Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of God whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical.
My stance:
We haven't seen any evidence supporting any deities yet and until we do it is irrational to claim to have evidence of them.
Seekster: I would point out that the Nicene Creed to this day varys only slightly from its original tenets. Heck even when I went to my Baptist Church on Easter this year we recited what was essentially the Nicene Creed (though obviously without the bit regarding the Catholic Church).
Furthermore I would point out that Jews and Muslims also believe many things that are in the Bible...doesnt make them Christian.
Seekster: I would point out that the Nicene Creed to this day varys only slightly from its original tenets. Heck even when I went to my Baptist Church on Easter this year we recited what was essentially the Nicene Creed (though obviously without the bit regarding the Catholic Church).
Furthermore I would point out that Jews and Muslims also believe many things that are in the Bible...doesnt make them Christian.
Catholic in the original Greek actually just meant Universal or Orthodox. So the Catholic church referred to in the creed is not the Catholic church as we know it, but all of Christianity as a whole.
Hazy992: Except for these people. And even if enery Marxist was an atheist, it doesn't make every atheist a Marxist. The two aren't related. Correlation =/= causation.
I can't believe I even have to explain this.
I have no problem understanding the difference between correlation and causation. I was under the impression that Atheism is a part of Marxism. I understand that there are various offshoots form Marxism, but Atheism was originally part of the Marxist worldview.
Well sorry but that just isn't the case. Atheism is not a part of Marxism. The fact that many marxists were Atheists is irrelevant.
Marx himself was a pretty staunch atheist. I'm not saying Marxism necessitates atheism now, but it was a part of the original incarnation of the philosophy.
I have no problem understanding the difference between correlation and causation. I was under the impression that Atheism is a part of Marxism. I understand that there are various offshoots form Marxism, but Atheism was originally part of the Marxist worldview.
Well sorry but that just isn't the case. Atheism is not a part of Marxism. The fact that many marxists were Atheists is irrelevant.
Marx himself was a pretty staunch atheist. I'm not saying Marxism necessitates atheism now, but it was a part of the original incarnation of the philosophy.
So you've just contradicted your original point that atheism is an integral part of Marxism
TheIronRuler: You completely disregarded all of the Faiths of the East. Fail, man, You failed. You missed 2.5 Billion people an yet you included Mormons. i'm an atheist.
Well there were limited slots on the poll, I tried to pick the ones i thought would be most applicable to the forum. Did not mean to offend any Taoists or Buddhists.
curious i havent heard someone define christian as only someone who follows the nicene creed.
I tend to follow philisophical taoism, and no im not offended although i did laugh that someone with the user name shogun missed out the major belief systems of japan but i get why you did.
Basically Ausatru/Odinism is the belief in/worship of the norse gods & godessess. It is the same religion that ancient Scandanvians and some Germanic peoples believed in.
Depending on the sect or individual person there are also different beliefs, like animism and ancestor worship, incorporated in the religion.
Hazy992: Well sorry but that just isn't the case. Atheism is not a part of Marxism. The fact that many marxists were Atheists is irrelevant.
Marx himself was a pretty staunch atheist. I'm not saying Marxism necessitates atheism now, but it was a part of the original incarnation of the philosophy.
So you've just contradicted your original point that atheism is an integral part of Marxism
I'm not an authority on Marxism, obviously. From what I have read i thought it was an important part of the worldview, at least originally. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying atheism no longer is a part of it. I've never really met a die hard Marxist so the only basis i'm going off of is what I've read, I could be mistaken on its importance now.
TheIronRuler: You completely disregarded all of the Faiths of the East. Fail, man, You failed. You missed 2.5 Billion people an yet you included Mormons. i'm an atheist.
Well there were limited slots on the poll, I tried to pick the ones i thought would be most applicable to the forum. Did not mean to offend any Taoists or Buddhists.
curious i havent heard someone define christian as only someone who follows the nicene creed.
I tend to follow philisophical taoism, and no im not offended although i did laugh that someone with the user name shogun missed out the major belief systems of japan but i get why you did.
Yeah I do see there irony there, it made me chuckle just now too. The name is because I find the history of Japan pretty interesting, and I like the Shogun total war games. I view the creed as a sort of boundary of Christianity, as in everything inside of those boundaries is up for debate. Obviously there is more to it than just the creed, but it lists all the things the early church agreed on.
Could you explain a little bit about philosophical Taoism? I don't really know too much about it.
Marx himself was a pretty staunch atheist. I'm not saying Marxism necessitates atheism now, but it was a part of the original incarnation of the philosophy.
So you've just contradicted your original point that atheism is an integral part of Marxism
I'm not an authority on Marxism, obviously. From what I have read i thought it was an important part of the worldview, at least originally. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying atheism no longer is a part of it. I've never really met a die hard Marxist so the only basis i'm going off of is what I've read, I could be mistaken on its importance now.
Could you actually clarify what you mean by saying 'atheism no longer is a part of it?' Are you saying that atheism isn't important to marxist ideology or are you saying Atheism is no longer a branch or Marxism or something? This should clear up some confusion.
Basically Ausatru/Odinism is the belief in/worship of the norse gods & godessess. It is the same religion that ancient Scandanvians and some Germanic peoples believed in.
Depending on the sect or individual person there are also different beliefs, like animism and ancestor worship, incorporated in the religion.
Woah, was browsing though to make sure no one else answered his question and saw you posted. Haven't seen you on here in ages. Welcome back brother.
OT: basically what Irish said. Though most people who follow it have similar beliefs, on the specifics they can differ greatly. That's why one of the biggest things of being an asatruer or odinist is (in my opinion) researching and reading all the material yourself to come to your own conclusions.
I'm saying atheism was a core part of the ideology of Marxism originally, and I had assumed it still was, but I seem to be wrong about the latter statement.
shogun: I'm saying atheism was a core part of the ideology of Marxism originally, and I had assumed it still was, but I seem to be wrong about the latter statement.
Oh ok I thought you were saying Atheism was actually a branch of Marxism. I must have misread you, sorry.
It may have been initially, I don't know but you do get Christian Marxists etc.
I believe in Space-Time Convergence. I believe that dark matter is converting conventional matter, baryonic matter, back into energy by folding multidimensional space-time back in onto itself. This process gives us our notion of time, and it establishes the so-called "arrow of time", meaning time can only move in one direction, forward.
I believe that dark matter is converting baryonic matter back into energy by first pushing and pulling baryonic matter into clumps, which then become gas clouds, which then is compressed, heats-up, and ignites to become suns. Around the suns planets form in a similar process. And when large suns collapse black holes are created.
A black hole is a concentration of matter so dense that not even light can escape its gravitational pull. And inside the hole is a singularity which is a "space" of non dimensional space-time. It is a "space" where time and space no longer exist. It is, in fact, a "space" of pure energy, the same energy which existed before the Big Bang.
I believe that this process of Space-Time Convergence is the force behind life, evolution, and several thousand years of human civilization.
Life is a product of Space-Time Convergence because the complex molecules and chemicals that make-up life were created within the stars, as a by-product of the process of converting matter into energy. Life is also feed through the heat generated by the stars.
But there is a metaphorical element to it as well, for I believe that the process of space-time convergence is inside life, acting from within it, or being channeled through it. In lower organisms we call it the "survival instinct". In higher organisms we call it the "Will", the sprit, the soul. Basically it's the innate desire of all living things to transcend dimensional limits of space and time, to grow, endure, to procreate, multiply, and spread-out across space and time.
Evolution is simply the process of life maximizing its ability to expand and transcend its spacial and temporal bounds. A species too adapted to a particular space or time, a specific environment or food source, does not survive.
Man is unique in that his innate desire to transcend space and time is enhanced by his ability to create tools and artifacts. Early inventions such as the wheel became the basis for most important civilizations. Roads, ship design, and the harnessing of wind power further the growth, and turned civilizations into empires. History has shown that the culture with the most advance technology of space-time convergence became the dominant social, political, and military power of its time.
Today, space-time convergence is represented best by our modern mechanisms of transportations and communication. It might seem strange but the fact is, planes, trains, and ever the humble automobile, are all icons of man's homage to the cosmic will to converge space-time. And above it all stands the interplanetary vehicle, our chariot to the stars, and man's ultimate expression of his innate desire to converge space-time.
I agree that is absolutely imperative, but evidence for the trinity is found throughout the bible.
A lot of people would say that there's plenty of evidence in the Bible for the opposite point of view, as well. In any case, there's quite a few Christian sects that don't believe that the Father and the Son are two parts of a trinity, and say that they are separate entities and not two parts of a trinity.
For example, a lot of Christians point to Matthew 26:39 as evidence that the Father and Son are separate entities: "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." They argue that the passage only makes sense if the Father and the Son are separate entities. "Your will be done, not mine" implies that they have different wills.
Anyway, it's an interesting theological discussion, but let's just leave it at saying that a lot of people are going to be Christians, to follow the Bible and be followers of Christ, and yet not agree with some of the interpretations of the Bible that you were probably taught in Sunday school or wherever.
Istvan: Agnostic atheist for sure. Other things seem illogical.
Also welcome to the escapist, feel free to flesh out the opening post about your personal beliefs as it adds discussion value.
Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of God whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical.
. Could you try and rephrase that? I didn't understand your argument. Perhaps it is because I am ignorant.
The appeal to ignorance is the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true.
Istvan: Agnostic atheist for sure. Other things seem illogical.
Also welcome to the escapist, feel free to flesh out the opening post about your personal beliefs as it adds discussion value.
Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of God whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical.
By this statement do you also feel that all religions that do not believe in your god are also ignorant?
Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of God whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical.
My stance:
We haven't seen any evidence supporting any deities yet and until we do it is irrational to claim to have evidence of them.
How does illogical.
Captcha:
teh inter webs
The Bible is evidence. You can use parts of the Bible that relate to historical facts.
KlLLUMINATI: The appeal to ignorance is the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true.
But Atheism is based on the claim that whatever has not been proved true is false. [quote="KlLLUMINATI" post="528.367368.14299924]The Bible is evidence. You can use parts of the Bible that relate to historical facts.[/quote]Have you ever heard of historical fiction? Something written in a book is not evidence on its own.
Edit:dammit, second quote went wrong, but you get the idea.
KlLLUMINATI: The appeal to ignorance is the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true.
But Atheism is based on the claim that whatever has not been proved true is false. [quote="KlLLUMINATI" post="528.367368.14299924]The Bible is evidence. You can use parts of the Bible that relate to historical facts.[/quote]Have you ever heard of historical fiction? Something written in a book is not evidence on its own.
Edit:dammit, second quote went wrong, but you get the idea.
The Bible mentions many things about people, places and events that happened in history. The Bible also gives an accurate chronology of those people, places and events. Modern archaeology has confirmed that the Bible has never made one error, or given any clear contradictions in all of its text in matters of historical fact.
KlLLUMINATI: The appeal to ignorance is the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true.
But Atheism is based on the claim that whatever has not been proved true is false. [quote="KlLLUMINATI" post="528.367368.14299924]The Bible is evidence. You can use parts of the Bible that relate to historical facts.[/quote]Have you ever heard of historical fiction? Something written in a book is not evidence on its own.
Edit:dammit, second quote went wrong, but you get the idea.
The Bible mentions many things about people, places and events that happened in history. The Bible also gives an accurate chronology of those people, places and events. Modern archaeology has confirmed that the Bible has never made one error, or given any clear contradictions in all of its text in matters of historical fact.
KlLLUMINATI: The Bible mentions many things about people, places and events that happened in history. The Bible also gives an accurate chronology of those people, places and events. Modern archaeology has confirmed that the Bible has never made one error, or given any clear contradictions in all of its text in matters of historical fact.
The Sharpe books mention many people, places and events from history, giving an accurate chronology of them, but the Sharpe books are still historical fiction. As for the archaeology bit, the validity of historical events mentioned in the book are not in question, it's the non historical events, like the flood. For example, Homer's Iliad is a depiction of the Siege of Troy, which has been proven by modern archaeology to be an actual historical event, but this does not mean that Achilles was really immortal, or that Apollo sent a plague to punish the greeks.
The Bible mentions many things about people, places and events that happened in history. The Bible also gives an accurate chronology of those people, places and events. Modern archaeology has confirmed that the Bible has never made one error, or given any clear contradictions in all of its text in matters of historical fact.
Well, it mentions some people and events from history, it also mentions a lot of fiction. It's about the same as Homefront in that regard. As for the bible being infallible that is a christian religious doctrine, not to be confused with science.
DJjaffacake: But Atheism is based on the claim that whatever has not been proved true is false. [quote="KlLLUMINATI" post="528.367368.14299924]The Bible is evidence. You can use parts of the Bible that relate to historical facts.[/quote]Have you ever heard of historical fiction? Something written in a book is not evidence on its own.
Edit:dammit, second quote went wrong, but you get the idea.
The Bible mentions many things about people, places and events that happened in history. The Bible also gives an accurate chronology of those people, places and events. Modern archaeology has confirmed that the Bible has never made one error, or given any clear contradictions in all of its text in matters of historical fact.
You got an example?
Carvings of an ancient philistine warriors were found among ruins in Thebes, Egypt. They were dated to around 1200bc around the time of Joshua. The Bible mentions the philistines quite a bit. The hieroglyphs of Egypt mention being invaded by the sea peoples and among them were the Philistines.
The Bible mentions many things about people, places and events that happened in history. The Bible also gives an accurate chronology of those people, places and events. Modern archaeology has confirmed that the Bible has never made one error, or given any clear contradictions in all of its text in matters of historical fact.
You got an example?
Carvings of an ancient philistine warriors were found among ruins in Thebes, Egypt. They were dated to around 1200bc around the time of Joshua. The Bible mentions the philistines quite a bit. The hieroglyphs of Egypt mention being invaded by the sea peoples and among them were the Philistines.
So because the Bible mentions the exsistence of the Philistines that validates the claims made by it?
The Bible mentions many things about people, places and events that happened in history. The Bible also gives an accurate chronology of those people, places and events. Modern archaeology has confirmed that the Bible has never made one error, or given any clear contradictions in all of its text in matters of historical fact.
Well, it mentions some people and events from history, it also mentions a lot of fiction. It's about the same as Homefront in that regard. As for the bible being infallible that is a christian religious doctrine, not to be confused with science.
The historical reliability of the NT and the evidence for the preservation of Jesus teachings by the early church show that NT gives us an accurate and trustworthy record of what Jesus taught.
Carvings of an ancient philistine warriors were found among ruins in Thebes, Egypt. They were dated to around 1200bc around the time of Joshua. The Bible mentions the philistines quite a bit. The hieroglyphs of Egypt mention being invaded by the sea peoples and among them were the Philistines.
So because the Bible mentions the exsistence of the Philistines that validates the claims made by it?
Carvings of an ancient philistine warriors were found among ruins in Thebes, Egypt. They were dated to around 1200bc around the time of Joshua. The Bible mentions the philistines quite a bit. The hieroglyphs of Egypt mention being invaded by the sea peoples and among them were the Philistines.
So because the Bible mentions the exsistence of the Philistines that validates the claims made by it?
Atheism isn't a worldview/belief system, it is a single belief, or rather a lack thereof - in a god. My worldview would have to be secularism, that religion should be a separate, private part of people's lives(if they want to demonstrate their religion in church - go ahead, but while running for office, please don't).
Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of God whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical.
KlLLUMINATI: Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of God whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical.
I'd say out of "Nobody has shown me evidence for this divine creator so I will not assume he exists" is a damn sight more logical than "I believe in God because a book said he's real and other people seem to believe that."
Just saying, of the two viewpoints, not believing in God until it's proven to you is the more logical approach.
KlLLUMINATI: Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of God whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical.
I'd say out of "Nobody has shown me evidence for this divine creator so I will not assume he exists" is a damn sight more logical than "I believe in God because a book said he's real and other people seem to believe that."
Just saying, of the two viewpoints, not believing in God until it's proven to you is the more logical approach.
When you become omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then the claim will be logical.
KlLLUMINATI: Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of God whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical.
I'd say out of "Nobody has shown me evidence for this divine creator so I will not assume he exists" is a damn sight more logical than "I believe in God because a book said he's real and other people seem to believe that."
Just saying, of the two viewpoints, not believing in God until it's proven to you is the more logical approach.
When you become omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then the claim will be logical.
A lot of atheists I know don't say there is no God as a total statement of fact, what they say is that until someone proves that He exists, they don't buy it.
And really, your statement can be applied to people who believe in God too. Until you are all-knowing and all that other stuff, you cannot claim with absolutely certainty that there is a God. To do so is illogical.
My stance:
We haven't seen any evidence supporting any deities yet and until we do it is irrational to claim to have evidence of them.
How does illogical.
Captcha:
teh inter
webs