Research on Belief in God

[Echoes]

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.

 

[BigMac]

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.

 

[Eshnar]

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.

 

[hrotha]

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.

 

[frenchfry]

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

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

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

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

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.

 

[hrotha]

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

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

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

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...

 

[hrotha]

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.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

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

 

[kielbasa]

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

 

[RetroActive]

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.

 

[rhubroma]

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.

 

[RetroActive]

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).

 

[Echoes]

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.

 

[Eshnar]

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"?

 

[hrotha]

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.

 

[Christian]

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!

 

[rhubroma]

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.

 

[hrotha]

Whereas during the Middle Ages slavery was merely disguised within feudal serfdom.

There was literal, legal slavery too, not only serfdom, which at any rate was largely a later development.

In Anglo-Saxon England, for example, there was a slave class, but IIRC most non-slave peasants were small landowners.

 

[BigMac]

Likewise, all dopers are outspoken atheists - Armstrong, Fignon, Ricco - not a single Christian among them!

Funny how your avatar is the illustration in one of Saramago's book's cover. Being Saramago one of the biggest anti-Christian persons to have ever walked on this planet.

# (this next text is not directed to you) #

Since when does being an atheist makes you a person without any values nor sociable, interesting ideals? You look at atheism like if it was an organised group with preset ideals, like any type of religion, but atheism is nothing more than the individual lack or non existance of believing over a god. Atheism does not imply anything. That said, it isn't the fact that one is an atheist that makes him a bad person.

I can mention religious people that only did bad to the world and society in their miserable lifes.

 

[Christian]

Funny how your avatar is the illustration in one of Saramago's book's cover. Being Saramago one of the biggest anti-Christian persons to have ever walked on this planet.

Ha! I never thought about it that way But since it is just my name and not my beliefs I don't take it personally

 

[Netserk]

Ha! I never thought about it that way But since it is just my name and not my beliefs I don't take it personally

What? I always thought you were a fundamentalist

 

[RetroActive]

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.

Have you ever studied Pythagoras at all rhub.? Mystery schools (Eleusinian for ex.)? I'm afraid what you're doing in your strict adherence to "the facts" (which change, and are historically conflicted) is reducing a multidimensional story down to too fine a point and missing the point entirely. Rather like saying a dodecahedron is simply a pentagon.

We're talking about stories that are filled with symbolism, analogy and metaphor with what we today would call fractally embedded information that pertains to the human experience of consciousness.

Do you think that every polymath, every "genius" throughout history up to and including Newton (and beyond) was reading and interpreting these myths factually?

Today we still don't truly understand consciousness, light, gravity, magnetism, electro magnetism, the sun etc. We have some facts but that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" remains true. Life is a mystery, a miracle beyond our discernment.

To me the story of Christ on the cross is the story of the sun on it's annual journey. The benevolent sun that gives of itself freely, without distinction so that life is constantly renewed. To me the story is about our consciousness being trapped on the cross of matter, in earth, on earth. It's about the potential to see beyond our individuated self, to transform our perspective, our way of being from petty distinctions and opinions to one of empathy, compassion and love. It's about the potential to know peace within oneself, for the eternal conflict within man to find balance, harmony within oneself. For heart and mind to be as one. To grow beyond the individuated ego in awareness.

It doesn't really matter to me if there was a historic Christ or not. It's about the message not the messenger. That message is a step up from eye for an eye tribalism. Maybe someday we'll realize the message but it's a world of individuals in love with distinctions. It's interesting to attempt to see beyond that though.

I could go on but I'm hung-over.