Advocatus,
RE: Post # 257
Hello advocatus,
Good post.
You talk as if he is a real being, calling it a “demon" or something.
To me anyway, God being called a “demon" is correct.
Read on page 13, Post # 183 by Write4U.
They still believe in a Creator God regardless of what you claim they don’t believe in.
The Pope himself said it would be wrong for the Christians to ignore Evolution in 2007. What is “Intelligent Design", show me in the Bible on the Creation of earth where it says “Intelligent Design" is the method god used. DNA and Stem Cells are all created by God through intelligent design.
Are atheists thoughts nothing more than part of gods intelligent design.
My reading has indicated to me that only about half the Christians believe in god as the creator of everything in 6 days and 6,000 ( some vary the time up to 12,000) years. The other half believe the earth is much older and things evolved.
Now, if you do not believe God is the Creator, but you still believe in God. Would you not believe in the “Power of God"?
I have also talked to many Christians that only want to use the NT and don’t even like talking about the OT. And to them God is Jesus, they do not think of Jesus as the Son of God, they think of Jesus as the one and only true God. One friend even told me that the OT god evolved into the NT god and had different morals, this friend is a pastor.
The bible is not clear on the make up of god.
There is God, the Son of God and the Holly Spirit.
That is 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 gods. Then they say, no it is all the same god.
Then if Jesus died, God killed himself on the cross.
I am told, that Jesus the god did not die, his sole left the cross before the body on the cross died. Just the mortal man who’s body Jesus was using died, but not Jesus. Jesus is now in heaven. You can not kill Jesus.
So who died on the cross for the sins?
I’ll stop here, this could be a whole other post subject.
Point being, that people start telling you what happen and how is all works not using the facts from the bible. They are using a belief from the Power of God that allows them to custom design god to fit their needs.
BTW, I don’t capitalize atheism the way Christianity is, because it is not an organized belief system with a certain set of doctrines.
I have been going both ways with atheism. And that is one of the problems of atheism having no organized structure. I do not think it could ever be a movement like Christianity because there is no body in charge to give direction.
Write4U I watched the Utube, and Lewis Black pretty much said what a lot of Atheist think. Thanks But on a lighter note, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPQj5ITva9k (some crude language)Ironically, Lewis Black is a Jew.
In my view you are wrong to say that atheism is a belief that there is no god. Atheism is a lack of belief that a god exists. That is completely at odds with a belief that there is no god. One does not have to believe anything concerning god to be an atheist. All we have to do is reject a claim that as no evidence, which is what we do. It is not necessary to believe anything regarding the existence of a god. Rejecting the claim is all that is neessary.I know that's how many atheists have been presenting the argument, but I think they are beginning to realize the problem with saying you have no belief. If the concept of God is introduced, and you decide you do not believe in God based on the evidence, then that is a faith position since there is no proof. You can't say it's a lack of belief, because you have considered the possibility and chosen a position.
True, but to prevent Religion itself from having political power we have the "separation of church and state". This is why everyone is now free to vote. And I stipulate that I am talking about the 3 Abrahamic religions which are founded on the same book and the same god but don't seem to get along very well and have not for a few millennia, which I find very odd.The idea and implementation of freedom of religion in our government was instituted by theists, mainly those of the Christian tradition, and is based on the idea of a Creator who gives each one life, liberty and property which no man made law should abridge--natural law. Islam teaches that the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures are corrupt. Islamic religion and law are based on the revelations given to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel in the 7th century and written in the Quran. Only the Quran is believed by Muslims to be the word of God. From the beginning they sought to bring Jews and Christians into their theocracy with Muhammad as the supreme prophet. But Jews and Christians didn't accept Muhammad as a prophet, and things went down hill from there. Some of Islam's worst atrocities were committed against Hindus. This behavior is based on their set of beliefs--their religion--which is very different from that of Jews and Christians.
The Pope himself said it would be wrong for the Christians to ignore Evolution in 2007.Right! But the Pope still believes that God "Created" the universe. He just used evolution as a tool. Just because they don't believe in a literal six-day creation doesn't mean they aren't at heart Creationists.
I have been going both ways with atheism. And that is one of the problems of atheism having no organized structure. I do not think it could ever be a movement like Christianity because there is no body in charge to give direction.Good! Atheism SHOULDN'T be an "movement" for that very reason. Secular Humanism, now that's a different story. That's a movement because it has a positive message to project.
The idea and implementation of freedom of religion in our government was instituted by theists, mainly those of the Christian tradition, and is based on the idea of a Creator who gives each one life, liberty and property which no man made law should abridge—natural law.Except the the man who actually wrote that amendment was himself an agnostic at best. James Madison wrote the amendment to ensure that no Christian sect would be paramount in the new country and that religion and the political structure must be forever separated to avoid one influencing or dominating the other. He had no thought for any other religious belief. And the whole concept of "natural rights" was born out of the Enlightenment philosophies of Diests and atheists (e.g.Voltaire) and not from the established xtian doctrines of Protestantism or Catholicism. The concept of life, liberty and property, written into the Declaration of a independence and not the Constitution as some think reportedly came from English philosopher John Locke, a deist and born out of the theory of social contract. BTW, Madison also clearly stated that" ...religion binds and shackles the mind". So you could call them nominal "theists" at best. Also see Article 11 of the Tripolitan Treaty of 1797 signed by John Adams clearly stating that the United Satates was NOT founded as a xtian nation. Cap't Jack
I’ll stop hereOh, if only. This guy is starting to cut and paste like David Mabus.
Ok, then, false claims. LoisLois - " Humans create morality every day, on our own, and this goes for Christians, as well. They simply don’t realize where it is actually coming from and misattribute it to their false religion. "Religions can't actually be "false". They're exactly what they are, religions. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. There may be some pretty bizarre looking fingers out there, but what's that got to do with the moon?
In my view you are wrong to say that atheism is a belief that there is no god. Atheism is a lack of belief that a god exists. That is completely at odds with a belief that there is no god. One does not have to believe anything concerning god to be an atheist. All we have to do is reject a claim that as no evidence, which is what we do. It is not necessary to believe anything regarding the existence of a god. Rejecting the claim is all that is neessary.I know that's how many atheists have been presenting the argument, but I think they are beginning to realize the problem with saying you have no belief. If the concept of God is introduced, and you decide you do not believe in God based on the evidence, then that is a faith position since there is no proof. You can't say it's a lack of belief, because you have considered the possibility and chosen a position. It's not a faith position. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, in this case, on the claim that a god exists. The burden never falls on the person who merely rejects a claim on the grounds that no evidence has been offered. However, when an atheist takes it a step further than simply declaring that he doesn't accept the claim by making his own claim that no god exists, the burden of proof falls on him to prove it. And, of course, he cannot. Therefore he should steer clear of making unsupportable claims lest he fall into the same lack-of-evidence trap as the theist. Lois
I know that's how many aunicornists have been presenting the argument, but I think they are beginning to realize the problem with saying you have no belief. If the concept of unicorns is introduced, and you decide you do not believe in unicorns based on the evidence, then that is a faith position since there is no proof. You can't say it's a lack of belief, because you have considered the possibility and chosen a position.Do you believe in unicorns too?
Except the the man who actually wrote that amendment was himself an agnostic at best. James Madison wrote the amendment to ensure that no Christian sect would be paramount in the new country and that religion and the political structure must be forever separated to avoid one influencing or dominating the other. He had no thought for any other religious belief. And the whole concept of "natural rights" was born out of the Enlightenment philosophies of Diests and atheists (e.g.Voltaire) and not from the established xtian doctrines of Protestantism or Catholicism. The concept of life, liberty and property, written into the Declaration of a independence and not the Constitution as some think reportedly came from English philosopher John Locke, a deist and born out of the theory of social contract. BTW, Madison also clearly stated that" ...religion binds and shackles the mind". So you could call them nominal "theists" at best. Also see Article 11 of the Tripolitan Treaty of 1797 signed by John Adams clearly stating that the United Satates was NOT founded as a xtian nation.Unless you've talked to James Madison from the grave, I don't know why you think he was agnostic. He was educated as a Presbyterian minister, but later in life didn't reveal his religious views. He saw the persecution of Baptist ministers by the Anglican church and was resolved to stand for religious freedom in America. Because he didn't voice his views on religion, doesn't mean he didn't have any. The Enlightenment itself came on the heels of the Protestant reformation. John Locke was at the forefront of questioning in such ideas, but at that time Deism was just beginning to separate from theism in its meaning and become a belief that God does not meddle in this world. John Locke never held those views. Deism died out quickly. The Founding Father who renounced Christianity and embraced Deism was Thomas Paine when he went to take part in the French Revolution. Upon his return to America he was unwelcomed and called an atheist. If you're interested in a revolution led by Deists and atheists, and the reign of terror that followed, the French Revolution is for you. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli makes claims about the US government, not the nation as a whole. No one is saying the US government is based on Christianity since, unlike Islam, Christianity has no outline or call for an earthly government or set of laws to define a government. That's not its function. Christianity is about man's relationship to God.
Unless you’ve talked to James Madison from the grave, I don’t know why you think he was agnostic.It's called history. You don't actually need to have been there to have an opinion about someone. Direct personal experience can be just as distorting anyway. The fact that many teachers were priests and ministers, and that colleges at the time required religious studies has led to much confusion on this issue. I would say the lack of evidence of his feelings about religion is pretty good evidence that he was open minded.
L.Smith-The Founding Father who renounced Christianity and embraced Deism was Thomas Paine when he went to take part in the French Revolution. Upon his return to America he was unwelcomed and called an atheist. If you're interested in a revolution led by Deists and atheists, and the reign of terror that followed, the French Revolution is for you.Oh, c'mon. Revolutions are revolutions. They are often bloody and heinous. Are you ascribing the bloodiness of that particular revolution because it was led by atheists and deists? Plus I'm sure the impetus for that revolution was more than just a reaction of atheists and deists.
L.Smith-Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli makes claims about the US government, not the nation as a whole. No one is saying the US government is based on Christianity since, unlike Islam, Christianity has no outline or call for an earthly government or set of laws to define a government. That's not its function. Christianity is about man's relationship to God.Enter millenialism as interpreted by Americans shortly after that time...1810's onward.(onward to today in many instances)and it is obvious that churches, politicians, business, and people in general felt that the US was an earthly Government(land) ordained by god.
I'm sure that you are not assuming that being "open minded" means that one is agnostic.Unless you’ve talked to James Madison from the grave, I don’t know why you think he was agnostic.It's called history. You don't actually need to have been there to have an opinion about someone. Direct personal experience can be just as distorting anyway. The fact that many teachers were priests and ministers, and that colleges at the time required religious studies has led to much confusion on this issue. I would say the lack of evidence of his feelings about religion is pretty good evidence that he was open minded.
Advocatus
Post # 264
Good! Atheism SHOULDN’T be an “movement" for that very reason. Secular Humanism, now that’s a different story. That’s a movement because it has a positive message to project.
Yes, I agree, I think that atheist worked find as a communication word until the end of the battle between Evolution and Creationism. As the meaning of the word Christian expanded to include Evolutionists, atheist does not work so well today. I do like Humanism better.
How about,
Atheist believe the demiurge of God to be false.
Advocatus
Post #264
Right! But the Pope still believes that God “Created" the universe. He just used evolution as a tool. Just because they don’t believe in a literal six-day creation doesn’t mean they aren’t at heart Creationists.
Isn’t this thinking outside of the bible’s teachings?
Enter millenialism as interpreted by Americans shortly after that time...1810's onward.(onward to today in many instances)and it is obvious that churches, politicians, business, and people in general felt that the US was an earthly Government(land) ordained by god.Millennialism says that when Christ returns, he will set up a government and rule over the earth for a thousand years before the final judgment. The millennium is in the future according to Christian teaching. You may have it confused with Dominionism which is the belief of a small number of Christians that the church is to rule over the US now before the coming of Christ. They have to piece together some laws from the Hebrew Scriptures to have something to go by since no law exists in the Christian Scriptures. I believe at last count there were about 5 people in this country that hold this belief--not very well received.
Enter millenialism as interpreted by Americans shortly after that time...1810's onward.(onward to today in many instances)and it is obvious that churches, politicians, business, and people in general felt that the US was an earthly Government(land) ordained by god.Millennialism says that when Christ returns, he will set up a government and rule over the earth for a thousand years before the final judgment. The millennium is in the future according to Christian teaching. You may have it confused with Dominionism which is the belief of a small number of Christians that the church is to rule over the US now before the coming of Christ. They have to piece together some laws from the Hebrew Scriptures to have something to go by since no law exists in the Christian Scriptures. I believe at last count there were about 5 people in this country that hold this belief--not very well received. There was 2 types of millenialism. One stated to set up a heaven on Earth to prepare for the coming of christ.(the example I stated..the one that was predominant in the early to mid 19th century) The other form is that nothing matters here on Earth and the end is coming soon. I'm typing on the run here so my examples are brief and simple. In the Early to mid 18th century that was exactly the overarching design and platform of Americans..rich and poor. They felt that America was a place to set up god's kingdom and that they as Americans were predestined or ordained to set up America as this "land" or "altar". They got this from their isolation from the rest of the world, "Roman Popery", and the size and sheer area of the US. Also from their newly evolving religious views, which were transforming into evangelicalism. There can be no doubt that the US considered itself ordained by god as a special place in the World and that the Millenial was going to "kick off" from the US as a product of the US's sheer goodness and piety. This is evident in countless writings, paintings, hymns, songs, and laws that were written. This is your statement:Christianity has no outline or call for an earthly government or set of laws to define a government. That's what I am rebutting. The history I have recalled here, shows different from your statement. And let's keep in mind that the US really started growing big at the same time. It began to get a national identity around 1812 or so. The beginnings of one. The christian millenialism/evangelical thing moved it forward and reinforced that identity to a degree.
Unless you’ve talked to James Madison from the grave, I don’t know why you think he was agnostic. He was educated as a Presbyterian minister, but later in life didn’t reveal his religious views. He saw the persecution of Baptist ministers by the Anglican church and was resolved to stand for religious freedom in America. Because he didn’t voice his views on religion, doesn’t mean he didn’t have any. The Enlightenment itself came on the heels of the Protestant reformation. John Locke was at the forefront of questioning in such ideas, but at that time Deism was just beginning to separate from theism in its meaning and become a belief that God does not meddle in this world. John Locke never held those views. Deism died out quickly. The Founding Father who renounced Christianity and embraced Deism was Thomas Paine when he went to take part in the French Revolution. Upon his return to America he was unwelcomed and called an atheist. If you’re interested in a revolution led by Deists and atheists, and the reign of terror that followed, the French Revolution is for you. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli makes claims about the US government, not the nation as a whole. No one is saying the US government is based on Christianity since, unlike Islam, Christianity has no outline or call for an earthly government or set of laws to define a government. That’s not its function. Christianity is about man’s relationship to God.No, I haven't talked to him but he talks to me, through his letters, speeches, polemics and autobiographical vignettes. I'm surprised though that he hasn't talked to you. As to his education, his Princeton Degree included the law, math and literature. He was heavily influenced by the Enlightenment thinking of the Dissenter John Witherspoon. He did stay in for religious training, learning Hebrew but at no time did he contemplate becoming a preacher. In fact he enjoyed the study of law and read Montesquieu, Rousseau Hobbes, etc. and no, deism didnot DIE out quickly. Where did you get that idea? Most of Madison's contemporaries were Deists (e.g. Jefferson) and BTW there are still Diests today. And concerning Locke, he inadvertently gave deism a boost in his Book "On the Reasonableness of Christianity" and was labeled an antrinitarian by his critics. Ah, yes Thomas Paine, a hero of mine for publically espousing atheism in his book "The Age of Reason", parsing the bible as did Thomas Jefferson. BTW all of those espousing the Deist philosophy would have denounced xtianity as the philosophy existed then by denouncing the concept of the trinity and such miracles as the virgin birth so singling out Paine as the ONLY founding father to renounce the faith is patently false. So it's your contention that Deists and Atheists began the French Revolution and not the Third Estate of Enlightened Catholic professionals coupled with starving Catholic peasants who actually brought down the absolute monarchy bolstered by the Church? Or do you mean the excesses of factionalism by Girondists and Jacobins vying for control of the new government? Paine and Jefferson's involvement amounted to assist in the writing of the "Declaration of the Rights of Man". Then Jefferson was recalled to the US and Paine fled back to England for being to moderate. And I might add that for his efforts to promote the Revolution here he received nothing! No monument, no medal struck in his honor, zip. I often wonder why? Yes, Article 11 of the Treaty specifically states that the Government of the United States was not founded on the xtian religion but is it your contention that the Government of the United States doesn't in any way reflect the views and wishes of the nation as a whole? Are you separating us from our own representatives contending that the U.S. at the time of the signing was a xtian nation with a non xtian government? No. The tripolitans knew exactly that it meant the PEOPLE of the United States, Remember, a democratically elected government that represents the wishes of the people. And in the 18th Century xtianity meant much more than a personal relationship with a supernatural deity; it also represented a cultural attribute for a conquering people. The cross went before the sword to every Native Ameican village in the eastern US. Cap't Jack