Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Liquid Gardens

Atheism - any contradictions or 'problems'?

310 posts in this topic

You completely lost me, although I have to say I don't like the word "antitheist." I am not against theism, I just am not one.

Antitheist is the perfect description for the person PA described earlier - somebody who wants to destroy all theistic belief.

They're the subset of atheists who want everyone else to believe exactly what they believe. Atheist fundamentalist's, essentially.

Obviously, not all atheists are antitheists, just as not all theists are fundamentalists.

I see where you could interpret it that way. When I think of the term antitheist I don't necessarily think in terms of out to destroy theism, I think of it much the same as the biblical term antichrist, meaning not only against but instead of Christ. An antichrist is anyone who is against or just not with Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying not being with someone is the same as being against them is a propaganda trick as old as the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are a peculiar thinking people. If you try and define atheism they will angrily tell you that to be an atheist simply means that one doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods. If you tell them that you were once an atheist they will angrily tell you that you must not have been a "real" atheist. This has happened to me dozens of times.

Have you ever considered that the common denominator in all of these discussions where you appear to have issues with definitions - is you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying not being with someone is the same as being against them is a propaganda trick as old as the book.

I compared the term antitheist with antichrist. If you are not with him then you are not with him. Like if you are not with a certain driver of a car you are not with them. This means you are not necessarily against them, though you could be. It means that you are - simply not with them. That is how anti is used. anti bacterial is against bacteria, but antithesis is something opposite of. Not necessarily against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Applied by whom? I don't recall mentioning the crusades.

What I do see is you pretending that the enforced abolition of religious worship by a totalitarian regime is exactly the same as an individual freely coming to the conclusion that there probably isn't a God.

Not at all. Im merely pointing out that it's not just theists that organize into destructive regimes and cultures. Atheists do it to. Some atheists seem to have their head in the sand about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever considered that the common denominator in all of these discussions where you appear to have issues with definitions - is you?

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is difficult to tell. Take religion for example. I loathe organized religion. But in a sense I'm religious. I consider religion to be, in its most basic and pure sense, simply a belief system. I'm religious, and I believe everyone is in the most basic sense. Everyone has a belief system which is strictly adhered to. Some people think in order to be religious you have to have a deity involved, and that isn't true. I acknowledge that I often have a different take on certain words, but in the case of gods and atheism I recognize this but obstinately persist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the sense you are trying to create your own personal vocabulary for some reason.

Atheist -- someone who does not think there is such a thing as God.

Anti-theist -- someone who opposes theism.

Non-Christian -- someone who is not a Christian.

Anti-Christian -- someone who opposes Christianity

Antichrist -- a being prophesied in Revelation who plays some role in the end of days.

That is about as far as I'm going to go.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are a peculiar thinking people. If you try and define atheism they will angrily tell you that to be an atheist simply means that one doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods. If you tell them that you were once an atheist they will angrily tell you that you must not have been a "real" atheist. This has happened to me dozens of times.

Says the guy who had just presented a definition of atheism in which even the semantics of the word god is rejected.

Perhaps you were one of the very few atheists who denied the word god existed?

Whatever the case, I think it is safe to say no atheist here adheres to such an asinine definition of atheism.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the sense you are trying to create your own personal vocabulary for some reason.

Atheist -- someone who does not think there is such a thing as God.

Anti-theist -- someone who opposes theism.

Non-Christian -- someone who is not a Christian.

Anti-Christian -- someone who opposes Christianity

Antichrist -- a being prophesied in Revelation who plays some role in the end of days.

That is about as far as I'm going to go.

With the exception of antichrist I agree with those definitions. My protest against the term atheist has more to do with the defintion of the term god and gods used in atheist thinking. I ask for you to go one step further in your definitions. Define god(s).

The reason I disagree with atheist is because that isn't biblically accurate.

1 John 2:18, 22: Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour. Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:7: For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I disagree with atheist is because that isn't biblically accurate.

1 John 2:18, 22: Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour. Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:7: For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Doesn't this mean that Jews are the antichrist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a definition of God.

God is a person with basically four infinities: infinite power (omnipotent) -- there is nothing He can't do; infinite knowledge (omniscient) -- there is nothing that He doesn't know; infinite wisdom (or justice) and infinite beneficence (love). One might also say something about transcendence, but that kinda comes with the territory.

For the reason of a number of hoary old self-referential logical contradictions that the above definition can be shown to lead to, I think such a being is impossible.

The rest of the things floating around with small "g" god in their title only refers to something with power or ability we can't reproduce, at least for the present. They are not relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is meant by "antichrist" I will leave to the Christians to argue among themselves about; I only tell you the meaning I pick up from my superficial knowledge of these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this mean that Jews are the antichrist?

Not necessarily. Since Jesus himself was a Jew and so were the apostles, including Paul and most disciples in the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a definition of God.

God is a person with basically four infinities: infinite power (omnipotent) -- there is nothing He can't do; infinite knowledge (omniscient) -- there is nothing that He doesn't know; infinite wisdom (or justice) and infinite beneficence (love). One might also say something about transcendence, but that kinda comes with the territory.

For the reason of a number of hoary old self-referential logical contradictions that the above definition can be shown to lead to, I think such a being is impossible.

I agree. The trouble is that those concepts or primarily religious from apostate Christianity, and not in agreement with the Bible.

The rest of the things floating around with small "g" god in their title only refers to something with power or ability we can't reproduce, at least for the present. They are not relevant.

They are real so they are not relevant to the practical thinking atheist? The trouble is, the second definition is more accurate according to the Bible than the first. Jehovah became a God to Israel, but the unfaithful had other Gods, including, for example, Tammuz, who was an historical Sumerian king. A real person.

The writers of the Bible, like myself, are not monotheistic as such. They are henotheistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Im merely pointing out that it's not just theists that organize into destructive regimes and cultures. Atheists do it to.

That some political religions have an atheist as their founder is unremarkable. That these political religions would ban any competitive religion is also unremarkable.

However - alluding that those political religions are voluntary atheist organisations due to that ban - that doesn't seem like stretching the truth to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Since Jesus himself was a Jew and so were the apostles, including Paul and most disciples in the beginning.

Surely - it covers anyone that doesn't believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Which would cover pretty much anyone that's not a Christian.

Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely - it covers anyone that doesn't believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Which would cover pretty much anyone that's not a Christian.

Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son.

Absolutely. The entire meaning of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation can be summed up in one sentence. "The vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus." The first prophecy of a messiah in the Bible is Genesis 3:15. What this means, in a practical sense, is this, a somewhat more lengthy response if you care to indulge.

God created man without sin. The tree of knowledge was an actual representation of Jehovah's sovereignty. A reminder to Adam that he needed Jehovah's guidance and protection in order for him (man) to grow and learn and fill the earth and subdue it. The angels had lived in spirit form in heaven perhaps millions of years before the earth and man were created and without sin. (the word spirit simply means something that can't be seen by the naked eye but produces results. From the Greek pneuma comes the English words pneumatic and pneumonia. The Hebrew and Greek words for spirit can also be translated into wind, breath, mental inclination) Adam didn't have to sin. Didn't have to die.

The nation of Israel was formed to present a nation of Laws in which there could be a messiah produced. The blood sacrifices etc. made them aware of sin and the need for a messiah. Blood is the soul, and sacred. Often the Hebrew and Greek words for soul will be translated as life. All breathing creatures have, or are a soul. The soul dies. (Ezekiel 18:4) So, when Jehovah gave Noah permission to eat flesh it was with the stipulation that the blood be drained because the blood was the soul, or the soul was in the blood.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

When someone was found, without knowing who was responsible, murdered outside of a town or city the nearest city was blood guilty until a bull was sacrificed. This signified respect for life, which was sacred to God and which belonged to him. So life for life, soul for soul. Since Adam was created without sin only someone who was without sin could offer his blood in payment. This is justice. Jesus, who existed in heaven as the archangel Michael before coming to earth, volunteered.

In order to respect this arrangement, approved by Jehovah God, you have to be with Jesus. You have to respect that which Adam rejected. Sin equals death. Upon death sin is removed, for that debt is paid. Resurrection.

Romans 6:7: For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin.

Being acquitted one can't be further punished or indebted. Thus resurrection. Life forever without sin. If you are not within that arrangement the result is destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That some political religions have an atheist as their founder is unremarkable. That these political religions would ban any competitive religion is also unremarkable.

However - alluding that those political religions are voluntary atheist organisations due to that ban - that doesn't seem like stretching the truth to you?

Not anymore than the taliban. Look I'm just saying that there is little difference between atheists and theists. This notion that some atheists don't congregate and exhibit cultish or fundamentalist behavior is unsupported. In fact we have a world power that shows us otherwise. I understand that moderate atheists will skwirm in their boots to avoid being associated with such behavior, just as moderate Islam will do the same to avoid being associated with radical islam... Or moderate Christians with fundamentalists. In fact your own opposition to the comparison (assuming you are an atheist) only confirms the point.

Many atheists have a pleasant fiction that they are on some logical and moral high ground, when in fact as a group they are just as capable of the problems with theocracies and theists. Why? Because its a human problem..., not a religious or non religous one. Erase religion from history, and make no spiritual culture whatsoever. I seriously doubt you are going to end up with a bunch of people getting along. You would have the same wars, the same problems, just under different guises. That's just a guess though ;) atheism dosnt get a free pass for their extremes sides transgressions any more than theism gets one for theirs. Sorry. I know atheists don't like it, but if they want to be honest and truely logical.....well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not anymore than the taliban. Look I'm just saying that there is little difference between atheists and theists. This notion that some atheists don't congregate and exhibit cultish or fundamentalist behavior is unsupported. In fact we have a world power that shows us otherwise.

In your opinion. In my opinion, the classification of forced atheism as being representative of voluntary atheism is nonsensical.

It's like a group of people being forced to wear ballet dress to kill people and then someone else declaring that as an example of a collective of ballet dancers being evil.

Many atheists have a pleasant fiction that they are on some logical and moral high ground, when in fact as a group they are just as capable of the problems with theocracies and theists. Why? Because its a human problem..., not a religious or non religous one. Erase religion from history, and make no spiritual culture whatsoever. I seriously doubt you are going to end up with a bunch of people getting along. You would have the same wars, the same problems, just under different guises.

I'm sure that there would still be wars without religion.

Intractable battles fought for centuries over holy ground? Possibly not so much.

Trying to make an end-of-the-world event happen so that their non-existent God can return? Definitely not.

atheism dosnt get a free pass for their extremes sides transgressions any more than theism gets one for theirs. Sorry. I know atheists don't like it, but if they want to be honest and truely logical.....well.

...then they'd be perfectly fine with being told that they have to take the blame for any Totalitarian dictatorship that's ever repressed any potential threat to their power?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size]

In your opinion. In my opinion, the classification of forced atheism as being representative of voluntary atheism is nonsensical.

It's like a group of people being forced to wear ballet dress to kill people and then someone else declaring that as an example of a collective of ballet dancers being evil.

...then they'd be perfectly fine with being told that they have to take the blame for any Totalitarian dictatorship that's ever repressed any potential threat to their power?

It's not at all. This is the double standard I was referring to.

Theists have to deal with it nearly every argument being compared the salem witch trials, crusades, jihad, etc etc etc etc etc etc...... But oh no.... mention that atheists are capable of atrocities as part of an atheistic ideology just as much... and its nonsensical.

Hmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not at all. This is the double standard I was referring to.

Again. A double standard applied by whom?

I personally think that saying that Theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc in a blanket way is equally as nonsensical.

I believe that in many cases, religion is used as an excuse for people to do bad things, as opposed to being a direct cause.

However - now I'm curious:

Given your previously stated belief that atheists should have to take responsibility for the actions of Communism - in order for you to personally avoid that double standard that you're so keen on applying to others - I presume then, that you must actually believe that theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiggs, I see what you are trying to do, but you should not even go there.

Yes, believers should answer for the behaviour of their co-believers, as long as it is caused by their belief system.

To ask Non-believers to answer for the behaviour other non-believers is a contradiction in terms.

They want to pull of the trick to present nothing as something, i.e. zero as a positive integer.

That is absurd.

The people who should answer for the behaviour of believers in communism and pol-potism are their FELLOW believers in communism and pol-potism. And not people who disbelieve in the Easter Bunny.

Do not fall for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not at all. This is the double standard I was referring to.

Theists have to deal with it nearly every argument being compared the salem witch trials, crusades, jihad, etc etc etc etc etc etc...... But oh no.... mention that atheists are capable of atrocities as part of an atheistic ideology just as much... and its nonsensical.

Hmmmmm

The thing with atheism is they are individuals, they don't band together under their ideology, each one is unique, with a different perspective. Where as religion there is only one view, "god's", most just parrot or emulate what their bible tells them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. A double standard applied by whom?

I personally think that saying that Theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc in a blanket way is equally as nonsensical.

I believe that in many cases, religion is used as an excuse for people to do bad things, as opposed to being a direct cause.

However - now I'm curious:

Given your previously stated belief that atheists should have to take responsibility for the actions of Communism - in order for you to personally avoid that double standard that you're so keen on applying to others - I presume then, that you must actually believe that theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc?

Yes it's both nonsensical... But as Im sure you realize many atheists use these kinds of arguments. Hence the double standard is applied. Are you denying that many atheist, when in debate with a theist do not bring these things up more than a few times?

Again. A double standard applied by whom?

I personally think that saying that Theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc in a blanket way is equally as nonsensical.

I believe that in many cases, religion is used as an excuse for people to do bad things, as opposed to being a direct cause.

However - now I'm curious:

Given your previously stated belief that atheists should have to take responsibility for the actions of Communism - in order for you to personally avoid that double standard that you're so keen on applying to others - I presume then, that you must actually believe that theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc?

Yes it's both nonsensical... But as Im sure you realize many atheists use these kinds of arguments. Hence the double standard is applied. Are you denying that many atheist, when in debate with a theist do not bring these things up more than a few times?

Again. A double standard applied by whom?

I personally think that saying that Theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc in a blanket way is equally as nonsensical.

I believe that in many cases, religion is used as an excuse for people to do bad things, as opposed to being a direct cause.

However - now I'm curious:

Given your previously stated belief that atheists should have to take responsibility for the actions of Communism - in order for you to personally avoid that double standard that you're so keen on applying to others - I presume then, that you must actually believe that theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc?

Yes it's both nonsensical... But as Im sure you realize many atheists use these kinds of arguments. Hence the double standard is applied. Are you denying that many atheist, when in debate with a theist do not bring these things up more than a few times?

Again. A double standard applied by whom?

I personally think that saying that Theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc in a blanket way is equally as nonsensical.

I believe that in many cases, religion is used as an excuse for people to do bad things, as opposed to being a direct cause.

However - now I'm curious:

Given your previously stated belief that atheists should have to take responsibility for the actions of Communism - in order for you to personally avoid that double standard that you're so keen on applying to others - I presume then, that you must actually believe that theists should have their religion held responsible for the Salem Witch Trial, Crusades, Jihad, etc?

Yes

Ummmm that was strange..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiggs, I see what you are trying to do, but you should not even go there.

Yes, believers should answer for the behaviour of their co-believers, as long as it is caused by their belief system.

To ask Non-believers to answer for the behaviour other non-believers is a contradiction in terms.

They want to pull of the trick to present nothing as something, i.e. zero as a positive integer.

That is absurd.

The people who should answer for the behaviour of believers in communism and pol-potism are their FELLOW believers in communism and pol-potism. And not people who disbelieve in the Easter Bunny.

Do not fall for it.

Hmmmm I think you made my point.

The thing with atheism is they are individuals, they don't band together under their ideology, each one is unique, with a different perspective. Where as religion there is only one view, "god's", most just parrot or emulate what their bible tells them.

Tell that to the communist atheists ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.