What exactly is atheism?

Either post 118 or post 120 is a lie.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why? both are true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evidence ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i see evidence of that every day because i live here. you know, maybe that guy was right after all... evolution is an evil lie from satan (the devil): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZxoU6Y0LRs

 

lol posting links to that moron isn't going to earn you any respect..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can you link me to some articles that say lots of people in Sweden are depressed because of evolution being taught in schools ?

 

So you say evolution is a lie because it supposedly gets people depressed ?

 

i think he's funny...

 

He's beyond funny to me..

 

Funny? That's funny to you? He's a lunatic! My apologizes to those truly affected by the moon.

 

I'm not sure I understand. To go with the analogy of the food - refusing foods seasoned with black pepper would be atheism, but trying out something new would be the surrender?
The voice in my head telling me black pepper was bad seemed quite authoritative, it still comes back at times. Anyway, this might seem like a trifle, but considering that I felt bad whenever I ate something spiced with black pepper and the lenghts it took to avoid eating such food here where black pepper is a very common spice (even though I had cravings for it) ... it becomes relevant.

You mean that for a time, we believe something, treat it as if it was true even though for that time, we do not have any evidence or understanding that it is true?
E.g. you can't solve a math problem unless you believe that a certain formula that is prescribed for such problems is the right one to use in that case. -?

So things that we accept on faith are, for example, our meaning of life, where we come from and where we are going, that tomorrow the workplace will still be there so it makes sense to go there in the morning ... -?

Oh, I see what you mean now by "in-betweeny".

I see. I first thought that by "in-betweeny" you meant the kind of spirit-soul whose true position is to always be somewhere in-between, never really out of samsara.

So they were basically worshipping God in effect, but lacked the according theistic motivation (which is expressed in words, such as "I worship the one and only true God who is Jehovah")?

I find it strange that God would be content with the Gopis. I mean, from the Christian perspective (which is strongest in my mind, but not that I like it or agree with it), it certainly would not suffice. There would have to be baptism, declaring Jesus as your savior and so on. Without that formal act of declaring one's faith, no matter what a person would do or say, it would be all for naught and they would be sentenced to hell eternal.

Would you risk my life for it? Would you risk your life for it?
I mean, I have no way to prove whether Jesus as described in the Bible and other accounts really existed, or whether the whole thing is a myth or some other story.
I won't say that something is true if I cannot personally vouch for it. And Jesus' existence I cannot vouch for.
Hence my doubt whether Jesus existed or not.

Who is to say whether I understood them or not? I might think that I understand something - but later it might turn out that I don't, or someone corrects me. And this is an open-ended situation, the corrections could go on forever, it seems.

Look, we were told we have to put our faith in Jesus. Whether we thought that Jesus existed or not, whether we liked what Jesus was supposedly teaching - that never mattered. It was said that the truth was that Jesus existed, and if we have doubts or qualms about that, then this is simply proof of our fallen state, and indicative that we need Jesus' help and should thus turn to Jesus.
I have never understood these things, but was usually told that that doesn't matter and that I should just ... put my faith in Jesus. Whatever that means.
Anyway, this whole thing is relevant to me because I am afraid it is possible that I will go to hell for all eternity if I don't accept Jesus as my savior.

 

Greenberg,

I'm truly sorry that you have not yet rid yourself of the shackles that were put on you at an impressionable age.Have you tried having a few discussions with someine a bit more enlightened than a run-of-the-mill guy with his collar onback to front. ? Can I put it to you that someone who is sensitive and thoughtful is always at the mercy of the cock-sure ignoramus who never feels the need to question his beliefs.

Before abandoning religion some sixty years ago, I made several visits to a Jesuit Seminary for weekly discussions. Talk about chalk and cheese ! I found a much more open approach to what I could not accept than I ever got from any of my local priests.

In the end, we agreed to differ, so I went my own way. I have never once regretted doing so in all those years.

It might help you to do something similar. Never forget when talking to some religionists, that their confidence is born of ignorance and they are unlikely to have given an ounce of thought to the things which are important to you. They "know" they are right. Nothing else matters to them. Subtlelty is not their strong suit.

Myles

 

greenberg,

The surrender was, at some point you gave in to your prejudice only to find out it wasn't what you thought.

Unless you are capable of understanding something instantly, or can understand something totally, there has to be some kind of belief.

Something like that.

Yeah.

I suppose you could use the term "worship", though not in the sense you have described. They loved Krishna unconditionally, and served him in that mood. He was the absolute center to their lives, so it didn't matter whether he was God or not.
It is extremely difficult to grasp the nature and complexity of the relationship,
between Krishna and the gopis, for a non-devotee, and ten times more difficult for a non-devotee to explain it. I suggest you read or hear more about it from the correct source.

There are lots of Christian perspectives. It would be easier to try to look at it from Jesus' perspective.

I don't understand your questions.

Why would you want to prove whether Jesus existed or not?
Why would anybody go to such length to to create such a person?

All you have achieved is to doubt that Jesus existed.

You are.

This applies to all knowledge, imo.

That comes under "controlled by some force" category.

It seems you are prepared to believe these threats, to the point of even doubting your own intelligent ability.
What are you going to do about this fear?

jan.

 

Apologies. I thought you meant you weren't aware of atheists who believe God does not exist.

jan.

 

We all agree that "atheism" means no belief in God, you pointed to that thread as an example of theists who misunderstand its meaning. I find that in fact the description in that thread is correct. So what is your point?

Sometimes it may be expressed that atheism is a belief system, but that has to default to atheists, because without believers there is no belief system.
From that perspective, it most definately is a belief system.

Please try and understand the difference.

jan.

 

Could you lay out this belief system please ?

 

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist accepts 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 to enjoy it.

An Atheist accepts 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."

Faith based ideals, in technicolor.


jan.

 

? The difference between what and what ? Between the insistence that atheism is a faith-based belief in the nonexistence of God, and what exactly ?

I'm trying to understand how I failed to make myself clear.

As I pointed out, convincing the theists around here of what you claim to take as simple and unarguable is a long slog.

 

I'm not even sure above "ideals" go for all atheists.
Anyhow, they are all mirrored off theism.. so they don't apply.

You should have put:

1. You have only one life, you should make the best of your life and enjoy life while your still alive.

2. You have to work to make something of your life, success isn't going to be handed to you.

3. To get by in life you better understand other people to a degree (seems obvious enough). Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

These are all just survival strategies, no faith ideals.

 

I see. What are the criteria for being counted as a devotee?

I don't know what exactly Jesus' perspective would be. The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, to support or refute pretty much anything.

Are you so sure that Jesus existed that you would devote your life to Jesus, exclusively?
Are you so sure that Jesus existed that if someone threatened to kill me, saying "Do you believe in Jesus, Jan? If you don't, I will kill Greenberg." - would you say you do believe in Jesus?
Although I realize the second example might not be relevant to you; for one because it is an immoral request from the threat-maker, and because you hold that the soul cannot be killed anyway (at least this is what I think you hold).

How else can one have faith in Jesus and salvation by Jesus otherwise?

It needn't be that the desire to create such a person was there in the beginning. Perhaps it all started small and insignificant, and then over time, a number of different ideas were merged into one character, for the sake of simplicity and efficiency of delivering a story.

Would you declare that something is true, despite knowing that you cannot vouch for the truthfulness of it?

I'm afraid that this is not a good criterion. See, just before, I thought I understood the essence of the relationship between Govinda and the Gopis - and then you suggested that I don't. I then changed my mind. Although this means that it was I who decided whether I understood it or not, so I agree with your point above.

What could I do about that?

Of course I am prepared for that. And I see that believing those threats is basically saying that fear is a better judge in what would be a good thing to do than intelligence could ever be; or that choices made in fear are more true and more justifiable than choices made in intelligence. Many people live like that, don't they? It makes for a shitty life, but there is the benefit that the feeling of justification is quite strong - I mean for a run-of-the-mill person, fear is among the strongest and most pervasive sensations, if not the strongest and most pervasive one, and as such it is the most reliable one.

I don't know anymore. I experience it as a hindrance, but at the same time, it is the most reliable sensation in my life. A few years back, I took up Buddhist meditation and studies, I read a lot of Western psychology and philosophy, then went to reading the Bhagavad Gita and chanting the Maha mantra, discussing various topics more or less closely related to this fear with myself and with all sorts of people, changed my diet, but also pursued various distractions. What all this accomplished is that I am now more able to put this fear into words, to reflect on it - while in the years before, it was just one big impenetrable mass sucking the life out of me; but this fear is still here, and in some ways, it feels stronger than ever before.
But frankly, I am tired, exhausted from this struggle. It's not clear what helps against this fear and what doesn't, and it's not clear either whether it is right to attempt to do something about this fear to begin with.

 

You have made a good case why people turn to or stay with theism,. Unable to face reality they grovel about on their knees seeking help from a non-existent entity.

Blessed are the Weak.....a new beatitude for your collection.