religious debate

[Guest]

We are receiving the radiation from the last scattering -- that's what the microwave background radiation is, after all. The microwave background radiation is everywhere and has been mapped extensively and fulfills the predictions made by the current big bang model. It is uniform throughout all of space and just by itself is a huge neon sign pointing towards the big bang. There are lots of other neat things about the big bang model too, like its prediction and mathematical bookkeeping of the ratios and amounts of various light elements, like helium-4 and deuterium. Or the distribution and ages of galaxies and their formations. I already mentioned the red shifting. There are any number of other things; entire libraries and all that.

Flogger thanks for the attempt and pointing these out but it's over my head mostly - it's something I want to know more about but it's off my reading list - maybe I will take some litterature with me this xmas in UK

1 - Germ theory, off topic so I'll dismiss for now if you don't mind

2 - God/Big bang are opposite for me on the basis that one requires faith in a supernatural entity and the other requires faith in best guesstimations - measurements are still not accurate though there is more progress

3 - My understanding of theory is that it is based on a lot of hard work and knowledge bundled into a best guesstimation (sorry to repeat)

4 - Hubble's Law - BS (British standard?) you probably meant the other term, but no it's not conclusive as to what the calculations and theories really add up to. Galaxies moving away does not to me mean that they started from a tiny tiny dot, and slow down and implode too - in such a short time that tangible science has been around (proof - due to modern equipment), that is stretching.. I'll start applauding if it becomes proven! Still a lot of 'accurate' measuring to do - and that's a lot of space to measure!

Could be a way of explaining the Mayan cycle (old Mayan theory - my expression)

5 - it's neat .. is that a way of saying it's a tidy piece of work ,a well thought out conclusion. Or a clever idea- either way I'm not on board yet Flogger

My point was Flogger that atheism is fine and if God is a way of gaining comfort and does not interfere with me that's fine too. My inner peace comes from elsewhere and my philosophy does not seem to fit tightly with either of these views. No matter who is right, I am happy with my life and the experiences I have had.

Note religion was an acceptable theory too long before science until it was taken away from the control of the church - still a lot of groups that do not agree with the separation of science from belief in many countries.

[Guest]

You know, I get a deep sadness in my Noodly Soul when I see people that do not believe in the FSM. Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists... anyone that does not recognize Him, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is a fool who is missing out on the Pasta Joys of Life. Every day, kneel down and eat 7 bowls of pasta while reading from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, available here. I guarantee that after 12 weeks of this, every single day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will show His Awesomeness to you in all His Noodly Glory in your pasta bowl

It is quite sad...

[Guest]

You know, I get a deep sadness in my Noodly Soul when I see people that do not believe in the FSM. Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists... anyone that does not recognize Him, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is a fool who is missing out on the Pasta Joys of Life. Every day, kneel down and eat 7 bowls of pasta while reading from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, available here. I guarantee that after 12 weeks of this, every single day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will show His Awesomeness to you in all His Noodly Glory in your pasta bowl

So in Italy there are catholics and spaghettiholics ?

Italy was once more divided by different dialects and language but united by pasta - watch this space! (its like lost in space - but funnier)

[Guest]

Religion is just set of rules made by men and women. The idea is to be a good person so the condition of your heart is good. In my opion you can be as good or bad as you want to be but in the end you will either regret your life or be ready to let go of it.

"Those who hold contempt in their heart have no room for anything else."

[Guest]

Flogger thanks for the attempt and pointing these out but it's over my head mostly - it's something I want to know more about but it's off my reading list - maybe I will take some litterature with me this xmas in UK

1 - Germ theory, off topic so I'll dismiss for now if you don't mind

It's not off topic. I brought it up because I'm sure you're quite convinced that germs cause disease, yet you're also aware that it's more than just a theory. which means a scientific theory is much more than the way we use the word theory in everyday usage. I also used it as an example to show you that your use of "(so far)" was off the mark. That's all scientific theories will ever be, even the Germ Theory.

2 - God/Big bang are opposite for me on the basis that one requires faith in a supernatural entity and the other requires faith in best guesstimations - measurements are still not accurate though there is more progress

This is wrong! They are not guesstimations and where are you getting the idea that the measurements are inaccurate? They're accurate to within a fairly narrow range. The evidence for The Big Bang is in no way similar to the total lack of evidence there is for supernatural entities. Sheesh!

3 - My understanding of theory is that it is based on a lot of hard work and knowledge bundled into a best guesstimation (sorry to repeat)

Well, you're wrong. You're confusing scientific theory with hypothesis.

4 - Hubble's Law - BS (British standard?) you probably meant the other term, but no it's not conclusive as to what the calculations and theories really add up to. Galaxies moving away does not to me mean that they started from a tiny tiny dot, and slow down and implode too - in such a short time that tangible science has been around (proof - due to modern equipment), that is stretching.. I'll start applauding if it becomes proven!

Sigh. Nothing gets proven in science. The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming!

My point was Flogger that atheism is fine and if God is a way of gaining comfort and does not interfere with me that's fine too. My inner peace comes from elsewhere and my philosophy does not seem to fit tightly with either of these views. No matter who is right, I am happy with my life and the experiences I have had.

If your inner peace and philosophies come from outside of theism- guess what? Then you're an atheist! All an atheist is is one who is without a belief in the existence of God or gods. And not accepting claims that God/gods exist is not a view or a philosophy.

[Guest]

[moderating]

Folks, take the Big Bang Theory debate elsewhere. Lost in space, The Big Bang may be the opposite of God to you, but we're not going to debate that here.

[/moderating]

[Guest]

If your inner peace and philosophies come from outside of theism- guess what? Then you're an atheist!

Call me anything yo like Flogger but don't call me early - I do have a belief it's just moer philosophical, rather than supernatural where as an atheist is on the left - god is on the right and i am elsewhere..

All an atheist is is one who is without a belief in the existence of God or gods. And not accepting claims that God/gods exist is not a view or a philosophy.

not really stating my philosophy as such Flogger, and atheism is no belief not the lack of belief in god, but hey.. is the label that important? - It is it's not about making an outcast by pigeonholing/labelling people for what they feell is a comfortable hat to ware even though the colour is a bit of an eyesore. (part of my philosophy)

Not with the big bang theory (Yet = so far)... Will read up on it when i am able to focus

[Guest]

Call me anything yo like Flogger but don't call me early - I do have a belief it's just moer philosophical, rather than supernatural where as an atheist is on the left - god is on the right and i am elsewhere..

How can you be elsewhere? You either believe in the existence of God/gods or you don't. If you are even close to accepting that belief, then you still haven't accepted it and are therefore not a theist. That's what an atheist is- not a theist.

not really stating my philosophy as such Flogger, and atheism is no belief not the lack of belief in god

What are you talking about? I said "All an atheist is is one who is without a belief in the existence of God or gods". Is that not the same as "no belief"? Where did I use the term "lack of belief"?

[Guest]

How can you be elsewhere? You either believe in the existence of God/gods or you don't. If you are even close to accepting that belief, then you still haven't accepted it and are therefore not a theist. That's what an atheist is- not a theist.

What are you talking about? I said "All an atheist is is one who is without a belief in the existence of God or gods". Is that not the same as "no belief"? Where did I use the term "lack of belief"?

did not say you said that Flogger - you do not have the final say in categorising people into two groups - and I am not comfortable waring either of those labels

Not going into a semantics discussion oer word usage for definition of atheist - call it your way, I'll be fine to leave it your way Flogger.. I do not see myself in either bracket - and that is how i see it it's not up for discussion, I'll ponder my philosophy over a coffee

[Guest]

You claimed an atheist is on the left, a theist is on the right, and you are elsewhere. I'm claiming that's impossible. If you accept that God/gods exist- you are a theist. I don't care if one doesn't like that label- it is what it is. If you are as close as one can be to having that belief, yet still don't have that belief, then, of course, you are still without that belief. One without belief in God/gods is an atheist. I also don't care who doesn't like that label.

did not say you said that Flogger

You quoted me saying this:

"All an atheist is is one who is without a belief in the existence of God or gods. And not accepting claims that God/gods exist is not a view or a philosophy."

and then responded with this:

"not really stating my philosophy as such Flogger, and atheism is no belief not the lack of belief in god..."

What was your point if that wasn't an attempt to correct me? Why would you tell me that atheism is no belief when I just stated the same thing in different words and why did you go on to say "not lack of belief in god" when I never said that?

By the way, when atheist say "lack of belief" they mean the same thing as no belief, not that they have some belief in God/gods but it's falling short in some way. They are using the word lack as a synonym of without. I purposely don't use that term in order to not cause confusion or give theists an excuse to start false arguments.

[Guest]

Many times i have typed on this topic and discarded, maybe because it boils down to nothing in the end

Been there done that

A few mammoth posts of mine have gone that way as well (there's only so many times you can say "argument from Ignorance!" before you just give up!)

God theory - no proof (so far) read the bible and some of the Koran

Big Bang - just theory (so far) read some theories too, with Simon Singh's version to drag off the shelf

Please don't put "Just" and "theory" together in one phrase <_< But it is a theory that is still in doubt (in fact some recent scientific efforts seem to have made it more so.)

Leaves me with do I need to take anything in regarding one way or the other, and I come up with the same answer each time - I have nothing to add, I am happy where I am and with the experiences of life that I continue to enjoy. It's not important for me to take comfort in a supernatural existence or a scientific theory - both are beyond my comprehension.

A fine position to hold Amounts to "I don't know" which is refressingly honest - why can't more people just accept that they don't have the answers, and if they don't they don't HAVE to believe any old offerred answer to fill that gap?

Some of us like things like the Big Bang, Quantum mechanics and all that jazz. Like looking at the theories and arguments; In the same way that others (and some of us as well of course) like art, music, movies and theatre - it's just interesting and enjoyable. Because like you, for most of us it doesn't really matter in our day to day lives beyond that.

So theist or theorist is your motivation for a 'good' life and you have comfort in knowing you belong or evolved that's not the worse crime in the world. I'll continue to be a humanitarian and look forward to the rest of my life no matter how i got here.

For most of us it is not about comfort - that we evolved is not terribly comforting (not disturbing or anything either), just interesting as what observable reality can tell us, and we are capable of discovering through dedicated effort (i.e. Science), even of our very origins! It is so very cool

Evolved or created ... Descartes was right - I think, therefore I am!

Or was he?! I have done waaay too much philosophy!

Moot point on religion if you accept it as moot - With regard to it's beginning. Reasoning to explain the unexplained, a way of formulating a group with like minded needs of leadership. Obviously the leaders of these belief systems can take advantage of the situation to their own ends or beliefs which may be well intentioned or just crazy too.

True that!

I personally like this explanation:

The Origin Of God Douglas Adams

That' my little input from my comfort zone - will unleash personal philosophy another day!

Thanks, a refreshing change of pace

[Guest]

So in Italy there are catholics and spaghettiholics ?

Italy was once more divided by different dialects and language but united by pasta - watch this space! (its like lost in space - but funnier)

They're called Pastafarians.

What, are you trying to insult his religion or something?

[Guest]

Ditto. I was raised in a family that practiced no religion and did not consider the existance of a god. Growing up I created my own theology something along the lines of: if there is a higher power out there somewhere, he doesn't give a flip about me." And so I understand that point of view...and have enough respect for it to spend time on it. But now, having experienced God in a very intimate way, even if I decided I did not want to follow him any longer I could never doubt his existance.

Care to impart any evidence of this experience, or is it nothing but a personal experience; thus something entirely worthless to anyone else?

On a different note, I just wanted to let all of you out ther know that logical thinking and scientific-minded people can also have an intimate relationship with God. Take just a few of my family and friends for an example: an architect, a PhD in Physics, a Mechanical Engineer, an Accountant, and my brother-in-law (who was raised to be an outspoken athiest by his father who lobbied at Congress for Creationism to be banned from being taught in schools)...became a professor of Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University was one of the world's foremost Population Geneticist (until his death earlier this year.) Even this brilliant scientist came to a point where he could no longer deny his Creator and became a fervant follower of Christ. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March0...amson.obit.html

Ah yes the Appeal to Authority, Irrelevant Appeal approach

Yes, And Kenneth Miller is a Catholic (Brilliant guy; evolutionary biology and all that), that he is right about one thing does not mean that everything he believes is correct.

The greatest scientist of all time (in my opinion anyway) Isaac Newton, now there's a brilliant guy to emulate: Should we follow his lead then? He believed in The Christian God... And Alchemy and the occult

Do you actually have any Reasons that one should believe in god(s) or anything. Or just more irrational appeals?

[Guest]

3 - My understanding of theory is that it is based on a lot of hard work and knowledge bundled into a best guesstimation (sorry to repeat)

This might be a fair assessment of a common layman use of the word - but that is really a misunderstanding of its true meaning. And is certainly not what it means in the scientific context (such as Big Bang Theory):

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory." - Wikipedia.

In conjunction with this, I recently found this

[Guest]

Awesome model ADParker, fits very nicely.

[Guest]

Call me anything yo like Flogger but don't call me early - I do have a belief it's just moer philosophical, rather than supernatural where as an atheist is on the left - god is on the right and i am elsewhere..

Technically that makes you an atheist (as all that means is that you are not a theist), but it does not mean you have to wear the label or anything.

There is nothing between Theist and Athiest, anymore that there is between X and Not-X

not really stating my philosophy as such Flogger, and atheism is no belief not the lack of belief in god, but hey.. is the label that important? - It is it's not about making an outcast by pigeonholing/labelling people for what they feell is a comfortable hat to ware even though the colour is a bit of an eyesore. (part of my philosophy)

Okay: the whole Atheism theism thing; time for my handy dandy definition thing:

THEISM: Belief in the existence of God(s).

A-THEISM: Not a 'Belief in the existence of God(s)'. OR: Absence of belief in deities. (note: not necessarily a denial in existence of God(s), although this is included)

A-GNOSTICISM: Absence of Certainty, usually applied in regards to Gods/spirituality and religion.

GNOSTICISM: Certainty, or belief that one has knowledge

To sum up:

Theist: I Believe in God (or such and such deity or deities)

Atheist: I do not Believe in God (or such and such deity or deities)

Gnostic: I am certain (God exists, but can apply to any claim of knowledge)

Agnostic: I am not certain (God exists, but can apply to any claim of knowledge)

There are two types (sub-sets) of each of these positions:

Theist --1. Gnostic-Theist = I am certain God exists.

----------2. Agnostic-Theist = I think/believe God exists. (open to debate)

Atheist --1. Gnostic-Atheist = I am certain God does not exist.

-----------2. Agnostic-Atheist = I have no God beliefs, or I think/believe God does not exist, or I see reason to believe God exists. (Any non-belief without hard claim of certainty)

Funnily enough Agnosticism seems to have an Agnostic and Gnostic type as well:

Agnostic --1. Agnostic-Agnostic (or just Agnostic) = I am not sure if God exists or not. (50/50, no idea or no interest in the question of god)

-------------2. Gnostic-Agnostic = It is impossible to know if God exists or not, there can be no conclusive evidence either way; the position that one cannot know the answer.

Note: both forms of 'pure' agnosticism are technically atheistic, as they hold no belief in any gods (nor any for the non-existence either of course, so atheist due to a lack of belief)

Gnostic -- Has no other separate sub-types, summed up in those above.

But no I wouldn't bother labeling you an atheist any more than I would bother labeling the members of that recently discovered tribe as Computer Illiterate; It's technically correct but really what's the point if it isn't relevant?

Just as I am also an Afairyist; true but rather irrelevant

[Guest]

Awesome model ADParker, fits very nicely.

I thought so

[Guest]

When something that has been accepted in science has been shown to be incorrect, it is thrown out. When the Bible has been shown to be incorrect, apologists make excuses and claim it's infallible.

So far nobody has made the claim that its infallible. I know I certainly haven't

Ya think? What about the teachings in the OT?

I never said a word about the teachings in the OT. I'm pretty sure I specified the teachings of Christ.

Are the following wise teachings from the NT we should tell our children to follow?:

* If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).

* Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

* Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)

* Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)

* Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)

* Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)

* Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)

* Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)

* Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)

* Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)

* Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

* If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)

* If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)

* If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)

* If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)

* If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)

Everyone of these things is poorly paraphrased and you know it. Your way too intelligent not to already know, assuming you actually read them yourself and in context, the message being conveyed.

This has been tackled in this thread already. Have you read all of it?

No as a matter of fact I haven't. Doesn't change the fact that your a figment of my imagination and when I get back on my medication you'll cease to exist.

[Guest]

I never said a word about the teachings in the OT. I'm pretty sure I specified the teachings of Christ.

So? What do you think about Jesus' Father? Didn't like His teachings or the examples He set and told us to follow?

Everyone of these things is poorly paraphrased and you know it. Your way too intelligent not to already know, assuming you actually read them yourself and in context, the message being conveyed.

Okay, should we teach our children these teachings of Jesus?:

Matthew 5:29-30 (New International Version)

29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 5:32 (New International Version)

32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 6:34 (New International Version)

34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Matthew 6:19-20 (New International Version)

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Mark 10:21-25 (New International Version)

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Luke 12:33 (New International Version)

33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

John 6:27 (New International Version)

27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)

28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Luke 6:30 (New International Version)

30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

Matthew 5:39 (New International Version)

39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:40 (New International Version)

40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Matthew 5:41 (New International Version)

41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Matthew 5:42 (New International Version)

42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Lots of other goodies to like Jesus condoning slavery (and why wouldn't he, his Father did), condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching...eh, I could go on and on.

No as a matter of fact I haven't. Doesn't change the fact that your a figment of my imagination and when I get back on my medication you'll cease to exist.

Good luck with that.

[Guest]

You claimed an atheist is on the left, a theist is on the right, and you are elsewhere. I'm claiming that's impossible. If you accept that God/gods exist- you are a theist. I don't care if one doesn't like that label- it is what it is. If you are as close as one can be to having that belief, yet still don't have that belief, then, of course, you are still without that belief. One without belief in God/gods is an atheist. I also don't care who doesn't like that label.

You quoted me saying this:

"All an atheist is is one who is without a belief in the existence of God or gods. And not accepting claims that God/gods exist is not a view or a philosophy."

and then responded with this:

"not really stating my philosophy as such Flogger, and atheism is no belief not the lack of belief in god..."

What was your point if that wasn't an attempt to correct me? Why would you tell me that atheism is no belief when I just stated the same thing in different words and why did you go on to say "not lack of belief in god" when I never said that?

By the way, when atheist say "lack of belief" they mean the same thing as no belief, not that they have some belief in God/gods but it's falling short in some way. They are using the word lack as a synonym of without. I purposely don't use that term in order to not cause confusion or give theists an excuse to start false arguments.

Re left or right - not to be argumentative, but because I feel there is another explanation which is my quest.. Are you putting pantheists into the atheist group - I don't know if they are similar. Some people believe in a force but not a supernatural power (yin/yang - chi for example). More literature for me to catch up on

Does not bother me if you categorise it in monochrome if it's as clear as that to you - I am concerned that you would blatantly label someone and don't care - pigeonhole yourself if that is how yo see it - but it does actually upset others and causes lack of input due to name calling! Perhaps one day you will tread a little carefully

If we can agree that the lack of belief is a poor term, without means not with, I see without as a little off target and meaning not with yet. So NO BELIEF is best - hope we agree on NO then that is closed. Your "by the way" seems so confirm we agree now!

I did not quote YOU as saying lack of belief Flogger, and i was not attempting to correct you - sorry if it seems that way! I do not see this topic as a correct right/wrong, merely a debate

[Guest]

Been there done that

A few mammoth posts of mine have gone that way as well (there's only so many times you can say "argument from Ignorance!" before you just give up!)

Usually I press back space and flip to previous page and loose the text, plus my composition is bad along with my glasses being elsewhere, a little bit to lazy to go over it again.

[/Please don't put "Just" and "theory" together in one phrase <_< But it is a theory that is still in doubt (in fact some recent scientific efforts seem to have made it more so.)

True it belittles it and don't mean disrespect for a lot of hard work. May be a Freudian slip for not willing or ready for it.

Some of us like things like the Big Bang, Quantum mechanics and all that jazz. Like looking at the theories and arguments; In the same way that others (and some of us as well of course) like art, music, movies and theatre - it's just interesting and enjoyable. Because like you, for most of us it doesn't really matter in our day to day lives beyond that.

I have not enough time to give it the study it deserves - don't like half measures. After an intense 7 years. I'm 'learning to relax'(slowly getting there) as well as reading some books that have been lying around to long, way to long!

re descartes

Or was he?!

Maybe Miss Piggy's is better I'm pink, therefore I'm spam!

I personally like this explanation:

The Origin Of God Douglas Adams

I'll give that a once over tonight

along with your other post

[Guest]

Usually I press back space and flip to previous page and loose the text, plus my composition is bad along with my glasses being elsewhere, a little bit to lazy to go over it again.

Yeah, done that too. Near the end of a really long one recently; but then it turned out that the 'target' of my post was one of those who hardly bothers replying to anyone anyway, so no great loss.

True it belittles it and don't mean disrespect for a lot of hard work. May be a Freudian slip for not willing or ready for it.

That's fine, thought it might have been. But that is a very serious and/or touchy subject for some. And reminiscent of some rather reprehensible theistic rhetoric I have had the misfortune to see and experience.

I have not enough time to give it the study it deserves - don't like half measures. After an intense 7 years. I'm 'learning to relax'(slowly getting there) as well as reading some books that have been lying around to long, way to long!

Cool, no real reason you would have to. Some of us just find it interesting is all. I wish I had the time it would take to really get into it all. A problem only compounded by the fact that I want to learn it all! It's all so fascinating. I know that's impossible, people specialising in one facet of one field find it nigh on impossible to learn all within that smaller realm

re descartes Maybe Miss Piggy's is better I'm pink, therefore I'm spam!

I'll give that a once over tonight

along with your other post

Cool

[Guest]

Re left or right - not to be argumentative, but because I feel there is another explanation which is my quest..

Your feelings don't come into question regarding word definitions. You are either with a belief, or you are without it. It's pretty simple.

Are you putting pantheists into the atheist group - I don't know if they are similar.

It depends how one defines pantheist. What's relevant is when one decides what counts as a god or not, then one either believes that that god exists or not. Belief- theist. No belief- atheist

If one calls the Universe god, then no, I would not consider that person a theist. That's just a re-labeling of something we already know exists. If one is with belief in a personal god, then I think it's clear cut one is a theist.

The broadest definition of this term is a god who is a personal being, i.e. a being with a personality, including the capacity to reason and feel love, as in the cases of Zeus, Apollo and Athena and other deities common to European Pagan polytheism. In the case of the Christian belief in the Trinity, God is an impersonal 'ousia'[citation needed] or substance, manifested in three 'hypostasis' or persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These views are intended to challenge the concept of deity which is merely a guiding principle, a blind creative force or a philosophical ideal.

A narrower interpretation of a personal god is a deity who takes a personal interest in the world in general and worshippers in particular. This view is intended to challenge a deistic outlook.

Some people believe in a force but not a supernatural power (yin/yang - chi for example). More literature for me to catch up on

Some forces there is evidence for, some there is little or none. That really has nothing to do with theism/atheism.

Does not bother me if you categorise it in monochrome if it's as clear as that to you - I am concerned that you would blatantly label someone and don't care

If you don't mind how I categorize it, then it should bother you when I say which sort of people would be in those categories. That's what categorizing is.

- pigeonhole yourself if that is how yo see it - but it does actually upset others and causes lack of input due to name calling! Perhaps one day you will tread a little carefully

Please, don't give me that. Defining atheism and theism is not name calling.

If we can agree that the lack of belief is a poor term, without means not with, I see without as a little off target and meaning not with yet. So NO BELIEF is best - hope we agree on NO then that is closed. Your "by the way" seems so confirm we agree now!

I don't even know what you're talking about. I never used the term "lack of belief".

I did not quote YOU as saying lack of belief Flogger, and i was not attempting to correct you - sorry if it seems that way! I do not see this topic as a correct right/wrong, merely a debate

Sigh. I never claimed that you quoted me saying "lack of belief". I already responded to what caused my confusion on what your point was and you didn't answer my questions.:

You quoted me saying this:

"All an atheist is is one who is without a belief in the existence of God or gods. And not accepting claims that God/gods exist is not a view or a philosophy."

and then responded with this:

"not really stating my philosophy as such Flogger, and atheism is no belief not the lack of belief in god..."

What was your point if that wasn't an attempt to correct me? Why would you tell me that atheism is no belief when I just stated the same thing in different words and why did you go on to say "not lack of belief in god" when I never said that?

[Guest]

[Moderating]

Okay folks, once again I'm going to ask that we get back on topic so that readers and other posters don't lose interest with all the extraneous conversation. Enough talk about word definitions, what sciences are interesting, etc.

[/Moderating]

[Guest]

So? What do you think about Jesus' Father? Didn't like His teachings or the examples He set and told us to follow?

Okay, should we teach our children these teachings of Jesus?:

Matthew 5:29-30 (New International Version)

29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 5:32 (New International Version)

32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 6:34 (New International Version)

34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Matthew 6:19-20 (New International Version)

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Mark 10:21-25 (New International Version)

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Luke 12:33 (New International Version)

33Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

John 6:27 (New International Version)

27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)

28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Luke 6:30 (New International Version)

30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

Matthew 5:39 (New International Version)

39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:40 (New International Version)

40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Matthew 5:41 (New International Version)

41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

Matthew 5:42 (New International Version)

42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Lots of other goodies to like Jesus condoning slavery (and why wouldn't he, his Father did), condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching...eh, I could go on and on.

Good luck with that.

Obviously your tying to set up a "Gotcha" and trap me in a catch 22. Problem is I don't believe what you think I believe.

No I don't believe in the teachings of the God in the old testament. I'm not Jewish.

Yes I think everyone of those things you listed in the new testament is a good thing, WHEN PUT IN CONTEXT and not taken literally.

If you really want to enlighten me you can start with explaining how the hell you quote individual sentences and not the whole freakin post.