Christianity

[reasonvemotion]

Gary Childress wrote:

I don't particularly respect myself right now after attending Christian Church and being saddled with guilt and shame for doing little more than harmlessly pleasuring myself using the "God given" means available to me. So I'm afraid if you want me to give him the same, then he's going to get the same feeling I have. Besides, who are YOU to tell me how to address God? Maybe I can address him however I'm fucking feeling like addressing him! Are you God's PR rep or his spokesperson or something?

The Church you attended has misinformed you. You did well never to return there.

Historian Alexander Hislop tells us that celibacy originated in worship to the goddess Semiramis:

Strange though it may seem, yet the voice of antiquity assigns to that abandoned queen [the goddess Semiramis] the invention of clerical celibacy, and that in the most stringent form...When the Pope appropriated to himself so much that was peculiar to the worship of that goddess, from the very same source, also, he introduced into the priesthood under his authority the binding obligation of celibacy. The introduction of such a principle into the Christian Church had been distinctly predicted as one grand mark of apostasy.


The Scriptures reads

New King James Version
And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it.”

[Gary Childress]

Gary Childress wrote:

I don't particularly respect myself right now after attending Christian Church and being saddled with guilt and shame for doing little more than harmlessly pleasuring myself using the "God given" means available to me. So I'm afraid if you want me to give him the same, then he's going to get the same feeling I have. Besides, who are YOU to tell me how to address God? Maybe I can address him however I'm fucking feeling like addressing him! Are you God's PR rep or his spokesperson or something?

The Church you attended has misinformed you. You did well never to return there.

Historian Alexander Hislop tells us that celibacy originated in worship to the goddess Semiramis:

Strange though it may seem, yet the voice of antiquity assigns to that abandoned queen [the goddess Semiramis] the invention of clerical celibacy, and that in the most stringent form...When the Pope appropriated to himself so much that was peculiar to the worship of that goddess, from the very same source, also, he introduced into the priesthood under his authority the binding obligation of celibacy. The introduction of such a principle into the Christian Church had been distinctly predicted as one grand mark of apostasy.


The Scriptures reads

New King James Version
And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it.”

Well, unless I'm mistaken Jesus also stated that we're not even supposed to think about copulating with a woman we are not married to. I'm told that the Bible more or less states somewhere in it that non-procreative sex is frowned on by the god of the Jews. I've heard there are disparaging passages seeming to show disapproval of "sodomites" and things like that.

Here's someone's interpretation of what the Bible says about masturbation and sex.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-s ... ation.html

I mean, if this interpreter has the Hebrew Bible wrong, then I have to wonder how the word of the Hebrew god wasn't recorded better or spoken by God in such a way as to more clearly express these things. Clearly, someone either misinterpreted it or else the Hebrew god really did tell them those things.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Harbal]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities.

No, it isn't.

Your definition would make rocks and trees "Atheists."

Perhaps rocks are smarter than we give them credit for.

[BigMike]

No, it isn't.

Your definition would make rocks and trees "Atheists."

Touche

Let me rephrase that: People who identify as atheists don't believe in a deity or deities.

It's still not a sufficient definition.

Somebody who's simply ignorant, or oblivious, or even uncertain would, according to that, be an "Atheist." And he would have no position relative to anybody else's belief or disbelief, of course.

That is not entirely accurate. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a deity or deities, not simply someone who is ignorant or uncertain about the existence of a deity. Atheism is a specific position on the question of the existence of a deity, and it is distinct from agnosticism, which is a position of uncertainty or lack of knowledge about the existence of a deity.

Furthermore, atheism does have a position relative to other people's belief or disbelief in a deity. Atheists may engage in discussions or debates with believers or non-believers about the existence of a deity, and they may even argue against the claims made by religious individuals. However, it is important to note that atheism is not a belief system that focuses on hating or punishing God, as I previously mentioned.

So, atheism is a specific position on the question of the existence of a deity or deities, and it is not equivalent to ignorance or uncertainty. Additionally, atheism does have a position relative to other people's beliefs or disbelief in a deity, although it is not a belief system that focuses on hatred or punishment.

I appreciate your perspective, but I would like to hear your response to my initial response to your comments about what atheists do or believe. I explained that atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities, and that it is inaccurate to suggest that atheists invest their energies in punishing or hating God.

Instead, atheism is a position that is focused on the lack of belief in a deity or deities, and it is important to avoid making broad generalizations about atheists. Do you have any thoughts on this?

[Harbal]

That is not entirely accurate. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a deity or deities, not simply someone who is ignorant or uncertain about the existence of a deity. Atheism is a specific position on the question of the existence of a deity, and it is distinct from agnosticism, which is a position of uncertainty or lack of knowledge about the existence of a deity.

Furthermore, atheism does have a position relative to other people's belief or disbelief in a deity. Atheists may engage in discussions or debates with believers or non-believers about the existence of a deity, and they may even argue against the claims made by religious individuals. However, it is important to note that atheism is not a belief system that focuses on hating or punishing God, as I previously mentioned.

In summary, atheism is a specific position on the question of the existence of a deity or deities, and it is not equivalent to ignorance or uncertainty. Additionally, atheism does have a position relative to other people's beliefs or disbelief in a deity, although it is not a belief system that focuses on hatred or punishment.

In a society where each member is free to openly hold or reject any religious belief he likes, the word "atheist" serves little useful function. Way back when everyone was expected to have the same religious beliefs, and the social pressure to do so was such that it was wiser to fake belief rather than admit a lack of it, a professed non-believer would have been such a worry to the religious authorities that they would have needed a word, or name, by which to condemn him. I'm pleased to say that, at least in my part of the world, we have moved on from that, and no longer condemn people for not choosing a religious belief. Now that it is no longer an issue to not believe in God, it doesn't seem necessary to have a specific name for those who don't believe in God, just as we don't think it necessary to have a specific name for folks who don't believe in fairies.

[Dontaskme]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity or deities.

No, it isn't.

Your definition would make rocks and trees "Atheists."

Rocks and Trees cannot be Atheists.

[BigMike]

That is not entirely accurate. An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a deity or deities, not simply someone who is ignorant or uncertain about the existence of a deity. Atheism is a specific position on the question of the existence of a deity, and it is distinct from agnosticism, which is a position of uncertainty or lack of knowledge about the existence of a deity.

Furthermore, atheism does have a position relative to other people's belief or disbelief in a deity. Atheists may engage in discussions or debates with believers or non-believers about the existence of a deity, and they may even argue against the claims made by religious individuals. However, it is important to note that atheism is not a belief system that focuses on hating or punishing God, as I previously mentioned.

In summary, atheism is a specific position on the question of the existence of a deity or deities, and it is not equivalent to ignorance or uncertainty. Additionally, atheism does have a position relative to other people's beliefs or disbelief in a deity, although it is not a belief system that focuses on hatred or punishment.

In a society where each member is free to openly hold or reject any religious belief he likes, the word "atheist" serves little useful function. Way back when everyone was expected to have the same religious beliefs, and the social pressure to do so was such that it was wiser to fake belief rather than admit a lack of it, a professed non-believer would have been such a worry to the religious authorities that they would have needed a word, or name, by which to condemn him. I'm pleased to say that, at least in my part of the world, we have moved on from that, and no longer condemn people for not choosing a religious belief. Now that it is no longer an issue to not believe in God, it doesn't seem necessary to have a specific name for those who don't believe in God, just as we don't think it necessary to have a specific name for folks who don't believe in fairies.

I understand your perspective, but I disagree with your assertion that the word "atheist" serves little useful function in a society where individuals are free to hold or reject any religious belief. While it is true that in some societies, the social pressure to conform to a particular religious belief has diminished, there are still many areas where this is not the case. In some communities, individuals who openly reject religious belief may face ostracism, discrimination, or even violence. In such cases, it is important to have a term that accurately describes their lack of belief, and that can help them connect with others who share their perspective.

Furthermore, even in societies where religious belief is not a significant issue, the term "atheist" can still serve a useful function. It allows individuals to identify themselves as part of a larger community of non-believers, and it can provide a sense of solidarity and support. It also allows for discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society, which can be valuable for promoting critical thinking and intellectual inquiry.

[Harbal]

I understand your perspective, but I disagree with your assertion that the word "atheist" serves little useful function in a society where individuals are free to hold or reject any religious belief. While it is true that in some societies, the social pressure to conform to a particular religious belief has diminished, there are still many areas where this is not the case. In some communities, individuals who openly reject religious belief may face ostracism, discrimination, or even violence. In such cases, it is important to have a term that accurately describes their lack of belief, and that can help them connect with others who share their perspective.

Furthermore, even in societies where religious belief is not a significant issue, the term "atheist" can still serve a useful function. It allows individuals to identify themselves as part of a larger community of non-believers, and it can provide a sense of solidarity and support. It also allows for discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society, which can be valuable for promoting critical thinking and intellectual inquiry.

Well I am just speaking from the perspective of an individual who has never adopted any sort of spiritual belief. I am an "atheist" merely by virtue of not doing something/anything. Many people assert the existence of God, but I find that assertion to be implausible, and outside of my own, personal experience of the world; therefore, I have absolutely no reason to accept it as truth. It is not the case that I reject Christianity, nor any other religion, I have just not taken the step of accepting it. This is not a belief system, but simply just a part of my approach to life. If anyone labels me "atheist", and then insists that requires me to conform to some stereotype they find expedient to impose on me, it may well irritate me, but it doesn't influence my attitude or behaviour. All this seems like the logical default position to me, and only deviations from it warrant labels.

[Dubious]

...you haven't a clue as to what atheism is...

Great. Let's have your definition.

Please! Even if I wrote out word for word every definition I could find in dictionaries and philosophy books across the internet, you will still deny all of it...so why ask!

As a rabid fundamentalist the pure fact of the matter is that your vendetta against atheists as a group inherently perverse and evil, intentionally perverts the actual existential position of atheism in philosophy as one of its main subjects.

Compare that to a religiously predefined, preformatted morality made specific in a host of divine mandates beyond which there remains almost nothing to discuss. One's complete subordination is all that's required. No doubt it's this assurance which gives you that warm brain-laid-to-rest feeling in assuming superiority over the non-believer.

Based on your written views, your conclusions on atheism and atheists are pathetically simple: Your belief in Jesus is your ticket to deliverance and since - as per Jesus' own words - those who do not believe in him will be damned it follows that atheists are evil, even if they don't know it, or haven't done anything evil.

So here you have it, your complete philosophy on atheism as perennially expounded by you, so simple it doesn't take more than a sentence to express! With no questions asked, routinely dismissed, or purposely distorted, no complications arise.

You and the bible...a marriage made in heaven but I wouldn't want that as my eternal domain if so much subterfuge and outright dishonesty spiced with an overdose of hypocrisy are crucial to arrive at the port of entry.

[Flannel Jesus]

Imagine hating Russell's teapot

[Harbal]

Imagine hating Russell's teapot

And imagine there being a specific name for those who decline to believe in its existence.

[Flannel Jesus]

Absolutely! There's an absurdity to that without a doubt.

[BigMike]

I understand your perspective, but I disagree with your assertion that the word "atheist" serves little useful function in a society where individuals are free to hold or reject any religious belief. While it is true that in some societies, the social pressure to conform to a particular religious belief has diminished, there are still many areas where this is not the case. In some communities, individuals who openly reject religious belief may face ostracism, discrimination, or even violence. In such cases, it is important to have a term that accurately describes their lack of belief, and that can help them connect with others who share their perspective.

Furthermore, even in societies where religious belief is not a significant issue, the term "atheist" can still serve a useful function. It allows individuals to identify themselves as part of a larger community of non-believers, and it can provide a sense of solidarity and support. It also allows for discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society, which can be valuable for promoting critical thinking and intellectual inquiry.

Well I am just speaking from the perspective of an individual who has never adopted any sort of spiritual belief. I am an "atheist" merely by virtue of not doing something/anything. Many people assert the existence of God, but I find that assertion to be implausible, and outside of my own, personal experience of the world; therefore, I have absolutely no reason to accept it as truth. It is not the case that I reject Christianity, nor any other religion, I have just not taken the step of accepting it. This is not a belief system, but simply just a part of my approach to life. If anyone labels me "atheist", and then insists that requires me to conform to some stereotype they find expedient to impose on me, it may well irritate me, but it doesn't influence my attitude or behaviour. All this seems like the logical default position to me, and only deviations from it warrant labels.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand that you view atheism as simply a lack of belief and not a belief system, and that you do not feel the need for a specific label to describe your approach to life. I agree that individuals should not be forced to conform to stereotypes or labels, and that it is important to allow people the freedom to express their beliefs or lack thereof.

However, I would argue that the term "atheist" can still be useful in promoting discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society. While it is true that you do not actively reject Christianity or any other religion, the fact that you do not accept the assertion of the existence of God does make you part of the broader category of non-believers. This category encompasses a diverse range of individuals with different backgrounds and beliefs, and the term "atheist" can help to bring these individuals together and promote a sense of community.

In addition, while you may view atheism as the logical default position, there are still many individuals who hold religious beliefs, and it is important to promote respectful and open discussions between individuals with different perspectives. The term "atheist" can help to facilitate these discussions, and to promote understanding and tolerance between individuals with different beliefs.

In summary, while I understand your perspective, I believe that the term "atheist" can still be useful in promoting discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society, and in promoting a sense of community among non-believers.

[Belinda]

I understand your perspective, but I disagree with your assertion that the word "atheist" serves little useful function in a society where individuals are free to hold or reject any religious belief. While it is true that in some societies, the social pressure to conform to a particular religious belief has diminished, there are still many areas where this is not the case. In some communities, individuals who openly reject religious belief may face ostracism, discrimination, or even violence. In such cases, it is important to have a term that accurately describes their lack of belief, and that can help them connect with others who share their perspective.

Furthermore, even in societies where religious belief is not a significant issue, the term "atheist" can still serve a useful function. It allows individuals to identify themselves as part of a larger community of non-believers, and it can provide a sense of solidarity and support. It also allows for discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society, which can be valuable for promoting critical thinking and intellectual inquiry.

Well I am just speaking from the perspective of an individual who has never adopted any sort of spiritual belief. I am an "atheist" merely by virtue of not doing something/anything. Many people assert the existence of God, but I find that assertion to be implausible, and outside of my own, personal experience of the world; therefore, I have absolutely no reason to accept it as truth. It is not the case that I reject Christianity, nor any other religion, I have just not taken the step of accepting it. This is not a belief system, but simply just a part of my approach to life. If anyone labels me "atheist", and then insists that requires me to conform to some stereotype they find expedient to impose on me, it may well irritate me, but it doesn't influence my attitude or behaviour. All this seems like the logical default position to me, and only deviations from it warrant labels.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand that you view atheism as simply a lack of belief and not a belief system, and that you do not feel the need for a specific label to describe your approach to life. I agree that individuals should not be forced to conform to stereotypes or labels, and that it is important to allow people the freedom to express their beliefs or lack thereof.

However, I would argue that the term "atheist" can still be useful in promoting discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society. While it is true that you do not actively reject Christianity or any other religion, the fact that you do not accept the assertion of the existence of God does make you part of the broader category of non-believers. This category encompasses a diverse range of individuals with different backgrounds and beliefs, and the term "atheist" can help to bring these individuals together and promote a sense of community.

In addition, while you may view atheism as the logical default position, there are still many individuals who hold religious beliefs, and it is important to promote respectful and open discussions between individuals with different perspectives. The term "atheist" can help to facilitate these discussions, and to promote understanding and tolerance between individuals with different beliefs.

In summary, while I understand your perspective, I believe that the term "atheist" can still be useful in promoting discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society, and in promoting a sense of community among non-believers.

Mostly it's best to look to the social context, the people in the conversation, to assess what they mean by the terms. I'd call myself an "atheist" and have done so, in order to make my stance clear to another person. But I'd not call myself an atheist in a philosophy discussion where ideas of God are not fixed by doctrinal diktat.

[Harbal]

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand that you view atheism as simply a lack of belief and not a belief system, and that you do not feel the need for a specific label to describe your approach to life. I agree that individuals should not be forced to conform to stereotypes or labels, and that it is important to allow people the freedom to express their beliefs or lack thereof.

However, I would argue that the term "atheist" can still be useful in promoting discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society. While it is true that you do not actively reject Christianity or any other religion, the fact that you do not accept the assertion of the existence of God does make you part of the broader category of non-believers. This category encompasses a diverse range of individuals with different backgrounds and beliefs, and the term "atheist" can help to bring these individuals together and promote a sense of community.

In addition, while you may view atheism as the logical default position, there are still many individuals who hold religious beliefs, and it is important to promote respectful and open discussions between individuals with different perspectives. The term "atheist" can help to facilitate these discussions, and to promote understanding and tolerance between individuals with different beliefs.

In summary, while I understand your perspective, I believe that the term "atheist" can still be useful in promoting discussions and debates about religious belief and its role in society, and in promoting a sense of community among non-believers.

The problem is that words ending in "ist" imply participation in some activity or other. In this case, one who practices theism. Now, although the prefix "A" is meant to negate "theist", the gravity of the "ist" is what attracts the most attention, creating the false impression that the referent of the word is a practitioner, rather than an abstainer. There are many things that I don't believe but others do believe, and my non-belief in the existence of God is but one of them. I consider it a trivial thing, but that damned word, "atheist", makes the matter appear far more significant than it is.