[Nesster]

Christmas as a holiday has very little to do with the birth of Christ, anyway.

It is a little known fact that originally Black Friday marked the day Mary went into false labor, and Joseph got a shiner from a classic rake-step shot as he was rushing around getting the labor kit ready.

[reeftool]

I think I'm safe in saying that distrust of people of another belief system is human nature. From my standpoint as a Christian, I will acknowledge that an atheist is at least being honest. Much of the world doesn't practice the faith they claim to believe.That's the reason I would feel better about buying a used car from a biker with a patch on his back than a guy in a suit.

[les3547]

I have empirically experienced some "trips" (talk about a sense of oneness with the universe) . . . but I don't think those hallucinations make me some kind of prophet or any of them a prophet but they managed to convince people that they hallucinated and transcribed word-for-word messages from god.

Those who have experienced both the oneness peyote etc. helps a person achieve, and the oneness attained by years of dedicated inner work have said their is little difference in the actual conscious experience itself (there is a difference in what the body feels--tension with drugs, and absolute body calmness without them). But if someone were to achieve permanent and complete oneness without drugs, then that just might make him something very special indeed.

The history of religion is built upon ancients stories of creation myths, stories which exaggerate reality and/or try to ascribe the divine to natural phenomenons. . . . In christianity, as I mentioned before, the idea of spontaneous pregnancy is absolutely absurd. Many of Jesus's other "miracles" are quite possible with medicinal treatments that might have been discoverable at those times.

Let's imagine Jesus really did achieve permanent and complete oneness (Jesus did say "I and my Father are one"), and then see if that can help with a possible explanation of the supernatural claims of early Christians.

Okay, so Jesus shows up and starts speaking from his own deep-seated oneness experience, and when people listen with an open mind, they are opened up like never before. Some of them have maladies which are the result of trauma, trauma that has been memory-retained as intense bodily tension (psychosomatic). When they open and hear Jesus, the deep peace of his being affects their bodily tension and releases it, thus "healing" that particular sort of affliction. (When symptoms are described at all, in Galilee for instance, we see those suffering severe pain, demon-possessed, having seizures, paralyzed . . . these symptoms are types that can be psychosomatic.)

It isn't just the occasional relief his presence might trigger, but also that people get "high" from listening to him. Imagine someone getting a peyote-like high (without the hallucinations or body tension) that lasted for a few days after hearing Jesus. How do you describe this with the language and understanding of the universe you have? The people Jesus spoke to were mostly peasants, uneducated and superstitious. They'd been raised in a culture which accepted supernaturalism without question, and even expected it from anyone associated with God.

Consequently, I believe those who were trying to describe the power of the oneness experience they had felt with Jesus translated it into familiar terms they and others could understand. And then after his death this kind of explanation was further developed with all the expected supernatural events as a way to reach people with the feeling of oneness which devotees were still carrying with them. And that's what I see as most unfortunate . . . i.e., that today too many critics obsess about the primitive explanations and miss entirely what had turned on everyone so much.

[Ash]

I think I'm safe in saying that distrust of people of another belief system is human nature. From my standpoint as a Christian, I will acknowledge that an atheist is at least being honest. Much of the world doesn't practice the faith they claim to believe.That's the reason I would feel better about buying a used car from a biker with a patch on his back than a guy in a suit.

Agreed.

It's impossible not to be biased - we all believe in something to various degrees.
There's no doubt where the atheist stands.
There's no shortage of lukewarm believers of all inclinations, though generally those with an openly firm faith are good candidates for target practice from the world. This can be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of us given we all want to feel accepted and socially integrated rather than be ostracised over such a contentious issue.

Revelation 3:16 - But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

[magkelly]

Many of our early founding fathers were more humanist than religious in a traditional sense. I'd have no problem voting for an atheist so long as he or she wasn't smug about it and it didn't affect his politics in a negative way. I don't care who someone prays to or doesn't so long as they can separate their religion or non-religion from their politics when necessary. It's when such personal beliefs take precedence over common sense and become dominant even over people who don't share those beliefs that it can be a problem. Rule of law and the dictates of religion are not the same thing and some people just don't seem to get that. What some politicians believe it often intrudes upon what should be common sense legally, upon the civil rights of non-believers.

This whole divide over gay marriage the people who oppose it say it's about tradition but it's really not. Back in ancient days marriages were made by same sex people. Back in the days of Greece and Rome two men could actually get married. It wasn't the norm, simple pedagogy was more often practiced actually, but it could be done and sometimes was. Women that's another story, they had almost no legal rights, including deciding whether or not they could marry as they pleased. The opposition to gay marriage is firmly rooted in religion and that's why I have major issues with it and don't support that even though I am straight. Legally gay people should be able to marry. What the churches think about it shouldn't matter, period. It's not about custom or religion, it's about legalities, end of subject.

I'd vote for an atheist over a devout evangelical actually. Atheists can be a bit hard to take sometimes. Some of them are more rabid about their non-religion than the evangelicals are about having one but overall I think they're less dangerous politically than very religious people. The latter tend to do a lot of damage in the name of "God" and I've never seen an atheist campaign for something completely bigoted on the basis of their non-belief...

[wizofoz]

Sorry to come back late to this thread, I have been away overnight for work.

I am not suggesting mere emotion, or developing a full-blown God-concept from some unidentifiable sense. Also, I wouldn't want to suggest that one's empirical mind isn't a trustworthy tool (I value my own immensely). But there are three ideas I will put forth.

One is that while the empirical mind is capable of discovering a great deal about the physical world, that doesn't it mean it can discover all there is to know.

I agree. I only said that mere 'feeling' was not enough proof for me.

The second is, by "feeling" I meant the practice some have developed of becoming so quiet inside one's sensitivity is greatly enhanced (practiced, say, by meditating an hour or two daily over the course of many years). This enhanced sensitivity becomes capable of "feeling" a presence that seems behind manifest reality. That many practitioners have reported experiencing this presence is easily verified by studying the long history of inner prayer, prayer of the heart, union prayer, samadhi (the practice goes by several names) that spans over 2500 years across the globe.

Personally, in my exploration, I have ventured down the path of quasi religous practices that involve daily meditation. (I ended association with that organisation because I felt they were dishonest in their approach, but thats another story) I 'felt' that meditation was good for me, and helped me to be clear in my thoughts and calm in my decisions. It still does when I take the time to do the practice.

Third, the heart of empirical epistemology is to verify by experience. One doesn't prove relativity, for instance, by reason alone; one might form a logical hypothesis using reason but the proof is in experience (observation). Similarly, the best inner practitioners are empiricists (or should I say experientialists), and will not try to prove the existence of a presence through reason. Why? While the science empiricist is concerned with the external world, the inner subject by its very nature cannot be externalized for study.* So the empiricism of inner practitioners is that each individual must prove it to himself and himself alone.

*As a afterthought I'd add, you might ask if these experientialists are feeling a presence (which is presumed to be everywhere), is that not external to the practitioner? Yes, but the practice is to join or merge with the presence through one's own inner being. Since one comes to know it through that inner doorway, and there is no outer doorway (known), then the subject really becomes "is there an actual inner doorway inside each human being."

I have approched that inner door once or twice, but my reaction was to recoil from it. Fear of the unknown perhaps?

I am aware for example of the Hihdi philosophy of multiple layers of awareness and 'knowing'. I find this to be a fascinating proposition, and it rings true with me, but I have no proof. Buddhist practices and philosophies also have an attraction to me. Some of the Judeo/Christian philosophies are very attractive. Who could argue with 'do unto others...'? Many of these thoughts, ideas and philosophies have a kernal of truth to me, but in themselves are no proof of any greater being, any God-Figure.

I keep repeating, I'm not arguing the toss either way. I just lack the evidence (or faith you might say) to believe, so I try to keep an open mind.

[ve2vfd]

Atheïsm is a belief, just like Christianity. Because Atheïsts, just like Christians, believe in something they cannot prove. ...So no need to have any more or less prejudice towards them then the others.

Sorry but that makes no sense at all... Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in anything. Saying atheism is a "belief" is like saying baldness is a hairstyle.

And one cannot prove a negative, it is believers who need to prove the existence of their deity. It's basic logic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... suggesting a deity exists is a claim. Refusing to accept that the claimed deity exists due to lack of proof is not a claim. The burden of proof is in the camp of the claimants.

Pat

[jeffkrol]

Sorry but that makes no sense at all... Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in anything. Saying atheism is a "belief" is like saying baldness is a hairstyle.

And one cannot prove a negative, it is believers who need to prove the existence of their deity. It's basic logic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... suggesting a deity exists is a claim. Refusing to accept that the claimed deity exists due to lack of proof is not a claim. The burden of proof is in the camp of the claimants.

Pat

Best way to describe it .


.Atheists BELIEVE there is no god-head........... There is no accepted proof either way actually............ though the amount of pain and brutality to "innocents' on the earth does lead one towards the path of no or a passive God...........Certainly is hard to balance one "miracle" w/ a thousand senseless sufferings........

[wizofoz]

Sorry but that makes no sense at all... Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in anything. Saying atheism is a "belief" is like saying baldness is a hairstyle.

And one cannot prove a negative, it is believers who need to prove the existence of their deity. It's basic logic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... suggesting a deity exists is a claim. Refusing to accept that the claimed deity exists due to lack of proof is not a claim. The burden of proof is in the camp of the claimants.

Pat

To claim something like 'there is no such thing as God' without proof is equally invalid as to claim there is.

If it is a belief of the individual that there is no God, then that individual is just as much 'of faith' in their beliefs than say a Christian or Buddhist who emphatically insists that their particular Deity exists. Without proof either way, neither claim is valid.

This was the thought that dawned on me, and why I changed my stance from Atheism to Agnosticism. I can prove neither position, therefore I was just a guilty of blind faith in my denial as I would be in blind acceptance.

and besides...Baldness can be chosen as a hairstyle

[Clavius]

Sorry but that makes no sense at all... Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in anything. Saying atheism is a "belief" is like saying baldness is a hairstyle.

And one cannot prove a negative, it is believers who need to prove the existence of their deity. It's basic logic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... suggesting a deity exists is a claim. Refusing to accept that the claimed deity exists due to lack of proof is not a claim. The burden of proof is in the camp of the claimants.

Pat

Atheism not a belief? I even dare to say it's a religion. Complet with their own temples, scripture, prayers en ceremonies.

Moreover, who's talking about who needs proof? Both atheist and christians claim they're not in need of any proof. Why do they both cling to that? Because they both believe in something they will never be certain about.

They are more the same then either of them want to admit.

[wizofoz]

They are more the same then either of them want to admit.

Totally agree

[SteveM]

Atheism not a belief? I even dare to say it's a religion. Complet with their own temples, scripture, prayers en ceremonies.

I took a look at the links you pointed out. I'm seeing people trying to be funny or blogs talking about the subject. Those links are no more pointing to an atheist religion than Pentax Forums does in this section.

The internet is full of silliness....here is a Christian arguing that unlike other religions, Christianity is not a religion;


Christianity is a Religion: an Intriguing Misconception

Moreover, who's talking about who needs proof? Both atheist and christians claim they're not in need of any proof. Why do they both cling to that? Because they both believe in something they will never be certain about.

They are more the same then either of them want to admit.

Atheists tend to look to science and fact, while Religion looks to faith. Aitheists want to question everything they see, religion wants to protect a set of writings that their faith is based on. One isn't necessarily wrong, it's just different.

Atheists have not seen god and they don't believe there is one. Can they prove that invisible people do not exist? Of course not. You are showing them a piece of paper you call "scripture" and asking them to prove to you it's not truth?

They are not making claim to anything, so what is it that they need to prove? They do not believe what you are claiming, which leaves the burden of proof on you.

[MRRiley]

Sorry but that makes no sense at all... Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in anything. Saying atheism is a "belief" is like saying baldness is a hairstyle.

And one cannot prove a negative, it is believers who need to prove the existence of their deity. It's basic logic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... suggesting a deity exists is a claim. Refusing to accept that the claimed deity exists due to lack of proof is not a claim. The burden of proof is in the camp of the claimants.

Pat

Actually, "atheism" is not "a lack of belief in anything." I "believe" I am sitting here typing a post on Pentax Forums about my opinions on this subject. I believe I am a physical person in a physical world full of other things. I believe I can reach out and interact with that world and it's inhabitants. Atheists, though I am not one (explained below) do believe in something. What they don't believe in is a supernatural deity or "intelligent motive force" which made and controls the universe.

As I stated above, I personally, am not an "atheist," I am an "agnostic." This means I am honest enough with myself to realize that I cannot personally, nor can humans as a society, prove or disprove the existence of any supernatural being, much less assume that if he/she/it exists, that I have any idea whatsoever what he/she/it wants or what motivates him/her/it.

I will admit that I tend more towards "disbelief," but since I cannot disprove "god" I admit I could be wrong.

Mike

[Clavius]

Atheists tend to look to science and fact, while Religion looks to faith. Aitheists want to question everything they see, religion wants to protect a set of writings that their faith is based on. One isn't necessarily wrong, it's just different.

Atheists have not seen god and they don't believe there is one. Can they prove that invisible people do not exist? Of course not. You are showing them a piece of paper you call "scripture" and asking them to prove to you it's not truth?

They are not making claim to anything, so what is it that they need to prove? They do not believe what you are claiming, which leaves the burden of proof on you.

On me? Put your rope, torch and pitchfork down dude, when did I say I'm a Christian?

For the rest of your statement: So what? The fact still remains that atheïsts believe something is true, while they have no clue if their belief is true or false. The fact they don't have to prove anything doesn't add or substract anything from that.

[kenafein]

Then married her and preserved her virginity perpetually. So Mary was a "beard" but homosexuality is bad...

Merry xmas

Jesus, supposedly, had siblings so I don't know how the Catholics get around that. This study is very disturbing and shows we have a long way to go. I'm hoping the next generation will be better off now that we have so much information available, but there seems to be a strong fundie, anti-science, right wing nut job backlash at play.