, of not being eternal anymore (meaning no more exploration), of just going to the grave of your temp body and ending your adventures entirely. and that is the end.

or, you have the option to continue your eternal life, but you must indicate this for your records, so to speak. you must make a conscious, deliberate decision, that this is your desire, and if i get this correctly, after making this decision you must believe it or else your records will read, yes no yes no yes no no no yes maybe no yes no yes. now eternity wouldn't be a very nice place if all the people who were there thought it was okay to behave horribly, so the next step is to realize that it also your task to not behave horribly so that your eternal body isn't making eternity a carbon copy of life in this dimension.

the final part is the name of jesus, is like a key in a lock. like a magic word, if you will. to stop the reincarnation cycle and attain your eternal body in an already perfected state. so that when you do cross over, you won't have to be recycled to this planet, if you choose to remain in your eternal body.

imagine it like a guy buying a house. you have several options. one house looks almost like the house you lived in last time. another house looks even worse. and the final house, is maxxed out, with all the amenities. the new testament claims, the name of jesus, gives you the keys to the house with all the amenities.

hehe

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I did describe them by what they are. In a few posts.

Religion has dogma. Multitude of tenets, rituals, commandments, books and texts that are mandated within a given faith. And of course, belief in deity(s).

Ok. Now we may be getting somewhere. These elements listed are the elements you believe constitute a "religion". Now which of these may be done away with, and yet retain a "religion"? Or must all of them be present to be a "religion"?

Let's prune down the definition we are working with to the essentials, if it can be pruned down at all.

Are all of these elements essentials in your definition?

Lucid Lunacy
If a Christian believes they are sinning, falling short in the eyes of god, but accepts Jesus and everything else that particular denomination says they need to do to be saved, god will forgive and they will be permitted everlasting life next to the All Mighty. Break that down and remove the Bible speak. The person has to do certain tasks, and if they are met, that person earns the reward. Earns aka deserves.

That happens to be one of my bigger gripes against Christians in general. They go around saying "not by works, but by faith", and then proceed to list the works necessary to win the prize.

Doesn't make sense to me.

I think Calvinists may have a better grip on the whole "working your way into heaven" philosophy - they're pretty sure that isn't an option. Not much in Christianity ticks me off more than thinking one can get to heaven on a legalistic technicality, that they can hold their god's feet to the fire via contractual obligations which they themselves can flout at will.

Live like hell all week long then go to church on Sunday and all will be well, because you've got a contract....

My ass.

reply to post by nenothtu


personally, i think it's your own will that's making these decisions. you create your eternity or lack thereof, by your decisions. if you want it to be unpleasant, then it is. if you say it isn't real, then it isn't real for you. but you're basically using your gifts and free will, as given to you by god, to shape your future. all of these things, require decisions, you personally make. they aren't so much punishments, but decisions you've made. there's a set of rules to follow but those rules are more related to what happens after than what's happening now. but what's happening now, effects what happens later.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Philosophy does not have a dogma.
Only religion has those.
Claiming Atheism has a dogma is like saying birds have gills.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


I think you've misunderstood the intention of my posts.

I've been stating that atheism isn't a religion or religious-like. That religion has dogma. A member said that atheism has dogma. I was playing devils advocate and discussing a situation that would come the closets to atheism having dogma. Which would be when the atheist is dogmatic with the belief i.e 'hard atheist'. As I said, in my perhaps myopic experience that seems to be the vast minority.

@nenothtu, Undo writing replies.

Lucid Lunacy
Which would be when the atheist is dogmatic with the belief i.e 'hard atheist'.

The only things an atheist is concerned with is the facts.
If an atheist stance EVER becomes dogmatic...you are no longer talking about atheism anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, hard atheist or militant atheist are just made up words to describe people who haven't properly made the transition from religious to non-religious.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


If you don't believe god(s) exist you're an atheist. It's that simple. As I have said.

People use these terms to categorize the nature of that belief (non-belief if you will).

I'm in no way trying to overcomplicate a simple idea.

What you're saying about facts is the crux of what is meant here. Is the atheist claiming there is a lack of facts to substantiate the existence of god or is that atheist claiming it's a fact there is no god. Those are functionally different stances. Yet both would qualify as atheist.

If someone claimed on the outskirts of the Milky Way Galaxy a highly evolved race of bi-pedal beings descendent from dolphins live harmoniously in a thriving civilization. I wouldn't believe that. Where is the evidence? However, I wouldn't claim it's impossible, however unlikely. We don't even have the technology yet to even verify that. Still without the evidence I wouldn't believe it. My mind would surely change if the facts of their existence came to light. The 'hard atheist' is someone who denies the possibility of existence. How does that person know definitevly evidence will never come to light? The soft atheist is employing an agnostic methodology, coming to the belief god(s) don't exist because of the lack of facts, implicit to that is the understanding that position could change. Does this make sense? I'm not the one making up these terms :p It makes sense to me.

If an atheist stance EVER becomes dogmatic...you are no longer talking about atheism anymore.

I think we are in agreement that most atheists fall into what I (and others) describing 'soft atheist', 'agnostic atheist'. In that they are concerned only with the facts at hand. However, you're wrong that if an atheist becomes dogmatic with the belief that person would no longer be an atheist. There is nothing within the definition of atheism to support that. It's merely the disbelief in god(s). That person would still meet that qualification.

reply to post by apydomis

Figuratively speaking, I don't see many atheists teaching people how to fish. The only reason I recon, that atheists do anything that resembles charity is because it is a tactic used in their battle against God. Atheism is not only a rejection of God, but also a declaration of the absence of love in the life of an Atheist.

OMG.

Wow. I just got back home from the family holiday (and yes, we talked about giving thanks, and about approaches to "God")....
and since WHAT we discussed is not relevant to this thread, I won't expound here....

but reading this, what I see is someone who:

"took offense" to a declarative statement that

PRACTICAL ASSISTANCE in lieu of bibles, rosaries, prayers would be more effective actual help

(which inherently is NOTHING MORE THAN A REMINDER)

- but who, nevertheless, would have had NO PROBLEM with it....if it had been posted by the Pentecostals, or the Catholics, or ANY 'CHRISTIAN' organization;

and is trying to turn that mater-of-fact gesture into a "deliberate Christian/Catholic bash"!!



A person who then
decides (and accuses) those very people who posted the billboards of ONLY GIVING BECAUSE THEY ARE God-hating Jerks !!

That giving even though they are atheists is somehow fighting God, rather than doing what Jesus said to do?????

Wow. Territorial much? Or just uncomfortable with knowing you aren't a "better person" than the generous atheists?

Wowzawow. Amazing.
You know what? It's not about you!!

It's about people who see pragmatic solutions where they are needed, and that spending money on religious symbols (idols, anyone?) to hand out to the bereft is a waste of money compared to other things needed more than those artifacts under the circumstances ---
and who are publicly, visibly, unmistakably encouraging others who want to really help - in their own particular idiom - to consider NOT applying their efforts/dollars to purchasing and shipping objects that - while they may be 'missed' as "lost property" - can not FEED or HOUSE the victims.

You are implying they are doing it to be evil somehow. For heaven's sake.

Fellow member: your attitude sounds like one of a teenage girl who is an obsessed "fan" of a "fringe" pop group (as Mexican girls are with Gangnam right now), and who doesn't WANT others to express their fandom of the music/performers, or for the precious posters and signed photos to be widely available and appreciated .... who doesn't want the 'song' to become 'pop culture' because then it takes away the "specialness" and "mystique" of those select, elite, enlightened few who were "in on it first, before it was cool."

"Well, I liked that guy's music first! You're just a poser! You don't really appreciate or understand their message, their music -- you're just acting like that because it's 'COOL'! They don't want YOUR attention -- they only care about US VETERAN FOLLOWERS!....and you're just wanting to be 'popular' and 'with it'!"

Seriously.

Any real follower of Christ would be delighted that non-Christians are contributing, not bitter and angry that "those dirty animal atheists are 'trying to help".

("HOW DARE THEY!!! *******Gasp******** Those angry, petty, evil ATHEIST JERKS! Trying to STEAL OUR THUNDER!!!! The GALL!! I HATE THEM! They can just go to hell!!! They are FAKERS!")

Seriously. And then you accuse THEM of being "bitter".
Rethink your stance, members. Seriously.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Semantics.

Trying to categorize different levels of atheism is just the State letting the sheep do their dirty work for them...Divide and Conquor.
It's one of the oldest games in the book.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


It's really not semantics. These are important distinctions. Not in defining atheism but in understanding how atheists can differ in how they formed the belief. It's a priori vs a posteriori proposition.