Log in:  

Register

God and Religion

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Do you believe in God?

Yes, I believe in Johnny Hoogerland.
47
14%
Yes, I believe in a supernatural, personal being.
48
15%
I believe in a life force or spirit, but not in a personal being.
33
10%
I don't know. I'm an agnostic.
38
12%
No, I'm an atheist in that, while I can't assure there is no God, I believe there is none.
74
23%
No, I'm an atheist in that I assure there is no God.
86
26%
 
Total votes : 326

04 Nov 2013 19:35

Roman Empire was based on slavery. Perhaps it's your ideal.

It will be my last word on this debate.

The so-called 'Dark Ages' was the greatest era in Europe's history, by a country mile.
Echoes
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,844
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

04 Nov 2013 19:38

Echoes wrote:Roman Empire was based on slavery. Perhaps it's your ideal.

It will be my last word on this debate.

The so-called 'Dark Ages' was the greatest era in Europe's history, by a country mile.


You don't realy have to write anything else.
[SIZE="1"]Nuke the Clinic! Prohibit the insulting of riders![/SIZE]
User avatar BigMac
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,034
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Lisboa

04 Nov 2013 19:44

Echoes wrote:Roman Empire was based on slavery. Perhaps it's your ideal.

It will be my last word on this debate.

The so-called 'Dark Ages' was the greatest era in Europe's history, by a country mile.

Awesome, dude.
A race that doesn't give an attacker the chance to finish it off alone is not a race anymore.


Bronze Medal at the Great Grand Tour Game 2012

WARNING: Location says Germany, but I'm Italian...
User avatar Eshnar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,461
Joined: 24 Mar 2011 11:25
Location: Frankfurt am Main

04 Nov 2013 19:45

Echoes wrote:Roman Empire was based on slavery. Perhaps it's your ideal.

It will be my last word on this debate.

The so-called 'Dark Ages' was the greatest era in Europe's history, by a country mile.

Slavery that was condoned by the Church and that didn't disappear during the Middle Ages, I might add.
User avatar hrotha
Senior Member
 
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

04 Nov 2013 19:48

Echoes wrote:What??

Atheists believe in liberalism, unlimited pleasure hic et nunc, money (Mammon/Golden Calf) as a key to all pleasures, unlimited human rights (but no human duties, it's forbidden to forbid - Sixties rebellion), etc.

Religious people believe in social solidarity, belonging to a group, traditions, "Our Kingdom is not from this World", etc.

Beliefs influence values because a set of values is of necessity a matter of faith.

Atheism has been the driving forces behind all the horrors of the past two centuries and a half. That's a fact !


I suggest you read In Gods House. Unbelievable horrors committed by Gods agents aided and abetted by religion.

http://www.amazon.com/In-Gods-House-Ray-Mouton/dp/1908800062
"This comment qualifies as a shining example of the "anyone who disagrees with my perspective is a dolt" leftist, intolerant mish-mash of shallow thinking." - Scott SoCal
User avatar frenchfry
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,900
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 14:28
Location: Bourgogne

04 Nov 2013 20:40

hrotha wrote:Slavery that was condoned by the Church and that didn't disappear during the Middle Ages, I might add.


Not quite true. They didn't condone it for quite some time. But after a while they understood that there was money to make... Didn't take long before the church started backing slave trade then :p
"I know how to ride my bike" - Nibali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9LBsWCNE9I

Vuelta 06 - the greatest gt in history!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24TQdI7csHs
User avatar Vino attacks everyone
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,361
Joined: 05 May 2011 16:26

04 Nov 2013 20:43

frenchfry wrote:I suggest you read In Gods House. Unbelievable horrors committed by Gods agents aided and abetted by religion.

http://www.amazon.com/In-Gods-House-Ray-Mouton/dp/1908800062


Thick Echoes got some problems with grasping the definition of atheism.
"I know how to ride my bike" - Nibali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9LBsWCNE9I

Vuelta 06 - the greatest gt in history!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24TQdI7csHs
User avatar Vino attacks everyone
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,361
Joined: 05 May 2011 16:26

04 Nov 2013 20:44

Vino attacks everyone wrote:Not quite true. They didn't condone it for quite some time. But after a while they understood that there was money to make... Didn't take long before the church started backing slave trade then :p

No, St. Paul was already condoning it in the 1st century AD.
User avatar hrotha
Senior Member
 
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

04 Nov 2013 20:47

hrotha wrote:No, St. Paul was already condoning it in the 1st century AD.


oh, hm... Have been reading a bit about the churchs influence in northern Europe, and the churchs arrival at Scandinavia. They were quite harsh with some of the viking slave traders as far as I can remember. Might remember wrong though...
"I know how to ride my bike" - Nibali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9LBsWCNE9I

Vuelta 06 - the greatest gt in history!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24TQdI7csHs
User avatar Vino attacks everyone
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,361
Joined: 05 May 2011 16:26

04 Nov 2013 20:50

Vino attacks everyone wrote:oh, hm... Have been reading a bit about the churchs influence in northern Europe, and the churchs arrival at Scandinavia. They were quite harsh with some of the viking slave traders as far as I can remember. Might remember wrong though...

By then, the stance of the Church had shifted to "it's fine to trade and own slaves as long as they're not Christian", so they weren't fans of the vikings. But in its early days, Christianity was popular among both slaves and slave owners, and Paul wasn't about to rock the boat.
User avatar hrotha
Senior Member
 
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

04 Nov 2013 21:07

hrotha wrote:By then, the stance of the Church had shifted to "it's fine to trade and own slaves as long as they're not Christian", so they weren't fans of the vikings. But in its early days, Christianity was popular among both slaves and slave owners, and Paul wasn't about to rock the boat.


thanks for the correction :)
"I know how to ride my bike" - Nibali

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9LBsWCNE9I

Vuelta 06 - the greatest gt in history!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24TQdI7csHs
User avatar Vino attacks everyone
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5,361
Joined: 05 May 2011 16:26

05 Nov 2013 02:40

User avatar kielbasa
Junior Member
 
Posts: 421
Joined: 13 Sep 2010 20:39
Location: Location, Location

05 Nov 2013 04:09

kielbasa wrote:Who is and who is not God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc


That was a pretty good snippet. Atheists are funny. They think God, or the first cause, or principle, or the whole (pure potential) is a thing than can be measured. This misses the whole point of conceptualizing no thing that creates all things. If nothing else this consideration is humbling and inspiring. Another way to say this is from space, the formless void, all form emerges and into space all form recedes. It certainly draws one out from their trivial day to day existence into the immensity of their experience, and that's the point, imho.

Atheism is understandable as a reactionary movement against the backdrop of history. Unfortunately it's only effective in opposing the dogmatic, literalist, fundamentalism that's all too pervasive (rampant actually) in "religion" these days. Two sides of the same coin that have met in opposition over the most base considerations. Both miss the intention that inspired civilisation, imho. Everything has been turned upside down - for profit.

It's a sick, sad world, Charlie Brown.
7-11 becomes a convenience store...and the ancient Egyptians wept.
RetroActive
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,363
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 17:50

05 Nov 2013 06:59

RetroActive wrote:That was a pretty good snippet. Atheists are funny. They think God, or the first cause, or principle, or the whole (pure potential) is a thing than can be measured. This misses the whole point of conceptualizing no thing that creates all things. If nothing else this consideration is humbling and inspiring. Another way to say this is from space, the formless void, all form emerges and into space all form recedes. It certainly draws one out from their trivial day to day existence into the immensity of their experience, and that's the point, imho.

Atheism is understandable as a reactionary movement against the backdrop of history. Unfortunately it's only effective in opposing the dogmatic, literalist, fundamentalism that's all too pervasive (rampant actually) in "religion" these days.
Two sides of the same coin that have met in opposition over the most base considerations. Both miss the intention that inspired civilisation, imho. Everything has been turned upside down - for profit.

It's a sick, sad world, Charlie Brown.


This is where we would disagree. I'm not a man of faith. I'm a person of reason and, as such, am wary of all faiths (including any that might try to impose their negation by either arrogant conviction or force). Having faith is something that pertains to a world that isn't mine. I simply don't believe.

I consider myself, though, neither atheist, nor agnostic. As a person of reason and not of faith, I realize that I'm immersed in a mystery that reason isn't capable of penetrating deep down to the bottom, which the various religions have attempted to interpret in various modes.

While this would seem to be the literal sense of being an atheist, I prefer the term secular rationalist, because it allows for that margin of perplexity that liberates one from a irrational and unhealthy dogmatism. Consequently being a non-believer does not necessarily have to be a reactionary movement against history, or the flip side of the same fundamentalist coin.

I'd recommend giving into an access of perplexity that permits doubt and recognizes the intricate and ultimately unresolvable nature of existance, as against dogmatism, of which this world has urgent need. I'm sure Charlie Brown would think likewise.
User avatar rhubroma
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,100
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

05 Nov 2013 08:04

rhubroma wrote:This is where we would disagree. I'm not a man of faith. I'm a person of reason and, as such, am wary of all faiths (including any that might try to impose their negation by either arrogant conviction or force). Having faith is something that pertains to a world that isn't mine. I simply don't believe.

I consider myself, though, neither atheist, nor agnostic. As a person of reason and not of faith, I realize that I'm immersed in a mystery that reason isn't capable of penetrating deep down to the bottom, which the various religions have attempted to interpret in various modes.

While this would seem to be the literal sense of being an atheist, I prefer the term secular rationalist, because it allows for that margin of perplexity that liberates one from a irrational and unhealthy dogmatism. Consequently being a non-believer does not necessarily have to be a reactionary movement against history, or the flip side of the same fundamentalist coin.

I'd recommend giving into an access of perplexity that permits doubt and recognizes the intricate and ultimately unresolvable nature of existance, as against dogmatism, of which this world has urgent need. I'm sure Charlie Brown would think likewise.


First off, lol.
We're going to slide into slippery semantics and the limitations of language relatively quickly. Reason? Intuitive reason or discursive reason? I know the answer (I think). Up thread The Hitch dissed imagination (essentially) while on other forums I've read science geeks refer to "common intuition". hahaha. Don't these folks understand that intuition forms imagination that is translated by discursive reason into "reality". It's all really hilarious to me.

Discursive reason is limited, thus empirical measure. To measure requires 2 points, it's useful in the world of effects, don't get me wrong; and self limiting. This isn't a new understanding, it's in every ancient sacred text and has been articulated as best as is possible (as language is a product of dualistic reason) in Advaita Vedanta (subject-object non dualism) and apparently the philosophy of Spinoza too. At least you recognize this: "I realize that I'm immersed in a mystery that reason isn't capable of penetrating deep down to the bottom". This recognition is where faith begins (for me). I'm not certain what faith means; hope; purpose; intention? Something (which isn't a thing but rather no thing) larger is at work than I can comprehend and I have to have *faith* there's a purpose, but I don't know. Call it uncertainty if you wish, or doubt. I don't really think the word matters. It's the quest that's important.
I don't know - is the sum of my understanding but it beats believing in my personality which sucks (but doesn't blow).
7-11 becomes a convenience store...and the ancient Egyptians wept.
RetroActive
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,363
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 17:50

05 Nov 2013 11:01

I don't feel like posting here, but truth has to be restored.

Paul wasn't Christian he was Jewish (if we believe Pasolini).

Christians are the driving force behind the abolition of slavery and behind the Sunday rest.

Jews organized the slave trade. It needed a believing Christian (Robespierre) to abolish it and of course it needed a hardcore atheist to restore it (Buonaparte).

Anti-Christians like Voltaire and Beccaria overtly supported slavery. That is an atheist ideal, not a Christian ideal !!

By the way how am I surprised that atheists have huge dopers as avatar? Atheists have no moral, QED.
Echoes
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,844
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

05 Nov 2013 11:12

Echoes wrote:Jews organized the slave trade. It needed a believing Christian (Robespierre) to abolish it and of course it needed a hardcore atheist to restore it (Buonaparte).

the very same believing Christian who was a key figure of the "horrors of French revolution" (your words, I hope you recognize them)? The very same guy of the "Terror"? The very same guy who officially established the religion of the "Supreme Being"?
A race that doesn't give an attacker the chance to finish it off alone is not a race anymore.


Bronze Medal at the Great Grand Tour Game 2012

WARNING: Location says Germany, but I'm Italian...
User avatar Eshnar
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,461
Joined: 24 Mar 2011 11:25
Location: Frankfurt am Main

05 Nov 2013 11:16

Don't bother, there's no point arguing with someone who apparently hasn't read the Bible but claims to debate from a Christian point of view.
User avatar hrotha
Senior Member
 
Posts: 12,933
Joined: 10 Jun 2010 20:45

05 Nov 2013 11:39

Echoes wrote:By the way how am I surprised that atheists have huge dopers as avatar? Atheists have no moral, QED.


Likewise, all dopers are outspoken atheists - Armstrong, Fignon, Ricco - not a single Christian among them!
piccoli equivoci senza importanza.

Visit my blog on spanish history: http://www.histoires-espagnoles.blogspot.fr
User avatar Christian
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,734
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 15:46
Location: Sevilla

05 Nov 2013 11:55

Echoes wrote:I don't feel like posting here, but truth has to be restored.

Paul wasn't Christian he was Jewish (if we believe Pasolini).

Christians are the driving force behind the abolition of slavery and behind the Sunday rest.

Jews organized the slave trade. It needed a believing Christian (Robespierre) to abolish it and of course it needed a hardcore atheist to restore it (Buonaparte).

Anti-Christians like Voltaire and Beccaria overtly supported slavery. That is an atheist ideal, not a Christian ideal !!

By the way how am I surprised that atheists have huge dopers as avatar? Atheists have no moral, QED.



Saul of Tarsus, St. Paul, was also Greek by culture and a Roman citizen by status. His success was in transforming the identity of the historical Hebrew Jesus of Nazareth (Joshua ben Josef) into the Christ (Christos, i.e. the savior), a supernatural and mystical resurrected being after the cross: that is, God. For this reason St. Paul is the true founder of Christianity, detached as it was now under his ministry from the orthodox Judaism to which Jesus and his initial disciples all belong and never thought of leaving and brought to the gentile peoples (i.e. the pagans). Paul's revolution was through applying a Hellenistic concept of immortality (Plato's "anima") and the Greek philosophical concept of metempsychosis (μετεμψύχωσις) referring to the transmigration of the soul and merging this with blind faith ("sola fede"), as the basis for a new religion. In fact incipient Christianity is Greek, not Hebrew, in both its etymological and cultural parameters. The Hebrew origins of Jesus' concept of the coming and realization of the Kingdom of Heaven, which was his historical failure, is under St. Paul replaced by pagan culture in the arts, clerical hierarchy and faith/mysticism. If we separate the Christos from the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth what remains is a myth. And that's what it rationally is.

Slavery persisted under Christianity in the late Roman world, as we can tell by the case of a certain fifth century aristocratic woman, Melania, who, along with her husband, in her will left all of her estate in Sicily (some 6000 acres), along with 2000 slaves, to the Church of Rome. The senate reacted by prohibiting such transfer of slaves to the Church, fearing the social unrest that this might encourage. Whereas during the Middle Ages slavery was merely disguised within feudal serfdom. Perhaps only worse, because serfs became tied to the land on a hereditary basis, without the possibility of manumission. All this under the approving eye of Christendom and the Church.
User avatar rhubroma
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,100
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Berzin, Google Adsense [Bot], Merckx index and 1 guest

Back to top