FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


satanic atheism





Bluedoll
What is satanic atheism and how will affect you? I will in this post define how satanic atheism works and why it is important to recognize it. Before I continue, this let me say that this post is not pointing a finger at all atheists. In fact it is not pointing a finger at any one person but directly at this new phenomena of our modern times. As with any cult like religion, there will be followers and leaders just as there are, in other religions.

Jesus Christ started an event that continued well after the first century. We are now in the twenty-first century and still his words continue to be on the lips of many. The religion, satanic atheism, will be short lived. However it must continue for a while yet and be observed as a testament to our times. This religion is called the anti-christ in the bible. It is not a person but an anti-movement to God. It is really that simple.

The truth is and the good news is . . . it will not last long.


If someone considers this preaching, I want to make it clear to the reader that I am not perfect, I am not the answer to your prayers and I am not an angel, at least not yet. Very Happy So rather than look at me for all the answers to your questions, seek God and you will find them.

In this post, I will want to point to a way that can prove that God exists and I will direct the reader that there is a hope for better tomorrow for our world. I have great faith in God and that is why it exists in this section.
Bikerman
Well, according to Paul, anyone who rejects the divinity of Jesus is an anti-Christ. This means that there are a fairly stable number of anti-Christs in the world and the number isn't particularly soaring upwards (around 4 billion).

Many Protestants, of course, believe that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ. This was the teaching of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox and Mather, and is still a common belief in many more conservative US Protestant churches.
deanhills
I did a search on satanic atheism, and could not find a definition. I found a description and definition of satanism though. So is the term satanic atheism a correct one? Or is it more atheistic satanism?

Atheism is an absence of belief in God/s. Satanism looks like an upside religion to me. So how would atheistic satanism be possible as it almost sounds likie a contradiction to me? Sounds almost like satanism without making a religion out of it?

Bikerman, perhaps you are more knowledgeable of what atheistic satanism is, and is not? As I can't quite wrap my brain cells around the term.
Bikerman
I think it is a nonsense term, to be quite honest.
It is technically possible for an atheist to believe in some sort of a devil/demon (just not a deity) but I don't know any who do, and I can't imagine any wanting to....
Ankhanu
Most forms of Satanism, from my research, are, in fact, atheistic. Most do not believe in God, nor do they believe in Satan. For them, Satan is a symbol and nothing more, a symbol of individualism, questioning, self-empowerment, and something to challenge the preconceptions of Christians and, in some cases, make them uncomfortable. LeVayan Satanism falls into this category (and is probably the most commonly encountered)

There are theistic versions of Satanism, however, most stemming directly from Christian belief, worshiping the fallen angel of the Bible as a real entity and rejecting the salvation of Christ and the supreme power of God.

Bluedoll, I'm not entirely clear on your definition of Satanic atheism and its scope, so I'm going to consult you, rather than God for clarification Wink
What you state in the OP kind of implies that you're using Satanic atheism as an umbrella term for any atheist who denies God in a rather general sense... or at least, that's how I ended up reading it. However, I'm not really sure that the intent that I gathered was the intent you meant to portray... I have a feeling you may have meant something a little more restricted and less broadbased. Obviously, in the broader sense that I initially gathered, there are no leaders, no organization of any sort, but that's a trait you have attributed to it. Organization is an aspect of, say LeVayanism, however, which implies a more restrictive definition.
Bikerman
Ankhanu wrote:
Most forms of Satanism, from my research, are, in fact, atheistic. Most do not believe in God, nor do they believe in Satan. For them, Satan is a symbol and nothing more, a symbol of individualism, questioning, self-empowerment, and something to challenge the preconceptions of Christians and, in some cases, make them uncomfortable. LeVayan Satanism falls into this category (and is probably the most commonly encountered)
OK, fair enough. I wouldn't really call that a belief system or a religion though - would you?
watersoul
Where is the satanic element in 'innocent' and basic atheism Bluedoll?

I don't believe in anything apart from the stuff I see in my 'real' life, but equally I don't have any relationship or connection with this mythical figure commonly known as Satan.
This isn't unique to me either, very few of my friends believe in any gods but we all live good lives helping fellow man etc, and none of us subscribe to any satanistic beliefs or practices.

Just because a person doesn't believe in a god (or more specifically a Christian God) puts them in a 'satanistic camp' by default, is that what you're saying? I'm also interested to know who are these followers and 'leaders' you mentioned?

...or am I perhaps incorrectly understanding the message of the OP?
Bluedoll
These things are real. There is a God. Satan does exist. Any there are forces at work to either explain the truths or tear the truths down.

If we honestly seek out, we can get proof on an individual basis that God does exist. No one can do it for you or supply physical evidence. Finding proof of God’s existence does not mean worship (though one could think in those terms) or giving up something and to have an endless discussion of whether God existence can be physically proven or not proven is fruitless. It may create great lines of endless debate but that is all it will achieve.

A discussion therefore on this topic without at the very least a consideration of the possibility of spiritual realms, without even a reasonable consideration in line to the existence of God or Satan can seem unreasonable and nonsense for an atheist. I understand this. All I can do is connect the two. It is up to the individual to pursue it as they wish.

Forgive my simple illustration as I will not make a claim that I am all knowledgeable on everything but it seems to me with my limited knowledge exploration of the spiritual world could be compared to a science experiment. A good scientist looking for substance (keeping in mind that such a thing did exist) that would not contain itself in a lab beaker would not continue to try to pour solutions into it but use another experiment that used photosensitive plates or something that would prove the substance exists.

To continually, ask for physical evidence for the existence of God by asking for proofs or using philosophical arguments is going to get you nowhere. The only way to proof God’s existence is to seek it out by prayer and ask for proof to be delivered to you personally. No one can force you or demand it of you. It is an individuals choice.

God does exist. Although Adam and Eve knew of God’s existence well, the tree symbolized something very important and the purpose of it still is very important today. That is the focus of this post. We are at a time period where I am almost certain not many people will disagree we (the human race) are seriously in trouble. This is a time period where events will take place and one of these events is happening right now before our eyes. It is question of who are you going to believe. The teachings of Jesus Christ or the teaching of religious atheists?

_________________________________________

I do not want to make my posts too long.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-122858.html

I will address all the remarks have I read here in this post thus far but you are going to have to be patient with me.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Forgive my simple illustration as I will not make a claim that I am all knowledgeable on everything but it seems to me with my limited knowledge exploration of the spiritual world could be compared to a science experiment. A good scientist looking for substance (keeping in mind that such a thing did exist) that would not contain itself in a lab beaker would not continue to try to pour solutions into it but use another experiment that used photosensitive plates or something that would prove the substance exists.
No such experiment can work for God, unless you have a suggestion that everyone has missed...?
Quote:
To continually, ask for physical evidence for the existence of God by asking for proofs or using philosophical arguments is going to get you nowhere. The only way to proof God’s existence is to seek it out by prayer and ask for proof to be delivered to you personally. No one can force you or demand it of you. It is an individuals choice.
And when the Hindu does this, and finds Shiva and Vishnu, are they getting the right proof? When the Jew prays and finds that Jesus doesn't answer but Yaweh does...are they just mistaken? When the Buddhist meditates and finds no Deity, just an 'energy', is that incorrect? When the Pagan prays to the 'Earth Mother' and gets their 'proof' is that correct?

It is interesting that over history many people have tried this personal approach to the 'proof' of God, and found that whatever God or Gods they believed in did indeed 'reveal' themselves - Ra, Mars, Venus, Aphrodite, Thor - their existence is 'proved' using this method.

What it shows is that people will convince themselves of what they WISH to believe.
Quote:
God does exist. Although Adam and Eve knew of God’s existence well, the tree symbolized something very important and the purpose of it still is very important today. That is the focus of this post. We are at a time period where I am almost certain not many people will disagree we (the human race) are seriously in trouble. This is a time period where events will take place and one of these events is happening right now before our eyes. It is question of who are you going to believe. The teachings of Jesus Christ or the teaching of religious atheists?
Adam and Eve didn't really exist - it is a parable. You used the correct word 'symbolised' - ie it is a metaphor, not a factual account.

MANY people would disagree that the human race is in serious trouble. We live twice as long as we did a century ago. Our standard of living (in the West) is luxurious beyond the dreams of even our Grandparents and the threat of global extinction has declined markedly since the cold war years.
In the words of someone or other 'you have never had it so good'.
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
These things are real. There is a God. Satan does exist. Any there are forces at work to either explain the truths or tear the truths down.
For me it is more about good and evil, than God and Satan. God to me is omnipotent. Embraces everything. And I can't fathom God. I think when one transfers one's human attributes to God, one would run into real trouble as then God would have to become as imperfect as we seem to be.

Good can never exist on its own. There is evil everywhere, even in ourselves. The objective is to win on the good side of good and evil as much as we can. Otherwise one would live in a kind of hell. We also have to be able to recognize evil and be able to forgive ourselves for it. I do believe that some people are mostly evil. Either by circumstances beyond their help, or just being physically unable to feel any right or wrong, and unable to feel remorse when they do harm to others. There are real evil human beings who relish to do harm to others all of the time. But as long as there are more people who can feel right or wrong, or who can feel real remorse for having done something evil, either unintentionally or intentionally, than people who are genuinely evil, the human race must be winning its battles against evil.

I don't see atheism as synonymous with evil. I think atheists fight the same battles in themselves as we do, i.e. trying to be good most of the time. They just follow a different path. However, they do seem to be overly focused on reason and science. Too much reason cannot always be a good thing and could stand in the way of many discoveries that cannot be measured in a lab.
Ankhanu
I think it should be mentioned that "atheist" is not synonymous with "skeptic". There are many atheists who are accepting of religious teachings (obviously not theistic ones), Buddhists, which make up a significant portion of the human population, are a fine example. There are others, who are more focused on reason, and even some who are focused on science... but the two are not prerequisites of an atheist stance.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
I think it should be mentioned that "atheist" is not synonymous with "skeptic". There are many atheists who are accepting of religious teachings (obviously not theistic ones), Buddhists, which make up a significant portion of the human population, are a fine example. There are others, who are more focused on reason, and even some who are focused on science... but the two are not prerequisites of an atheist stance.
Good point, thanks Ankhanu. Somehow, however, I've never been able to see Buddhists as atheists. I have Buddhist friends and they have their little altars with personal artifacts etc. and we are perfectly comfortable with discussing spiritual matters. It always seem to be very light hearted. Not of the serious science having to prove things variety. For me they don't reason like atheists, i.e. pure reason and science. I am aware they have been classified as atheists, but for me it is the proverbial case of walk like a duck, sit like a duck, but ain't ducks. Smile
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
For me they don't reason like atheists, i.e. pure reason and science. I am aware they have been classified as atheists, but for me it is the proverbial case of walk like a duck, sit like a duck, but ain't ducks. Smile


That's entirely based upon you developing a mistaken idea of what it is to be atheist. Atheist is a really, really broad category that does not really impart any kind of qualities upon the labeled. All it means is a lack of theism, nothing more, it imparts no definition of what that person believes or any position of any kind, aside from the one defining lack of belief. All other attributes assigned to atheists as a group are constructs of the claimant.

I'll use an even broader analogy. I am alive. This tells you that I have all the base characters of living things. Beyond that, there are many qualities of living things that cannot be immediately inferred from the label. Does "alive" imply that I am a vertebrate, human, thinking... that I have no cell walls? No, of course not. While these characters are, in my case, correct, they are not correct of the plant next to me, which is also alive. The plant next to me doesn't fit any of those four characters. The Mycoplasma pneumoniae that were inhabiting my lungs at the beginning of the month only shared one of those four characters.

The reason and science aspects of atheism that you attribute to the label are not universal; they do fit many of the atheists that are vocal about their atheism on Frih, but are by no means close to universal.
Bikerman
But this is another misconception.
Atheists are not all material humanists. That is simply one strand of atheism.
I keep repeating this, but it doesn't seem to stick, so one more time:
an atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s). Period.
They may think religion is wonderful. They may think science stinks. They may believe in fairies and pixies - that has nothing to do with them being an atheist.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Forgive my simple illustration as I will not make a claim that I am all knowledgeable on everything but it seems to me with my limited knowledge exploration of the spiritual world could be compared to a science experiment. A good scientist looking for substance (keeping in mind that such a thing did exist) that would not contain itself in a lab beaker would not continue to try to pour solutions into it but use another experiment that used photosensitive plates or something that would prove the substance exists.


One of the neat things about science is that not all the disciplines have the same level of rigidity for explanation and observation of phenomenon.
One neat aspect of one of my areas of study/work in ecology is the idea of emergent properties. These are really difficult properties to distill in a lab and observe with a microscope or store in a beaker... Emergent properties can be hearkened to the total being more than the sum of its parts, they're aspects of something that only emerge through the synergy of various parts working together. They can't be studied by breaking the system down, rather, they can only be studied as a property of the system as a whole.
In ecology, as is likely with the God concept, one must not lose sight of the forest for the trees. While the trees are important, so is the system that is composed of the trees, which has properties no tree itself possesses. In observation of the full system, greater understanding of how it comes together and the role of all its parts in creating the greater reality that is the forest might be known.

But, sometimes, there are trees, but no forest... sometimes the trees are just trees in a loose aggregate without the properties of forest.

Bluedoll wrote:
... The only way to proof God’s existence is to seek it out by prayer and ask for proof to be delivered to you personally. No one can force you or demand it of you. It is an individuals choice.


This is a stance that I've never really understood. Most atheists I've known, more specifically, those who came to atheism from theistic backgrounds (which covers most I've known), have come to their atheistic stances following long periods of questing. My own position has been returned to following a long period of questing. In almost all cases, we have asked for evidence, for "proof", for a reason to believe, and in most cases, the asking has been earnest. In the end, the evidence never came.

In our cases, what reason is there to believe, if the object of belief can't be bothered to say "oh, yeah, I'm here."
Bluedoll
Quote:
an atheist is someone who does not believe


. . . but the athiest continues to preach religiously about God

I think a lot of posts that have appeared in these dominated atheist spaces has showed me once again, the atheist point of view is exactly like talking personally to Satan.

If one reads the words of Jesus Christ and considers his meanings and then compares them to the words of Satan (check out these forum posts!) then one can make a choice as to what a person wants to believe and what they choose not to believe in. I know I have. It is after all a personal choice.

Well, I came here to discuss, not to argue, or debate with supplied proof and evidence. My choice, is that perhaps, it is better to leave this ‘place’ because I have found that ‘our boards’ of satanic atheism ideas which fill up these spaces are trees of fruitage of little value rotting on the vine!

Quote:
In almost all cases, we have asked for evidence, for "proof", for a reason to believe, and in most cases, the asking has been earnest. In the end, the evidence never came. In our cases, what reason is there to believe, if the object of belief can't be bothered to say "oh, yeah, I'm here."


Mankind has always had the tools and an environment to live a peaceful life in prosperity and security and was quite able to make the world a beautiful place to live in but mankind has not accomplished that, left on his own.

Unfortunately, the state of the world conditions is headed for disaster and is doomed to mankind’s own hand not God’s and when the world crashes (economically and environmentally) with war seemingly to be the only solution and all our dominate men in this world can do nothing to stop it. . . what then?

“Oh, yeah, I am here?”
Bikerman
Quote:
trees of fruitage of little value rotting on the vine!
Here we go again...

Much more coherent to leave the 'age' out of the fruit; and, by definition, fruit on a tree cannot be rotting on a vine...
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
In almost all cases, we have asked for evidence, for "proof", for a reason to believe, and in most cases, the asking has been earnest. In the end, the evidence never came. In our cases, what reason is there to believe, if the object of belief can't be bothered to say "oh, yeah, I'm here."


Mankind has always had the tools and an environment to live a peaceful life in prosperity and security and was quite able to make the world a beautiful place to live in but mankind has not accomplished that, left on his own.

Unfortunately, the state of the world conditions is headed for disaster and is doomed to mankind’s own hand not God’s and when the world crashes (economically and environmentally) with war seemingly to be the only solution and all our dominate men in this world can do nothing to stop it. . . what then?

“Oh, yeah, I am here?”


I'm not following...
What does this have to do with answers that can only be achieved through prayer not being answered when prayed for? I'm feeling a little dense here Razz

On a side note, here's a nice little talk by Stephen Pinker on declines in violence in modern times. The statistics are a bit of an eye opener against our limited single-lifetime concept of the times we live in.
Bluedoll
What we need to do is clarify. When writing comments with three little dots, there should be a space between that last letter and the dot and there should also be a space between the dots.

This is the proper way . . .

This way would be improper...

Bikerman this is the way, I see you constantly making your comments...

Perhaps we could bring this up in suggestions or perhaps we could write to the moderators about this and ask their opinion? Better still, we could write a standard, not a rule mind you but a long winded guideline and use that as a sticky in all the topics?

Something like this.

When making dots always follow the correct format. If you do not, some taunting fool might nit pick it! So remember children always use correct dots on your comments or we might just have to make a stupid post about it.

Ankhanu sometimes we should listen to our feelings.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Ankhanu sometimes we should listen to our feelings.


Sure, but your and my feelings on the subject of the OP differ (though you haven't yet addressed my request for clarification earlier, so I'm not entirely certain on that point in this context); does that imply that we're both correct?
Bikerman
Quote:
What we need to do is clarify. When writing comments with three little dots, there should be a space between that last letter and the dot and there should also be a space between the dots.


LOL...Your knowledge of English is on a par with your knowledge of scripture - partial and parochial. In both cases you see your group (be it Christians or Americans) as the 'right' group and others as wrong.
Here's the news - the English language was used for quite a long time before it was mangled in the US and we happen to quite like the English use of English. In that use, the ellipsis (that is the name for the 3 dots) is NOT double-spaced. In the US it IS double spaced, but since I'm not in the US, the version I used is correct. So, nice try, but no coconut.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Here's the news - the English language was used for quite a long time before it was mangled in the US and we happen to quite like the English use of English. In that use, the ellipsis (that is the name for the 3 dots) is NOT double-spaced. In the US it IS double spaced, but since I'm not in the US, the version I used is correct. So, nice try, but no coconut.
Depends on what version of English English you are comparing with American English. I found an article from the British Council that points this out:
Quote:
Everyone knows that you can study the English language for years and still not understand a native speaker of English when you meet one. Everyone knows that native speakers say a lot of things that you can’t find in any dictionary. Well, here’s a secret for you: a lot of British people can’t understand each other either!
Source: http://www.englishonline.org.cn/en/vocabulary-grammar/read-about-uk/cant-speak#

I found this interesting Cambridge test for testing one's English
http://googlear.englishtown.com/online/lp/OnlineStudent_CambridgeQuiz_Global.aspx?path=MEST_EN&lng=ar&ps=y&etag=GGARC_
Bluedoll
No co co nut you say? Oh piety! Well that may be so but as I poor me cup of tay, I may need to just squeeze a little lemon into the cup for flavour. Oh my! No lemon in the ice box, you say, then I will pfir to use a little lime to die. In the words of the mighty kings......................... my heavens, I feel like I am in some military camp with the oh pee and we all be needin’ to have clarification swinging around this perfected place of literary corrected works of most learned professsssssorssssssssereeeeees. I do thank God, I not be sit in that class! Because of complete lack of interest, I hereby do formally leave this post unless his magisty’s have something else to say about nuttin much atall?
ocalhoun
Well, to be fair, you shouldn't be a grammar nazi without being an absolutely perfect grammar expert.
(Or people will just turn it right back on you and point out your mistakes.)
...And even if you are a perfect grammar expert, grammar nazism won't win you many friends.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, to be fair, you shouldn't be a grammar nazi without being an absolutely perfect grammar expert.
(Or people will just turn it right back on you and point out your mistakes.)
...And even if you are a perfect grammar expert, grammar nazism won't win you many friends.
But who is an absolutely perfect grammar expert these days? I was particularly interested in the last paragraph of the article I quoted in my previous posting that was written by the British Council following some research:
Quote:
Research commissioned by the British Council shows that 94 per cent of the English spoken in the world today is spoken between non-native speakers of the language. In fact, when we think about ‘international English’, there is no such thing as a native or non-native speaker. The UK no longer owns the English language.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/croatia-english-uk-culture-articles-02-language.pdf

Also refer to an article by the British Council BBC on:
Quote:
Even though 94% of the English that’s spoken in the world today is used between people whose first language is not English (English Next, David Graddol), such speakers are still concerned with being able to communicate successfully with someone whose first language is English. These web pages on UK Languages and Cultures provide resources to help teachers become familiar with the varied languages, dialects and regional cultures of the UK.

British Council Online also provides free online teaching in cooperation with Alison for improving one's English (both native as well as second language users of English):
Quote:
In partnership with ALISON, a training company offering free online courses and certification on a variety of subject areas, British Council has produced over 600 hours of interactive, multimedia English language courses: British Council Online English Suite. The course is adapted from the original British Council Online English Suite.

British Council Online English Suite includes six sequential courses from pre-intermediate to upper-intermediate, ending in a course preparing learners for the First Certificate exam. The courses also prepare learners for other English language qualifications such as ESL, ESOL, IELTS and TOEFL.

The courses are all self-access and learners can go through them at their own speed. Each course consists of six modules, each with five units. The courses include activities such as listening, drag and drop, matching exercises, gap-filling and multiple choice tasks. They also feature interactive, real-life situations with native speakers of English to gives learners practical opportunities to improve their fluency and understanding.

The courses are all free and can be accessed on the ALISON website:
http://alison.com/course/category.php?id=11
ocalhoun
Well, it is arguable that the UK no longer 'owns' English...
But,
deanhills wrote:

Quote:
Research commissioned by the British Council shows that 94 per cent of the English spoken in the world today is spoken between non-native speakers of the language. In fact, when we think about ‘international English’, there is no such thing as a native or non-native speaker. The UK no longer owns the English language.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/croatia-english-uk-culture-articles-02-language.pdf

There is still such a thing as a native or non-native speaker.

If your first language was English, you are a native English speaker. If your first language was something else, and then you learned English, you are not a native English speaker.
Whatever language you grew up speaking is your native language.

If I learn 'international' Spanish, does that make me a native Spanish speaker?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, it is arguable that the UK no longer 'owns' English...
But,
deanhills wrote:

Quote:
Research commissioned by the British Council shows that 94 per cent of the English spoken in the world today is spoken between non-native speakers of the language. In fact, when we think about ‘international English’, there is no such thing as a native or non-native speaker. The UK no longer owns the English language.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/croatia-english-uk-culture-articles-02-language.pdf

There is still such a thing as a native or non-native speaker.

If your first language was English, you are a native English speaker. If your first language was something else, and then you learned English, you are not a native English speaker.
Whatever language you grew up speaking is your native language.

If I learn 'international' Spanish, does that make me a native Spanish speaker?
Totally agreed. I believe the articles I quoted also distinguished between the two. And it is also obvious that the use of the language by the two would be variable. What is interesting however is that English is evolving all of the time, even in England, especially if you look at the diagram below. The articles showed that England has challenges of its own with regard to English being "mangled" by its native speakers. So pointing fingers outside the UK with regard to "mangling" English is not necessarily accurate.
Bluedoll
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, to be fair, you shouldn't be a grammar nazi without being an absolutely perfect grammar expert.
(Or people will just turn it right back on you and point out your mistakes.)
...And even if you are a perfect grammar expert, grammar nazism won't win you many friends.
@ocalhoun

Who are you talking to?
Ankhanu
So uh, atheists are Satan's tools...
Bluedoll
Let me put it this way, everyone has a choice as to who they want to follow. I will not say being an atheist is following Satan, that is up to the individual. I will say that preaching that God is monster and making suggestions that others are stupid for believing in their religious choice is certainly supporting Satan, yes.

The topic's title states that atheism (not individual people) but atheism is a religion when it is applied to discredit, change peoples minds about God. I am talking about what is happening in the world today. Religion is changing in the world, some of these changes are good ones, atheists have actually helped remove some of the wrongs that religions have created however religions have also done some very good things as well.

But please make note, worldly religion is not the main focus of this post. Religions in the world are just what we see happening in the world.

Regardless of what you believe in, anyone should be able to see there is a very distingue difference between Jesus Christ and Satan and understanding that difference does shed light on the op.

Jesus Christ will always honour God while Satan on the other hand enjoys watching mankind repel God.

The issue is always about rulership. Will mankind actually create a world of peace and security or will mankind ruin the world. All out nuclear war or total environmental damage are but two ways to make ruin happen.

If I were to preach to anyone, it would be to believe what you want but be aware that you are involved in religion when you discuss it. For that reason do not slander God or things you do not believe in or understand but go about your business peacefully.
Ankhanu
For cleanliness, I'll use footnotes rather than parenthetic comments.

Clearly, Jesus and Satan are different, this is obvious. One example is in clarity; Jesus is pretty well defined* in the Abahamic religions**, while Satan is somewhat nebulously defined in scriptures, and often referred to by inference or symbol rather than direct statement.

Regarding believing what you want but keeping your mouth shut, I can't say I can fully agree with you on that one… nor, obviously can you believe yourself. You have very strong views and opinions on the nature of God, Jesus, Satan and natural reality, and you seem to find it important to educate people on the dangers of Satan and the virtues of the God/Jesus matrix***. Likewise, people of other philosophical bents are just as interested in educating others of their virtues so that others may understand them, and, perhaps, see their merits. Personally I feel this is an important aspect of the human condition, it helps us both understand others and, perhaps more importantly, helps us understand ourselves.

Obviously, if one subscribes to a particular world view they believe it superior to all others… this is implicit in the fact that one holds the view that they do, rather than converting to another. To accept one world view is to reject (at least temporarily) all others. You've rejected a humanist or skeptic's world view in taking the one you have, much as I have (at least temporarily) rejected your view that accepts God and Satan as anything more than allegories. I don't accept that there is a rulership issue at play on Earth between God and Satan**** and that all anthropogenic strife is, indeed, anthropogenic. We've certainly been mucking things up in the world, but I cannot see how accepting the truth of Jesus would actually change people. In fact, isn't the sacrifice of Jesus supposed to absolve us of these terrible things we do because we're human? I'd rather actual personal responsibility, thanks. There is choice in who we want to follow, you're certainly correct there. Some of us actually choose to simply not follow either.

The enemy of my enemy is not by definition my friend. Such as it is with atheism and Satan.


* while well defined, there are inconsistencies in character and story as well, depending on which elements of scripture are referenced, but this is somewhat minor to the overall concept of who/what Jesus is claimed to be
** though Christianity defines him differently than Judaism and Islam and Mormons, for example, define him differently than other Christians
*** to be clear, I'm not referencing a popular movie franchise here, I'm referring to the concept of trinity
**** and from what I know of scripture, limited as it is, the Earthly realm was given to Satan to rule (John 12:31, 2nd Corinthians 4:4); I could stand correction if appropriate
Bluedoll
John 12:31
Now, there is a judging of this world and the ruler of this world will be cast out and yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth will draw men of all sorts of men to me” – Jesus Christ (and this happened.)

Corinthians 4:3
If now, the good news we (the early Christians) declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing (this will happen too) among whom the god (Satan) of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers . . .

__________________________________


I choose not to use the phrase the world was given to. It is rather, a choice for men to make.

Choosing atheism as a religion is choosing to go along with Satanic beliefs whether you are aware of it or not. Mankind can seek God or reject God.

Yes, I do believe in freedom of speech. When atheism declares to denounce and discredit God in the courtyards, this however is more than mere discussion. It is a satanic religion. I also believe in the freedom of religion.
Ankhanu
Could you provide your definition of religion? I have a feeling it differs from the standard uses of the word.
Bluedoll
Yes, my definition probably does but then who’s standard?




God created the heavens and the earth in six days (lose your calculator) and in the seven day ......................................

Abel and Cain started the first religion. A religion is something you believe in, something you talk about, something related to .............................


God


Present Day
If you talk about God, the bible, you talk religion, you are doing religion. Publishing, debating about what is in the bible, is a religious activity.


If someone says well I am a atheist and do not believe in all that crap, that is one thing.
If that person just does their business, writing love letters or php or whatever it is they do then that is one thing.

Debating about what is in the bible to the extent of looking up scriptures and then translating those scriptures into what they think it means and then publishing it - is doing religion. That action is influencing others to a specific point of view about what God is and what people should believe in. They can not say they are atheists that believe in nothing and not religious when in reality publish to people telling them what to believe, debating with them, trying to convince them they are right about the bible. That is a religious activity. They are talking religion, They are quoting the bible and talking about religious subjects. It is exactly what worldly religions do. They take the bible and they discuss it. Fine, just do not hide behind a mask of non-involvement. In reality, if religious study has to do with questioning false doctrines, I am sure God smiles.


That is why atheism is a religion and it does influence other people. And it is just not happening on a message boards, it is happening in all systems, all over the world. The problem is some of the religious message that is being pushed is false information (satanic).
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Yes, my definition probably does but then who’s standard?

The Oxford English Dictionary is a really fine place to start when curious about the standard definitions of English words. Any reputable English dictionary will do, really.


Regarding the rest of your post, I've gotta say your definition of religion is a curious one, but it is the context of the thread, I suppose, so it's the one we've got to use due to constraints of the Faith forum.
Let me see if I have this straight. Non-belief in and of itself is not Satan's work, it is a personal choice, but when one shares their lack of belief or seeks to educate others on the position, that is the work of Satan; correct? If it is private (non-)belief it is ok, but once it goes public it becomes religion.

If for some imaginary reason everybody suddenly (or gradually) became non-believers, but no one discussed it… would Satan still be involved?
Bluedoll
Quote:
Let me see if I have this straight. Non-belief in and of itself is not Satan's work, it is a personal choice, but when one shares their lack of belief or seeks to educate others on the position, that is the work of Satan; correct?


No, I am not saying it that way. I would say non belief is double talk. What we do believe is much more accurate. If what we are doing is educating others about religion then that belief either agrees with Jesus Christ or against (satanic) and we have the freedom to do so.

Quote:
If it is private (non-)belief it is ok, but once it goes public it becomes religion. If for some imaginary reason everybody suddenly (or gradually) became non-believers, but no one discussed it… would Satan still be involved?


Keeping in mind that we are now talking specifically about religious topics out of the bible, our words we use whether they be in dark places or not, private or public will come from some source. Unless you make a claim that your religious idea is yours and yours alone, would not similar belief’s be shared by others?

Some interpretations of the bible are righteous while others are not.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
So pointing fingers outside the UK with regard to "mangling" English is not necessarily accurate.
I thought it was clear from the context that I was being slightly facetious when I made that comment. The general point I made was that there are indeed different uses of English and that my usage in the case in question was correct for general UK use of English. The original point/correction I made was not one of 'style' or 'idiom', but one of basic grammar and syntax.

As for the wider point about people in the UK not understanding each other - this is largely unconnected with the actual comprehension/construction of English. The UK has a very wide range of accents and idiom. I have difficulty understanding many regional accents, even though I am English. Come to that, many people would find my own use of idiom completely incomprehensible, were I to revert to the broad Lancashire accent and idiom that I used as a youth.
If you have seen a film called 'Kes' then you will know what I mean. 'Kes' was set in my part of the UK and includes actors using the accent that I was brought-up with. The film was actually sub-titled because the director (Ken Loach) knew that even native English speakers would have trouble following the dialogue. Alternatively you might have come across Fred Dibnah (RIP) on the box. Fred came from my home-town.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Some interpretations of the bible are righteous while others are not.
And who decides?
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
Some interpretations of the bible are righteous while others are not.
And who decides?
not you deare
Bikerman
Ahh, so I am not competent to interpret the bible, but you are?
Hmm, given that I have at least a working knowledge of 1st century history, some familiarity with Latin and Greek and a few years of formal theology, I wonder what you think counts as qualification?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So pointing fingers outside the UK with regard to "mangling" English is not necessarily accurate.
I thought it was clear from the context that I was being slightly facetious when I made that comment. The general point I made was that there are indeed different uses of English and that my usage in the case in question was correct for general UK use of English. The original point/correction I made was not one of 'style' or 'idiom', but one of basic grammar and syntax.

As for the wider point about people in the UK not understanding each other - this is largely unconnected with the actual comprehension/construction of English. The UK has a very wide range of accents and idiom. I have difficulty understanding many regional accents, even though I am English. Come to that, many people would find my own use of idiom completely incomprehensible, were I to revert to the broad Lancashire accent and idiom that I used as a youth.
If you have seen a film called 'Kes' then you will know what I mean. 'Kes' was set in my part of the UK and includes actors using the accent that I was brought-up with. The film was actually sub-titled because the director (Ken Loach) knew that even native English speakers would have trouble following the dialogue. Alternatively you might have come across Fred Dibnah (RIP) on the box. Fred came from my home-town.
Point taken Bikerman. Perhaps I'm being a little facetious too. Think this is not the first time you pointed fingers at North America for not having a handle on the English language. So I could not help myself for climbing in.

By the way, I have a question. Would those citizens of the UK from Wales, Scotland and Ireland be considered by citizens of England (with English as a First Language) to be in the category of English as a second language? Twisted Evil
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
By the way, I have a question. Would those citizens of the UK from Wales, Scotland and Ireland be considered by England to be in the category of citizens with English as a second language? Twisted Evil

Mostly not. There are some, in all three countries, who have Gaelic (or Welsh) as a first language and would therefore be considered to have English as a second language. I can't give you numbers off the top of my head, but it would be a pretty small minority, and would generally be older folk in more remote locations.
Quote:
Point taken Bikerman. Perhaps I'm being a little facetious too. Think this is not the first time you pointed fingers at North America for not having a handle on the English language. So I could not help myself for climbing in.
My general objection is to the assumption that American English defines the language. English is actually a very dynamic language and is changing all the time & I think that is fine and dandy.
Ankhanu
I'm still trying to digest/understand the information from earlier; I'll comment on it later. It will likely require a full re-read or two of the topic, so it may take me a while to get around to it so we can get to the root of the message.

Off-topic - The number of native Gaelic or Welsh speakers in Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a rather small one. I live in a region with one of the highest percentages of native Gaelic speakers, and IIRC, it's <5%, likely <2% of the population. Scots come here to learn dialects that have extirpated in Scotland Razz

Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
Some interpretations of the bible are righteous while others are not.
And who decides?
not you deare

Bikerman wrote:
Ahh, so I am not competent to interpret the bible, but you are?
Hmm, given that I have at least a working knowledge of 1st century history, some familiarity with Latin and Greek and a few years of formal theology, I wonder what you think counts as qualification?


Bluedoll's clear personal attack/confrontation aside...
You're jumping to a conclusion here. The information presented was simply that you are not qualified, not that she, on the other hand, is.

To quote some pop-culture that is, nevertheless quite apt:
Penny: Guess that joke's only funny in Nebraska.
Sheldon Cooper: With the data submitted, that cannot be determined. All you can say with absolute certainty is that joke is not funny here.

I must say, however, that I, like you, am very curious about the actual answer. The question does pursue an important avenue of context for the discussion at hand. Understanding what is and is not valid (in the context of the Faith forum, I suppose the question of "why is valid" is a no-no) in interpretation of the Bible, I'm sure, is going to be key to understanding the content of the OP.
(Though I have a strong feeling that much of the content is, in fact, not based on the Bible at all, but other sources of information on Satan, given the relative paucity of info on Satan in the Bible)
Bluedoll
@Ankhauu
Well that is certainly a mouthful. Off-topic indeed.

I really personally recent these kinds of comments

Quote:
Bluedoll's clear personal attack/confrontation aside...


Time and time I am attacked then if you are applying this definition. I do not consider comments attacks. I know I could certainly lash out with an all out attack at a lot of rude people which includes members and staff. But I don’t attack!

If one looks closely at this post there are comments all around and this is one of them. I am not the only one in confrontation on this board but I refuse to accept a roll of passiveness, so therefore am returning comment for comment.

Quote:
Though I have a strong feeling that much of the content is, in fact, not based on the Bible at all, but other sources of information on Satan, given the relative paucity of info on Satan in the Bible
Can I assume you are asking for scripture? If so, I can supply, if you agree that this is for a bible study discussion and not a debate.


Quote:
I have at least a working knowledge of 1st century history, some familiarity with Latin and Greek and a few years of formal theology, I wonder what you think counts as qualification? - Bikerman


@Bikerman
God will supply all communication that is needed.

Your qualifications do not qualify you to preach the word of God to me. You have professed that you are in opposition to the word of God (I think you wrote something to the effect that if you had to choose between God or Satan that you would choose Satan) unless you wish to change your position on this, I will only assume that this is your stand. I am not as interested in a history lesson, language lesson nor false atheist doctrines as much as I am keenly interested in learning about God’s word – not even remotely close.
Bikerman
Quote:
Your qualifications do not qualify you to preach the word of God to me.

Ahh, but if I had been dishonest and pretended to be devout then I could have bamboozled you will bull very easily and had you believing anything I said. That's the trouble when you select your sources according to whether they agree with your preconceptions or not. You end up listening to those who tell you what you want to hear and the result is ignorance.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Your qualifications do not qualify you to preach the word of God to me.

Ahh, but if I had been dishonest and pretended to be devout then I could have bamboozled you will bull very easily and had you believing anything I said. That's the trouble when you select your sources according to whether they agree with your preconceptions or not. You end up listening to those who tell you what you want to hear and the result is ignorance.
The ignorance is on your part not mine.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Abel and Cain started the first religion. A religion is something you believe in, something you talk about, something related to .............................


God
Well, with all your knowledge, I'm sure you recall WHY Cain refused to believe in God...
Firstly, of course, God had already decreed that they would both be sinners (after the sins of the father). More importantly God demands a sacrifice from them - Cain (a farmer) gives the best of his fields and Abel (the shepherd) the best of his sheep. Cain's fruit and vegetables are rejected whilst Abel's sheep is accepted.

So what's the message here?
It isn't the thought that counts. It's no good giving God something of great value to yourself, he wants what he wants, not what you can give him.
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Your qualifications do not qualify you to preach the word of God to me.

Ahh, but if I had been dishonest and pretended to be devout then I could have bamboozled you will bull very easily and had you believing anything I said. That's the trouble when you select your sources according to whether they agree with your preconceptions or not. You end up listening to those who tell you what you want to hear and the result is ignorance.
The ignorance is on your part not mine.
Agreed. If one regards oneself superior on the basis of someone else's perceived ignorance and gullibility, then one can easily become ignorant and gullible oneself. Ditto when someone becomes overly focused on debunking religion to the point of thinking he could pull off being a missionary, that debunking can eventually take on aspects of religion in its own right.
Dialogist
Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
Abel and Cain started the first religion. A religion is something you believe in, something you talk about, something related to .............................


God
Well, with all your knowledge, I'm sure you recall WHY Cain refused to believe in God...
Firstly, of course, God had already decreed that they would both be sinners (after the sins of the father). More importantly God demands a sacrifice from them - Cain (a farmer) gives the best of his fields and Abel (the shepherd) the best of his sheep. Cain's fruit and vegetables are rejected whilst Abel's sheep is accepted.

So what's the message here?


The following part, about God wanting Cain to overcome his fury? So that he might master it? Special attention was payed to Cain. Abel on the other hand was presented with no such criterion to better himself. Abel was arguably the one that was overlooked.

You may compare it to Abel posting a thread on here and everyone ignoring it. And Cain posting a thread and everyone responding to it, giving it special attention, testing it, making requests of it and proposing things to make his post better and more concise. And thus, Cain is sat there thinking why me? Leave me alone. Abel posted a thread too. Get him. Why jump on my back? While Abel is looking at Cain's thread and wondering if anyone bothered to notice his.

Cain responded to this test of overcoming his tempestuous nature by stoving Abel's head in.
Bikerman
HUH? You mean this bit?
Quote:
Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
Blatant hypocrisy. Cain has just done what he thought was right - offered the best of his produce to God. God spurns it, not accepting it at all. God then favours his brother for doing the same thing, then wonders why Cain is pissed-off?
The notion that he was paying special attention to Cain because of his temper, is entirely your own invention. We are told nothing of the nature of either brother, and 'Sin is crouching at both brother's doors' because God decreed it previously:
Quote:
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
He telegraphs what he is going to do, then does it, and blames Cain...
Dialogist
Bikerman wrote:
entirely your own invention.


No, it's there. I admit, it takes a lesser traveled path of interpretation but like you, the story once mystified me in it's basic form. I left it came back and still took nothing from it. Then something occured to me asides from it when I was watching a movie, American Gangster I think, and one of the characters said something about "raising cane" it was a drugs reference or something. It made me think instantly of God raising Cane up in this scenario, and that it was he, who was in fact elevated and not Abel. I came back to the story and read what exactly what I had been missing previously. Which is what I had just related back to you. Your reading and mine (yours used to mine too):

Bikerman wrote:

Cain has just done what he thought was right - offered the best of his produce to God. God spurns it, not accepting it at all. God then favours his brother for doing the same thing,


This is the instance of anger building in Cane. It's similar to poking you in the back of the head and you turning around and saying, "What?!"

Bikerman wrote:

then wonders why Cain is pissed-off?


Whatever your view of theism is, we both know that in the context of this story, and indeed this book and all the books that comprise of this book, that this God never wonders about anything.

He now has Cain displaying fury. This is where we are at. Nothing has happened yet, except from Cain turning around and saying, "What?!"

Here is the pit-stop. We can define a moment of stand-off. God gets to speak and Cain gets to listen (this is the part that initially confused me, as I was expecting to hear great words of wisdom from God about why Cain's offering was poor or ill gotten or lazy or something, we do not get that). We get God, telling Cain, effectively, "Why are you mad? If you do what is right (which follows) will you not be accepted" (we're now thinking, dude, he just did do was right!) but "if you do..." not if you 'did'..."if you do what is right, will you not be accepted?" God is speaking about future conduct. And he goes on... "But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." In other words, "master your temper or it will master you" God does telegraph, in no uncertain terms, to Cain that if he doesn't overcome his temper, he'll be devoured by it.

The pit-stop was made, the warning was issued and the tires were not changed.

It falls apart again when we accept that God is omniscient, granted. But "free will" is what it is. And to echo (I forget's) teachings, "God did not make subservient robots to worship him without any choice in the matter. He gave them the freedom to hate God too. In so much that the worship may actually mean something". - I forget the source but it has merit.
Bluedoll
@Dialostist
I’m sorry, I guess, I got a little confused in the analogy relating to posts?
@Deanhills
It sort of gives religion a bad name doesn’t?
@Bikerman
Why do you think Cain refused to believe in God? Where in the bible does God demand sacrifice from them?
______________________

It came after some time that Cain proceeded to bring some fruits of the ground as an offering to God. - Genesis 4:3

Does that not seem silly as God does not have a physical demand for food but cute as it is something of value in that Cain was offering something as a gift. What was wrong with it?

Abel brought some firstlings of his flock and even their fatty pieces. Now while God was looking with favour at Abel, he did not to Cain’s and Cain grew hot with great anger. - Genesis 4:4-5

They had chosen out of their own free will to do something on their own that is only symbolic in nature. The physical gift can not be made important. God does not eat physical food. God did take favour however in the gifts though. There must be a different between the two men. What is it?

God said to Cain, “Why are you hot with anger? If you turn to doing good will there not be dignity? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance and you will be for its’ craving and will you for your part get the mastery over it?” - Genesis 4:6

If Cain was not doing good what was he doing? The answer is God knew that in Cain’s heart there was greed and jealousy, nothing of value for even him. His angry act later demonstrated it.

A message here is that God will decide what is good and what is bad in everything. God needs nothing from us, it is true, but what we can do is fill our minds with good thoughts and with these thoughts, good things will come out of it.
Bikerman
@Bluedoll Err...let me get this straight.
Cain and Abel both make a sacrifice. God knows that Cain is the 'angry sort' so he deliberately snubs his offering, knowing it will make him angry? Is that it?

btw The sacrifice of Abel actually fits in to the 'later' Levitican law.* One might, therefore, assume that Cane and Abel have been schooled in the sacrificial 'requirements'. That is assumption, of course.
Quote:
The physical gift can not be made important. God does not eat physical food.
Really? So Jesus fasted for 33 years? If the physical gift is not important then why does Leviticus go into great detail about the way it should be presented, and why does it say that the 'aroma' is 'pleasing to the Lord'?*

*
Quote:
“‘If the offering is a burnt offering from the flock, from either the sheep or the goats, you are to offer a male without defect. You are to slaughter it at the north side of the altar before the LORD, and Aaron’s sons the priests shall splash its blood against the sides of the altar. You are to cut it into pieces, and the priest shall arrange them, including the head and the fat, on the wood that is burning on the altar. You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to bring all of them and burn them on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.


@Dialostist
I don't buy the grammatical explanation. I read it as a general injunction - 'isn't it true that if you do the right thing you ARE accepted' (the alternative - 'isn't it true that if you do the right thing you WILL BE accepted' is not a question Cane could reasonably answer since it is predictive). My Hebrew is not good enough to be definitive on the earliest version - I'll look later if I get time.

If you buy into the fact that they were schooled in sacrifice then it sort of makes sense. Leviticus is very particular about how the sacrifice should be presented and Abel, by presenting the best and the 'fat' fits the bill, whereas Cain doesn't.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Well, with all your knowledge, I'm sure you recall WHY Cain refused to believe in God...
[...]
More importantly God demands a sacrifice from them - Cain (a farmer) gives the best of his fields and Abel (the shepherd) the best of his sheep. Cain's fruit and vegetables are rejected whilst Abel's sheep is accepted.

?
If Cain did not believe in god, then why did he give a sacrifice? And how did he know it was rejected?
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, with all your knowledge, I'm sure you recall WHY Cain refused to believe in God...
[...]
More importantly God demands a sacrifice from them - Cain (a farmer) gives the best of his fields and Abel (the shepherd) the best of his sheep. Cain's fruit and vegetables are rejected whilst Abel's sheep is accepted.

?
If Cain did not believe in god, then why did he give a sacrifice? And how did he know it was rejected?

Ahh,...well, that would be to question the whole thing, of course, which I was trying to avoid Smile
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
@Deanhills
It sort of gives religion a bad name doesn’t?
Not entirely what I meant. I meant it more along the lines of someone pointing their fingers with so much intensity at "perceived" flaws that they become the "flaw" in the end. Nietzsche coined it well in his book "Beyond Good and Evil":
Quote:
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

Source: Condensed Version of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
Bluedoll
Quote:
God knows that Cain is the 'angry sort' so he deliberately snubs - Bikerman
No!

Every human being has a free will to express and act. God does not label or type cast individuals. There was a reason. What Cain was doing was not appreciated. Certainly, not every gift is delivered without selfish intentions. I am sure most people have experienced some false gift, a bribe, a showy display, a fake, a tradeoff even, not all gifts are real gifts from the heart. I refuse to believe the picture being painted regarding God snubbing.

Later in the bible like pleasing ‘aroma’ , are these things pleasing to men as they sensed love and approval from God.? Those very old acts were made popular later in time by men as a demonstration. God did not request what Cain and Abel started. Those men did it because they wanted to express something.
Quote:
Really? So Jesus fasted for 33 years? - Bikerman
I believe Jesus Christ is the son of God.



Atheistic biblical discussion is a religion and its viewpoints are in opposition to God.
Quote:
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.
Then it is something like a war? A religious war?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Agreed. If one regards oneself superior on the basis of someone else's perceived ignorance and gullibility, then one can easily become ignorant and gullible oneself.
Huh? How does that work then? You see someone with no knowledge in a subject that you know reasonably well and little ability to distinguish between good and bad information. So what happens then? Is it some sort of osmosis? Does the knowledge drain from high concentration to low concentration across a semi-permeable manBrain?
Quote:
Ditto when someone becomes overly focused on debunking religion to the point of thinking he could pull off being a missionary, that debunking can eventually take on aspects of religion in its own right.
'Pulling off' being a missionary is relatively easy - otherwise missionaries couldn't do it. It basically involves spouting lots of nice bits from the bible to people with no education in Christianity (who will, therefore, believe pretty much what you tell them), and signing them up to join.
To pretend to be a missionary would of course 'take on aspects of religion'. How else would you do it? Taking on aspects of a racing driver?
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Agreed. If one regards oneself superior on the basis of someone else's perceived ignorance and gullibility, then one can easily become ignorant and gullible oneself.
Huh? How does that work then? You see someone with no knowledge in a subject that you know reasonably well and little ability to distinguish between good and bad information. So what happens then? Is it some sort of osmosis? Does the knowledge drain from high concentration to low concentration across a semi-permeable manBrain?
Quote:
Ditto when someone becomes overly focused on debunking religion to the point of thinking he could pull off being a missionary, that debunking can eventually take on aspects of religion in its own right.
'Pulling off' being a missionary is relatively easy - otherwise missionaries couldn't do it. It basically involves spouting lots of nice bits from the bible to people with no education in Christianity (who will, therefore, believe pretty much what you tell them), and signing them up to join.
To pretend to be a missionary would of course 'take on aspects of religion'. How else would you do it? Taking on aspects of a racing driver?
I will let Deanhills explain what he meant but how I interrupted his comment was the following.

The point was not specifically to missionaries but to people in general who are focused on deflating religion. It was not directed to missionary workers but to people who talk religion for the purpose of putting religion down. This action makes their activity a religion, perhaps a negative one but a religion none the less. – if that is not what Dean meant, sorry , it is the way I see things though. Though it is possible there are false missionaries as there is in any field -

There are as well, very good people, whom are missionaries, that do something out of their heart for others because they genuinely care. For many missionaries their focus is in helping others and though they bring with them something religious, it is by no means anything like what was described.
_________

I see myself not as a missionary, evangelist nor connected with any worldly religion. I do though, love God very much. I do not desire to get into some angry ego driven contest to discover who has a superior knowledge on a subject. It is degrading when it involves spirtuality. Rather, I enjoy discussing the bible peacefully with people of all religious beliefs providing they have the same goal.
Dialogist
Bluedoll wrote:
@Dialostist
I’m sorry, I guess, I got a little confused in the analogy relating to posts?


Sorry, it was a horrible computer analogy. It was just trying to divert the 'preference' that is seemingly being attributed to Able. Maybe he was the one overlooked in that he wasn't given anything to do. His gift was accepted and put aside.

The emphasis was placed on Cain by the inexplicable refusal of the gift leading Cain to his anger. Which then sort of makes the refusal explicable to me. Is was to manifest the anger which is the focal point of the story.

Cain's anger seems to be the pivotal fulcrum the whole entire plot levers on. It seems to be the most notable ingredient of the story. Which may explain why God payed special attention to Cain and to his anger, even invoking it, so that it may 'come out' to be judged and shown to Cain, so that he might amend it.

God then says to Cain, words to the effect of, 'look at you, you're furious. you must overcome this or it will ruin you... if you do, will you not be accepted..." Both men leave the field. One has been given a specific notification, a task, some kind of vocation. The other hasn't. Able seems to be the one neglected at this point.

Cain then kills Able failing to overcome his anger. A definite STOP was evident though. Cain's anger and God speaking to Cain was that freeze frame in which Cain was asked to change and told of the consequences of failing to do so. So although the methodology sought in bringing Cain to his anger seems insensitive, a definite point of "stop, think and do" was issued. And ignored.
LostOverThere
Bluedoll wrote:
Rather, I enjoy discussing the bible peacefully with people of all religious beliefs providing they have the same goal.

Serious question: What is this goal?
Bluedoll
@LostOverThere
Read the first post and the last line in this post.
@ Dialogist
Was angry Cain a good example for us to not let our anger get the best of us. Yes, I think so.

I think the one positive thing I can say about non-believers is their questioning nature. Recently, in a search for information pertaining to proverbs, I came across this page that stated that perhaps proverbs was not actually written by Solomon at all but by an accumulation of writers one of which was a woman. Yet, the bible says in the beginning of the book “The proverbs of Solomon, the son of David . . .” This would make sense from the perspective that the bible is masculine in nature for an obvious reason.



Now, whether this is true or not I do not know but what it did do was to get me thinking about the bible and its nature. It is not a book complete or accurate in the sense that it can be followed like some history or science book. It has been translated from very old languages and written in such a way that baffles even the most educated men. Does this mean we should discard the bible and declare it is merely a little story of little value because it does not line up with our current methods of reasoning what ever they me be currently in time? A logical example could be - all books should read like a technical manual! I say that would be silly to think in those terms.

It is amazing to me how the bible in all its simplicity and in all its seemly confusing ways is parallel to the way of God. God works in mysterious ways just as it is written accuracy in the bible and describes perhaps how the book should be interrupted. Learned men, the most predominate were not always the ones chosen to issue the word of God. Rather it was the meek, the commoner, the one you would consider most unlikely that God would choose to demonstrate that it is not men but God that directs. Men can deliver the word of God lead only by holy spirit. Even Jesus Christ was recognized by the people of that time as the son of a common carpenter.

I too question what I read out of the bible such things as “Methuselah Enoch went on walking with God three hundred years” – the book of Adam’s History, Genesis 5:22 seems to be a very unbelievable thing. Some might say the men in those days were strong, while another person might say it is only figurative writing. It is a cause for confusion and perhaps even a cause arguments for some of us. I could be wrong of course but is it possible what this very old writing is saying is that this was a name only? (a tribe or peoples) Now we go by names of little meaning but I do believe in old days gone by people carried a name of their fathers in a much different way. Well, this is only a thought I had and it is certainly not as important as getting some kind of understanding from the bible that makes us better people and more understanding and appreciative of all that God has given us, unselfishly.
Dialogist
Bluedoll wrote:

Was angry Cain a good example for us to not let our anger get the best of us. Yes, I think so.


I am usually reluctant to leave a verse alone until I come away from it satisfied that I got something from it which is why if a meaning is abstracted or obscured (some just seem entirely lost in translation) I will spend more time with it than usual. Some have taken me literally years to decrypt. Revelations for example. There's about 16 verses in there that just didn't sit right with me. Not because I didn't understand them but because they were clearly referencing other parts of itself with the numerology. I like John the most because of that. Somewhat of a Picasso in comparison to others. He doesn't serve you a sandwich on a plate. He gives you a Guernica and asks you to make a Constable out of it.

Other Biblical verses I've come back to years later knowing that I'd always had the wrong understanding, which has always sat plainly, utterly and logically incorrect with me. You could get books explaining verses, ask priests or lecturers and you look up interpretations and get the popularly understood definition and I've found that many are either subjective or there's something deeper hiding below (sometimes obscured in translation as you can read a Latin version and have your question answered instantly, well not instantly via Rosetta Stone, but still). Often times I don't take the popular interpretation, especially when it makes no sense to me (like Cain and Abel didn't for a long time).

I think Cain and Abel's message is about Cain controlling his impulsive nature, for sure, but it's also about perspective. If you stay in Abel's mind the whole time, and go through the emotional process of events with just him, you get an entirely different perspective and again, it's not the popularly believed one of the God's favorite who could do no wrong. I'm still working on a case for him deserving death.

Bluedoll wrote:

I think the one positive thing I can say about non-believers is their questioning nature. Recently, in a search for information pertaining to proverbs, I came across this page that stated that perhaps proverbs was not actually written by Solomon at all but by an accumulation of writers one of which was a woman.


Have you heard of The Berlin Gnostic Codex?
Ankhanu
Ok, sorry, it took me a long time to go back and completely reread the assertions of the thread/OP. Now, I'm doing so and maybe I'll come out to this end less confused than I was before starting the reread endeavour Razz Here we go.
** Disclaimer - I am focusing specifically on Bluedoll's assertions/replies, as I am trying to understand the OP and its spirit. I am ignoring all other posts in an attempt to focus on the originating context and definitions. Bluedoll, I hope you don't see this as intentionally singling you out in an attempt to disparage you, but this is your thread and I feel that in order to understand it, I have to focus on what you are trying to communicate.

<disappears to read for a while>

Back.

I decided it would be a good idea to keep a running tally, in point form, of the ideas presented. I'm going to paste them here to show how I reach my conclusions. It will give all of you, and Bluedoll a way to catch my mistakes.

Me, summarizing what I've read wrote:

Satanic atheism is -
.: a subset of atheists
.: cult-like w/ followers and leaders (it is religion (see "Religion is -" below))
.: ephemeral
.: a testament of our times
.: referred in the Bible as the Anti-Christ
.: an anti-God movement
.: false

Religion is -
.: something believed in
.: something talked about
.: something related to God
.: any discussion or debate related to God, the Bible
.: independent of belief
.: an influence on others

Satan is -
.: different from Jesus Christ
.: real
.: in opposition to Jesus; enjoys watching people "repel" God (I assume this means deny or malign)

Other points relevant to the discussion include -
.: God provides answers if sought
.: both God and Satan are real
.: God is in no way physical, nor are evidence or logical rationalization relevant
.: the human race is in trouble in modern times
.: events are taking place (this is, to me, exceedingly vague)
.: there are teachings of Jesus Christ and there are teachings of religious atheists
.: the atheist view is exactly like talking personally with Satan
.: FriHost is caustically filled with Satan's taint
.: Jesus Christ honours God
.: worldly religion is not important to the discussion
.: religion is changing; atheism has had positive and negative roles to play in this change
.: you are religious if you discuss religion
.: The big question is whether we will create a peaceful world or destroy the world.
.: we have freedom to make choices


Honestly, I have to admit, I'm still struggling along here… (is it clear that I've been writing compiling as I've been going along?? Razz ). I mean, it's abundantly clear that the angle you're working is that we have free will to make choices, that choosing the teachings of Jesus will bring happiness and fulfilment to our lives, and thereby prosperity to the world, and ignoring those teachings is following Satan and will lead, ultimately, to our collective deaths… That I have no problem with, it's pretty standard fare.

Any atheist who shares the "merits" of their stance on the existence of God (gene that they are, by their nature, skeptical of the existence of God) is practicing a religion, and are Satanic Atheists. It is the sharing of belief that puts them there… If atheists just shut the hell up, they'd not be "religious" and wouldn't be tools of Satan?

The points that I have difficulty with are still the definition of religion, exactly how we can know the nature of Satan (aside from being counter to Jesus' teachings)… Really, I guess the major stumbling block for me is the defining of religion in all this. The apparent working definition in the spirit of the OP is pretty vague and almost universally applicable, to the point of almost being meaningless as it's been described to me.

The dangers are also pretty vague… "things are happening" and "we're in trouble in modern times" are, like the religion definition, extremely vague and overarching; so much so as to, again, seem virtually meaningless.

Am I trying to get too much out of this, Bluedoll? I'm starting to question my questioning Razz Is it just as simple as what I paraphrased in the paragraph immediately below the quote block? Am I just running myself around in circles, or am I truly missing something important?
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Religion is -
.: something believed in
.: something talked about
.: something related to God
.: any discussion or debate related to God, the Bible
.: independent of belief
.: an influence on others
Interesting definition, is this yours? "Something" sounds like nothing ..... very unscientific? I thought religion was the means by which participants in a specific belief system have faith in a supernatural being/s and are bound by certain rules of worship. This supernatural being could also be Satan as one gets Satan worshippers as well. So I don't know why you are only focussing on God and the Bible, as it would probably depend which religion you are discussing?

I also can't link religion with atheism, as I thought atheists reject the existence of God/s and are not religious?
Ankhanu
No, that's not mine at all. I make use of a standard definition of religion.
Everything that's in the quote block is a synthesis of ideas in Bluedoll's posts only, and only from this thread. I feel a little better that you also feel some confusion on that point, Dean, and it's not just me Razz
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
I feel a little better that you also feel some confusion on that point, Dean, and it's not just me Razz
Well to start off with I'm not confused, I was just wondering how you came up with those words as they did not sound like your usual specific style. Weren't those words however your interpretation of what Bluedoll said, rather than her own words as I have not spotted those in her postings?
Ankhanu
I'm on my phone, impairing my ability to quote, etc., but that is taken pretty much as stated. It's the 4th post on page 2.
D'Artagnan
well how can a atheist be satanic, i mean if you believe in satan you have to believe in god, since satans story says he was created by god...
LostOverThere
I'm really struggling with the definition of atheists as satanic. As someone once noted, if I believe in Christianity, 1.5 billion Muslims will perish in hell for eternity. Likewise, if I believe in Islam, 2.2 billion Christians will perish in hell for eternity. But if I believe neither, nobody has to perish at all.

Surely being an atheist is, by definition, less evil?
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
I'm on my phone, impairing my ability to quote, etc., but that is taken pretty much as stated. It's the 4th post on page 2.
I had another look at the post, and as far as I can see Bluedoll was trying to tell you that atheism is a religion:
Bluedoll wrote:
Debating about what is in the bible to the extent of looking up scriptures and then translating those scriptures into what they think it means and then publishing it - is doing religion. That action is influencing others to a specific point of view about what God is and what people should believe in. They can not say they are atheists that believe in nothing and not religious when in reality publish to people telling them what to believe, debating with them, trying to convince them they are right about the bible. That is a religious activity. They are talking religion, They are quoting the bible and talking about religious subjects. It is exactly what worldly religions do. They take the bible and they discuss it. Fine, just do not hide behind a mask of non-involvement. In reality, if religious study has to do with questioning false doctrines, I am sure God smiles.


That is why atheism is a religion and it does influence other people. And it is just not happening on a message boards, it is happening in all systems, all over the world. The problem is some of the religious message that is being pushed is false information (satanic).
She is saying that that which is false and a misrepresentation is satanic.

I don't agree with that. I see satanism as something separate from atheism. I'm just quoting the above as I think you may have missed the main message in her post.
Ankhanu
Yeah, I get that... which is why I asked for her to define how she was using the word:

Ankhanu wrote:
Could you provide your definition of religion? I have a feeling it differs from the standard uses of the word.


Bluedoll wrote:
Yes, my definition probably does but then who’s standard?




God created the heavens and the earth in six days (lose your calculator) and in the seven day ......................................

Abel and Cain started the first religion. A religion is something you believe in, something you talk about, something related to .............................


God


Present Day
If you talk about God, the bible, you talk religion, you are doing religion. Publishing, debating about what is in the bible, is a religious activity.

...


I suppose I could be wrong, but I figured that the first part where she seemed to be describing her definition was also important Wink
ocalhoun
LostOverThere wrote:
I'm really struggling with the definition of atheists as satanic. As someone once noted, if I believe in Christianity, 1.5 billion Muslims will perish in hell for eternity. Likewise, if I believe in Islam, 2.2 billion Christians will perish in hell for eternity. But if I believe neither, nobody has to perish at all.

Surely being an atheist is, by definition, less evil?

But then, 7 billion people will perish (not in hell) for eternity. ^.^


I suggest you find a religion that says everybody goes to heaven.
(Since apparently the whole world depends on what you believe. ^.^)
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Yeah, I get that... which is why I asked for her to define how she was using the word:

Ankhanu wrote:
Could you provide your definition of religion? I have a feeling it differs from the standard uses of the word.


Bluedoll wrote:
Yes, my definition probably does but then who’s standard?




God created the heavens and the earth in six days (lose your calculator) and in the seven day ......................................

Abel and Cain started the first religion. A religion is something you believe in, something you talk about, something related to .............................


God


Present Day
If you talk about God, the bible, you talk religion, you are doing religion. Publishing, debating about what is in the bible, is a religious activity.

...


I suppose I could be wrong, but I figured that the first part where she seemed to be describing her definition was also important Wink
I think you need to see it all together, rather than separate bits out. Or that is my take on it anyway. Perhaps Bluedoll could clarify this much better herself. My take on it is that she gave a very simplistic holistic definition along the lines of all those interested in God. She includes atheists in this definition perhaps in a reverse religion kind of way, i.e. the preoccupation of those atheists who are studying texts of the Bible makes them religious by default. The part where she goes on to say that distorting the truth about God or misrepresenting it is Satanism, is the part where I differ with her.
Ankhanu
My point (in that bit) was that I was questioning the definition of religion... period. Once that was defined, how it was used in relation to atheists would fall into place (or not, depending on how the word was defined). It seemed pretty clear to me that how the word was being used was not one of its standard definitions, and it appeared as though I was right. The definition provided was somewhat nebulous and so broad as to be pretty uninformative... within the whole frame of the response or when just looking at the definition.

But, you and I don't hold the answer here, only speculation. Before we get into a discussion on the merits of the message, we should probably let the OP clarify (or not), else we'll simply be running an exercise of futility based on assumptions of intention.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
But, you and I don't hold the answer here, only speculation. Before we get into a discussion on the merits of the message, we should probably let the OP clarify (or not), else we'll simply be running an exercise of futility based on assumptions of intention.
Good point and agreed.

I was wondering tonight about a-theism. What was first? Theism or a-theism? So did the a- come into being as a result of theism then? Why is atheism connected with theism? So perhaps in a way there is a link between the two? Much of what atheism is "NOT" supposed to be, has to do with theism. If one hears arguments from atheists that theirs is not a belief system and they have no belief, should the label of "atheism" not be removed so that they can truly be NOT a belief system? If they are really NOT, then they have to be NOT? As once one gets organizations that are atheist organizations and there is the notion of "us" (atheists) versus "them" (theists), and they have set arguments against theists that are focused on religion, surely that must show signs of a belief system?

Perhaps Bluedoll has a good point? Think

If one takes the following definition of what a belief is:
Quote:
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Surely, atheism can then be regarded as an irreligious belief system?
Bikerman
What premise or proposition do you think atheists hold to be true?
Ankhanu
Again, it's important to recognize all the atheist beliefs that seek nothing regarding theism, such as Buddhism or Tao. Are you suggesting that all those atheists are irreligious... or even areligous, if that's what you'd intended? They clearly are not either.

Technically, atheism would predate theism... awareness of the concept of being atheist would only emerge with the development of theism, however. The only thing that atheism is is the lack of theism (hence agnostics fall within the very wide umbrella)... it's really not a belief system but a simple adjective. That the label of "atheist" should be dropped is an argument that a few have put forward before (there's currently a tread in P&R about just that as proposed by Sam Harris), it has uts merits and flaws. The argument is not that atheists don't have beliefs... other than perhaps nihilists, almost any atheist has their beliefs... but there is no specific "atheist belief". That's not to say that some atheists don't agree with one another on various points, but that's no more a system than when you and I agree on various points that might come up on these boards.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Technically, atheism would predate theism... awareness of the concept of being atheist would only emerge with the development of theism, however. The only thing that atheism is is the lack of theism (hence agnostics fall within the very wide umbrella)... it's really not a belief system but a simple adjective. That the label of "atheist" should be dropped is an argument that a few have put forward before (there's currently a tread in P&R about just that as proposed by Sam Harris), it has uts merits and flaws. The argument is not that atheists don't have beliefs... other than perhaps nihilists, almost any atheist has their beliefs... but there is no specific "atheist belief". That's not to say that some atheists don't agree with one another on various points, but that's no more a system than when you and I agree on various points that might come up on these boards.
Surely when you explain the above like you have done, then it has to be a belief of atheism not being a belief system? How zero can the theism part of atheism really be when you seem to be searching all the time for evidence of the truth by focusing on theism? There has to be something of theism drawing you to theism? And since theism is a belief system, then the opposite of it, with the "theism" in that opposite, has to be an indirect belief system?

If what you say is correct, and atheism is zero belief in God or gods, and you have no belief in that regard, then technically none of the theism part should feature anywhere. You're not interest in theism, theism is nixed. If you are interested in theism as an atheist, then there has to be a link with belief in the opposite of belief in God. So if you say atheists have beliefs, then if they are into focusing on religion, instead of completely nixing and walking away from it, then that has to be a belief even if it is a belief of "not a belief" Question
Ankhanu
Clearly, I am interested in theism.  Interest and belief are not synonyms, though generally belief requires interest (though not always).  By your statement, because I don't believe in the events and unique setting details endemic to Star Wars, I should hold no interest in the franchise, I should just ignore it and walk away.
Believe it or not, there are atheists who do just "nix" theism.  It has no interest to them, they ignore the concept completely (insofar as one can when faced with it on a potentially daily basis).

There seems to be confusion about belief and belief systems.  Individual atheists have their beliefs, and they're fairly various.  Atheists as a collective hold no coherent overarching beliefs.  Atheists as a collective do not have a shared ethical or moral code.  Atheists as a collective have no goals.  There is no defining character or system of belief that can honestly be attributed to atheists, other than not believing in gods.  That is hardly a "belief system".  I suggest that unless the "atheist belief system" can be defined, that the idea of it should be ignored; as a flag to rally behind, it makes a really poor one.
(I will also suggest that if one is to attempt to define the atheist belief system a new thread should be generated, this thread has already gone (I think) way off track of the OP.)

My own interest in theism has several layers, and they're not necessarily linked to my being an atheist, as I had an interest in theism as a theist (however genuine my belief may or may not have been; that's tough to assess through simple reflection on one's past history... I think I was genuine, though Wink  ).  Part of my interest is in the desire to understand others, how they think, how they understand, the contexts through which they approach daily life.  I'm interested in the need that many have for ritual; ritual is an extremely minor aspect of my life, but it is very important to many around me.  This is not limited to theism, but theism is a rich buffet of ritual, generally.  Iam interested in theism because various aspects of it directly have influence on how I live my life, and places various restrictions on different aspects of my daily life.  For example, until the past decade, Sunday shopping was illegal in my region... is there any reason for this other than Christian influence?  Even now, though shops may open, they operate on reduced hours.  I am interested in the actual evidences for gods.  I'm interested in the ontology of religions and beliefs.  I'm interested in the social impacts of different beliefs.  I see no possible source of conflict between an interest in an observable phenomenon, such as theism, and my atheism.  I don't even see an interest in fiction as being out of phase with my atheism. 

Your comment, for example, that my theism may not be 0 because I am searching for the truth on the subject feels somewhat shortsighted.  For one, I've mentioned many times that my "theism" >0, just not significantly so... and that I'm open to the idea that my equation may not be correct, I just haven't seen good reason to make major revisions.  Second, some forms of searching are not entirely about the truth of theistic stances.  Not everything is so black and white.  The question, for example, looking for evidence of theistic claims is as much an exercise in discovery of said evidence as it is an exploration into the minds of those responding; their motivations, degree to which they've considered their options, how many options they may have even encountered, their degree of flexibility in their stance, etc.  As interesting as the answer to the base question may be, sometimes the subtext is far more interesting.

Anyway, this is getting really far off base.  If we're to continue along this route, I'm going to ask as a board user trying to work within the spirit of the Faith forum, that we either take it private, or generate new threads for the topics to belong to Smile
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
Abel and Cain started the first religion. A religion is something you believe in, something you talk about, something related to .............................


God
Well, with all your knowledge, I'm sure you recall WHY Cain refused to believe in God...

I still can't seem to find where/how you could claim that Cain didn't believe in God. In fact, if you look at the text, he makes sacrifices to God, hears His voice and converses with God. How can you claim he didn't believe in him. It seems to call into question your knowledge of the subject with something that seems so clear, but I'd be eager to hear your reasoning. Here's the text (NIV) in case you haven't actually read it:

Quote:

Genesis 4
Cain and Abel
1 Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth[c] a man.” 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”[d] While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

9 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”

“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

10 The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

13 Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the LORD said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.

Source = http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+4&version=NIV
Bikerman
It was clumsily put. I meant to say 'why Cain questioned/was angry with God' and somehow ended up typing something different. I can't honestly remember what I was thinking at the time - it is some time ago.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
It was clumsily put. I meant to say 'why Cain questioned/was angry with God' and somehow ended up typing something different. I can't honestly remember what I was thinking at the time - it is some time ago.


Well, when Ocalhoun challenged you on this, you didn't really provide an answer, but rather seemed to suggest that the entire story would/could/should come into question. If you had misspoken, I would have thought that you would have addressed it then. Obviously your claim that Cain was "refused to believe in God" is a rather easily refuted with just a cursory look at the text (I would hope even you could see this). But since you're unable to explain away such your previous claim, I guess we should simply chalk it up to your "guest" taking over your computer again? /sarcasm.

Bikerman wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, with all your knowledge, I'm sure you recall WHY Cain refused to believe in God...
[...]
More importantly God demands a sacrifice from them - Cain (a farmer) gives the best of his fields and Abel (the shepherd) the best of his sheep. Cain's fruit and vegetables are rejected whilst Abel's sheep is accepted.

?
If Cain did not believe in god, then why did he give a sacrifice? And how did he know it was rejected?

Ahh,...well, that would be to question the whole thing, of course, which I was trying to avoid Smile
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
It was clumsily put. I meant to say 'why Cain questioned/was angry with God' and somehow ended up typing something different. I can't honestly remember what I was thinking at the time - it is some time ago.


Well, when Ocalhoun challenged you on this, you didn't really provide an answer, but rather seemed to suggest that the entire story would/could/should come into question. If you had misspoken, I would have thought that you would have addressed it then. Obviously your claim that Cain was "refused to believe in God" is a rather easily refuted with just a cursory look at the text (I would hope even you could see this). But since you're unable to explain away such your previous claim, I guess we should simply chalk it up to your "guest" taking over your computer again? /sarcasm.
Not at all....I was simply trying to stick to the TOS for this particular forum, which means that challenging the basis for the OP is not permitted. To address the question in my own terms would require a new starting point - that the story is parable and not meant to be taken seriously. That would be against the TOS for this particular thread, though I am happy to defend that position in an appropriate thread.
Bluedoll
D'Artagnan wrote:
well how can a atheist be satanic, i mean if you believe in satan you have to believe in god, since satans story says he was created by god...
You do not have to believe in gun laws to use one either. The same applies to atheism. As I stated in the op, “As with any cult like religion, there will be followers and leaders just as there are, in other religions.” Sure atheists can say the do not believe in God or satan but that does not stop them from doing what atheism demands of them.

LostOverThere wrote:
I'm really struggling with the definition of atheists as satanic. As someone once noted, if I believe in Christianity, 1.5 billion Muslims will perish in hell for eternity. Likewise, if I believe in Islam, 2.2 billion Christians will perish in hell for eternity. But if I believe neither, nobody has to perish at all.

Surely being an atheist is, by definition, less evil?
Well, I do not believe in the perish nor hell thing. What we believe or do not believe I do not think will have a great affect on world events like billions of people perishing so perhaps keep in mind this is not about a single atheist but atheism itself.

Deanhills wrote:
She is saying that that which is false and a misrepresentation is satanic.

I don't agree with that. I see satanism as something separate from atheism. I'm just quoting the above as I think you may have missed the main message in her post.
I was not referring to satanism but atheism. I believe atheism is affecting many people in many walks of life. If a person declares themself as an atheist it is up to the person how they maintain that role.

They could for example, let atheism take over their life and make it their mission in life to change peoples minds about God. This is not referring to people that stating they do not have a belief in God but when they go out of their way to convince other people that God is evil and try to persuade people they should not consider any other point of view except atheism, this is a religious activity.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
D'Artagnan wrote:
well how can a atheist be satanic, i mean if you believe in satan you have to believe in god, since satans story says he was created by god...
You do not have to believe in gun laws to use one either. The same applies to atheism. As I stated in the op, “As with any cult like religion, there will be followers and leaders just as there are, in other religions.” Sure atheists can say the do not believe in God or satan but that does not stop them from doing what atheism demands of them.
Hmm..I wonder what that could be.
Let's see,
I don't believe in God, therefore I must.......errr.......
Can't find an end to that sentence that could be true of all atheists, other than the tautology 'must not believe in God(s)' [This is obviously tautologous because, by definition, if the atheist DID believe in God(s) then he/she would not BE an atheist]/
The analogy with the gun laws is fundamentally flawed. God and Satan are entities (to most Christians). Gun law is an abstract construct. The more accurate analogy would be 'you don't have to believe in guns to use one'.
Well, the thing is, you sorta do, really.....if you don't believe in it then why would you try to use it and how would you know what it could be used for?
Bluedoll
Ankhanu wrote:
There seems to be confusion about belief and belief systems... I don't even see an interest in fiction as being out of phase with my atheism.
I think you un-did your confusion at the beginning with your ending. Your belief is associated with atheism. You have made atheism yours. We all have a belief, it is never a zero belief. You can maintain a belief or you can oppose a belief but in your mind you still support the belief which you make your own personal belief. (yes, the topic of this thread is atheism not individual atheists)

If you need evidence as to what atheism is or is not you can elect to look at the beliefs of its owners, not just your own. Yes, you are affected in your life by others. You gave an example regarding quiet Sundays. You might want to consider that any change is not always for the better? Commercialism though it does have its benefit like jobs for people does also have many negative components as well. I guess that is like a common saying many people have heard in life at one point “be careful what you wish for”.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Well, the thing is, you sorta do, really.....if you don't believe in it then why would you try to use it and how would you know what it could be used for?
My question exactly. If you don't believe in God, why make a study of religion, if you don't believe in God, what can the study of religion really mean to you? And how can you ever have an understanding of religion if you don't have faith or don't believe in God? It's a typical "in the zone" analogy. Your experience in the zone cannot equal your thinking about "in the zone".
Bikerman
It has nothing to do with being 'in the zone'. I know hundreds of Christians and they don't walk around 'in the zone'. At best they might achieve some transcendent period once in a while - well so do I, just without the 'God' bit.
The reason for studying and commenting on religion has been explained to you so many times that you are simply trolling....again...
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
It has nothing to do with being 'in the zone'. I know hundreds of Christians and they don't walk around 'in the zone'. At best they might achieve some transcendent period once in a while - well so do I, just without the 'God' bit.
The reason for studying and commenting on religion has been explained to you so many times that you are simply trolling....again...
I see. You argued one way when you argued about being "in the zone", another about faith in God. There is a logic here that is exactly the same. Having faith in God, and thinking about someone who has faith in God is not the same. Unless you have faith in God you will always argue from a different place, which will always be outside the loop. The harder you are arguing on the outside of the loop the further the distance from "faith in God".
Bikerman
I didn't 'argue on way' or 'any way' in fact.
If the 'place' you need to be to argue about God is outside rationality, then there is no debate possible. There is nothing special about faith in God - I've had it. It is not particularly difficult to understand. What is more problematic is that those who have this faith also seem to have a mental worldview that religion is the only possible state, and therefore that those who don't believe in God, must really believe in something which created us.
This Girl seems to have it fairly well summed-up.
Bluedoll
Quote:
My question exactly. If you don't believe in God, why make a study of religion, if you don't believe in God, what can the study of religion really mean to you? And how can you ever have an understanding of religion if you don't have faith or don't believe in God? –Deanhills



My belief Deanhills is that the lingo of ‘don’t believe in God’ is not always what it seems at first glance. I am not talking about individuals. I am talking about the religious cult called atheism.

If we look at what ‘to believe’ means, perhaps we can see this more accurately. You can for example have a belief that your spouse or most significant other, loves and cares about you. You then would not only have a belief but you would definitely believe in that person. You would rationally think he would be doing things for your welfare because he loves you.

If something goes wrong, you can turn that belief around and think the person does not love you. Therefore, you could loose faith in that person and reject any possibility that this person is good for your welfare.

My point being here is that a ‘don’t believe’ is not just a simple statement that implies a person is not interested in religion but it can be a distaste and sometimes a hatred and a very large resentment attached to it. This is easily observed and often it is not even hidden.

What atheism does is trap people and they see no way out. Free will is often denied and false logic takes over. They begin to loose their common sense and resort to very heavy philological arguments to justify their actions. This movement can be very cunning that way. Sometimes the study and the pushing of religious subjects in a most negative way is justified by some cause. The follower of atheism actually thinks that everyone who believes in God is delusional and attempts to correct their thinking! What some people do not realize is that they have been inducted into atheism’s grasp and of its belief and start considering everything else does not exist or is outside rational thinking. It is an illusionary trap.

But what is atheism’s belief? The answer is very obvious. The pitiful part is the answer can be made to seem confusing, when it comes from it’s followers.

There is only one simple choice in a religious life. Believe in God or do not believe in God. Unfortunately because we are social creatures it sometimes does not end there and we do seek bonding from each other. Religious interaction whether it be theist or atheist is still a religious interaction. This is what I believe makes atheism a religion but it is not a religion for God.
Bikerman
What a complete load of dingo's kidneys.
Atheists trapped? By a lack of belief? ROFMLAO.
Hey guys, I don't think I believe in sky fairies, quick before I become trapped, someone throw me a bible and talk crap to me until I believe again.

What a terrible fate - condemned to see-through the illusions that the credulous fall for; constantly looking to learn and improve knowledge; refusing to lie and decieve in support of any notion - let alone one as asinine as a sky-fairy; reading the works of some of the greatest thinkers ever, so that the poor theist can't understand the words any more.

Clearly this is terrible behaviour. The last thing a believer in sky-fairies needs is someone who not only knows the sky fairy is a myth, but knows the sky-fairies writings better than they do, and who sees straight through their semi-literate and largely ignorant and illogical dribblings.

The only solution is to gather up me and the rest of the evil atheists and subject us to religious babble until our brains become saturated with nonsense and we can think down to your level again.

[Post amended in response to complaint - Bikerman]
Bluedoll
deanhills wrote:
Atheism is an absence of belief in God/s. Satanism looks like an upside religion to me. So how would atheistic satanism be possible as it almost sounds likie a contradiction to me? Sounds almost like satanism without making a religion out of it?
The faith section (though it is not what I wanted a new section to be called) was suppose to allow for personal expression of ones beliefs without intimidation, insults or attack, but always still open to some reasonable discussion, at least, I thought? I wanted at the time a section called religion, or spirtuality, or something related to religious topics, so that the topic of religion could have a specific location for discussion. The reason for the separation, I thought, at the time would be the same reason for example as separation of politics and religion. They just do better in different rooms. But after thinking about it some more, and allowing time to see what would happen in the faith section and the rest of the board in general I did come to some conclusions.

Perhaps, atheism has trouble going there. There being a designated section exclusivily for religion not because it is a foreigner to religion for it certainly is not but because it might expose itself. Even the word ‘without God’ from the Greek definition, signifies that the whole purpose of atheism is to counter religion. That is, it seeks to denounce God. So to do this job properly it needs to present itself as alternative practice, that is alien to religion. This is actually an misimpression.

Unless atheism is not taken very seriously it will become a struggling force in the opposite direction to counter anything with Godly belief. How can it be anything else? It can not say, it agrees with God. It must disagree and sometimes attack viciously its rival. This is its whole function and whole purpose for being. So to set itself up in religious circles as another religion would be a contradiction to itself. Yet, it talks about religion incessantly.

What you will you find out in religious topics is what you will also find in the bible. In the bible, there is only one God and there is an opposition to God. So who is in opposition to God in the bible? a?
Bikerman
More nonsense.
a) The faith forum was setup for clear reasons and these have been explained many times.
b) If you make insulting and incorrect assertions about atheism then you will be corrected - whether here or in the p&r forum.
c) The notion that 'without' (prefix a-) is the same as 'against' (prefix anti-) is silly, as can easily be demonstrated. Apolitical is not anti-political and asymmetry is not 'anti-symmetry'. The two are entirely distinct.
For example, you are 'without' knowledge about most of the world's religions. By your definition this means that you are against them and must spend your time fighting Islam, Hinduism etc.
d) You seem to be incapable of distinguishing general from specific. Thus you constantly generalise 'atheism' from specific atheists like me. This isn't only wrong, it is rather stupid - especially since it has been repeatedly pointed out that atheists come in all shapes, sizes, beliefs etc. The only thing that makes someone an atheist is a lack of belief in sky-fairies. Apart from that lack of belief they may have nothing else in common at all.
You seem determined to keep repeating fallacies - particularly that atheism is a religion. Fair enough - you can believe what you want, but you should expect to be called on it. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
e) You have spent most of your time on these boards attacking atheism. The title of this very thread is fairly indicative. The fact that some of us don't simply accept your attacks and, instead, bite back, is obviously something you don't like. Well, I'm afraid it is just tough-luck!
Bluedoll
Quote:
I did a search on satanic atheism, and could not find a definition. - Deanhills
And you most likely will not get a definition. Shall we not get hung up on defining but rather understand what is being said?

The social position of atheism is not for God. There is little doubt about this. And we can be observe this trend as a social movement. Definitions are good, I will not say they are not but when something is on the move, we might want to look at more than just defining phrases and words because social movements do evolve as time goes on anyway and need more explanation. Although I considering atheism to be very much a religion in this thread, satanic here is being used as an adjective only.

I want to make it clear in this thread that I have little interest in attacking. I made a distinction in the beginning when I wrote the op for this thread that it was created to discuss the topic of atheism, not atheists or theists specifically. Although, anyone regardless of their religion can give their opinion, just wanted to remind what the op of this thread is actually about.

So do comment on satanic - atheism and what you think about it but negative comments about my personal reflections or my beliefs I do not really take much note of as I read comments on the topic but not much on trolling when it occurs!
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
More nonsense.
a) The faith forum was setup for clear reasons and these have been explained many times.
No Bikerman. It is definitely not nonsense. The general idea was that this would solve the problem of vigorous debate that you felt was necessary in the Phil&Rel Forum, and to confine that to the Phil&Rel Forum. The Faith Forum debate would be less vigorous and if the opening post is to be about religion, that there would be freedom of expression for that religion, without countering it with atheistic type anti remarks like God is a murderer etc.

If you like I can refresh your memory with regard to the following two quotes from Bondings' post in the Suggestion Forum:
Quote:
However, next to splitting the forum, the suggestion is to add some extra restrictions to the Religion (or whatever it is named) forum. In the Religion forum, the discussion in a topic is limited to the views of the first post of the topic, meaning that no heavy discussions and arguments are allowed. Of course questions, similar views and some remarks are allowed, otherwise there would be no discussion left.

So in the Religion forum, if you post (in a new topic) that you are a devout Christian and believe in the bible, a reply saying that the bible is a fiction book, god doesn't exist and similar things won't be allowed. On the other hand, if someone creates a topic that states that he/she doesn't believe in god, a response that god does exist and you should pray and read the bible, is not allowed.

In the Philosophy forum, the heavy discussion would remain. Basically the choice would be given to either choose for less discussion and post in the Religion forum or choose for heavy discussion in the Philosophy forum.


For me this part was the most important part of what Bondings had said:
Quote:
And at last, about the moderation. I think it would be best if someone who isn't actively involved in the heavy discussions moderates these 2 forums. I suggest that in the short term it is moderated by the current staff, apart from Bikerman (who is actively involved in the discussions). In the long run, I will try to find a new global staff member who might also be suited for most moderation in those forums. We discussed about letting an active member be a special moderator of those forums only, but that would cause the same problem of having someone who is actively involved moderate the forums.
I'm still waiting for that to happen.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
More nonsense.
a) The faith forum was setup for clear reasons and these have been explained many times.
No Bikerman. It is definitely not nonsense. The general idea was that this would solve the problem of vigorous debate that you felt was necessary in the Phil&Rel Forum, and to confine that to the Phil&Rel Forum. The Faith Forum debate would be less vigorous and if the opening post is to be about religion, that there would be freedom of expression for that religion, without countering it with atheistic type anti remarks like God is a murderer etc.
Exactly - which is why you don't see any such comments.
Quote:
If you like I can refresh your memory with regard to the following two quotes from Bondings' post in the Suggestion Forum:
Quote:
However, next to splitting the forum, the suggestion is to add some extra restrictions to the Religion (or whatever it is named) forum. In the Religion forum, the discussion in a topic is limited to the views of the first post of the topic, meaning that no heavy discussions and arguments are allowed. Of course questions, similar views and some remarks are allowed, otherwise there would be no discussion left.
Again this is fine - can you tell me which posts have violated this?
Quote:
So in the Religion forum, if you post (in a new topic) that you are a devout Christian and believe in the bible, a reply saying that the bible is a fiction book, god doesn't exist and similar things won't be allowed. On the other hand, if someone creates a topic that states that he/she doesn't believe in god, a response that god does exist and you should pray and read the bible, is not allowed.
Ditto. The OP was 'satanic atheists'. That is what has been discussed.
Quote:
For me this part was the most important part of what Bondings had said:
Quote:
And at last, about the moderation. I think it would be best if someone who isn't actively involved in the heavy discussions moderates these 2 forums. I suggest that in the short term it is moderated by the current staff, apart from Bikerman (who is actively involved in the discussions). In the long run, I will try to find a new global staff member who might also be suited for most moderation in those forums. We discussed about letting an active member be a special moderator of those forums only, but that would cause the same problem of having someone who is actively involved moderate the forums.
I'm still waiting for that to happen.
That is something beyond my control. I don't moderate here, as was agreed at the time, other than to remove spam. (At least I don't think I have ever moderated in this forum - if I'm wrong then I am open to correction on this).
We chose a 'special' moderator - Vrythramax - but he is no longer with us, and no replacement has yet come forward. I will raise the issue and see what can be done - but other than that I cannot force anyone to moderate here.
Hello_World
Quote:
I will say that preaching that God is monster and making suggestions that others are stupid for believing in their religious choice is certainly supporting Satan, yes.


No. This is only true if God and/or Satan existed. They don't. Not in my athiest mind.

If an athiest said God is a monster, it would only be to annoy you, as of course if we don't believe in God, we don't believe he or she is a monster. Likewise, 'God is a murderer' is not an athiest-type remark.

I for one support those athiests who discourage religion. it is my belief that the sooner the world passes beyond these supersititions the better.

To be 'without God' is not by defination denouncing God. It simply means a lack of belief. The fact that I think the world would be better without supersititions is really a political belief I hold, not an 'athiest' one. (While it presupposes athieism, athieism does not presuppose this political belief). Just like some Christians are liberal, and some are conservative. Some are evangelistic and others just care for their own relationship with God. Athieisms whole purpose and reason for being is simply a lack of belief.

The majority of my life I was simply of the camp of a lack of belief. It is really only in the last while, since religion has been pushed in my face so much, since the world state of affairs has been so determined by what religion you are, that I have begun to feel that we would all be better off without it and happy to say so.

If you choose to see it as the work of Satan or whatnot, good luck to you with that. It really doesn't mean much to someone who doesn't believe in Satan.
[/quote]
Bikerman
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
I will say that preaching that God is monster and making suggestions that others are stupid for believing in their religious choice is certainly supporting Satan, yes.


No. This is only true if God and/or Satan existed. They don't. Not in my athiest mind.

If an athiest said God is a monster, it would only be to annoy you, as of course if we don't believe in God, we don't believe he or she is a monster. Likewise, 'God is a murderer' is not an athiest-type remark.
Not to annoy - that would be petty. To provoke thought, to shake complacency, to challenge certainty...that would be closer to the mark I think.
What I do is take theists at their word and see where it leads. Christians tell me that the bible is the inspired word of God. I simply wish to examine that claim, since in my reading it is neither divine nor particularly moral. I could easily argue about the actual historicity of the bible and show that it has been changed many times, but I don't generally do that. Instead I make a huge concession to the Christian and say 'OK, let's take as given that your bible is what you say it is - the word of God. Now, let's examine exactly what that word says, and see what your God is actually like.'

I agree with the rest of your posting - of course I don't believe in Satan or God, so any support for one or insult to the other is entirely in the theists mind, not mine.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
If an athiest said God is a monster, it would only be to annoy you, as of course if we don't believe in God, we don't believe he or she is a monster. Likewise, 'God is a murderer' is not an athiest-type remark.
Hooray! I've been waiting for an atheist to say that for so long. My father is an atheist and most of my family is atheist. I'm Christian. The first I heard these kind of remarks was in this Forum. Up and until I joined Frihost I thought atheists were people who in general were completely disinterested in religion. Also that they are above average rational, i.e. would never make caustic, mocking and belittling remarks; they would be too sophisticated and subtle for that. The only way one can educate people is to be nice to them and make them feel good about themselves. Hacking away at their religion and putting their backs up has to be the dumbest education technique ever.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll, you've reminded us about the original intent of the thread, which seems to be that modern atheism is a religious cult, against God. I'm still not sure that the basis for this has really been shown in the thread. I still don't understand how atheism is religion at all, except in this vague "talking about religion makes it religion" sense... which I find perplexing. I also don't know what you mean by "satanic here is being used as an adjective only,"

Even if people are encouraging others to turn away from God like it's some kind of religion, how is this necessarily a bad thing... as far as I can tell, there's no additional encouragement to "sin" along with it. Atheists, in general, seem to live rather moral lives. Assuming that there is a God, isn't that what God wants? Moral humans? If we live well and treat one another decently, doesn't that trump lack of belief?

deanhills wrote:
... I thought atheists were people who in general were completely disinterested in religion. Also that they are above average rational, i.e. would never make caustic, mocking and belittling remarks; they would be too sophisticated and subtle for that.

Some are... of course, you're not going to be able to identify them somewhere like this, where people only engage in a discussion if they're (get this) interested in the topic Wink Some atheists, obviously are interested in religion as a topic... they're the ones you're likely to encounter through a medium such as a messageboard in an identifiable sort of way.
As for the second part, again, that's an individual personality trait. Atheists are (again) not a cohesive group, so display myriad views and ways of interacting with others. Some are sophisticated and subtle, some are brash, some are soft spoken, some are caustic, some mock, some ignore... some do a bit of it all! It's crazy, it's almost like we're individual humans with no real foundational group code or something...

deanhills wrote:
The only way one can educate people is to be nice to them and make them feel good about themselves.

Utter BS. Education can certainly be found in experiences that do not make us feel good. Positive reinforcement is a good tool, but it is not the only tool available to educate.
deanhills wrote:
Hacking away at their religion and putting their backs up has to be the dumbest education technique ever.

I do generally agree with this, however. That said, ridicule does have its place and can be effective in helping others see the error of their perspectives and can be effective in the right contexts, with the right people.
Bikerman
Quote:
I do generally agree with this, however. That said, ridicule does have its place and can be effective in helping others see the error of their perspectives and can be effective in the right contexts, with the right people.

The assumption is that those of us who use ridicule are interested in educating the subject of that ridicule. That would be a false assumption in most cases. Most zealots are not educable in my experience. The main point of ridicule is to point out to others just how ridiculous a particular position is, as you say.
In fact 'reductio ad absurdum' is a very effective technique in argumentation, and it CAN be very useful in educating someone if they are open to logic. The problem is that many people - particularly theists in my experience - cannot separate ridiculing a concept or debating position from ridiculing them personally. The reaction to 'God is a monster' provides good evidence of this.
Hello_World
Quote:
Not to annoy - that would be petty. To provoke thought, to shake complacency, to challenge certainty...that would be closer to the mark I think.


My comment came out of what Bluehills was saying about atheists... the way she put it, it seemed perfectly antagonistic. As if people were saying, like, "na ni na ni na na God is into incest". I don't know if I support that or not. (I'm really just considering that interesting question now...) At least in my life, if people are that confrontational, I will do everything in my power to defend my position, however absurd.

I do think it is good, however, for people to realise that loads of people think their views are wrong, silly and damaging. Especially Americans, because I don't think Americans realise the extent that their Christianity is stronger and more popular and different in many ways to the rest of the world. Like, I'm not sure if there even exist non-evolutionists outside America. I've certainly never met one (except online). If people live where most others feel the same, then ideas get questioned less.

Also, to provoke a reaction, that only serves to dig them deeper into an dis-logic hole, potrays the absurdity to others.

So, I agree with you Bikerman, I guess, on a level. It is not to annoy, that was the wrong word, the wrong explanation of rationale.

Certainly, if someone is attempting to engage in the absurdities of the Bible or the religion, then all power to it. There is no shortage of material there.

[/quote]
aoisubs
I am an atheist and I'm not a Satanist, an atheist such thing as a Satanist turn some people irritate me!
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
My comment came out of what Bluehills was saying about atheists...
Who is Bluehills, and which comment were you referring to?
Confused
Hello_World
@Deanhills.

SORRY!

You made this comment:

Quote:
without countering it with atheistic type anti remarks like God is a murderer etc.


Of course, what I said in essence still holds true, that it is not an athieist remark, as we don't believe any such BS at all, it is simply a provocation. But I keep thinking on this actually, is ridicule/provocation better than nothing?

I think I'd prefer someone was countering religion, like this rather than nothing. But it would be better if it was in some kind of argument, like for example in the Old Testament 2 daughters sleep with their father to keep the family line alive. And God is okay with this. This shows that values change over time, but if God was real, s/he would have made the right ones to start off with. It shows that the Bible is set in a time and place and that suggests it was made by people. As opposed to... 'na ni na God is into incest.'

In your opinion (deanhills) is that too (the argument I put forward) bittliling and ridiculeing?

All in all, this is moving away from the topic by the OP a bit.

Satanic is not a good adjective of athieism. It is fundamentally wrong. It is like saying a Zeus Worshipping Christian.

And it isn't going away any time soon. The more that religion clashes with the values of others, the more in our faces it is, the more we will want to be free of it and its influence.
[/quote]
Bikerman
Well, it should be said that 'God is a murderer' was a comment I made. In fact I was a bit stronger - I think i said something like 'genocidal mass murderer'.
This was after I had explained why I think so - with specific reference to the Genesis account of the flood.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
@Deanhills.

SORRY!

You made this comment:

Quote:
without countering it with atheistic type anti remarks like God is a murderer etc.


Of course, what I said in essence still holds true, that it is not an athieist remark, as we don't believe any such BS at all, it is simply a provocation. But I keep thinking on this actually, is ridicule/provocation better than nothing?
And it's a "he" of course as well Very Happy - you must have got me and Bluedoll mixed up, no worries though. The comment was taken a bit out of context. I get your point however totally, and I'm glad to learn that it is not a typical atheist remark.

Hello_World wrote:
I think I'd prefer someone was countering religion, like this rather than nothing. But it would be better if it was in some kind of argument, like for example in the Old Testament 2 daughters sleep with their father to keep the family line alive. And God is okay with this. This shows that values change over time, but if God was real, s/he would have made the right ones to start off with. It shows that the Bible is set in a time and place and that suggests it was made by people. As opposed to... 'na ni na God is into incest.'

In your opinion (deanhills) is that too (the argument I put forward) bittliling and ridiculeing?

All in all, this is moving away from the topic by the OP a bit.
You're right this is going off topic. Why not start it as a topic somewhere else? Just to give you a sneak preview. I'd probably counter with that that is a people and not a God thing. If offense needs to be taken it would depend on how these facts are presented, whether mocking, belittling, I'm sure you must know what I mean. Good topic though if you want to start a new one.

Hello_World wrote:
Satanic is not a good adjective of athieism. It is fundamentally wrong. It is like saying a Zeus Worshipping Christian.
Agreed. Especially when it is used to ridicule atheists. I'm not in favour of that at all. One wrong never makes another wrong right.

Hello_World wrote:
And it isn't going away any time soon. The more that religion clashes with the values of others, the more in our faces it is, the more we will want to be free of it and its influence.
Agreed. A good start would be to accept our differences with respect.
Bluedoll
Quote:
The problem is that many people - particularly theists in my experience - cannot separate ridiculing a concept or debating position from ridiculing them personally. – Bikerman
Agree, the same applies to atheists. When and if it becomes personal you and others will know it.

Quote:
I am an atheist and I'm not a Satanist, an atheist such thing as a Satanist turn some people irritate me!- aoisubs
I am not attempting to irritate atheists, I am showing what atheism is about.




This is how atheism emulates as a religion.
Quote:
The more that religion clashes with the values of others, the more in our faces it is, the more we will want to be free of it and its influence.- Hello World


It publicly says it is a religion by the suggestion that only it “atheism” can be free and has values.

Though some may say, they sort of do not believe in the existence of God because they do not have any proof - this is not how atheism defines it.


The religion of atheism is anti-God.
It is not a non belief.
It is a belief that God does not exist and uses the bible to publically declare' and convince other members of religious belief - an athiest belief. It seeks to discredit, so to have influence over other people. This is what all religions do!


Quote:
This was after I had explained why I think so - with specific reference to the Genesis account of the flood. –Bikerman


It uses the bible like any priest, pastor or religious leader would to put forward its beliefs.

Quote:
Most zealots are not educable in my experience.-Bikerman
Zealots exist in all walks of life including atheism. Because this false religion is so vile in its workings it does include zealots in it's wake just as other religions do. Some people consider themselves atheists and do little, other followers of the cult will promote it with a vengeance.

Quote:
Some atheists, obviously are interested in religion as a topic... they're the ones you're likely to encounter through a medium such as a messageboard in an identifiable sort of way. - Ankhanu
This thread is not about atheists but atheism. I do not agree on the innocence of some people for they themselves declare that they know more about the bible than the average person and act more like ministers than some ministers of registered religions will when applying their doctrine.

Quote:
Even if people are encouraging others to turn away from God like it's some kind of religion, how is this necessarily a bad thing... as far as I can tell, there's no additional encouragement to "sin" along with it.
I may cover that topic in another thread. This one deals with identifying what atheism is, not how it is bad or good.

Quote:
I also don't know what you mean by "satanic here is being used as an adjective only,"- Ankhanu
There seemed to be some confusion about that in the beginning. This topic is about atheism in general not a specific kind of athiesm. It is an adjective. I could have used stubborn atheism, cruel atheism, negative atheism. I chose satanic because the bible explains it in these terms.

Quote:
Who is Bluehills - deanhills
I do not know that member. Maybe it some made up guy or another coward with a fictitious IP.

Laughing
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
This is how atheism emulates as a religion.
Quote:
The more that religion clashes with the values of others, the more in our faces it is, the more we will want to be free of it and its influence.- Hello World


It publicly says it is a religion by the suggestion that only it “atheism” can be free and has values.

This is a misconception on your part. Atheism suggests no such thing. It does suggest that divinity is not necessary for freedom nor values, but that is very different from suggesting that only atheism engenders such things.

Bluedoll wrote:
Though some may say, they sort of do not believe in the existence of God because they do not have any proof - this is not how atheism defines it.


The religion of atheism is anti-God.
It is not a non belief.
It is a belief that God does not exist and uses the bible to publically declare' and convince other members of religious belief - an athiest belief. It seeks to discredit, so to have influence over other people. This is what all religions do!

If I'm reading this right, which I may not be as it is somewhat confusing in its structure, it's still a misconception. While it may be true of individual atheists, you've been pointing out that individual atheists are not what you're talking about. "Atheism", in general, is agnostic on the existence of God, and does not seek to discredit anything, let alone pick and choose which religions are discredited (i.e. Christianity is wrong, as opposed to all religions being wrong. Specific use of the Bible narrows down your focus, but it leaves the impression that atheists pick on Christianity and leave others alone, as though they have more merit). There are vocal anti-religion atheists, certainly true, but this is not an atheist trait specifically.

Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
Most zealots are not educable in my experience.-Bikerman
Zealots exist in all walks of life including atheism. Because this false religion is so vile in its workings it does include zealots in it's wake just as other religions do. Some people consider themselves atheists and do little, other followers of the cult will promote it with a vengeance.

Other than the fact that atheism isn't religion, yeah, you're right about there being some zealots... but you're not talking about individuals, remember?

Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
Some atheists, obviously are interested in religion as a topic... they're the ones you're likely to encounter through a medium such as a messageboard in an identifiable sort of way. - Ankhanu
This thread is not about atheists but atheism. I do not agree on the innocence of some people for they themselves declare that they know more about the bible than the average person and act more like ministers than some ministers of registered religions will when applying their doctrine.

Some DO know more about the Bible than the religious believers though. Not sure what the problem is. Many believers simply have never read their holy books, many non-believers have. The same can be said of most any topic that has broad appeal. My daughter, for example, who doesn't care much for Star Wars, probably knows more about it than some people who have seen it and loved it. This is simply due to exposure.

Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
Even if people are encouraging others to turn away from God like it's some kind of religion, how is this necessarily a bad thing... as far as I can tell, there's no additional encouragement to "sin" along with it.
I may cover that topic in another thread. This one deals with identifying what atheism is, not how it is bad or good.

Really? You've labeled it "Satanic", that seems to be placing a value judgment upon it.

Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
I also don't know what you mean by "satanic here is being used as an adjective only,"- Ankhanu
There seemed to be some confusion about that in the beginning. This topic is about atheism in general not a specific kind of athiesm. It is an adjective. I could have used stubborn atheism, cruel atheism, negative atheism. I chose satanic because the bible explains it in these terms.

Then maybe you should have used a more apt adjective, one that doesn't imply meanings you didn't intend as its main meaning. As it is, you chose a word that has some pretty specific implications, our confusion is natural.
Bluedoll
It does have it's own agenda. It has a doctrine and it is developing a philosophy for itself. What I mean can be better understood by removing temporarily the hard debates from the table and to ask atheism what is it is all about. In other words, delete all the other religions and make the transition and replacement to atheism. Then the truth is clear about what atheism states about freedom and values. You do not have freewill! This is something that atheism will present on the table in its new world order.



Quote:
Then maybe you should have used a more apt adjective, one that doesn't imply meanings you didn't intend as its main meaning. As it is, you chose a word that has some pretty specific implications, our confusion is natural. - Ankhanu
Then I am willing to clear up any confusion. Are we electing to bring creditablity to many quotes from the bible in regards to religious afflilation to athiesm? Then I too will elect to use the bible with full discloser to make it clear that this adjective is indeed accurate.

Quote:
Really? You've labeled it "Satanic", that seems to be placing a value judgment upon it. - Ankhanu
    Are you judging satan?







Personal comment @ Ankhana on a side note here, with a suggestion for reasonable discussion, if you want that? ... to consider to please try something not like my post is “confusing in its structure.” My writing may very well be confusing in structure or it may not be or it may only seem that way to you. Whatever the case, I suggest we might try a different approach and say simply in some manner, that we just don’t get it and we can go from there. Unless, you mean of course that I am confused and illiterate and stupid and whatever etc etc as I have read from so many ignorant members on this board. Do not be one of them Ankhana as it will only belittle you. For this reason, I suggest that you use ‘you’ in your posts not ‘our’.

Quote:
Other than the fact that atheism isn't religion, yeah, you're right about there being some zealots... but you're not talking about individuals, remember? - Ankhanu
and you should remember that I am attempting in this post to continue to discuss atheism at the same time as other posters bring into the thread personal atheist views .. and yes the two things are related as they are in any religion.
Hello_World
Quote:
Quote:
The more that religion clashes with the values of others, the more in our faces it is, the more we will want to be free of it and its influence.- Hello World


It publicly says it is a religion by the suggestion that only it “atheism” can be free and has values.


No. I said we 'satanic' athiests want to be free to live and define our own values. I didn't say Christians, nor other religions for that matter, weren't free nor did I say they don't have values.

I'm heading to bed before I've read all the posts or responded to all that I found interesting.
Bluedoll
Did Ankhanu once say a few times he wanted to understand another viewpoint other than your own? Smile (or something similar to this) – well this thread is another viewpoint.

It is a view to athiesm looking at how it works to remove a freedom of faith in God by denying a *belief in God. This includes everyone. I am explaining what it is and what it does to people. Standing in an atheism stance is a position to be in opposition to God. It will stop at nothing to get what it wants and it will take prisoners. No one is free of it once it takes them for its own. This is where all religions have a similarity.

I have a question for anyone here. How do you think it is possible to be always neutral, not to have a belief, how to be completely independent from the rest of the world? If the stance one takes is not to believe in God, then what do you think you will be accepting as a belief? Certainly, the stupid twisted answer I’ve read here that of a non-belief as stamp collecting. This answer is one of denial and an unacceptable answer. Yes or no. Everyone has beliefs!

If someone accepts atheism, then they will believe what atheism tells them what to believe. The very idea that anyone can be free of religious belief by accepting atheism as a belief is a false one. You are free of religion if you go do other things. You are free of religion if you think about life and have activities in life. You are free of religion if you mind your own business and get a hobby. But you will never be free of religion if you spend your time pursuing religious topics, dwelling in religious debates and establishing religious new arguments so to influence others. To believe in God is a religious belief. To not believe in God is a religious belief. It's topic have nothing to do with stamp collecting, thats for sure!
Can anyone obtain positive values and be a valuable member to society if they seek values? Yes, but if they for one second think by being involved in religious activities like reading, discussing and disputing the bible, promoting atheism and declaring atheism’s beliefs to others is some kind of “freedom” from religion, they are mistaken. I am saying that atheism itself will give neither.

It is not easy to define what religion is. quote If religion is a belief system we all have one.
Quote:
"One's religion is whatever he is most interested in."
—J.M. Barrie, The Twelve-Pound Look (1910)


*belief here is not merely 'a belief' but to "believe in"
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
I have a question for anyone here. How do you think it is possible to be always neutral, not to have a belief, how to be completely independent from the rest of the world? If the stance one takes is not to believe in God, then what do you think you will be accepting as a belief? Certainly, the stupid twisted answer I’ve read here that of a non-belief as stamp collecting. This answer is one of denial and an unacceptable answer. Yes or no. Everyone has beliefs!

You asked the question, so I'll answer it honestly as an individual without any particular belief:

I have never witnessed/experienced anything to convince me that any gods exist.
I have never witnessed/experienced anything to convince me that any gods do not exist.
I have never witnessed/experienced anything to convince me that science has evidence or the ability to confirm either way.
I have never witnessed/experienced anything to convince me that theists have evidence or the ability to confirm either way.

I'll happily sit on the fence and be flamed for it, but at least my viewpoint is realistically constructed in my mind.
Perhaps if I had a gun to my head and was forced into a yes/no answer then I would 'guess' no, or whatever I thought the holder of the gun would want me to say.
Apart from an extreme situation such as that though, I am quite indifferent/neutral to any gods existence in my day to day life, until or unless I'm confronted with anyone who suggests that my life is somehow lacking/damned as a result of my lack of belief.

Certainly, I fall into the atheist camp, but I struggle to see the 'satanic' link, and remaining honest, I do think it's all a bit silly - but thats probably because I don't share your belief in the writings of the book you cherry pick from.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
Standing in an atheism stance is a position to be in opposition to God. It will stop at nothing to get what it wants and it will take prisoners. No one is free of it once it takes them for its own. This is where all religions have a similarity.
Incoherent babble.
Quote:
If someone accepts atheism, then they will believe what atheism tells them what to believe.
Incoherent babble. Not believing in God doesn't tell you what to believe.
Quote:
The very idea that anyone can be free of religious belief by accepting atheism as a belief is a false one.
Incoherent babble. Atheism is not a belief, it is simply a lack of belief.
Quote:
You are free of religion if you go do other things. You are free of religion if you think about life and have activities in life. You are free of religion if you mind your own business and get a hobby. But you will never be free of religion if you spend your time pursuing religious topics, dwelling in religious debates and establishing religious new arguments so to influence others.
Confused nonsense. Religion and God are two separate issues. The idea that one is free from religion by ignoring it is frankly stupid - like saying one is free from being wet by ignoring the rain.
Quote:
To believe in God is a religious belief. To not believe in God is a religious belief. It's topic have nothing to do with stamp collecting, thats for sure!
Lack of belief in God is a religious belief in the same way that not stamp collecting is a hobby.
Quote:
Can anyone obtain positive values and be a valuable member to society if they seek values? Yes, but if they for one second think by being involved in religious activities like reading, discussing and disputing the bible, promoting atheism and declaring atheism’s beliefs to others is some kind of “freedom” from religion, they are mistaken. I am saying that atheism itself will give neither.
Incoherent babble. It is obviously possible to be involved in religious activities without believing in God - apparently quite a few Church of England clergy manage it quite well. Atheism has no 'beliefs', though individual atheists might certainly have them.
Bluedoll
This is religious post. It is about atheism, a very real identity.
Everyone in the world has beliefs. watersoul and Bikerman just stated theirs.

I am not holding up a gun, flaming anyone, telling anyone they are dammed.

Both watersoul and Bikerman can believe what they want. I believe however that atheism attempts to convince people to follow it’s belief system and it certainly has shown the world that it has them and what it’s beliefs are.

@Watersoul you can certainly state that you do not believe in what the bible does say but you can not escape the bibles existence. The bibles certainly does exist and the satanic link as you called it can be shown very clearly in the bible. You can if you choose to, listen only to the atheist camp, or you can also choose to listen to the other side of what the bible actually does say. That decision should always remain your choice. You can also say you have never witnessed or experienced proof of God but now you can never say, you did not read once that atheism was satanic. You just did! If you want to understand more fine, I do not mind discussion, but no one is forcing you to have one, Mr. watersoul.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
This is religious post. It is about atheism, a very real identity.
Everyone in the world has beliefs. watersoul and Bikerman just stated theirs.
Really. So you will be able to tell me what those beliefs are then? I see no beliefs in my posting, just a lack of one.
Quote:
Both watersoul and Bikerman can believe what they want. I believe however that atheism attempts to convince people to follow it’s belief system and it certainly has shown the world that it has them and what it’s beliefs are.
More incoherence. An 'ism' cannot 'do' anything since it is an abstract idea. You are confusing description with people who are described by it. Your basic problem is that you want to have a go at me and you can only do it by generalising to atheists, as if I were representative of all atheists. The trouble is that I'm not, so your generalisations fall flat. I just happen to be an atheist who knows a fair amount about Christianity and challenges it. There are plenty of atheists who don't care about Christianity, and probably many who quite like it.
Quote:
@Watersoul you can certainly state that you do not believe in what the bible does say but you can not escape the bibles existence. The bibles certainly does exist
Duh...ya think so?
Quote:
and the satanic link as you called it can be shown very clearly in the bible.
Oh sure it can. For example
Quote:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:18
In other words atheists are evil homosexual perverts. (Note the fact that God 'gives them over' to this - ie if you don't believe in God he MAKES you a homosexual pervert...nice). The problem is that like so much of the bible, it is complete crap. It is trivial to show that atheists are at least as moral as theists, and the notion that atheists are more likely to be homosexual is a bit of a giggle given what we have observed in the Catholic church, and the slanging match in Anglicanism between gays and evangelists.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
It does have it's own agenda. It has a doctrine and it is developing a philosophy for itself. What I mean can be better understood by removing temporarily the hard debates from the table and to ask atheism what is it is all about. In other words, delete all the other religions and make the transition and replacement to atheism. Then the truth is clear about what atheism states about freedom and values. You do not have freewill! This is something that atheism will present on the table in its new world order.

This really does sound, at least to me, like conspiracy theory... The atheist Illuminati are plotting to take over the world through subtle machinations beyond the ken of most mere mortals. Watch out, they're going to steal away your religion!

Atheism states nothing about freedom or values... though it does imply that they're likely not divinely inspired.

The question of free will is one that is still debated today within purely theistic circles. Lack of free will is not really an atheist platform. It's a topic of philosophy that is just as important to theistic discussion as any other. I'm not seeing how it relates specifically to atheism.

Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
Then maybe you should have used a more apt adjective, one that doesn't imply meanings you didn't intend as its main meaning. As it is, you chose a word that has some pretty specific implications, our confusion is natural. - Ankhanu
Then I am willing to clear up any confusion. Are we electing to bring creditablity to many quotes from the bible in regards to religious afflilation to athiesm? Then I too will elect to use the bible with full discloser to make it clear that this adjective is indeed accurate.

I'm afraid that your objective of clarification was not met here.

Quote:
Really? You've labeled it "Satanic", that seems to be placing a value judgment upon it. - Ankhanu
    Are you judging satan?
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by judging satan.
Satan has certain characteristics that are invoked when one uses satan as an adjective... it invoked connotations that are reflective of the traits ascribed to him. It's not really rocket science.

Bluedoll wrote:
Personal comment @ Ankhana on a side note here, with a suggestion for reasonable discussion, if you want that? ... to consider to please try something not like my post is “confusing in its structure.” My writing may very well be confusing in structure or it may not be or it may only seem that way to you. Whatever the case, I suggest we might try a different approach and say simply in some manner, that we just don’t get it and we can go from there.

This is, in fact, what I did (from my perspective). I told you that I didn't get it, and told you why I didn't get it. It's intended to be useful information to you. If it hurt your feelings, I'm sorry you were hurt, but I am not apologetic for providing you with information.
Bluedoll wrote:
Unless, you mean of course that I am confused and illiterate and stupid and whatever etc etc as I have read from so many ignorant members on this board. Do not be one of them Ankhana as it will only belittle you.

This is not what I meant, at all. I meant exactly what I stated: I found the structure (grammar, syntax) confusing.

Bluedoll wrote:
I suggest that you use ‘you’ in your posts not ‘our’.

This is what I wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
If I'm reading this right, which I may not be as it is somewhat confusing in its structure

This plainly states that it is me having difficulty with sentence/paragraph structure and confusion. When I used "our" it was in relation to the use of "satanic", specifically, as an adjective, which has been demonstrated throughout the thread to have been a stumbling block for several people. The pronouns were used in different contexts and were used properly, I thought.

Bluedoll wrote:
Did Ankhanu once say a few times he wanted to understand another viewpoint other than your own?

Absolutely.
But, understanding and accepting are different things, right? I'm still working on understanding the viewpoint you've put forth in this thread, but when I do understand it, I may well not accept it. For example, I understand Lemarck's theory of evolution, but I don't accept it.

Bluedoll wrote:
I have a question for anyone here. How do you think it is possible to be always neutral, not to have a belief, how to be completely independent from the rest of the world? If the stance one takes is not to believe in God, then what do you think you will be accepting as a belief? Certainly, the stupid twisted answer I’ve read here that of a non-belief as stamp collecting. This answer is one of denial and an unacceptable answer. Yes or no. Everyone has beliefs!

The fact that you can't accept a null stance does not remove it as an actual possibility.
I don't think it's possible to always be neutral and be completely independent of the rest of the world... but it is possible to not have a belief; non-positive is not the same as negative, ya dig? Yes and no are not always the only options.

If I tell you that Stomp Your British Knights Down by Local Rabbits is an awesome song, you don't just have the options of belief that: 1) I'm right, it's an awesome song and 2) You're wrong, it's a terrible song... you also have a third option: 3) I've never heard it, I don't know if it's an awesome song or not... or a fourth: 4) I've heard it, I'm indifferent... or... geez, there could even be: 5) I don't think that a song (or band) like that exists.

Bluedoll wrote:
If someone accepts atheism, then they will believe what atheism tells them what to believe...

Atheism still does not tell anyone what to believe.

Bluedoll wrote:
I believe however that atheism attempts to convince people to follow it’s belief system and it certainly has shown the world that it has them and what it’s beliefs are.

I believe you're confusing individual atheists with anti-religious or anti-theist stances for atheism. While one is contained within the other, they are not synonymous. Many atheists are content to leave people to their religious beliefs, many encourage theists to actually think about what they believe, and others are, as you describe, against religions. I'm not sure how this translates to some sort of atheist organization, dogma and belief that is against religion.
Hello_World
by Blue Doll:


Quote:
It is not easy to define what religion is. quote If religion is a belief system we all have one.


Indeed, I have a belief system. I based it upon the writings of the political theorists, Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Smith, Marx, Singer, Chomsky etc.

Athieism has informed this as much as to say, my belief system is founded upon earth, and I have had to make my own (belief systems, values, morals...).

If that is your definition above, then how do you differentiate between religion, philosophy and politics?

Why are you and other religious people so keen to define me, and define me in such a way as expressly denies my own world view?

Quote:
It's topic have nothing to do with stamp collecting, thats for sure!


Actually that is the best analogy I have ever heard.

Quote:
how to be completely independent from the rest of the world?


I don't believe I am.

Quote:
Standing in an atheism stance is a position to be in opposition to God.


Quote:
The religion of atheism is anti-God.


I'm not in opposition to anything that doesn't exist. I am, however, in opposition to your religion and the religion of others. Mind, I feel this way. Other athiests think their own things. That is the nature of athiesm.

If Christians did not exist, or Christians never attempted to influence the lives of others, or have wars, then Christianity's existance would be nothing of bother to me. My athiesm exists outside of Christianity, outside of Islam, outside of any religion. I would still be an athiest if there were no religions. It would exist if I was the only one. It therefore does not stand in opposition. It stands on its own. You just happen not to like it because it brings your beliefs into question.


Quote:
I believe however that atheism attempts to convince people to follow it’s belief system and it certainly has shown the world that it has them and what it’s beliefs are.


Please elaborate. What are those belief systems? Is "we all don't believe in a higher being" a system?

Quote:
It is about atheism, a very real identity.


Unlike God.

Quote:
You do not have freewill! This is something that atheism will present on the table in its new world order.


WTF!?!

Quote:
Because this false religion is so vile in its workings it does include zealots in it's wake just as other religions do.


Are you suggesting all religions who have zealots are vile? That is very open of you.


[/quote]
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
This is religious post. It is about atheism, a very real identity.
Everyone in the world has beliefs. watersoul and Bikerman just stated theirs.
Nope, I just stated the reasons for my lack of belief after you asked a question.

Bluedoll wrote:
@Watersoul you can certainly state that you do not believe in what the bible does say but you can not escape the bibles existence. The bibles certainly does exist and the satanic link as you called it can be shown very clearly in the bible. You can if you choose to, listen only to the atheist camp, or you can also choose to listen to the other side of what the bible actually does say. That decision should always remain your choice. You can also say you have never witnessed or experienced proof of God but now you can never say, you did not read once that atheism was satanic. You just did!
I'm also aware of the existence of the 'Little red riding hood' story book, but my awareness makes it no more or less important to my life than the story book you hold dear to your belief.

Bluedoll wrote:
If you want to understand more fine, I do not mind discussion, but no one is forcing you to have one, Mr. watersoul.
I have never felt forced at all, but thank you for clarifying this point...Ms. Bluedoll.
Bluedoll
@watersoul
That is not what I meant. I created a topic about athiesm. You obviously do not like it which is made evident by the tone of your post. You came into it this thread with an attitude of someone is going to hold a gun to my head, talk. I was just reassuring you this is not what my post is about. I asked a question yes. quote: “How do you think it is possible to be always neutral, not to have a belief, how to be completely independent from the rest of the world?”

If you believe that is possible, fine, you can express this but by doing so loose your neutrality.

@Hello_World ... in case you have not noticed this is a message board not a chat room. Sorry, this thread is not about you so I am not defining you. The topic is quote: “Jesus Christ started an event that continued well after the first century. We are now in the twenty-first century and still his words continue to be on the lips of many. The religion, satanic atheism, will be short lived. However it must continue for a while yet and be observed as a testament to our times. This religion is called the anti-christ in the bible. It is not a person but an anti-movement to God. It is really that simple.” – Bluedoll

You say, that the nature of atheism is to be against the religion of others. I will assume when you say my religion this means against Jesus Christ. You are saying you agree with the above quote! O k!

@bikerman
You have expressed lots of beliefs in your posts. Sure, I will point what some of those beliefs are, if you think you need this. You think I want to have a ‘go’ at you. (What does that mean? Can you talk english?) You belief this is true, however.
You believe you have knowledge. You believe you understand Christianity. You believe ideas can not do anything. You believe you can read the bible and understand what it says. You believe you are capable of translating it. You believe you understand what Roman 1:18 means. You believe you understand God. You believe you can speak for God. You believe everything other than your own beliefs are as you say ‘crap’. You believe you are a homosexual. You believe that you can write. You believe every other post that conflicts with your beliefs is incoherent babble. You believe that God has nothing to do with religion. You belief you understand athiesm. You believe you need attention.

@Ankhanu
I want a chance to think about what you wrote as it did have some interesting points and then write something as well. – thanks for posting
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
@bikerman
You have expressed lots of beliefs in your posts. Sure, I will point what some of those beliefs are, if you think you need this. You think I want to have a ‘go’ at you. (What does that mean? Can you talk english?) You belief this is true, however.
I wouldn't be commenting on my use of English if I were you, because it might tempt me to point out that you are semi-literate, at best.
Quote:
You believe you have knowledge.
No. I KNOW I have knowledge, as does any conscious entity - even you.
Quote:
You believe you understand Christianity.
I most certainly do not. I am more familar with varieties of it, better trained in Catholic and basic Christian doctrine, and great deal more knowledgable about most aspects of it it than you are - but that isn't a belief, it is demonstrated clearly in your postings - and it isn't particularly a noteworthy claim since the bar is so low. I don't claim to understand that which is basically incomprehensible - as much of Christian belief is.
Quote:
You believe ideas can not do anything.
Ridiculous assertion which you just invented.
Quote:
You believe you can read the bible and understand what it says.
No I don't. The only claim I have ever made there is that I understand it a lot better than YOU and many other theists, but that is not a belief, it is a demonstrable fact.
Quote:
You believe you are capable of translating it.
Another invention. I KNOW that I have several translations of the bible and I KNOW what languages the bible was originally scripted in, but I'm pretty sure I have never claimed to speak/write Hebrew, ancient Greek or Aramaic.
Quote:
You believe you understand what Roman 1:18 means.
Another invention. I KNOW that I can read English and parse/precis it pretty well.
Quote:
You believe you understand God. You believe you can speak for God. You believe everything other than your own beliefs are as you say ‘crap’. You believe you are a homosexual.
Complete fabrication, 4 in a row.
Quote:
You believe that you can write.
I believe I can express myself in English, yes, and again that is not really a belief, it is demonstrable.
Quote:
You believe every other post that conflicts with your beliefs is incoherent babble.
Another lie/invention.
Quote:
You believe that God has nothing to do with religion.
And another....
Quote:
You belief you understand athiesm.
No, I AM an atheist. Understanding the word is very easy - use a dictionary.
Quote:
You believe you need attention.
I can take it or leave it.

So let's summarise: you have invented a list of things which you THINK I believe - some to be deliberately personally insulting and some because you don't read/understand what is actually posted. You actually don't know WHAT I believe, as I said.
Hello_World
@Bluedoll

In the last post I responded to things you said. If it went off topic, that cannot be attributed to me. The majority was right on the ball. You define athieism as a religion in that first statement. You talk about athieism being anti-Christ in that first statement. I previously did go off-topic, in which I pulled myself up and stopped.

Quote:
Sorry, this thread is not about you so I am not defining you.


Yes, you are. This topic is about athiesm. You define it as a religion. I am an athiest. You are defining my world view as religious. I have heard athiests time and again dispute that athieism is a religion. Why do religious people seek to define us athieists in a way which we say is a misinterpretation of our lack of belief?

Quote:
It is not a person but an anti-movement to God. It is really that simple.


I accept that the version you are talking of, 'satanic athiesm', or aggressive athieism, or radical athieism, whatever you wish to call it, is (loosely) a movement, and it is against religion.

Not against God. Not against Christianity alone. And not a religion.
Most importantly, not athieism as an umbrella term.

So actually we have some agreement here.

Quote:
You say, that the nature of atheism is to be against the religion of others. I will assume when you say my religion this means against Jesus Christ.


No, what I said was:

Quote:
Mind, I feel this way. Other athiests think their own things. That is the nature of athiesm.


@ Bikerman:

Quote:
This was after I had explained why I think so - with specific reference to the Genesis account of the flood.


I have since read some of your posts and you seem quite eloquent much of the time. I haven't/didn't read this particular post under question.
Bikerman
Hello_World wrote:
@ Bikerman:
I have since read some of your posts and you seem quite eloquent much of the time. I haven't/didn't read this particular post under question.
Why thank you kind sir, how nice of you to say.

I aspire to articulacy always, and am abashed at any apparent abberations and ambiguities, alleged and actual, anxious to achieve academic accuracy and also avoid alientating any audience attending.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
@watersoul
That is not what I meant. I created a topic about athiesm. You obviously do not like it which is made evident by the tone of your post. You came into it this thread with an attitude of someone is going to hold a gun to my head, talk.

Perhaps you scan-read/misunderstood what I meant so I'll repeat it with bold emphasis for your benefit:
watersoul wrote:

Perhaps if I had a gun to my head and was forced into a yes/no answer then I would 'guess' no, or whatever I thought the holder of the gun would want me to say.

I merely used the example as a rare situation where I would make a call either way about the existence or not of gods.
As far as me not liking the topic, I think you're looking for hidden meanings in otherwise pretty straightforward replies from me. I do not like or dislike it, I'm indifferent really, apart from mild amusement, and my thoughts that the whole satanic atheist general banner for anyone who doesn't believe in your God thing is rather silly.

Bluedoll wrote:
I was just reassuring you this is not what my post is about. I asked a question yes. quote: “How do you think it is possible to be always neutral, not to have a belief, how to be completely independent from the rest of the world?”

If you believe that is possible, fine, you can express this but by doing so loose your neutrality.


I do not believe that gods exist, I do not believe they don't, I simply don't know enough to make a call, and I assume I shall remain of that viewpoint until any evidence appears to convince me either way.

I don't do blind faith but equally I won't state that I believe something absolutely does not exist as long as I don't know. I would suggest it's unlikely, of course, due to no evidence at all apart from the blind faith of others such as your good self, but it's not something I can say I know is just the stuff of fairy tales.

...I don't know, and I'll continue to sit on the fence until I read posts such as this topic accusing anyone who doesn't believe in your God of being controlled by or following satanic forces.
If you do not like my honest statement of where my lack of belief stands at present, it is your issue to deal with, not mine. I'm more than comfortable with my open minded, realistic, 'fluid state of neutrality' and it certainly appears to have less life worries involved than your mindset which I suspect is constantly troubled about serving your invisible vengeful God correctly.
I prefer to worry about correctly serving the people I know who are real - and so far in life I've managed to be a pretty decent person whilst unaware of any guidance from this active Satan figure you mention.
loremar
Well, you can't really blame why Bluedoll thinks that some atheists are really satanic especially when you have been posting in a forum where the face of a demon suddenly pops up and says "believing in God is total rubbish". Rolling Eyes (Nothing personal meant to Bikerman, I think the guy is great and is just being sensible)

Though it is possible that people who believe in God may think that Satan is using people to disguise as atheists with a knowledge that God and Satan really actually exist (using science to manipulate and deceive people into thinking that God doesn't exist), and preaching this deception to people who think that they are sensible enough to know what is right or wrong. Or that people may not know it Satan has been using the same deception he made with Adam and Eve, now using science to actually lure people into thinking that God does not exist.
Note: I'm an atheist and I don't believe in such thinking)

In fairness to Bluedoll, she pointed out that she's not pointing fingers to all atheists or any particular person in this forum. She is just saying this according to her beliefs and whoever is tentative about their beliefs might listen to here and be convinced.

But I think she is heavily brainwashed though. hehe...joke..
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

This quote is used a lot, but really doesn’t make any sense. Can anyone point to books, speeches, organizations, websites, articles, blog posts, shirts, etc. that concentrate on not collecting stamps in the same fashion as atheism is pursued? I think you’d be hard pressed, but it could be possible I guess.
Bikerman
The quote makes a lot of sense. The reason that there are no books on not stamp collecting is that not being a stamp collector doesn't generally involve being ostracised, insulted or pressurised by stamp collectors. Non-stamp collectors don't need any support or help in their non-hobby. Non-theists, on the other hand, are often stigmatised, ostracised, pressurised. One response to that is to write a book - either to simply convey ones own experiences, or to say to other non-theists - you are not alone and your lack of belief IS valid.
If stamp collecting was a hobby that everyone was expected to take up then I guarantee that there would be plenty of books on not stamp collecting.

Likewise, if stamp collectors suddenly started flying planes into post-offices, killing anyone who defaced a penny black, and insisting that the law be changed to allow the teaching of phillately as a science, then I'm pretty sure there would be some 'anti-stamp collecting literature' before long.
Bluedoll
Quote:
The fact that you can't accept a null stance does not remove it as an actual possibility.
I don't think it's possible to always be neutral and be completely independent of the rest of the world... but it is possible to not have a belief; non-positive is not the same as negative, ya dig? Yes and no are not always the only options.

If I tell you that Stomp Your British Knights Down by Local Rabbits is an awesome song, you don't just have the options of belief that: 1) I'm right, it's an awesome song and 2) You're wrong, it's a terrible song... you also have a third option: 3) I've never heard it, I don't know if it's an awesome song or not... or a fourth: 4) I've heard it, I'm indifferent... or... geez, there could even be: 5) I don't think that a song (or band) like that exists. - Ankhanu


Smile

I do agree with the nil stance. I dig, for example, if we look at an individual taking their time for reflection, before making a decision, non stance is appropriate. Most people can use any of the examples listed. In voting, perhaps they could check, none of the above? Though indecision will result in a no vote, I suppose? But, yes I do see the point.

Although, this applies well to people, I am not sure it applies to atheism itself. You either believe what atheism believes or you don’t. There has to be a point in time when for one reason or another, a person makes a declaration. They usually say, yes I believe in God or no they do not. (they can have varied reasons for not) The not is usually enough but in practice I think with the not comes voluntary a, “I am an atheist”. I suppose, there is a remote possibility a person does not know what they believe because they have never thought about it ever in their life, though I think that must be very rare. Usually they can blurt out one answer or the another, it being yes or no. The not is the main point of atheism so everything after that is extra.

While the logic does apply well to individuals, it does not apply at all to atheism itself. Atheism defines a belief in God, very clearly. It does say most certainly God does not exist, it does not believe in God, and more than not defines God as terrible in its doctrine and in actuality does it with a lot of hatred. (the atheist doctrine being established by atheists worldwide over history)


Quote:
I believe you're confusing individual atheists with anti-religious or anti-theist stances for atheism. While one is contained within the other, they are not synonymous. Many atheists are content to leave people to their religious beliefs, many encourage theists to actually think about what they believe, and others are, as you describe, against religions. I'm not sure how this translates to some sort of atheist organization, dogma and belief that is against religion.- Ankhanu
This I struggled with and it would be unfair not to look at individual atheists at all, when looking at atheism, after all this is how we learn about atheism – from others. I could make conclusions based only on the examples I read here in the forum. It would be a mistake to do so. Reading elsewhere helps but I am afraid, I do not have the time to actually research the variety of atheists that exist in the world to understand how a society of atheists does define atheism.

However, I am not really looking at atheism as defined by atheists but from a biblical perspective. With this in mind, I do understand however that many atheists are either not interested or do not care to look at anything from a biblical perspective (not a distorted atheist interpretation of the bible) and because of this fact sometimes atheists on board, can be rude and ignorant to anyone that does look at atheism from a biblical view. I do chalk that up though to the nature of the beast.


Quote:
Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[87] The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[88] and is cited as such by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum.[89] Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism beginnings and its anti movement towards religion even then is interesting that the age of enlightenment that “promoted intellectual interchange and opposed intolerance and abuses in Church and state” can be considered an advancement to mankind. This is where we can agree how the individual, the atheist, can contribute to social causes.

But this post was not meant to be about atheists but about atheism – the anti-christ.
Bikerman
Quote:
It does say most certainly God does not exist, it does not believe in God, and more than not defines God as terrible in its doctrine and in actuality does it with a lot of hatred. (the atheist doctrine being established by atheists worldwide over history)
a) You haven't got a clue about atheism over history - you just completely invented this.
b) Since you then say
Quote:
owever, I am not really looking at atheism as defined by atheists but from a biblical perspective
it is all completely irrelevant. You don't know enough scripture to have an intelligent view and you're not interested in getting such a view from the 'horses mouth' so one is left with the conclusion that you are simply trolling.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
I do agree with the nil stance. I dig, for example, if we look at an individual taking their time for reflection, before making a decision, non stance is appropriate. Most people can use any of the examples listed. In voting, perhaps they could check, none of the above? Though indecision will result in a no vote, I suppose? But, yes I do see the point.

Although, this applies well to people, I am not sure it applies to atheism itself. You either believe what atheism believes or you don’t.

The entire point is that atheism IS the null set. Atheism is not a statement. It's not a belief. Individual atheists hold beliefs, but atheism itself is NOT the belief.

Bluedoll wrote:
There has to be a point in time when for one reason or another, a person makes a declaration.

There need never be that point. Why do you think there has to be a point where someone makes a decision?

Bluedoll wrote:
I suppose, there is a remote possibility a person does not know what they believe because they have never thought about it ever in their life, though I think that must be very rare.

See, from what I've seen, more often than not, it's the people who haven't thought about it that hold solid yes or no answers. Those who have thought about it in depth recognize that a solid yes or no stance is unrealistic (though they may tend to sway towards one side or the other).

Bluedoll wrote:
Atheism defines a belief in God, very clearly. It does say most certainly God does not exist, it does not believe in God, and more than not defines God as terrible in its doctrine and in actuality does it with a lot of hatred.

This is what Bluedoll says what atheism says, not what atheism says. They're very different.

Bluedoll wrote:
However, I am not really looking at atheism as defined by atheists but from a biblical perspective.

That's fine and good, but you should probably do so with the recognition that the Bible is going to be self-promotional and may actually not provide a reliable account of what atheism is and is not. Just as you clearly do not trust an "athiest's" view of Christianity, perhaps you shouldn't trust the Bible's view of atheism.
Sometimes it is best to get your information straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.

EDIT - that's amusing that we both used the horse's mouth phrase Razz
Bikerman
Anyone genuinely interested in the history of Atheism could do much worse than watch the BBC Series 'A Rough History of Disbelief' by that renaissance man (or should that be polymath?) Jonathan Miller.
You will find some actual facts and scholarship rather than fatuous ramblings.

I have a copy of the series (3 parts) on my site - link below.

Click HERE
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
I do agree with the nil stance. I dig, for example, if we look at an individual taking their time for reflection, before making a decision, non stance is appropriate. Most people can use any of the examples listed. In voting, perhaps they could check, none of the above? Though indecision will result in a no vote, I suppose? But, yes I do see the point.

Although, this applies well to people, I am not sure it applies to atheism itself. You either believe what atheism believes or you don’t.

The entire point is that atheism IS the null set. Atheism is not a statement. It's not a belief. Individual atheists hold beliefs, but atheism itself is NOT the belief.
The way it is being "drummed" in these two Forums, makes it look more like a belief than a "null set". I guess that is pretty logical when you debate a belief system on the premise of a "null set". There is a point where the premise becomes a belief in its own right.
Ankhanu wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
Atheism defines a belief in God, very clearly. It does say most certainly God does not exist, it does not believe in God, and more than not defines God as terrible in its doctrine and in actuality does it with a lot of hatred.

This is what Bluedoll says what atheism says, not what atheism says. They're very different.
On its most basic and simple level, either one has faith in God (theist) or you don't (atheist). Or if you're not sure of either you're an agnostic. Atheism may have its own non-faith based logic, but if you get down to the basics, those who are atheists do not have faith in God. If they do have faith in God, they can't be atheists. I however don't agree with Bluedoll that all atheists define God as terrible. In my experience outside Frihost atheists in general aren't interested in religion nor are talking much about it. They're also not into religious debates. I think it would be unfair to mirror some of the ugly remarks by atheists in these two Forums on all atheists, nor atheists at Frihost. Those who are making the remarks represent a fraction of a percentage of people posting at Frihost, so although they are domineering the two Forums, that does not necessarily mean that everyone, whether theist or atheist, agree with the making of those ugly remarks.
Bikerman
'Ugly remarks'? Hardly. I think 'fatuous ramblings' has a certain ring to it....
The ugliness comes from mangling the English language and phrases like 'satanic atheism' & 'evil atheism'. Those are certainly ugly. Small minded nastiness from small minded, rather stupid people, who believe that the lunatic ravings of a bronze-age book are all they need to live their lives, and would be perfectly willing to see people compelled to share their delusions if they had the power.

As for domineering 2 forums (I think you probably mean 'dominate', since one cannot 'domineer' something) - the notion is ridiculous. This is the only thread I have made a concerted contribution to in this forum for some while - and the reason for that is that it is a thinly veiled attack on me.
Bluedoll spends most of her time railing against atheism in semi-literate prose which she thinks is cleverly hiding her real intent of whining about me. You spend your time cheerleading and encouraging any moron who is willing to spout some mangled form of Christian dogma and/or take on me or other atheist posters. Neither of you can debate your way out of a paper bag.

It is all very sad.
Bluedoll
On a side note, yes, I am more concerned not so much of what individuals say about themselves but about atheism and what atheism does say itself. It is a real identity and though there is much debate (outside this forum) whether it is a religion or not, I am looking at atheism from a biblical perspective. It is all too obvious that atheism is in opposition to other religious beliefs and therefore ultimately God, in the very same way satan is. It’s roots are in philosophy and it did extend itself into education, science, social and political circles.

The bible is a real thing too. It exists and does provide truth and clear accounts. I will never be persuaded not to trust in Gods council through the bible, as I will never be persuaded not to keep my faith in God. The bible does give much insight.

___________

I am discussing atheism and not here to dwell over someone’s ego problem. I do not think satan, sin or evil, or any other biblical topic is ugly if it is discussed reasonably. Atheism is a thing and not a person. But the above posts do contain ugly remarks pointed at individuals and those things do not really offer much of a contribution. All I can do here is write down my beliefs. As difficult as it is, I created this topic to discuss atheism not to attack anyone but can not control what others write however.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
On a side note, yes, I am more concerned not so much of what individuals say about themselves but about atheism and what atheism does say itself.

Then what you're actually concerned about is this:
Q - Does God exist (or more aptly do any gods exist)?
A - not yes
That is the extent of what atheism itself says.

ANYTHING beyond that, and you're dealing with atheists and not atheism.
Your actual complaints are with particular atheists and their individual views and not atheism. All sociological implications and religious conflict come from individuals and not the state of being atheist.

Once again, atheism does not offer any alternative to the "yes" question on the existence of gods. Some atheists DO hold a belief on the question, for example "no there are not" or "we don't and can't know", but these are not dictated by atheism, it's beliefs or its dogma... as atheism does not posit beliefs or dogma.

Is it in "opposition to God"? Yeah, I suppose it is, in a sense. In the same sense that I'm opposed to Cuban law... in that I don't recognize it, what with not living in or interacting with Cuba; it has no relevance. I suppose if a being places great importance upon being recognized, accepted and loved, to not do these things are in opposition to it.

Bluedoll wrote:
It is a real identity and though there is much debate (outside this forum) whether it is a religion or not

This is true... but it's in the same sort of category of debate as whether or not evolution occurs.

Bluedoll wrote:
The bible is a real thing too. It exists and does provide truth and clear accounts. I will never be persuaded not to trust in Gods council through the bible, as I will never be persuaded not to keep my faith in God. The bible does give much insight.

Good luck with it Smile
And just for your awareness, I do recognize that anything I have to say will have no impact on the stance or nature of your beliefs. Any debate I have with you is either a) personal exercise, and/or b) for the benefit of observers/others. Never think that I'm trying to change your mind, I know I never will Wink
Bluedoll
Where did you get your post? Out of your head, right. The same as me. More specifically was it out of atheism’s lore? As humans, we all have things in common for we all have learned from outside ourselves and from some source of knowledge. Our beliefs are applied as we think of what we want to write down. Have not your understandings been gathered in part or wholly from atheism?
Yes, this is exactly what is being discussed. Remember this thread was created as a religious post. It is not about philosophy or debating about principals. I sincerely, believe atheism like satan produces cunning answers to simple questions but cunning does not give innocence.
Does atheism accept God as an authority? The answer is no. Does atheism accept God period. The answer is no. I sense defense in your post regarding atheism but you do need to be defensive for you are not being attacked here. The directive is being applied solely on atheism. I understand what you mean, conflict comes from individuals and it is also individuals that drive religion.
What atheism does is offer doctrines of belief and is not just some innocent vague ideology that offers an alternative.



Quote:
Any debate I have with you is either a) personal exercise, and/or b) for the benefit of observers/others. Never think that I'm trying to change your mind, I know I never will.- Ankhanu
I am going to accept this as sincere and not sarcastic. The fact remains because of your beliefs, those that atheism gave you, you administered advice to me that the bible should not be consider as relevant in our discussion.
Quote:
That's fine and good, but you should probably do so with the recognition that the Bible is going to be self-promotional and may actually not provide a reliable account of what atheism is and is not. - Ankhanu
What atheism has done here is provide you with a belief that is opposed to biblical faith because that is the nature of atheism. By questioning the creditability of the bible, you are in a discussion acting as minister of its doctrine when advising me to go away from the bible and eventually God, so to turn to an ‘alternative’ for reliability. If you can understand this, then you will know what I mean by looking at atheism from a religious perspective. You were not advising me to wash my clothes in cold water detergent, dig?

Here it is atheism that is changing peoples minds about God and it focuses on religious topics not nothin’.
Hello_World
Just a quick response...

to Bluedoll

If you ask me, you are just trying to justify your own opposition to athiesm, and by extension justifying trying to control peoples behaviour such as abortion laws and anti-gay marriage laws etc.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
Have not your understandings been gathered in part or wholly from atheism?

No.
As has been mentioned, atheism is just a non-yes stance on the existence of gods. It offers no other information, thus cannot inform any understanding.

I certainly have gathered some understanding from other atheists, as well as many theists and other information sources that have nothing to really do with the distinction between the two. But then we're talking about individuals and not an -ism.

My atheism itself hasn't even been informed by atheim or atheists... it was an entirely personal journey, informed by personal education in comparative religion, science, and general life experiences. Both times I recognized my atheism, it was not informed by any movement, dogma, or even the insights or experiences of other atheists, or what have you, it was through personal reflection upon my feelings and all the data I've accumulated through my experiences. The only time I really started looking into the thoughts of other atheists was well after accepting the fact that I was one.
Atheism feels very natural and appears in accord with the nature of reality and the conflicting nature of religion. If something comes along to alter that, I'll have to change my mind.

Bluedoll wrote:
Does atheism accept God as an authority? The answer is no. Does atheism accept God period. The answer is no.

And this is about the extent of what atheism actually is. If you stopped here, you'd be good and clear and able to discuss the nature of atheism and how it relates to the Bible quite clearly and correctly. Unfortunately, you're trying to attribute other ideas to atheism that are not, by definition, its attributes.

Don't get me wrong, the simple act of not recognizing God's authority is a major source of conflict for God and God's believers (Biblical perspective), but it is, as you say, between the atheist and God, and if God exists, we'll get ours in the end. Aside from that, simple non-belief (i.e. atheism) is a non-issue. Where Satan enters the picture is the behaviour and choices of individuals, not in the stance of atheism.

Bluedoll wrote:
I sense defense in your post regarding atheism but you do need to be defensive for you are not being attacked here. The directive is being applied solely on atheism. I understand what you mean, conflict comes from individuals and it is also individuals that drive religion.
What atheism does is offer doctrines of belief and is not just some innocent vague ideology that offers an alternative.

Nah, I don't feel attacked, and am not defensive... but I am recognizing errors and misconceptions that are leading to incorrect conclusions.
Atheism does NOT offer doctrines, nor some innocent vague ideology alternative. It offers nothing

Your beef is with atheists, not atheism, but you're trying to apply it to atheism, quite incorrectly. Your complaints about certain atheists are somewhat valid, but you're trying to attribute the problems you have to the wrong source.


Bluedoll wrote:
Quote:
Any debate I have with you is either a) personal exercise, and/or b) for the benefit of observers/others. Never think that I'm trying to change your mind, I know I never will.- Ankhanu
I am going to accept this as sincere and not sarcastic. The fact remains because of your beliefs, those that atheism gave you, you administered advice to me that the bible should not be consider as relevant in our discussion.
Quote:
That's fine and good, but you should probably do so with the recognition that the Bible is going to be self-promotional and may actually not provide a reliable account of what atheism is and is not. - Ankhanu
What atheism has done here is provide you with a belief that is opposed to biblical faith because that is the nature of atheism. By questioning the creditability of the bible, you are in a discussion acting as minister of its doctrine when advising me to go away from the bible and eventually God, so to turn to an ‘alternative’ for reliability. If you can understand this, then you will know what I mean by looking at atheism from a religious perspective. You were not advising me to wash my clothes in cold water detergent, dig?

Here it is atheism that is changing peoples minds about God and it focuses on religious topics not nothin’.

Thank you for not assuming that was sarcasm, it was genuine, and was not intended to be hurtful in any way. Just trying to let you know that I'm not trying to change your mind, I know I'm not going to Smile

For clarification, I didn't offer advice that the Bible wasn't relevant to the discussion, it is, in fact, somewhat central to the discussion as outlined in the OP. The point of what I said was cautionary, not dismissive, cautioning that it be recognized that while the Bible has something to say about atheism (and any stance that is not Christian, really), it may not be the best or most reliable source of information, and holds its own biases on the subject. When using the Bible as your source, you are inherently dealing with its bias. This is (often) true of any given single source of information, and the reason why multiple sources are often sought in order to recognize, understand and perhaps mitigate biases.

In conjunction with the the point of bias, is the clarification of what atheism actually is or is not. It seems to me that if one wants to discuss the nature of something and how it might conflict with their own perspective, it is of some importance to have an accurate understanding of the subject, rather than a single, biased perspective. You can say atheism is X, Y or Z, and explain how those attributes might cause problems, but if X, Y or Z are false, it has little relevance. It's like the common programmer axiom: garbage in; garbage out. Conclusions are best made when the information informing them is correct.
Ankhanu
Hello_World wrote:
Just a quick response...

to Bluedoll

If you ask me, you are just trying to justify your own opposition to athiesm, and by extension justifying trying to control peoples behaviour such as abortion laws and anti-gay marriage laws etc.


I think that the bit about abortion law, gay marriage, etc. is a bit of a leap to conclusions in this regard. I don't think there's much to support it.
The rest of it doesn't seem too far off the mark from my perspective, though.
Bikerman
Ankhanu wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
Just a quick response...

to Bluedoll

If you ask me, you are just trying to justify your own opposition to athiesm, and by extension justifying trying to control peoples behaviour such as abortion laws and anti-gay marriage laws etc.


I think that the bit about abortion law, gay marriage, etc. is a bit of a leap to conclusions in this regard. I don't think there's much to support it.
Oh I disagree.
The Christian anti-abortion lobby is a major player in all debate about the subject, and the various homophobic stances of the various churches are well documented. I think it is hypocritical to profess membership of the broad Christian church and then say 'not me Guv' when it comes to individual parts of scripture that are distasteful to anyone of a liberal/progressive outlook - unless, of course, one is willing to stand up and criticise such church positions and the scriptures on which they are based.
Ankhanu
Bikerman wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
Just a quick response...

to Bluedoll

If you ask me, you are just trying to justify your own opposition to athiesm, and by extension justifying trying to control peoples behaviour such as abortion laws and anti-gay marriage laws etc.


I think that the bit about abortion law, gay marriage, etc. is a bit of a leap to conclusions in this regard. I don't think there's much to support it.
Oh I disagree.
The Christian anti-abortion lobby is a major player in all debate about the subject, and the various homophobic stances of the various churches are well documented. I think it is hypocritical to profess membership of the broad Christian church and then say 'not me Guv' when it comes to individual parts of scripture that are distasteful to anyone of a liberal/progressive outlook - unless, of course, one is willing to stand up and criticise such church positions and the scriptures on which they are based.


I know, but the statement was about Bluedoll specifically (unless the "you" was in the plural sense referencing Christians in general, but I didn't get that sense). I don't recall any such views coming from Bluedoll, and specifically in this thread. If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong and I'll retract my statement.

We all know that all Christians cherry pick and spin verse to fit whatever they want it to... that's not really in debate.
Bikerman
LOL...interesting contrast. On the one hand one has a substantially valid generalisation which you, being fair minded (I think to a fault), refuse to apply. On the other hand one has an invalid, rather silly generalisation being defended tooth and claw Smile
Ankhanu
We're complex beasts Wink
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
'Ugly remarks'? Hardly. I think 'fatuous ramblings' has a certain ring to it....
The ugliness comes from mangling the English language and phrases like 'satanic atheism' & 'evil atheism'. Those are certainly ugly. Small minded nastiness from small minded, rather stupid people, who believe that the lunatic ravings of a bronze-age book are all they need to live their lives, and would be perfectly willing to see people compelled to share their delusions if they had the power.

As for domineering 2 forums (I think you probably mean 'dominate', since one cannot 'domineer' something) - the notion is ridiculous. This is the only thread I have made a concerted contribution to in this forum for some while - and the reason for that is that it is a thinly veiled attack on me.
Bluedoll spends most of her time railing against atheism in semi-literate prose which she thinks is cleverly hiding her real intent of whining about me. You spend your time cheerleading and encouraging any moron who is willing to spout some mangled form of Christian dogma and/or take on me or other atheist posters. Neither of you can debate your way out of a paper bag.

It is all very sad.
If you think Bluedoll is such a trouble maker, why not ask her to be removed from this Forum. No, wait a minute! Wasn't this thread created particularly for that reason? You get the Phil&Rel Forum for yourself, and people like Bluedoll can post in the Faith Forum to her heart's content. And yet here you are saying the Faith Forum is somehow Bluedoll's veiled attempt of attacking you? And this is why you are posting here?

For me to be a cheer leader I need at least more than one Christian around, I don't see any other Christians here except Bluedoll. Dialogist gave up on you a while ago and is only making the odd post for points. Christians don't want to post here. Not only does a Christian get tackled by more than one atheist most of the time, but the moderation is completely biased in the favour of atheism. Domineering or dominating, take your pick!
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
If you think Bluedoll is such a trouble maker, why not ask her to be removed from this Forum. No, wait a minute! Wasn't this thread created particularly for that reason?
Errr..what are you on about. Bluedoll created the thread. Are you suggesting she created a thread so that she could be removed from the forum? Doesn't seem very likely to me...
Quote:
You get the Phil&Rel Forum for yourself, and people like Bluedoll can post in the Faith Forum to her heart's content.
I don't 'get' any forum for myself. Neither do I see anyone stopping Bluedoll posting here.
Quote:
And yet here you are saying the Faith Forum is somehow Bluedoll's veiled attempt of attacking you? And this is why you are posting here?
I said that this thread was a veiled attack on me, which it is.
Quote:
For me to be a cheer leader I need at least more than one Christian around, I don't see any other Christians here except Bluedoll.
Err....why does one need more than one person to cheer for? I don't understand the logic.
Quote:
Dialogist gave up on you a while ago and is only making the odd post for points.
That is up to him.
Quote:
Christians don't want to post here. Not only does a Christian get tackled by more than one atheist most of the time, but the moderation is completely biased in the favour of atheism.
So occalhoun is now biased is he? (I have said numerous times that I don't moderate here, and I don't). In fact I haven't noticed ANY moderation in this or other threads in this forum, so perhaps you can tell me exactly what moderation you mean?
loremar
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If you think Bluedoll is such a trouble maker, why not ask her to be removed from this Forum. No, wait a minute! Wasn't this thread created particularly for that reason?
Errr..what are you on about. Bluedoll created the thread. Are you suggesting she created a thread so that she could be removed from the forum? Doesn't seem very likely to me...

deanhills does have a point. You and you're comments are lost here.
Quote:
Faith - Forum for religious topics, like a (dis)belief in one or more gods. Please note that the discussion is limited to the beliefs of the first post of the topic.

If she believes that atheists are satanists, then you don't have the right to post here about why atheists are not satanists. Why not create a thread that says 'I believe that Christians are irrational monkeys'? so you can get even.
Bluedoll
I hope you understand, I am not stressing the point, to win points or to be hurtful, but to express what I believe about atheism. To deal with a bias is to trust in the source, whatever it may be. Actually the bible does say, to have a multitude of councilors, so I can only be in agreement with looking at multiple sources for knowledge.
However, on a persistence to point to the bible as a bias of garbage is consistent with a satan/atheist strategy. The main point, is this, that by running with an argument that the bible has a bias to being ‘wrong’ is a religious agenda. I expect this. Everyone has a right to a belief. People can argue till the sun comes down and then some. I might be inclined to want to change their views but do recognize everyone has a right to a belief.
What can not be agreed with is the non-stance explaination, for after hammering out atheisms degree, after stating a belief of biblical denouncement, after running with an argument that “has a potential to change a readers mind” then to turn around to say something like, “well atheism really does not believe in what it has argued and written about for so long, that it was not really trying to actually convince anyone of an atheism belief, it was just non-discussing it - sort of.” – sarcasm!

Beliefs in general do lecture to other beliefs. So tell me, is it not true, that the belief that the bible is not a good source is spawn from atheism and it does seek to change another belief by getting its member to state that?
A belief is one thing but how can one accept the innocence of atheism saying........”do not believe in the bible, George, do not believe in God, Sally, but do believe in atheism,” but when atheism is asked, say, “no, this is not a religion.” I do not believe atheism is not a religion, though, honestly believe people can not actually see atheism as one because atheism like satan is devious in taking the responsibility.

I can relate to a social atheism definition but not to a non-belief, non-issue stance. Atheism has a beginning and has been supported just like any other religion. A religion does not need to have God attached to it, to be a religion. It just needs a belief system. Many people through the ages have contributed to its being. The religious aspect of atheism is its attributes.






Quote:
Atheism may have its own non-faith based logic, but if you get down to the basics, those who are atheists do not have faith in God. If they do have faith in God, they can't be atheists. I however don't agree with Bluedoll that all atheists define God as terrible. In my experience outside Frihost atheists in general aren't interested in religion nor are talking much about it. They're also not into religious debates. – Deanhills
Is the question not just belief in but believe in? My question is even though individuals (I mean everyone) will have a view point on atheism based on experience, what does atheism really say? From the very basic foundation, does atheism not say God does not have authority? Why?

Quote:
said that this thread was a veiled attack on me, which it is.- Bikerman
It is not a veiled attack. I actually believe what I am writing.

Quote:
If you ask me, you are just trying to justify your own opposition to atheism, and by extension justifying trying to control peoples behaviour such as abortion laws and anti-gay marriage laws etc.- Hello_World
My thoughts in this thread have little to do with laws of the land.
I am writing what I believe about atheism. My opposition to atheism is engendered mostly from what I’ve read about it. I do hold God in my heart with love and devotion so anything that creates distrust even hatred for God, I am in opposition to, yes. In my belief, there can only be two sides to this religious question.

    You trust in God or you do not.
Bikerman
loremar wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If you think Bluedoll is such a trouble maker, why not ask her to be removed from this Forum. No, wait a minute! Wasn't this thread created particularly for that reason?
Errr..what are you on about. Bluedoll created the thread. Are you suggesting she created a thread so that she could be removed from the forum? Doesn't seem very likely to me...

deanhills does have a point. You and you're comments are lost here.
Quote:
Faith - Forum for religious topics, like a (dis)belief in one or more gods. Please note that the discussion is limited to the beliefs of the first post of the topic.

If she believes that atheists are satanists, then you don't have the right to post here about why atheists are not satanists. Why not create a thread that says 'I believe that Christians are irrational monkeys'? so you can get even.

I think you are confused. If the OP says 'I assert X' then that is the topic of discussion. Discussion does not mean that you must accept the original assertion, otherwise there IS no discussion. It simply means that the discussion should be on the topic set. I happen to disagree with the OP.
As for 'getting even' - that would be childish.
Bikerman
Quote:
In my belief, there can only be two sides to this religious question. You trust in God or you do not.
And that is your fundamental mistake. There is a third side - one does not believe in God - and therefore there is no question of trusting or not.
loremar
Bondings wrote:
This forum is intended for religious discussion (including atheism). However it is restricted to the opinions/views of the first post of a topic, meaning that no heavy discussions and arguments are allowed. Of course questions, similar views and some remarks are allowed, otherwise there would be no discussion left.

So if you post (in a new topic) that you are a devout Christian and believe in the bible, a reply saying that the bible is a fiction book, god doesn't exist and similar things won't be allowed. On the other hand, if someone creates a topic that states that he/she doesn't believe in god, a response that god does exist and you should pray and read the bible, is not allowed.

This all does not mean that it is allowed to create a topic specifically to insult other beliefs or that is mostly insulting other beliefs instead of stating your own.

The rule is clear. Only similar views are allowed. And yes this thread breaks the rule so this should be removed. Getting even is just human nature unless it's against the rules.
Bikerman
Err.....I was one of the people who made the rule so I know what it says and what it means. Similar views AND questions/remarks!

You are correct in saying that the whole thread goes against the spirit of the rule, but I do not moderate this forum and so I did not remove the thread.
Hello_World
Quote:


If you ask me, you are just trying to justify your own opposition to athiesm, and by extension justifying trying to control peoples behaviour such as abortion laws and anti-gay marriage laws etc.


Ankhanu wrote:
Quote:
I know, but the statement was about Bluedoll specifically (unless the "you" was in the plural sense referencing Christians in general, but I didn't get that sense). I don't recall any such views coming from Bluedoll, and specifically in this thread. If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong and I'll retract my statement.


No, you are quite right. I don't know Bluedoll's social politics. I really meant them as examples of ways that church controls others. I guess I don't know if this is Bluedoll's intention to justify the church controlling the behaviour of others, but this line of reasoning leads to attempting to justifying this unpleasant conclusion.

As Bikerman correctly points out, the church does in point of fact attempt to control the behaviour of others.
Quote:
The Christian anti-abortion lobby is a major player in all debate about the subject, and the various homophobic stances of the various churches are well documented.


So, I am sorry, to Bluedoll, that the statement was written in such a way as to assume her stance on such topics as abortion and gay marriage.

But this goes to the heart of the matter I think, because it is a bit of a vicious cycle. Your way of reading the Bible creates a justification for you to control others. We athiests object to your control where it clashes with our (individual) values, get snarky and push back. Meanwhile we watch the stupidity of the 'my God is better than yours' arguments/wars and conclude we'd be better off without such. So the more we push, the more you conclude you are right in your 'evil' assessment.
Bikerman
Or, put another way:
Bluedoll
My intention is to discuss atheism. Anyone can maintain their own values. Everyone has a right to their own religious views and that includes me.

I want to discuss what I believe atheism is and how it affects others. I believe atheism acts just like a religion with followers to its doctrines, though it is not like other worldly religions, in that it declares itself, a religion. Because of atheism’s beliefs, a non-belief in God, it therefore in practice pushes its followers to actively not believe in the authority of God by eliminating trust in God. It’s stance is not just that of indifference but holds real beliefs in that its whole premise to exist is to have religious beliefs of its own.
Atheism says, “Do not believe in God!”

I choose to believe in God and everyone, has a right to their own beliefs. I hold mankind responsible for arguments/wars not God. In the thread, my belief is from a biblical view, when looking at what atheism is and I do not want to focus on the individuals needs.
Bikerman
Can any fellow atheists please pass me the instruction book. I seem to have lost mine...
You know, the instructions you get when you become an atheist - from Atheist Headquarters, telling you not to believe in God...

While you are at it, can you please give me the address for 'Atheism' so that I can contact it and pay my subscription fee for this year. I also need a copy of the Atheist rulebook, membership guide and disciplinary procedures please. Someone out there must have them.....

PS - I checked one of the big atheist sites, and was very surprised to see that it doesn't tell me what to believe and what to disbelieve.
So I tried another one but I still can't find the section which tells me what to believe.....I must be missing something.....
Hello_World
Sorry Bikerman I never received mine....

Quote:
I hold mankind responsible for arguments/wars not God.


Agreed.

If you want to look into the effects of athieism on others, let us look at this so-called doctrine. I accept non-belief in a higher being is a requirement. This I share with all other athiests. Perhaps the simple fact that I have had to choose my own value set, is shared.

But I really don't know what else to add. Certainly there is a subset of athiests who seek to minimise the influence of religion. There is also another subset of athiests who are really not interested, much as there are actually people who are not interested in politics. I find that much harder to fathom than a non-interest in myths.

So i am curious what these doctrines actually are.

I object to the term followers. There is nothing to follow. Even if we can determine some shared characteristics, there is certainly no church in which to go to, no leader... Even if you think it is Dawkins, even he only wrote his book a few years ago, which I haven't read by the way, whom did we 'follow' before that?

I must say I was never 'pushed' by any athiest to be an athiest 'follower'.

Quote:
Everyone has a right to their own religious views and that includes me.


Certainly, I agree with that too.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
We athiests object to your control where it clashes with our (individual) values, get snarky and push back. Meanwhile we watch the stupidity of the 'my God is better than yours' arguments/wars and conclude we'd be better off without such. So the more we push, the more you conclude you are right in your 'evil' assessment.
How is a position of "we atheists" that much different to "we theists"? Isn't it just the other side of the same coin? As soon as you add a "we" to anything you can't just simply say that atheism is about "nothing". It is a movement, pure and simple. And if you check out some of the atheists societies below, it is clear that they have as an objective to convert theists to atheism.

How is the movement of New Atheism that different from the Christian Apologetics? For me as soon as a group of people have as an objective to influence others to think differently, i.e. convert them, they can't claim they are disassociated from religion, in this case it would just be the flip side of evangelism. They are active at presentations, actually get paid for those presentations, write books, debate evangelists .... etc. It's just a different kind of religion. Call it an anti-religion if you will.

Quote:
New Atheism
New Atheism refers to a 21st century movement in atheism. The term, which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of Wired magazine, is applied, sometimes pejoratively, to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period 2004–2008.[2] These authors are Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Victor J. Stenger and Christopher Hitchens. The collective representation of Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens has also been termed "The Four Horsemen", based on a discussion in 2007. They and other supporters of the New Atheism movement are hardline critics of religion.They state that atheism, backed by recent scientific advancement, has reached the point where it is time to take a far less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religious fanaticism than had been extended by some atheists and secularists. According to CNN, "What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

Bikerman wrote:
While you are at it, can you please give me the address for 'Atheism' so that I can contact it and pay my subscription fee for this year. I also need a copy of the Atheist rulebook, membership guide and disciplinary procedures please. Someone out there must have them.....


http://www.atheist-community.org/join/

Quote:
If you would like to join the Atheist Community of Austin, please complete the form below. Membership entitles you to vote on issues concerning the Atheist Community of Austin but is not required to attend social events. Individual membership fees are:
•$30.00 per year for an individual
•$15.00 per year for students and retirees
•$45.00 per year for families
Our membership year does not begin until the 1st of March. New memberships are prorated by quarter, so if you are joining in:
•March-May, pay 100%
•June-August, pay 75%
•September-November, pay 50%
•December-February, pay 25%
Any extra money you give the ACA will be considered a donation to the general fund. Once you are accepted as a member, you will be able to vote on all issues brought before the membership as soon as payment is received. Please be aware we only extend voting privileges to members 15 years and older.


Quote:
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote atheist viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
I affirm that I am without belief in any god and that I have read and agree with the purpose of the Atheist Community of Austin as stated above.

I wish to become a member of the Atheist Community of Austin, Inc.
I would like a printed copy of the newsletter mailed to me via the postal service. Due to the extra postage and special handling, newsletters are not sent out of the US. Note that the newsletter is always available in electronic form (PDF) on our web site.

I am 18 years old or older. (If you are not yet 18, we will require a consent form signed by your guardian.)

Bikerman
It says nothing about converting theists. It talks about minimising the influence of theism - completely different thing. You can believe what you like, but don't impose it on me, and I will actively counter theism to ensure that it isn't imposed.
The truth is that the religious get away, routinely, with barbaric, homophobic abuse that, were it not religion, would result in jail time.
Since you like Hitchens, listen to/read him on the subject.
http://bikerman.co.uk/images/collections/Hitchens/books/ch4.pdf
(that's chapter 4 from his book 'God is not great' - I've added a soundtrack of him reading it).

I think you will be surprised and, hopefully, outraged.
Check this little gem
Quote:
I pose a hypothetical question. As a man of some fifty-seven years of age, I am discovered sucking the penis of a baby boy. I ask you to picture your own outrage and revulsion. Ah, but I have my explanation all ready. I am a mohel: an appointed circumciser and foreskin remover. My authority comes from an ancient text, which commands me to take a baby boy's penis in my hand, cut around the prepuce, and complete the action by taking his penis in my mouth, sucking off the foreskin, and spitting out the amputated flap along with a mouthful of blood and saliva. This practice has been abandoned by most Jews, either because of its unhygienic nature or its disturbing associations, but it still persists among the sort of Hasidic fundamen-talists who hope for the Second Temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. To them, the primitive rite of the peri'ah metsitsah is part of the original and unbreakable covenant with god. In New York City in the year 2005, the ritual, as performed by a fifty-seven-year-old mohel, was found to have given genital herpes to several small boys, and to have caused the deaths of at least two of them. In normal circumstances, the disclosure would have led the public health department to forbid the practice and the mayor to denounce it. But in the capital of the modern world, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, such was not the case. Instead, Mayor Bloomberg overrode the reports by distinguished Jewish physicians who had warned of the danger of the custom, and told his health care bureaucracy to postpone any verdict. The crucial thing, he said, was to be sure that the free exercise of religion was not being infringed. In a public debate with Peter Steinfels, the liberal Catholic "religion editor" of the New Yorf^ Times, I was told the same thing.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
How is a position of "we atheists" that much different to "we theists"?

It's not... and it's just as informative. Theist refers to anyone that answers yes to "are there gods or a god"... you can't really say much more about a theistic belief system. When you talk about specific forms of theism, i.e. Shinto, Catholicism, Haida shamanism, etc. then you can start talking about specific traits. All theists believe x would be a stupid statement, unless it's in reference to accepting a deity or deities.

"Theist" tells you almost nothing about a belief structure, much the same way that "atheist" tells you nothing but that the person's not accepted a "yes" response to the question of gods.

deanhills wrote:
It is a movement, pure and simple. And if you check out some of the atheists societies below, it is clear that they have as an objective to convert theists to atheism.

No, atheism is a singular stance. Those societies have views and objectives, but this is not to say that atheism does. Those are societies, not atheism.


deanhills wrote:
It's just a different kind of religion. Call it an anti-religion if you will.

Were the women's sufferage and racial rights movements religions? That seems to be what you're implying.
Hello_World
Quote:
How is a position of "we atheists" that much different to "we theists"?


Because when I used the individual "I" I was told this board wasn't about me...
loremar
A lot of religious people are just poison to the society! Evil or Very Mad
Related topics
Stairway To Heaven - Satanic Subliminal Messages?
science vs. religion
Support Danish
Ignorance of Satanism
Wiccan?
Do Nonbelivers Go Too Hell?
Aggressive atheism
My "Faith" is in myself
God is Perfect
Do you have any faith that there is a "soul"
Thanks for setting up the faith forum
A suggestion... take it as you will
The Question of God
Reply to an off topic post...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.