Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
No point, just the amusing tidbit that at one time christians were considered to be athiests.

Really? I don't understand why they would be - could you please explain for me a little bit, Oh Insufferable One, because I'm clueless here .... (a not totally unfamiliar state for me to be in, unfortunately, but one I try to remedy when possible )

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
That's a generally accepted definition of strong atheism. It's a blatantly false blanket definition of "atheism" in a general sense.

*does a quick count of dictionarys, textbooks, etc. that use the term "atheism" (NOT "strong atheism") - let's see - a gazillion bazillion one, a gazillion bazillion two .... *

*does a quick count of dictionarys, textbooks, etc. that use the term "strong atheism" - let's see - one, two .... (up to some unknown number, but this unknown number is orders of magnitude less than the number for "atheism"*

Nope, I stand by what I posted. We can niggle the strong/weak atheism thing at a later point.

restated from RÃ*an's earlier post about the definition of atheism:
LFA - a generally accepted definition would be: a person who believes that there is no god.

You didn't read the thread at that link, did you? *Wags finger*

Yes, I read it *Wags finger* *Wags finger*

If you need me to elaborate, just say the words.

Not quite yet, please, let's clear a few more things off the plate before we put more on ...

[Rían]

*while re-going thru thread, notices that EG also has a pending question ... whoops!*

*sends EG some clogs, some glue and an affectionate Entmoot kiss (you're one of my first Entmoot friends, EG ), and returns box of kleenex, which did come in handy *

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
Hey! There's nothing wrong with public schools -- look at me, I was educated at one...

*realizes their point has just been re-inforced and runs off to write another chapter of My experience with ghosts...*

LOL!


Now BoP and Andúril - please put down those sticks, you two, and apologize!

[BeardofPants]

Lemme get this straight:

Weak atheism = a lack of belief in said deities.

Strong atheism = a belief in the non-existence of said deities.

Well, not to start beating a dead horse again, but both of those 'beliefs' or lack thereof, are governed by ideas, or a system of thoughts. So really, I don't get your quibble that weak atheism isn't an ideology.

*Sneaks in a quick smack with the stick, while Rian isn't looking.*

[Rían]

Since Andúril has shared his def of omnipotence, which I would characterize as not widely known and/or accepted, I'll take a moment to share a def that is found in The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, which I would describe as a well-known work that may be found in many book stores.

Omnipotence. Exclusively an attribute of God and essential to the perfection of His being. .... By ascribing to God absolute power, it is not meant that God is free from all the restraints of reason and morality, as some have taught, but that He is able to do everything that is in harmony with His wise and holy and perfect nature ... The infinite power of God is set before us in the Scriptures in connection with His work of creation (Gen. 1:1, Rom. 1:20), His work of upholding the world (Heb 1:3), the redemption of mankind (Luke 1:35,37; Eph. 1:19), the working of miracles (Luke 9:43), the conversion of sinners (1 Cor. 2:5; 2 Cor 4:7), and the complete accomplishment of the great purpose of His kingdom (Matt. 6:13; 13:31-32; 1 Pet. 1:5, 1 Cor. 15; Rev. 19;6).

You see, people, I think that Andúril is entirely missing the point. What he is doing is described perfectly by what Jesus says in Matthew 23:24:

Matthew 23:24
You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Andúril, I do not intend to insult you in any way here! I'm not callling you a 'blind guide', , although sadly, I think that you are blinded in many ways. My intent is to point out that you are spending a vast amount of time arguing about differing ways of defining 'omnipotence', when you are ENTIRELY missing the big picture - What other being is like God? Who else can achieve whatever he desires, besides God? It is absolutely ridiculous and pointless, IMO, to quibble over whether God can or can't create something that is both fully an apple and fully an orange, which is logically impossible!, when the reality is that NO OTHER BEING IS LIKE GOD - not even CLOSE!

And the other part of the big picture is - what are you going to do about what you do know about God and the Bible? I suggest that you seriously think about that question. I would even suggest that you pray about it and ask God to help you - what harm is there in that suggestion if God doesn't even exist? No one has to know that you prayed but you. Why not give it a try? (and that goes for the other non-Christians here, too ) (you can PM me and let me know if you are going to try it, and I'll pray extra for you )

However, I'll address the points in your last 2 posts as soon as I can (probably not until Monday, because the weekends are usually busy for me and not a good time for long, involved posts) because I hate to see ideas such as strong/weak omnipotence, which I think are misleading and dangerous, be on a thread unchallenged.

[Rían]

And I send you a very affectionate and sisterly Entmoot kiss too, Andúril - whether you like it or not . And I pray that it will stick with you for your whole life, and always be a reminder to you that a Christian cared enough about you to spend a great deal of her time discussing these things with you. And that that kind of love comes from God Almighty, because if I didn't have God's love in my heart, I would have been very angry with you by now; instead, I am filled with compassion and concern for you.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
*Sneaks in a quick smack with the stick, while Rian isn't looking.*

*looks up from keyboard* whaaa? Oh, I thought I heard something.... I guess I was mistaken .....

you naughty thing, BoP! And here's a kiss for you, too! Mwa! x


*other Entmooters flee in terror from RÃ*an's flying kisses*

[Earniel]

As long as they're not judaskisses I think everything will be fine.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
*does a quick count of dictionarys, textbooks, etc. that use the term "atheism" (NOT "strong atheism") - let's see - a gazillion bazillion one, a gazillion bazillion two .... *

*does a quick count of dictionarys, textbooks, etc. that use the term "strong atheism" - let's see - one, two .... (up to some unknown number, but this unknown number is orders of magnitude less than the number for "atheism"*

Lol! Why would one find the explicit term "strong atheism" in a dictionary? That's like looking for the phrase "blue car". Which dictionaries where you checking, btw?

Links to examinations of dictionary definitions

• Hardcopy:
  
  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_atheismdef_dict.htm
  
• Online:
  
  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...def_online.htm
  
• Specialized reference:
  
  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...smdef_spec.htm

Links examining historical usage

• Early atheists:
  
  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...mdef_early.htm
  
• Contemporary atheists:
  
  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...ismdef_mod.htm
  
• Theologians:
  
  http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...smdef_theo.htm

Links to explanations of strong and weak atheism

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...atheismdef.htm
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/athe...finitions.html
http://www.objectivethought.com/introa.html
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/philo/atheism.htm
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/7748/42661

I stand confident in my position.

More:
Nope, I stand by what I posted. We can niggle the strong/weak atheism thing at a later point.

*snip*

We can, if you still want to.

[Andúril]

Here is an exerpt of an article from a Christian site which I will comment on. Please note that I am not generalizing Christians by taking the info on this site as generally accepted. However, I have personally encountered quite a few sites with similar content, and conversed with many who have had less of a grasp on atheism than the one found here. If one does accept all or parts of this article, then my comments may apply to that person.

In the Light Ministries
The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most base terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. An atheist is also someone who rejects all religious belief systems. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is knowable. I need to mention that most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists. Most consider themselves as non-theists.
I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which definition of atheism to use can be difficult. Following are some definitions offered by atheists.

• "An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god."
• "An atheist lacks belief in a god."
• "An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all."
• "An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry."
• "An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas."

Which ever definition you go by, atheism denies God.
There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak, with variations in between. A strong atheist actively believes and states that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence.
Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means 'not knowing,' or 'no knowledge.' I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God. But, the interesting thing with them is that they say they are open further evidence for God's existence.
Weak atheists simply exercises no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; the subject simply isn't an issue and they don't believe or not believe it.
Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists, particularly Christians. I’ve encountered a few of them and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be had with them at all.

I'll refer to each statement that I take issue with.

"An atheist is also someone who rejects all religious belief systems."

False. Due to the relative nature of belief and non belief, atheism has relative meaning. A Christian is a strong atheist in the sense that he/she believes in the non-existence of all gods less one. Thus for certain people, a qualified atheism is the case.

Atheism can also be referred to in an unqualified, universal manner, i.e. "I believe in no gods", or "I believe that no gods exist".

Therefore, since Christianity involves atheism it is not true that all atheists reject religious belief systems.

"By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is knowable."

This statement does not take theistic agnosticism into account. Not all theists claim that God is knowable.

"I need to mention that most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists. Most consider themselves as non-theists."

Some atheists, including myself, take antitheism to be virtually synonymous with atheism. It is the opposition to theism, thus the opposition to the belief in God or gods, which is active disbelief, a sub-category of weak atheism.

Antitheism is not synonymous with strong-atheism. I think the writer is making this mistake here (a mistake I too have made in the past).

[Andúril]

"Which ever definition you go by, atheism denies God."

According to the links in the previous post regarding dictionary definitions, the distinction is normally made between disbelief and denial of the existence of God, which are referred to as weak and strong atheism respectively. This statement asserts merely strong atheism.

"They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god."

Incorrect. See above.

"I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God. But, the interesting thing with them is that they say they are open further evidence for God's existence."

There is an implied equivocation of "them" here. In the first statement, the writer refers implicitly to strongly atheistic agnostics. In the second statement the writer refers implicitly to weakly atheistic agnostics.

"Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists."

The differences between what the writer calls "millitant" atheists and weak/strong atheists have nothing to do with belief or lack thereof, which is what atheism is concerned with. If we decided to categorise terms on this basis, then we could end up with such irrelevant and absurd concepts as "African-American atheism", "professional atheism", "diaral atheism", etc.

I see no more reason to refer to "militant atheism" when examining atheism, than to refer to "militant theism" when examining theism.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
Now BoP and Andúril - please put down those sticks, you two, and apologize!

No. She likes it.

BoP, who likes to be beaten with sticks:
Lemme get this straight:

Weak atheism = a lack of belief in said deities.

Strong atheism = a belief in the non-existence of said deities.

Correct, more or less. In my summary post I did not break weak atheism down into its "active" and "passive" sub-categories, but then again, it was a brief summary...

More:
Well, not to start beating a dead horse again, but both of those 'beliefs' or lack thereof, are governed by ideas, or a system of thoughts. So really, I don't get your quibble that weak atheism isn't an ideology.

*sigh*

Btw, I wasn't sighing because you still don't understand, it was....er.....it's been a long day.....

Anyway, look at a few scenarios:

Passively weak atheism

I know of a few god-concepts. Do I know all god-concepts? No. Therefore, in relation to those gods which I have not (yet, possibly) conceptualized, I do not have a belief regarding their existence. There is obviously no ideology or belief system behind this weak atheism.

Actively weak atheism (1)

I know of a god-concept (which we can call "Bob" for now). I lack the belief in Bob's existence without appealing to knowledge, belief, or unwarranted speculation to justify this disbelief. I disbelieve in Bob "just because" or not because of anything.

Actively weak atheism (2)

I know of Bob, but I see no good reason to think he's real. Why should I think Bob is real if I don't see a good reason to support this belief?


Now, since the general meaning of "weak atheism" is the most commonly used definition of "atheism" and the only term that applies to both categories, I feel no need to examine strong atheism.

More:*Sneaks in a quick smack with the stick, while Rian isn't looking.*

Did that feel good, BoP? I hope it didn't leave an unsightly red line. Oh well, it's your body...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
As long as they're not judaskisses I think everything will be fine.

That was a sad way to betray someone, wasn't it
No, you need have no worries in that regard.

And one more: an Entmoot kiss for Lizra - even though she doesn't have any questions pending that I know of, I'm very fond of her, and she and I have a unique bond that not many other people have.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
Since Andúril has shared his def of omnipotence, which I would characterize as not widely known and/or accepted, I'll take a moment to share a def that is found in The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, which I would describe as a well-known work that may be found in many book stores.

The explicit qualifiers "strong" and "weak" are relatively new adoptions. Therefore, even though the principles of strong and weak omnipotence have been around for ages, I expect that coming across the actual terms "strong omnipotence" and "weak omnipotence" will be quite a difficult task. If I have the time, I'll try to provide a few links.

I'm surprised that RÃ*an has not seen the clear implicit references to strong and weak omnipotence as I have described them earlier. I am further surprised that she hasn't noticed the same re-definition as that exhibited by Lewis. The following implies weak omnipotence:

By ascribing to God absolute power, it is not meant that God is free from all the restraints of reason and morality, as some have taught, but that He is able to do everything that is in harmony with His wise and holy and perfect nature

The following implies strong omnipotence:

The infinite power of God...

Just like Lewis, the author of this article jumps from a concept of a being that is limited to performing any action that is logically possible, exclusive and inclusive of its nature, to a concept of a being that has infinite power.

More:
You see, people, I think that Andúril is entirely missing the point.

I'm missing the point, you think? The reason I elaborated on weak and strong omnipotence was because you objected to my usage of the terms in a post directed to Gwaimir Windgem, which was intended to show the illogic in his assertion! At the time I did not notice that you had said the terms were "entirely irrelevant to what we are discussing", even though you were not (at that time) involved in that particular discussion! So, without noticing this odd point, I went on to elaborate (as you asked), and now you tell me that I'm missing the point? Lol!

Nevertheless, I am quite inquisitive about this "point" that I have missed. Let's see what it is, and how relevant it was to that discussion in particular...

More:
What he is doing is described perfectly by what Jesus says in Matthew 23:24:

Don't you think this statement is a but odd in light of the initial directive in Matthew 23:2-3? I certainly do, but anyway...

More:
My intent is to point out that you are spending a vast amount of time arguing about differing ways of defining 'omnipotence', when you are ENTIRELY missing the big picture - What other being is like God? Who else can achieve whatever he desires, besides God?

Irrelevant. My intention was never to answer or discuss or examine these points, but rather to elaborate on terms that I had used in a previous post.

More:
It is absolutely ridiculous and pointless, IMO, to quibble over whether God can or can't create something that is both fully an apple and fully an orange, which is logically impossible!, when the reality is that NO OTHER BEING IS LIKE GOD - not even CLOSE!

I most definitely disagree that treatment of strong omnipotence is "absolutely ridiculous and pointless", on the grounds that so many theists implicitly advocate it!

What does the Chrisitian god's claimed uniqueness have to do with an elaboration of terms, anyway? Irrelevant.

[Andúril]

More:
And the other part of the big picture is - what are you going to do about what you do know about God and the Bible?

*snip*

The "other part of the big picture", and indeed the first part, are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You have introduced this "big picture" as a tangent (disguised as a "missed point"), and only if I have the time and the intent will I address it. I lack these at the moment.

More:
However, I'll address the points in your last 2 posts as soon as I can (probably not until Monday, because the weekends are usually busy for me and not a good time for long, involved posts) because I hate to see ideas such as strong/weak omnipotence, which I think are misleading and dangerous, be on a thread unchallenged.

Challenge the ideas, by all means, but please keep the attempted proselytization to a minimum, at least when I'm the one you are addressing.

[markedel]

Hmm. I don't know about pointing to the bible to prove Christianity. One can study the bible lots of ways to prove lots of different things. The saying goes "This and this are both the words of God and are correct"

There's a nce Talmudic tale about this point. A group of rabbis are arguing. All the rabbis but one agree on a point of logic. The other stands up disagrees. His opponents are not swayed. The rabbi calls on God to back himself up. The voice of God comes out and says "he's right folks" the other rabbis argue God cannot arbitrarly change law like that-he set it, and in it's in our hands to interpert now. God laughs and cries out "my children have defeated me"

The point is that the bible is a tool to be used differently by everyone. If used right it will produce rightness. If used wrongly it will be produce wickedness. Religion exists to explain what is right, but every religion has its own version.

[Lizra]

Well thank you for the kiss Rian! I'm a big sucker for obvious displays of affection! Personally, I think your kisses are your strongest "weapon" in the "God" debate. I read this debate and "logic", yet it somehow leaves me cold! As I mentioned earlier, (IMO) nobody really "knows" what they are talking about here, and won't till they die. ( the "afterlife" seems to be a central issue in the whole "God" debate).

I think that people are selfish, and unless they are raised with "faith in God", they won't go seeking it, till there is a need, or reason to. If you need God, you will start looking, and maybe find "him". (I think leif erickson mentioned this a few threads ago). The type of debate we are having here is more of an exercise in knowledge. Of course "young" (under 16 or so) people are still learning.

So........., if you feel empty, and want a fullness, or completness in your life, the concept of "God" is perfect! If you are at a low point, and need someone to help you through, "God" is there for you. If you want answers to questions that can't be answered, "God" can answer them all (it seems! ) . When you allow God (tired of quotation marks!) in your life, things clear up, and many of the shades of gray become either black or white. (I realize becoming a Christian does not neccesarily make life "easier", as Star Polish and Rian both mentioned on another thread). If you become a Christian, the path for your life is somewhat laid out. You "know" where you want to go, (heaven) and how to get there, (accepting Christ in your life, and trying to live according to his teachings). So if this is what you need or want, it really doesn't matter if anyone else thinks it makes sense!

Rian's kisses and time are a strong testimonial to her Christian faith, and they make me feel good! As I mentioned earlier, I think the churches would be easier to fill if nonbelievers were shown what allowing religion in their life would do for them. (but the whole thing is based on "Do you believe?", so it can't be marketed I guess!) Seeing Crhristians full of love, and with a contentment in their life is far more convincing than any debate! So spread your kisses around Rian, and don't worry about it!

[Rían]

Originally posted by markedel
Hmm. I don't know about pointing to the bible to prove Christianity. One can study the bible lots of ways to prove lots of different things. The saying goes "This and this are both the words of God and are correct"

No, no - hold on a sec, markedel - I was NOT "pointing to the bible to prove Christianity" at all! What I was doing had nothing to do with "proving" Christianity! What I was doing was taking passages from the NT to show that I thought that the comparison you presented (I'll quote it below) was inaccurate, because it is incorrect that Christianity is "all about the power of 'love' ", as your quote said. Since the NT is considered sacred scripture by Christians, I was pulling out passages from the NT to show that Christianity is indeed very concerned about the law. Does that make sense now? I wasn't trying to prove Christianity; I was trying to correct a false idea of what Christianity is about, and I did that by providing references from the NT.

markedel's example
Another good comparison was by another rabbi. A little inflammatory-but here it goes: Christianity is all about the power of "love" (it's actually a hebrew concept that might be better rendered as loving-kindness, but translation is an imperfect business). As I understand it Jesus (and by extension God) loves you and is kind etc. If you love him back (via faith) you're saved. Sounds great. The problem is that love isn't tempered by "law" (it's a hebrew concept I can't translate any better-I'm doing my best here) and the result is the extremes of Christianity. (Islam has essentially similar problems-The need for people to love God is so intense that sometime you got to commit suicidal murder attacks to ensure it is fulfilled). Love of God/Faith trumps everything else. Judaism requires a mix of both-via jewish law which infuses the "law" with "love" to produce the ideal of Judaism-justice.

I really, really like the way you brought up this concept of love tempered by law : "The problem is that love isn't tempered by "law" " - that's a great wording. However, I think that the verses that I pulled out of the NT show that love is tempered by law in Christianity; in fact, as I pointed out, Jesus makes an even higher standard by taking into account the inward heart attitude, not only the outward behavior. Do you see what I mean?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Well thank you for the kiss Rian!

Thanks, Lizra, I really needed that (can you send me a big smoochie one back? )- I'm such an Internet newbie that I thought I had maybe violated some major Internet rule by trying to express to people that ... I liked them . That was all I meant by it - I don't have some hidden agenda ("mwahaha - I'll pretend to like them and fool them into being Christians!"). I really meant it. I just feel like we've all been sitting around talking over some important things, and we've - I don't know - almost made something together - *can't quite figure out how to express it * - like we've been a team together or something - we've worked together and laughed together and learned together - *hopes this isn't making it worse...* - maybe I just approach discussion boards differently, but I see people behind the posts....