If you are an atheist...

[Pruni]

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

pruni, guess this thread has done its work for you then, huh?!

just a thought tho, it's not that i find nothingness 'difficult' - rather impossible. i can cope with chaos, with infinity, with the inexact (deal with it all the time in language) - but find the progression backwards through time/space, until you hit a wall of, well, nothingness, untenable. roobie put it well, ages ago. i wouldn't call it neediness, or the attempt to impose structure for purposes of understanding, more a logical necessity (not being a philosopher, however, what do i know about logic ).

I don't understand how aetheism can have an internal structure, except in the most academic of senses. If there is a sort of universal definition of aethiesm, then I suspect that I, and probably many others here, are probably not really aetheists. For myself I do describe myself as an aethiest, because most people (on the whole) seem to understand what I mean. Perhaps it would be better to describe myself as someone with no faith. Because that's the point. I don't believe. And that's fundamental, I don't have that bit in me that can make that act of faith (and I don't see that as a lack to be honest, just an observation). I don't have a fear of a void, because I see no void. Now I am quite happy to accept that I could be missing out on something important, but from what I understand from knowing people who have faith, it is a very basic part of them, and I refuse to go through the motions of observing a religion without it. What would be the point? And the idea that faith desn't matter, so long as you live a good life (are nice to people etc), to me negates the point of religion in the first place. I will do my best to live a life that adds value to the world rather than simply consumes. To appeciate my great fortune and the beauty I see. To ponder the how and find fascinating every bit of analysis without panicing about "what does it all mean" - why should it have to mean anything? It just is. I will do this because I believe it to be the right way to live. I am sure my Christian upbinging is very influential in this, but I don't think I need to be a Christian to think this way. As a (bit ex now) political historian I find the role of religion to be fascinating, and the evolution of religious texts very interesting. But I think they are man made, and influenced by all the things that people do and are. So to me it is irrelevent to my aethiesm that I share Aloha's views on the Old Testament, because I don't think any of it had anything to do with anything divine (good or bad), but was simply a way that people understood the world they lived in, and exerted control over others.

Just one thing about tradition ruty - you keep saying that if you go back to the basic Aramaic, not the Greek, then you get an entirely different meaning.

I'm sure that's true, but the point is, throughout history, Western scholars didn't go back to the Aramaic, they stuck with the Greek. And the Greek, with its concept of Christos, (as opposed to the Hebrew Messiah, a very different concept) is the one which has embedded itself in Western tradition.

And the God which has been re-invented over and over again, is a God which is acceptable to the society which has invented him.

Funnily enough, every single God who has ever existed, has always perfectly fitted the society who worshipped him. When that society changed, the God either evolved or was dumped for a more fitting one.

I think there would be many people who lived a century ago, who would not recognise many Christian's idea of God, because society's attitudes and opinions have changed so much over the century, that of necessity, most people's interpretation of God has changed too.

(But if you want to meet someone who believes in hell, a doolally minister from my local evangelical church does. I was quite startled, because I too was under the impression that hell had been abolished as a physical place and had become more of a concept of the absence of God. Not in our local happy clappy church though. They're still energetic enough to go in for brimstone.)

Well put Nooka, exactly what I've been trying to say.

ok first to answer aloha's selective quoting from last night.Matthew 25;41 'depart from ye..' this is from the parable of the sheep and the goats, a social justice parable.
Effectively christ is saying you must feed and clothe the poor, and if you don't you will suffer as a result. suffer from your own conscience shall we say, on judgement day? Judgement day is when we all become aware of our own conscience in as an acute form as God feels our own sufferings, everything comes into acute colour and focus. We judge ourselves with our own conscience. It is silly aloha to try and get bits of quotes from google without knowing the context in which they were said. Christ didn't teach simplistically, tho I'm sure the Alpha course would beg to disagree.

yes Caligula, human beings invent a God that suits them all the time, that is no arguement for proving that the God that Christ taught us about does not exist, it just means we choose to ignore that one as it is too inconvenient.

MT i think that's ridiculous. 'you just adding you believe in the big bang theory..the goal posts are a tad mobile..' Most intelligent non fundamentalist christians believes in SCIENCE. God and science are not mutually exclusive, they are inextricably linked. And i am aware that marxism and socialism are different, i have studied marxism quite a bit, i was just showing you were my roots lie. I've promised dh i am not going to waste rest of weekend on this, so au revoir!

I do see the value in religion (not that my opinion matters for much!) and that the claim that its religion that causes war doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny - it's human nature to compete for everything and wars over resources have been happening since the birth of time and before humankind could ever conceived of either a god or themselves. But we've come a long way since then and we have evolved a concept of morality. Religion springs from that not the other way round. Religion seems to me just a way of trying to harness the best of human nature. I actually can't envisage a world without religion. What on earth would replace it as a 'simple' prescription on how to live or to harness that dangerous energy of youth? It's easier than philosophy.

Science still ponders the 'prime mover' too. Are big bang.

pre big bang I mean.

And Rudy - I'm not having a pop at you personally, just illustrating how difficult it is to discuss theology and place it on a par with science. The very methodology of theology is ad hock, it's findings can be endlessly interpreted and reinterpreted, which is absolutely not the case with science which binds itself up in an incredibly tight set of parameters and is constantly testing itself, not searching for evidence to shore up the cracks and contradictions, which all religions do.

but MT science is constantly changing its perimeters and its 'rules' too, as we discover more and more. The problem is we know so little at present and are still very early on in our social evolution - i think it is problematic to assume we know something when we don't - and that is my interpretation of athiesm. I said earlier i am a Christian agnostic - so my faith in God is not a constant - i have my own doubts, but all philosophy and literature is fraught with uncertainties and contradictions - that is the nature of life itself - so faith and religion is no different.

I'm afraid then that I don't understand why Christ didn't teach 'simplistically' if our eternal souls depend on it.
I really think to fiddle faddle about with 'metaphor and poetry' and thus produce something so confused and contradictory that nobody seems to have the faintest idea what any of it means (eg please define 'salvation' 'the kingdom of heaven' and 'hell' for me, also what EXACTLY you have to do to be 'saved') is downright irresponsible if you are supposedly trying to teach the whole world about something that will make the difference (possibly, depending on the interpretations of your very muddled texts) between eternal bliss and eternal torment (possible ditto as above).
And to produce such garbled, jumbled and contraditory stuff and then say, 'if you don't believe it you are damned/excluded from God's grace (whatever that might be) or some other kind of punishment' seems at the very least, irresponsible and pretty unreasonable to boot.
If Jesus had just sat down for a few hours with some nice papyrus and a quill, he could have explained it nice and simply.

(disclaimer: I do not actually believe Jesus was the son of God. I do not believe in any supernatural super beings, people-shaped, cat-shaped or elephant-shaped. I offer the above point merely for debate in wonderment and disbelief that people can base their lives on this sort of thing.)
Finally, of course atheism has no 'structure', no more than not believing in ghosts or fairies has 'structure'.
The average Christian doesn't believe in lots of gods anyway.

Fascinating group of articles in yesterday's Guardian - I particularly liked Philip "Narnia Schmarnia" Pullman's one

I must live a very sheltered life because I have never been asked about my faith, or lack thereof - the only person I've really spoken about it to is dh.

Btw, I have only skimmed the thread - it's Christmas in 5 weeks you know, things to do...

a] Christ was teaching in the style and culture of his day. B] the human condition is by its very nature complicated C] It would be really silly to attack any great philosopher or any great work of literature for being too complicated or contradictory, and the New testament is no different.
I agree with Pullman by the way.

i think it is clear you don't believe in God oloha. You don;t have to over stress your case.

Message withdrawn

i'm getting to know that soul-numbing waste of time here Pruni.

but on your bithday that is really too much.

Message withdrawn

agree pruni - i should have stayed out of it - my first post was supposed to be a fair contribution to the thread subject and then it kind of got out of hand. i will stay out of athiest threads in future!

No you won't, you won't be able to resist, you'll get drawn in and spend hours of your life arguing about it!

I've got sore eyes reading this and of course RSI. Pruni - Jonathan Miller's series called The History of Unbelief (I think) was on this week and he said he doesn't like the term atheist as it dignifies belief in god. Obviously there's tons more to it, more than I have the capacity for these days but it works for me. I always have a problem with there being no "atheist" schools. Learn about what people believe, yes. Have it taught as truth, no. And Janh - spot on. I'll be using that one too.

Ruty, but the whole point of Jesus (according to the Christian faith) was to tell us what to do in order to get 'saved'. NOT to write poetry, philosophy, allegory or literature (which would have been tricky as apparently he wrote nothing whatsoever). Given that he had a period on earth in order to 'save' the whole human race, I think his message is quite bizarrely and indeed, disgracefully, muddled.

Also, re hell - how about this then - I think you will see the reference is nicely in context, even if it makes the quote somewhat unwieldy.
I do think not believing in hell has a lot more to do with modern sqeamishness than anything to do with the Bible.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink?
Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]?
Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

yes aloha, that is the social justice parable you have just quoted. I have told you about the translation problems, which you don;t want to hear, and i have told you about the poetry and metaphor, which you don't want to hear. Look, your idea of Christianity is like a fundamentalists. Your idea of being 'saved' is to be saved from fire and brimstone. It is like trying to discuss christianity with a medieval crusader. There is nothing i can do to change your ideas. You want me to say, 'oh aloha, your copious quotes from the bible have made me see the light, God is evil and therefore cannot exist? I am not going to say that. I have had many experiences with some amazingly spiritual and intellectual people who have studied the bible at length [unlike you] and have taught me how to understand it. Maybe i have been lucky. I agree that there are not enough people out there showing people how the bible should be understood. That is wrong. The churches have failed everybody, they are lazy and hypocritcal and rather unintelligent. But, Christ's teaching can save humankind as i have said before. this argument is going to go nowhere, and as Caligula said, i'm getting drawn in by you again. I doubt you even read my posts, just go off to google to find another quote!