Sean :

Myth: Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********


V:



Good points you make with your other points under a different thread...but I would have to say the atheists I've met online are generally very nasty arrogant people.

Now, I can't offer a true opinion since the vast majority of them do not partake in the forums and only a few handfuls send out the abuse. But the others that lurk have never spoken up to stop the abuse. So their silence is not good sign.


Just a few samples below...I could have sent you hundreds more.

BTW, these are from unregulated usenet forums.


V:

"We should always be interested in finding truth and peace. For instance, In the bible it says "Test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil," (1 Thess. 5:21)" If our way is not working then some other way may help. It is good to test and see the results and not get caught up in prejudice blocking the way. For with such tests, 'the proof of the pudding will be in the eating' and decisions on how to live will not be left only to your ego, but will be grounded in peace N.



N responds:

"That quote is meaningless to me, I view "evil" as a religious (Christian) term, and I'm an atheist. I'm not interested in vague horoscopish parables like the ones you spout. When I do bother to derive meaning from them I usually roll my eyes and think "this person is the master of the bleedin' obvious," to paraphrase a certain fictional British twit. I think you're fooling yourself. I don't think you have any ties to any particular religion because you want to be worshipped like a god yourself. The other gods are competition. You want US to be spiritual, and to regard you with religious awe If you're interested in truth then study science and forget trying to set yourself up as an object of worship."

(quotes condensed)



I posted on the subject of "Peace Tools for Atheists, Agnostics and Believers" to the 'alt.atheist' discussion group to open up some dialogue on what tools are available for the atheist or agnostic to use to generate inner peace in place of organized religion. All the tools and concepts I discussed were available for any person to use without the belief in God.

In my post I covered many tools from simplicity, compassion, classical philosophical studies, ethics, mindfulness, reciprocity, charity, accepting impermanence, developing gratitude and contentment, cutting back on craving and desires, working with natural law, balanced living, etc. I illustrated how I use freethinking to take tools for peace wherever I find them without prejudice and evaluate the tool on it own and not under guilt by association. All the tools I discussed were available to use without the belief in God.

I received the following 8 replies out of a membership of 1611 atheists 'freethinkers' subscribers from this post: http://www.agnosticforums.com/morality-law...-believers.html


"I've never been not at peace. What you offer makes me physically ill. It's like a nasty man come round to tell little kiddees he has candy for them if they touch his pee pee. You know, most of the atheists I know are as good as children are at discerning misrepresentation. You aren't trying to help anyone but your own self. Go away, we have no interest in touching your pee pee."

"First of all, this is a newsgroup, not the freaking public library. Keep it short and to the point. Second, you're full of s**t."

"Stop posting your vile polemic deliberately nasty, lying Christian? Please go away. No-one is buying your poisonous diatribe. Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?"

"We know this deliberately nasty, slandering liar is a Christian by his fruits. A liar as well as an idiot. Don't be so f**king stupid."

"What the f**k has philosophy got to do with your in-your-face psychopathy?"

"You wouldn't know "virtuous behaviour" if it hit you over the head, whining hypocrite who needs to get the log out of his own eye before accusing us of a projection of his own deficiencies."

"So f**king what? Keep it to yourself and nobody will know what an a**hole you are."

"Why would any atheist need tools for peace?"



I suggest such atheists claiming to be secular humanists read the 'informal creed' of atheism to at least get on the right page.

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/


Now, I've received abuse from all over the net from Christians as well as Buddhists, but the abuse from atheists is by far the worse when it comes to language and not just censorship. With censorship the Christians are the worse, but Buddhist and atheists are close tas well.

Some of my history...




(...) writes:

"Should we pursue all possible knowledge or should knowledge be censored, edited, selected, maintained, and tampered with so as to allow only that which best serves life? Or to put it differently: Is ignorance true bliss? And if it is, should we will such ignorance so as to better preserve our bliss? Of course, one then must invite the question as to whether "bliss" is the final value, the final measure of value of a life?"


V:

"The highest object that human beings can set before themselves is not the pursuit of any such chimera as the annihilation of the unknown: it is simply the unwearied endeavor to remove its boundaries a little further from our little sphere of action." ~ Huxley


Yes, ignorance can be bliss, just as the bliss an alcoholic finds when in their drunken stupor. The problem is not in the discussion of truth, the only problem is when people try to 'block' the discussion of truth. Prejudice, hatred and ill will can never yield true peace. These actions of destruction require 'some thinking' on the part of the person that seeks bliss through mind manacled ignorance and tries to destroy others with their actions of destruction due to an insobriety of personal opinions. There is nothing wrong with having personal opinions, but when we use these opinions to destroy others, then it does become very wrong.

The prejudiced, blind, small minded thinker cannot entertain freethought as they must block or censor the ideas and concepts before testing them for truth. Their ego will not allow it! Such people do not operate on truth, they operate on ego. The difference between an authority and an authoritarian is this. An authority speaks from a place of truth and such speaks as an authority. Whereas an authoritarian rules by fear and not by truth. For the truth stands on it own and the authoritarian stands on their EGO. We all have to use our ego when making value judgments, but the crossover come when the ego is used as a weapon.

As Horace told us, "Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt--You can run away as far as you like but you'll never get away from yourself." The person that lives by prejudice and hate carries it with them wherever they go and eventually it rots them from the inside out.

Let me give you a little background about myself and censorship.

I have been on about 210 forums over the last 9 years and have been banned from about 70% of them due to prejudice. The vast majority of these forums have been dedicated to personal improvement as well as spiritual studies.

Now with Christian forums it is 100% ban rate and Buddhist forums is 90% ban and atheist forums it is about 85% - 90% ban.

But this ignorance is universal 'human' in nature.

Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

Let me give you an example that has happened to me in the past.

In the bible it says "Test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil," (1 Thess. 5:21)

Taking from Christian, Buddhist and most other religions of the world I discuss such tools in my posts no matter their source. When I talked about this 'concept of testing' and related it to the Buddha's tool of testing doctrine, but included this bible quote above, I was banned by the Buddhists. Yet the Buddha also encouraged testing of his teachings before adopting those teachings.

At a Christian forum, when I brought up the Buddha encourages testing just as it was said in the bible, the Christian forums banned me.

Then at the atheist forums when I mention the Bible and the Buddha both offered the tools of testing to help determine truth, the atheist sites ban me.

Yet, all three groups like the idea of testing for truth, as long as this idea comes from them and not from anyone else...many people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. Alan Watts use to say we define ourselves by our enemies. We define ourselves by what we are not. He used the example of 'Beatniks and Squares' which were the in fad opposites back in his day. So of course it is natural for these groups to view themselves as polar opposites.

We should always be interested in finding truth and peace. If our way is not working then some other way may help. It is good to test and see the results and not get caught up in prejudice blocking the way. For with such tests, 'the proof of the pudding will be in the eating' and decisions on how to live will not be left only to your ego, but will be grounded in peace.

The three unwholesome roots of delusions, greed and hate are very basic to a a Buddhist practice. Out of these three, delusion is the foundational root, for without seeing delusions for what they are, you cannot distinguish the other two unwholesome roots of greed and hate. People suffer from delusions in all form and not just deity worship. Atheism, while freeing ones mind to think, but it does not guarantee one thinks right and acts right. This is the importance of replacing wrong religious beliefs with right thinking and right living.

For instance, I was banned from many 'so called' Buddhist sites such as Esangha, Tricycle, Shambhala, Buddha Chat, 12 step Buddhists, Sangha-Pauahtun, eBuddhism, etc even though I have been a freethinking Buddhist for nearly a decade. Some people claiming to be Buddhist think all they have to is shave their heads, adopt a silly name, be a vegetarians and burn incense to be a Buddhists...all the while they are doing great harm to others, Which is how it is with many Buddhist forums that are 'for profit' and run by 'spiritually sick' individuals. Currently, it is a sad state of affairs with such online Buddhist groups.

I've been on dozens of Christian forums and I have perfect record at the Christian forums...100% banned...and I was a Christian myself at that time I tried to join them years ago.

I was able to finagle my way back into one Christian forum though:

http://www.christianforums.com/index.php

But I could only stay if I claimed to be an atheist...and I do not post much and keep my mouth shut...and if I do post it has to be something non consequential. Also I am not allowed to post with the Christians. I can only post to the atheists. I like that forum as it reminds me of the 'sickness of attachment,' so that is why I put up with all the prejudice. At that forum you can 'buy your armor' to outfit your avatar to shield you from evil and 'trade blessings' with each other.

The Billy Graham and Catholic forums banned me after my first posts...then they solicit me for months on end asking for money. I don't know whether to laugh or cry?

Charity? Humility? Reciprocity? Freedom of Faith? Truth? And of course...Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself????

I'm afraid Christians don't practice what they preach...at least at their forums. (Even the Buddhist whose mantra is 'Do No Harm' ban me 90% of the time at their forums, so they are only a little better than the Christians.)

Atheist forums are not much better at freethinking. Been banned at evil bible dot com, ethical atheist, Internet infidels, X-Christians and others.

How do I find peace with all this prejudice?

By knowing

"With the same material one man builds a palace and another only a hovel." Russell Cromwell.

and accepting people are not perfect, nor am I perfect which is just as the Taoists tell us: "fleas come with the dog."



So, my vote?

Seek truth and realize that as Aristotle told us: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it and to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."

Busy busy busy. http://www.google.com/search?q=vfr+Psychol...en&filter=0

I didn't read all that but I know this: You can't call a group of people arrogant because the act of arrogance is an individual trait.

When did the term Atheist and Scientist become one in the same?

Not all scientist will admit that they don't know something and not all religious people will claim they know everything. Stereotyping is bad mmmkay?

Funny that's the same part of his post I had an issue with. Atheist scientists are usually very very arrogant IMO.

has it ever occured to anyone here, that they might be tired of all the hypocritical bull that organized religion puts out?

I'm not entirely sure where this idea of Atheist=Arrogance is coming from. I mean the term atheist simply means "without a belief in god". Some Atheist groups who decide to set forth specific creedo's and motto's to blanket describe the Atheist and their belief system are not speaking for all people that do not believe in God.

It seems that alot of people need to have things classified, labeled, put into black and white in attempts to garner an understanding, without trying to gain an understanding. Where as the lable that a person is ascribed seems to allow others to stop right there and cease to gain further understanding..........for the lable says it all.

It is a dangerous and debilitating spot we dwell when our imagination and quest for understanding is obstructed as a result of other peoples intellectual impotence.

You know, not all thiests think that athiests are "arrogant". Most of us respect your beliefs, just like you should respect ours.

BTW, not all thiests think that religion has an answer for everything.

Not all people think Religion SHOULD be respected....just because it is religion. (thanks Richard D.)

I respect it though. I don't think people should be surprised to find out their belief isn't respected, because of this or that. ...but I still respect it. Leads to healthier discussions. I will agree though, some atheists are arrogant, but there's just as many theists that are arrogant. It's more a matter of general egotism. A new arsehole is born everyday.

Well, between the two camps, Atheists and Theists, and relative to arrogant posturing, one attempts to go door to door , or prints advertisements and leaves them strewn about in the public domain, so as to convert everyone else to their way of thinking. They also invade other countries and impart their message, at the same time as telling the indigenous population the faith they held for centuries before that arrival, is evil or wrong. Is that arrogance!? Oh yes.

I've been an atheist for about five years now. I do not, for one second, think that I'm the fountain of all knowledge--that I understand the workings of the universe, or if there is a creator--nor have I ever met a fellow atheist that did. Such things are simply beyond our understanding. We will know when we die. As for the posts above citing such vitriol ... I've seen this from all camps. People get upset when personal beliefs get questioned. Just the way it is. Humans have a knack for fighting over intellectual territory. Seems the only thing that we have perfected over the course of millions of years. Obviously, humankind has a way to go. Most unfortunate.

Science and atheism ... How the two ever became interconnected ... I don't know. Yes, most of those involved in the sciences consider themselves atheists/agnostic, but, in my studies/experience--and here is where I respectfully disagree with my friend TT--they are some of the most open-minded individuals out there, ready to admit that we are far from understanding our environment, universe so forth and so on. Why? Science demands experiment and failure in order for a greater understanding to come about. It demands it. With religion ... this is not the case. Only faith is required--nothing else. And what is faith? Faith is the belief in something that lacks material evidence--"... things hoped for, evidence not seen ..." (Hebrews 11:1). And it is on this foundation that the fervently religious (certainly not all) who take the high road, claiming to have all the answers to the spiritual, science and ethics--"God did it; the Bible says so! My way is superior to yours because the one true God is on my side and your God is false!" Again, this is from personal experience--seen from both a believer and not. So which of the two is arrogant? The one who waves about his holy book claiming to be correct, or the one who demands experimentation in order to come to a conclusion? You decide. To each his own. Hopefully a happy medium can be found.

That said, nobody is better than anyone else. We are all related, our blood red, not blue. A family is what we are, and it would behoove us to realize it. What a marvelous world this would be if we could just set aside our petty bickerings. Now, let us all grasp hands a sing "We are the World!"

Most respectfully,

Sean

Arrogance knows no prejudice, it can be anybody's friend.

I remember this excerpt I found shortly after Carl Sagan's death in 1996. It is pasted here as it appears at a new host site.


In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

When asked how he would explain a "genuine mystical experience," Sagan responded: "Your question presupposes the existence of a genuine mystical experience and I'm not sure what that is. People have vivid hallucinations. How do you distinguish between altered states of consciousness?"

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Asked soon after Carl's death: "Didn't [Sagan] want to believe?" She responded, "He didn't want to believe. He wanted to know." [Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's wife)]



For a great many, theists and non, I think that is the issue. There is no way of knowing if all this that we understand as our personal reality and that which occurs in it, is made to occur by some beneficent power pulling strings, making it all work in concert to our will. However, for me, it's an absurd construct. To think that in this infinite universe, this one biological life form (me) has gained special attention amid all that exists and is going on, would be the ultimate arrogance. When all things behave according to their nature, myself included, it is selfish in the extreme to imagine something sits on high somewhere unseen, and gives a flip what I do. Punishes me for what it considers wrong, blesses me for what it deems right. When everything I do, I know results in a consequence. As in the sciences that say for every action there is an equal yet opposite reaction. It's impersonal, to all the world, save me and those that might be intimately connected to my act(s) or choice(s).

But to think something cares about me, when everything that exists is acting out according to it's own nature, is a superiority complex that imparts the idea one has dominion over all else because they think like that. And if something beneficent were to be given stock as having a personal investment in what occurs in this world, what's it say to those that suffer till the day they die? Beseeching something unseen that they hold faith in, to save them? And it doesn't!? Were they not worthy!? Of course they were. Mercy is not conditional, one wouldn't think, in the mind of something they call a beneficent god. And yet it would appear it is, when in the time it took to write this countless babies in Africa succumbed to AIDS or starvation. Where was their god? Some might ask. And some might answer, it's a mystery! But for me, it's no mystery at all. There was simply nothing listening that gave a particular care about it. It's nature, after all. Human or otherwise, that makes this world go round. Those babies died, in the midst of prayers for salvation, because it all boils down to something the human animal made to occur. They starved to death, in the time it took to read this far, because of something human politics made to occur. All the woes of this world, are human made. The arrogance, I think, is thinking we can do that and then expect something inhuman to change it or save us from ourselves. When it is surely us that damns the human race, and it is only us that can change that, by holding faith we're worth more than imparting any trust in being apathetic at all, while waiting for something from the realm of our superstitions, our myths, to do it for us. When it was us that created the world's conditions, exactly as it is today.

Amen! Well said!

Alot of words for a yes or no question. And yes Atheists are arrogant not because they are atheists but because all men are arrogant. The level of Arragance varies depending on the individual.

So the answer is simply yes.

I see your point.

ALL men?? wtf?? no missus not ALL men just some..while you are at it, so are SOME women too..but see I notice you didnt jump in and say..ohh religious people are arrogant too....

here's the thing...arrogance is all around us...

Is it fair to make a thread saying...all christians are arrogant??................ IMO NOPE

So its the same with this thread...arrogance made it and posted it..

outside of all of mankind being arrogent how would most claim we, atheists, are arrogent? just for curiosity's sake

Those that say atheists are arrogant, are those that don't like the idea of y'all not following Jesus.or God..well thats my opinion!!

*laughs* you have to hand it to the christians. they are a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites aren't they

Tsk tsk tsk. I say that atheists are arrorgant cause its a trait all humanity has. And they act like vipers.
Your human, therefore you have some degree of arrogance in you. Maybe a little, maybe a lot but theres some. A Theist is arrogant just like a Atheist is arrogant.

just like the christians. i've met more arrogent christians than i have arrogent atheists

Everyone has arrogance in them.

The only thing is there are those that show it more than others. But everyone will show some arrogance every now and again.

Translated = They dont follow a religious group or believe in God, therefore I say they are arrogant!!

Your comments on theists and atheists is purely ARROGANT full stop!!

I think he was saying that all people are arrogant, that it is a general triat of mankind.

Funny, yet so true. Don't all of us on this forum have a little arsehole inside of us? I can certainly speak for myself

Arrogance is a human trait and straddles all areas of human belief, regardless of what that belief is. Atheists are just as prone to this as are Christians. There are of course atheists who are not arrogant, just as there are Christians who ARE arrogant. LIke it or not, arrogance is a human trait, and people from all walks of life will exhibit this trait.

Though there is perhaps a certain level of arrogance concerning the sciences. To base one's opinion on an authority such as Science can perhaps lead to arrogance. But Christians can also become arrogant when they base their opinion on the Bible, of which they consider to be the word of God. So again, it works both ways.......

~ PA

But it is fair to make a thread (or at the least, a post) saying...all christians worship out of fear!"......................

I'd say it can not be said to be unfair, when the christians bible says the christian god admonishes, expects even, it's believers fear it. Though that fact seems to be largely ignored.

^Not ignored - just misunderstood

I'm going to take it on faith that you haven't yet read my response in the thread on Fear and Worship. You'll note there that I posted information about the definition of the word tranlsated as "fear" does not mean the terror/dread form of fear that we associate when thinking today of "fear". Rather it is a concept of reverence and respect and awe. There is an entirely different Hebrew word (which I posted about in that other thread) that is used to denote fear as terror or dread.

I have no doubt you believe that. However, if the bible is the world of god, then the translation should be fitting to denote the true meaning of gods word. Not the apologist imparting the notion that it really doesn't mean what it says, when they first say the bible is meant as the eternal , unchanging word of god. The scribes of the time, that translated the old Hebrew, were far more learned than the both of us. Even in the case of a believer affecting a copy and augment defense against what is written in the OT, from apologetics press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/592 so as to impart a pretext that it's all taken out of context.

If it was intended to be taken in a different context than what is printed on the page and promoted as "gods word", the scribes would have applied the contemporary meaning they were trying to impart by augmenting the old Hebrew into a contemporary parlance. Therefore, if they had intended people to believe the word was "thou shalt love thy god...." instead of fear, they would have said so. But fear, which is what the old scribes were trying to insinuate into the believer public in the read, as did the church in the practice, was exactly the point and intent of the translation. To imagine anyone need read a bible, with a Strong's concordance at the ready, so they can take the original meaning of the canonized scripture , in it's proper context, is ludicrous. Especially given ministers to this day, reading from the OT, take it at it's word and have for centuries.

^Have you ever studied etymology, GW? Words have different meanings, and not all words from one language can be completely and accurately translated to get the full meaning in another language. I have a tattoo on my arm - a chinese symbol, that translates as "faithful" or perhaps "trustworthy". This translation is quite acceptable, but if you go to the chinese language, you'll note that it doesn't mean faithful or trustworthy. It's not a word, but a characteristic that leads to faithfulness or trustworthiness. If I were to translate it completely and utterly correct, it would read "If you have this trait, you are faithful". But if I were translating this into an english sentence, I'm not going to write that, I'm going to simply write "faithful".

For the record, I never said these passages mean "Love God". You inferred that into my statement, and I find it most interesting that you as a non-Christian read my post and automatically think I'm trying to put the absolute best spin on a situation. I NEVER SAID that Fear God means Love God. I said reverence and respect and awe are synonyms that can be used in teh place of this form of fear. God is so mighty and awesome that he does indeed inspire these qualities. To use an example, a football player before a big game might say "coach, I'm afraid". THat doesn't mean he's paralyzed with terror and dread and is afraid he's going to lose and make a fool of himself. Rather it's a sign that the magnitude of this event, the SuperBowl for example, and running out onto a football field surrounded by a hundred thousand screaming fans and beamed live to televisions around the globe, it is all conducive to an emotion one calls "fear". But this fear is in reverence of the situation, of awe and wonder and mighty respect for the situation that the player is in.

God illicits the same fear. The wonder and awesomeness of God, it is most certainly a situation one could consider in the same sense of fear as the footballer running out for that big game, except multiply it by a hundred or a thousand because of how awesome God really is. This is not the same fear you have of losing something you love, or the fear you experience when an axe-wielding baby-eating maniac comes screaming through your loungeroom. There is a big difference.

I guess you could say there is then an element of fear in a Christian's worship - that of respect and awe for that which is much greater than we ourselves are. Though in making that statement, I'd have to distance this form of "fear" from the fear that some suggest Christians base faith on (the fear of hell). The fear of hell, afraid of death. this is not the fear that is being spoken of when the phrase "fear God" is mentioned.

Regards, PA

Do you know the race of the scribes that translated the ancient hebrew scrolls, into what is todays bible!?

Is that a trick question? To which scribes are you referring? The scribes who originally translated into English all those hundreds of years ago, or modern-day scribes who provide for us the newest translations of the text. Either way, we still have the texts in Hebrew (and Greek too), so I'm not really sure what question you're asking, and can't see any role that race would play in this discussion then.

ar·ro·gant /ˈærəgənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ar-uh-guhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.

source

I would dispute that all people are arrogant, or that it is a 'general trait'. However I would not dispute that all people have opinions. I think many people here are confusing opinion with arrogance.

That's my opinion anyway...

Wow! You ask and answer your own question to your own satisfaction. Very good. You must be quite entertaining at after parties in the debate club.

What's wrong, is asking the race not PC? Point is, context. The old Hebrew that you decline to recognize as being translated to impart the word "fear" into any of the many scriptures wherein that word is used in the canonized scripture, exists. Defer it's meaning to any number of other words all you like, however fear , as intended, still exists on the printed page in the known and accepted bibles of this day. So, while apologists may say. Oh, the scribes of the time mistranslated the word.... the scribes of the day were educated as to the full meaning of the word(s) , in any number of forms and chose to apply them as they did. Scribes were meticulous you know. There wasn't a PC or laser printer whizzing off copies, after a flawed spell checker misinterpreted a word. The words that are in the bible scripture today were put there for a purpose to impart a particular message. To imagine it is correct that the scribes translating a book of such importance, under the direction of "holy mother church" no less, used the wrong words in that process, is inaccurate and a very sorry tactic for anyone to incorporate so as to defer the import of scriptures that say what they simply can not accept is written. How does one actually imagine "fear" is not imparted in how one is suppose to see the god of the bible!? Have you read it!? Or is one not suppose to fear a god that murders tribes of people, through the agency of his Israelites, because he's angry that those other tribes worship a god not himself!?

Eve and Adam were banished from paradise, in the wake of gods wrath after he cursed them. No, nothing to fear there. Nothing to fear of a god that can either forgive one their transgressions and carry them to heaven, or damn them to the fiery pit, hell, the void, or what ever other visual one wishes to accept of the after life out of gods sight. (how is that accomplished exactly!? The all powerful, ever where present, all knowing king of the universe, suddenly can not see something in it's realm?! And does so, damns it's human creation in such a way because , in his omniscience, he was displeased they turned out exactly as he made them to be, exactly as he knew they would be. Which wouldn't even be an issue if god had not cursed the first of our kind, rather than forgive, so that there was then created sin for which the subsequent generations of humanity would have to strive to overcome so they might return to the god presence that made their souls to become flesh and live that struggle of life, in the first place!?)

GW - I'm afraid you are misunderstanding my point. I did not say that the word "fear" was mistranslated. Indeed, I have agreed that fear is quite an acceptable translation of this word. But the context of this fear is very specific and refers to the form of fear I discussed in my earlier post. Synonyms of this word would be awe, or reverence, or utmost respect. Like the Greek words for Love. These two words - phileo and [/i]agape[/i] - both are correctly translated as Love, but both have different meanings, and it is the context these words are used in that demonstrate the differences.

So, you're saying that "fear" in the bible is not representative , in any context, of what we would usually accord that word, by definition!?

I've always considered the term "god-fearing" to be rather straight forward actually.
To me, it indicates that the person is scared spitless of their diety.

Main Entry: God-fear·ing
Pronunciation: -"fir-i[ng]
Function: adjective
: having a reverent feeling toward God : DEVOUT

Main Entry: fear
Pronunciation: 'fir
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English feren, from Old English f[AE]ran, from f[AE]r
transitive verb
1 archaic : FRIGHTEN
2 archaic : to feel fear in (oneself)
3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm <fear the worst>
intransitive verb : to be afraid or apprehensive <feared for their lives>
- fear·er noun

Main Entry: awe
Pronunciation: 'o
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse agi; akin to Old English ege awe, Greek achos pain
1 : an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime <stood in awe of the king> <regard nature's wonders with awe>
2 archaic a : DREAD, TERROR b : the power to inspire dread

Main Entry: dread
Pronunciation: 'dred
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English dreden, from Old English dr[AE]dan
transitive verb
1 a : to fear greatly b archaic : to regard with awe
2 : to feel extreme reluctance to meet or face
intransitive verb : to be apprehensive or fearful

Main Entry: de·vout
Pronunciation: di-'vaut
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin devotus, from Latin, past participle of devovEre
1 : devoted to religion or to religious duties or exercises
2 : expressing devotion or piety <a devout attitude>
3 a : devoted to a pursuit, belief, or mode of behavior : SERIOUS, EARNEST <a devout baseball fan> <born a devout coward -- G. B. Shaw> b : warmly sincere <a devout wish for peace>
- de·vout·ly adverb
- de·vout·ness noun

And I have also heard the logic bending etymological 'explanations' for why the word doesn't mean what it means. And it still doesn't jibe with me.
Although the defrenders of this awkward phrase think otherwise.

Well, after reading the account in the Old T. of god drowning the world because of it's transgressions, and then making a covenant unto mankind not to do that again, but instead , next time, he'd use fire, I'd say there was nothing in that passage that would engender fear as it's usually defined. I can certainly see where , instead , one would feel awe, or reverence, or utmost respect and love for that god. You know, after the earth repopulates from the seed of Noah and his son's. Btw, just a thought. But since all those damned generations after the transgression of Eve and Adam in the garden, were under water, and all life started anew through the loins of the chosen Noah family, why is it that if they were chosen to be saved from that floater fate, the worlds people were still to suffer the curse levied against Eve and Adam's generations!? Wasn't the drowning of the whole world a way to wipe that out!? You know, since they were drowned for being so evil and all up to that point!?

I have a way to get around that Joey, i ask very straight forward do you love god or fear god , and most say, actaully all have said Fear..thats about as clear as I can get it ...LOL. But Fear in christain means respect, so its no mystery tthat many think that having another afraid of you is a sign of resepct....lol In my langauge if one has to terrorize one into being resepctful well something is off and their may be some insecurity issues, but this is just my opinion...lol....

Well Sheri, I've been told that since god created everything, he has the right to do as he pleases with his creations, and we should all be grateful that he allows us to exist.

I guess that is kind of awe inspiring..........

I suppose.

"Fear in christian means respect." OMNG that's damn funny. I to have spoken to christians that defer to the same choice. They fear god. With respect they figure, it's god, what's not to respect. lol

Actually, I read the satanic bible years ago (Anton LaVey, author) and in that he speaks about fear and that enemy equation you mentioned , Sheri. If I recall correctly it was regarding the absurdity of the golden rule. I.E. Turn the other cheek. He figured, if an enemy had the nerve to strike you in one cheek the first time, turning the other would give them a second target. So rather than that, smash them so that they learned that smacking people in the cheek came at a cost. That destroying one's enemy engenders respect, rather than turning on one's back, like unto a spaniel kicked by it's master, and asking for more. I'd have to check my library to find the exact passage, but that's about the gist of it. In truth, I can't say I disagree with his pov. But then again, I have no respect for pacifists, so that's just me.

Yes, am on many groups as it is a steady turnover with getting banned.

This is true. Most of this one group I am on are science based and seem very arrogant to me. Although they imply they are humble and I am arrogant. It is all subjective. Other groups can be different.

Ah, I see. So is this a hobby then? Is it something you strive for or what!?

GW and Joey, in my wisdom fear means that which you aren't , basically you are taught that you are less than yourself, not whole, thus seperate from yourself and life/god .....In comes the fear construct which teaches of seperation and the impossibility of every integrating with oneness/god, the best one can hope for(faith) is salvation in death ..whatever that means...It requires no proof and the worshippers defend the construct religion....


Yes and the gratitiude for the position of being dirt on the ground...'shrugs'

i wonder if turning the other cheek meant being the solution not the problem, it seems to have come to mean martyr and victum.....

How many of you in this thread are atheists? I do not see much arrogance here?

But each group is different.


For instance I asked lady atheist what she thought about the eightfold path of Buddhism specifically concerning right speech. since she had a predisposition to abusive language

3. Right Speech

"Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and to talk only when necessary."


Her response condensed and edited


"So. F***ing what...do you think I give a flying f*** what you think, dips***...Not that it's any of YOUR f***ing business...Don't presume that you know what's best for me, you deluded, motherf***ing, c***sucking son of a whore."


The 'informal creed' of atheism guides us to look out for each other. I made no demands, but I inquired as to her peace.


An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

The rest of the group approved of her language and added some more profanity of their own. As such, I view the atheists at that group to be very arrogant. But again it is just my subjective opinion and not scientific.

As an Atheist I can say I do not live nor see Atheism as having a creed. Atheism, for some, may seem to be an institutionalized faith based practice or philosophy, and as such would afford a creed of sorts, but that's not how I live it.

For instance, and relative to your examples. I am not my brothers keeper. My brother's are well educated, self-sufficient, independent and compassionate. I am also not my brothers keeper in the communal sense , with respect to the at large population. Because I respect that it is not my business to take my personal ideologies and apply them as some means of moral oversight, upon others not myself. Now, this does not say I am not empathetic, nor feel compassion for my fellow human beings. Of course not. However, I do not allow myself to be "kept", nor do I afford the disrespect of keeping anyone else. Life is learned by the experience of it. Our fall, our joy, our choices. Because life is choice. Every moment of every day. And my life is busy enough that I do not have time to watch over anyone else so as to insure they are on the "right path", when that would indeed be arrogance and disrespectful of someone that is walking their own.

With respect to the woman you encountered and her abusive language toward you, you might consider that what she was really saying was she was scared of you because of who you made her feel herself to be, by being in your presence. Consequently, as she could not or would not, lash out physically to assault you, she instead resorted , in her fear, to attacking you with her words. Intending they affect harm to you as would a punch or kick. But what was she really communicating!? Maybe something like, get away from me, I don't want to face what you have to show me. But consider this. Long after you walk away, when it is not your right or responsibility to change who she has lived her life and become all those years before you entered her field of view, she lives with herself. And it was her experiences that made her to feel and see you as she did. Through that veil , or filter, of what she "knows" to be her truth about herself and the world she inhabits. While you, and all that you are and have been made to be up to that moment of the encounter, saw her through your own set of filters and veils. But you saw something she did not and vice versa. It's all subjective and it's all intimately personal. And, while one may feel compassion for someone that angry, it's not anyone's right or responsibility , nor is it even possible, to change who they are because of what they've experienced that made them to be as they are. What you can do is lend your measure of influence in your way, to all those ingredients that make her her, already. Instill something in the soup, sort of speak. And maybe it'll take root and blossom so that she sees that she need not be at war with herself first and thus the whole world.

But to see ones self as their brothers keeper, in a world inhabited by over a billion people, is unrealistic at best and arrogance at worst. Because who says you, or I, have the right or are worthy of being deemed qualified to be so!? If we want to prove we are, we need to live our lives and be our own keepers and thereby set the example of who we are, while we mingle with everyone on the planet that we encounter in our time and place, that are at work doing the same thing.

I'm not talking about "any context"!!!! I'm talking about the specific word used in the context of a "god-fearing" individual, which has the undertones of reverence and awe. I have never said that other words translated also as "fear" may not mean terror or dread. Did you know that there are close to 20 different Hebrew words taht are translated as "fear" (I found 20, though I may have missed one or two). Are you going to try and tell me that all 20 words mean "terror" or "dread"? Or maybe - just maybe - they each have their own contexts and meanings, and show different aspects of fear.

edit: But to answer your question - the word in question "yaw-ray" (Hebrew - " ירא ") - is defined in two senses. Morally, to revere. And causatively, to frighten. Compare this to terms such as " מורה מרא מורא " which means terribleness, dread. Or perhaps this word - " פּחד ", which has the overtones of sudden alarm. Or perhaps this word - " אמה אימה " which implies horror, terror, dread.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, you make many a good point in your post. As you addressed regarding the lady, my job is only to plant seeds, I can't force them to sprout. Forced sprouting is our complaint of the overzealous religious fanatic isn't it?

When all is said and done, we are our brothers keeper in some sense. You see, your sanity is my sanity and my sanity is your sanity when it comes down to it. How many times does this 'sanity of humanity' touch our lives? It is true we cannot help all people. But at least we can work to not harm the people we come into contact with if we wish to do nothing else.

You have spiritual principles to apply in lieu of religion. Many atheists do not.

As a Hindu sage once told me: "Just as water floes downhill without effort but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than our base desires."

For instance. One atheists gave his views on this subject of discussing spiritual tools to live by:

"What is spirit or spirituality? Without knowing what you mean by the word, one can't know what you mean. Why study something for which you not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?"

The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life at peace. This relationship of interdependent humanistic balance can best be visualized in the 3 corners of a triangle which represents the spiritual realm, other persons and ourselves At the top goes Higher Power / God / Buddha / The Dharma / Nature / Karma or whatever you choose as the unseen force behind all. On the bottom right corner of the triangle goes other people. On the left bottom corner of the triangle goes yourself. Keeping this relationship in harmonious balance helps develop compassion for others and humility within ourselves.

We learn to think about others and the spirit as well as our own needs and we can then see we are all interdependent and not independent with all. Once you see this balance you will realize that we all share the same breath and no need to practice hatred or develop ill will towards others. It is much better to develop compassion for others. For as we develop compassion for others we develop peace within. This also helps me with keeping an open mind for peace generators in my life. As such, I practice from any spiritual tradition without problems or prejudices and readily look for such gifts irrespective of what label they come under.

Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define, just as the source of the wind is hard to define. We can describe spiritual concepts but it is impossible to put our finger on it all exactly. Spiritual growth is a journey that is a never ending, imperfect process in this life. But just as we can see the effects of the wind while being blind to its source, We can most definitely see the difference in people that live a life devoid of any spiritual values whatsoever to those people that incorporate spiritual values in their lives.