72 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 20 April 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

, except when I see it I don't see what you see.  

Becky uttered those exact words.. when I asked her  Sue is??  She said - Look mommy Sue is invisible, only I can see her ya know?

Sometimes it's Tom...but this week - Sue the invisible friend  lol

[Viral]

Paranoid Android, on 20 April 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

Apparently the same proof for the most part, except when I see it I don't see what you see.  Marduk's defeat of Tiamat, for example, is the Babylonian story of creation.  Compare that to the creation account in Genesis, where God there creates the world simply by the power of his word.  In fact, most creation myths in those days revolve around actions of gods destroying other gods or other great feats.  Genesis shows God simply using the power of his voice.  The likely reason for this is not because they copied stories from the Babylonians but rather it was written in direct opposition to the Babylonian story, in an attempt to subvert those myths and set up Yahweh worship as different.

Yahweh being greater than other gods - simple answer is that this is because he is the only one who exists.  The other "gods" are simply carvings of wood and stone made by the hands of men.  

Different names for God, not proof of many gods.  It is proof that they had different names for God.  

Asherah, Ba'al - Canaanite gods.  Which admittedly Israel did worship at times, but the Israelites also turned away from Yahweh worship to worship other gods also (a practice to which Yahweh objected).  This is not evidence that Yahweh was originally part of some pantheon to which these other deities existed, only that Israel was unfaithful in their worship towards Yahweh.  

I know you won't agree with this, but I'm putting it out there for you anyway.  This is rather off topic, so let's agree to disagree and get back to the question of atheism.

~ PA

I have to disagree on the count that Genesis was written far, far after Yahweh was worshiped by the Israelites so Genesis cannot be taken into account with this, the use of Babylonian and Canaanite stories and the heavy links that Yahweh has with Canaanite Gods it's fair to assume even if he was not one of them then he was indeed based on them, a conglomeration of faiths with the convenience of worshiping only one.

Your interpretations of the names for Gods and Yahweh being greater is ignoring the points I made about it, these were put in place with polytheism and were made as distinction from others and not because he's the only one.

I realise that you wont agree with my points either mostly due to your faith and the possibility of it being undermined but if we're ending this here then closing remarks on both sides should be allowed.

[Seeker79]

Some do some don't. Just like religious folks. Some preach and some accept. Pretty much the same mix of people. I will say that seemingly more educated and capable atheists are more accepting of others and have a greater understanding of the reasonablness of spiritual beleifs rather than acting like spiritual people are indoctrinated fools.

[Beckys_Mom]

Seeker79, on 20 April 2011 - 06:48 PM, said:

Some do some don't. Just like religious folks. Some preach and some accept. Pretty much the same mix of people. I will say that seemingly more educated and capable atheists are more accepting of others and have a greater understanding of the reasonablness of spiritual beleifs rather than acting like spiritual people are indoctrinated fools.

Way I see it is like this...

A number of christians can talk down to the non religious  and say things like - what would you know? have you ever read a bible?

A number of non religious can talk down to the christians and say - what would you know? have you ever read a science book?

[markdohle]

Beckys_Mom, on 20 April 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

Actually Mark.. a lot of what you just said - I agree... but see not everyone is the avarage human being, there are those that are above avarage

But the rest of what you have said - I agree...I think!!!

Thank you Becky, coming from you that is quite a compliment.

Peace
mark

[Beckys_Mom]

markdohle, on 20 April 2011 - 11:54 PM, said:

Thank you Becky, coming from you that is quite a compliment.

Thank you... the trick I try and use more is - looking at BOTH ends... not just one

How many do you know can do that?... it is really simple to do...but many cannot do it... too stubborn lol

[mklsgl]

Viral, on 20 April 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

Ah so Yahweh is the one true God, you see, this is why no matter how hard to study you wont reach my conclusion. It's because you have an in-built bias. You already have a set belief that is going to be difficult to shake, however I studied this with an interest in theology and history and as such I have not gone into it with any personal bias as for me the outcome of the research doesn't shake any core belief in myself. The Jewish faith was polytheistic and there's enough evidence to not deny this, however the sect that existed after they left Egypt were Yahweh, Ba'al and Asherah.

The video even quotes bits of the Torah and Bible that show the polytheistic nature such as Exodus 18:13 "Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all other Gods" or Exodus 15:11 "Who is like you among Gods, Yahweh!". In fact 'Yahweh Sabaoth' means 'God of armies'. We even have statues from 1000 BCE That shows a tower of four Gods and Yahweh is the second from bottom, in fact in no significant place whatsoever. What about "You shall have no Gods before me"? Even Josiah still believed in other Gods but accepted Yahweh as the greatest.

Also, you realise that the worship of Gods in polytheism was based on area, right? If someone lived in one location they would focus of Asherah, Ba'al, Yahweh, etc... This is shown in Pslam 137:4 "How can we sing the songs of Yahweh while in a foreign land?" - This was after they were exiled by the Babylonians. The cult of Yahweh blamed their lack of devotion to Yahweh for their shortcomings and their attack by Babylon but then the 'second Isaiah' came and he added to the original Isaiah to change the religion instead of let it die out (as it surely would) and that ended with verses such as Isaiah 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no other God".

Another author came along and started adding bits to the Torah to make it seems as if it was always monotheistic (he was always sourced as 'P'). He rewrote exodus to say that the El Shaddai worshiped by Abraham was actually Yahweh. This is how the 'God has many names' concept came about, it was used as a way to explain why Yahweh was not always worshiped. The whole of Leviticus was written (you know, that disgusting pile of human excrement that has condemned so many?). Genesis is rewritten to be monotheistic as well. Isaiah rewrites Marduk's accomplishments and slaps 'Yahweh' on them such as the defeat of the Dragon Tiamat. This was all round 600 BC.

Deny it all you want but there's my proof now where's yours?

That's a declarative statement of superiority.

[Viral]

mklsgl, on 22 April 2011 - 05:07 PM, said:

That's a declarative statement of superiority.

Alternatively it's called 'asking for proof'.

I was considering replying to you but I hit upon three issues:
1) It's a waste of my time
2) You'd just contest it anyway
3) The discussion was already over

Next time you reply, try and contribute something

Edited by Viral, 23 April 2011 - 02:53 AM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Viral, on 23 April 2011 - 02:52 AM, said:

Alternatively it's called 'asking for proof'.

I was considering replying to you but I hit upon three issues:
1) It's a waste of my time
2) You'd just contest it anyway
3) The discussion was already over

Next time you reply, try and contribute something

No talking to the muppet genius like that young man....

You could have at least ask Mkl what he meant before jumping the gun

[mklsgl]

Beckys_Mom, on 23 April 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

No talking to the muppet genius like that young man....

You could have at least ask Mkl what he meant before jumping the gun

Thanks, G-Luv.

[Soul Kitchen]

ambelamba, on 20 April 2011 - 05:29 AM, said:

I am not much of an atheist. (somewhat close though) I simply don't dare to think if I am superior to theists. I simply don't.

It is very strange to see that post coming from a person with an avatar such as yours.
"I don't dare to think if I am superior to theists, but I have a blatant anti-christianity avatar."

[ShadowSot]

Thesantanafan, on 23 April 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

It is very strange to see that post coming from a person with an avatar such as yours.
"I don't dare to think if I am superior to theists, but I have a blatant anti-christianity avatar."

Keep in mind, theism includes all religions, not just Christianity.
You can also respect the members of a religion, though not the religion itself.

Edited by ShadowSot, 23 April 2011 - 06:53 PM.

[Dravenguild]

I do believe in many senses that I am above believers, for several reasons that I have witnessed.

-The first being I am comfortable enough to persevere as a human just being a compassionate person and doing the right thing, without relying or attributing my actions to a higher power, of which I wouldn't be anything without.

We often forget that we ourselves are the driving force behind our actions, good or bad. Many I have encountered that hold belief in a higher power try to place blame on their spiritual liege rather than themselves, one such individual I have had the pleasure to have worked with was a raving alcoholic, said it wasn't his fault. He placed blame on the devil and temptation, looking to god for the answer. Yes it gave him the strength to quit drinking, but really he's traded one dependency for another, as he know feels he is powerless without christ.

Too many times have I seen talent wasted by the mire of organized religion, another younger woman I knew of was a prodigy at piano and is very successful, though she didn't place the ability within herself, again the often heard recitation "I am nothing without god, he is why I am able to play so well".

It really bastardizes the struggles we humans have undergone just in order to exist.

Though I may come off as smug, I will tell you I could care less about your religion or any others, I don't go around acting superior, or patronize someone who hasn't invoked my ire.

I know people need to cling to their beliefs because it helps them, and so long as it isn't detrimental to my goals then it doesn't register on the scope of things.

Though sometimes it is saddening to see how much people do not have faith in their own ability and must rely on an emotional crutch to be a functioning member of our species.

-Another example is more common than you think, the condescending believer, that forces religion and their beliefs down your throat. I have had the misfortune of dealing with these people on a regular basis, claiming I will burn in hell, yadda yadda yadda.

When they claim they are incapable of wrong or evil, I either laugh or start quoting Leviticus, that usually shuts them up.

Christianity has never been a religion of tolerance, history shows us that. If anything has come from it, it's actual good people that are ignorant of the roots and continue to be good for humanity's sake, but the majority resembles nothing of their principles and are usually angry and bigoted.

-Lastly, the blatant disregard for not only the facts but try to enforce their viewpoint on others. American politics is the worst offender in this case, when people care less if the president can do their job than if they believe in religion, specifically judeo-christian.

And stemming from that, the encroachment of religious influences into what is supposed to be a secular establishment due to republicans (Religious republicans, not business republicans, there is a difference)

And then there's the people that try to abolish abortions because of their personal beliefs. Their claim is they don't want their taxes going to fund abortion.

Well I don't want my taxes to go to the war effort, because I see it as a pointless conflict of occupation but I have to pay anyways, so why do these people even get a say? It's not even about them, there are many people in need of the basic programs offered by Planned parenthood besides abortions, yet these religious republicans as well as other vocal minorities want the entire fund cut for planned parenthood for just the abortion aspect.

So for those reasons I feel I am superior,

I am not dependent on an emotional drug

I do not berate others for not believing in my ideas

I observe religion, I may not like it but I am at least tolerant. (Something the offshoots of the three major religious dichotomies no longer observe)

I attribute my actions to myself, and do not place blame elsewhere

I am receptive to new ideas

[Podo]

Personally I think it heavily depends on the person. I know several athiests who definitely look down on religious folk, but I know just as many that don't. Conversely, I know a lot more religious folk who look down upon nonbelievers. It really depends on the individual.

I'm not strictly athiest by my own definition, but I definitely fall into that category by the definitions of others. I don't consider myself superior to those who choose to believe religions in the slightest; everyone's beliefs are equally valid in my mind. I do, however, consider myself far superior to those who use their belief to justify hatred, exclusion, or persecution of others. I do not support killing or other forms of conflict in the name of a god.

I tend to look down on those who hold blind faith, however. That is to say, people who hold on to a religion fervently and vocally despite not having read their own holy text, and while knowing nothing of any other religion. These people, quite frankly, disgust me. I have no issues with people who choose their religion intelligently, however. What this means is when a person chooses their religion after examining several different ones and arriving at theirs because they feel a connection to it, find it the most logical, or some other legitimate reason.

[Dravenguild]

Podo, on 24 April 2011 - 10:44 PM, said:

Personally I think it heavily depends on the person. I know several athiests who definitely look down on religious folk, but I know just as many that don't. Conversely, I know a lot more religious folk who look down upon nonbelievers. It really depends on the individual.

I'm not strictly athiest by my own definition, but I definitely fall into that category by the definitions of others. I don't consider myself superior to those who choose to believe religions in the slightest; everyone's beliefs are equally valid in my mind. I do, however, consider myself far superior to those who use their belief to justify hatred, exclusion, or persecution of others. I do not support killing or other forms of conflict in the name of a god.

I tend to look down on those who hold blind faith, however. That is to say, people who hold on to a religion fervently and vocally despite not having read their own holy text, and while knowing nothing of any other religion. These people, quite frankly, disgust me. I have no issues with people who choose their religion intelligently, however. What this means is when a person chooses their religion after examining several different ones and arriving at theirs because they feel a connection to it, find it the most logical, or some other legitimate reason.

That's actually a much better explanation of how I feel, not so long winded an all =P