This is evident in countless writings, paintings, hymns, songs, and laws that were written.I realize you're writing from a phone, but come on, not even a name? Gimmee some kinda reference here. Otherwise, expect to be ignored.
There was 2 types of millenialism.I believe you're talking about the Second Great Awakening that took place in America between about 1790 to 1840. It was a religious revival and took place in the mainline Protestant Churches which had a postmillennial view of the world. Mainline Protestant Churches at that time were call "evangelical." This view, held by Catholics, mainline Protestants and Judaism, is that the faithful to God will work on earth to help purify society in both moralilty and faith in order to bring about a time of peace and prosperity on earth so that the Christ/Messiah will come. One of the outcomes of this religious revival was the preaching to slaves and slave owner of the South which led to the movement to abolish slavery and contributed to a rise in Black Churches. It focused on education and reading in order to further the Gospel. But I see nothing in this where those holding the view looked to government, or to set up a theocracy to accomplish this task. On the contrary, it was to prepare the way for the coming Kingdom of Christ which is not of this earth. Christian allegiance is to a heavenly kingdom. I did find this from Wikipedia which indicated some sought to better America through social activism--"Social activism influenced abolition groups and supporters of the Temperance movement. They began efforts to reform prisons and care for the handicapped and mentally ill. They believed in the perfectibility of people and were highly moralistic in their endeavors."
How about, Atheist believe the demiurge of God to be false.Wrong. Atheists know that such claims have no evidence to support them and therefore reject them. No belief is necessary, just a refusal to embrace all claims that have no empirical support. It's not that hard. Lois
Lois,
RE: Post #282
Wrong. Atheists know that such claims have no evidence to support them and therefore reject them. No belief is necessary, just a refusal to embrace all claims that have no empirical support. It’s not that hard.
Lois, I see it differently, the proof is in the churches, institutions, gathering of people, books, songs, buildings, prayer and people commitment. How can we avoid the fact the billions of people believe in something that does not physically exist but exist in the form of a power in the minds of people? Is this power real? I believe so.
Is the 2% just going to say that these billions of people are (loss for a word).
Or are we going to recognize this “Power of God” as part of humankind’s makeup in the majority of people and stop the Intelligent Design from being miss used. The way Intelligent Design is moving, an Atheist is just part of God’s method of dealing with poor misguided souls.
As an Atheist, you should look at the facts, and the facts are here.
Sr. Member, “An atheist is one who LACKS a belief in any god or gods." That’s good. And I have always seen and understand what you are saying. But, In ten thousand years of religion, we have had atheist for what, a couple hundred years. I am just saying, mankind created gods. History shows us that man needed gods before he need pottery. And look at the red ochre burials, that show up everywhere on earth, some going back over 100,000 years. I just think that there is the possibility that as gods have changed so much that people do not believe in today’s gods. I know I don’t. I called myself an atheist for years. Mainly because I don’t believe in belief. I want facts and knowledge. Today I have a harder time calling myself an atheist, mainly because of the studying of the Gnostic word and older religions history. I just get a feeling that I am not 100% correct in calling myself an atheist. So, what has changed? Well mainly my views of what god is and should be. Now, look at the Gnostic Jesus, just a man. A man telling us to learn and seek knowledge. And that we are all part of god. The Gnostic Jesus never said god created everything or there was a heaven or hell. So, if the Gnostic Jesus’ god is built on knowledge and not belief, and you and everyone on earth is part of god. Then god is found by using knowledge. Then your statement “An atheist is one who LACKS a belief in any god or gods." Will work for everyone except the Buddha, Hindus and Gnostics. Now I might be 100% wrong on that last statement. But I would have a hard time calling the above groups atheists because their thinking itself is in a way god like. Sorry for using so many words to get my thoughts out. It’s the first time I've been vocal about these thoughts.There were atheists since man first claimed there was a god. Most kept a low profile because the theists were likely to kill or maim them for being so audacious as to deny their god. Theists have proven since the beginning of theism that they can't be trusted. Where their god is involved, they have no compassion and no morals. Anyone would have to be insane to speak up against their beliefs. It took until the 20th century for the world to be safe enough for atheists to speak up. To do it beore would have been like going to a violent fundamentalist Muslim country today and saying that Allah doesn't exist. Would you do it? Would you go there and start preaching your religion? Gnostics were theists. Buddhists and Hindus are not atheists. They are polytheists. They believe in hundreds of gods. There is a strain of Buddhism that does not but there are few of them. It's up to them to call themselves atheists or not. It certainly isn't up to you. In ancient times you would have been one of the ones who would have killed or maimed any atheist who admitted he was one. Keep that in mind.
Lois, RE: Post #282 Wrong. Atheists know that such claims have no evidence to support them and therefore reject them. No belief is necessary, just a refusal to embrace all claims that have no empirical support. It’s not that hard. Lois, I see it differently, the proof is in the churches, institutions, gathering of people, books, songs, buildings, prayer and people commitment. How can we avoid the fact the billions of people believe in something that does not physically exist but exist in the form of a power in the minds of people? Is this power real? I believe so. Is the 2% just going to say that these billions of people are (loss for a word). Or are we going to recognize this "Power of God" as part of humankind's makeup in the majority of people and stop the Intelligent Design from being miss used. The way Intelligent Design is moving, an Atheist is just part of God's method of dealing with poor misguided souls. As an Atheist, you should look at the facts, and the facts are here.You have not presented one fact. Billions of people believe in some kind of god or many and those gods number in the hundreds. To say that billions of people believe in god is a false claim because they do not believe in one god. Besides that, it doesn't matter how many people believe in anything, it has no bearing on the truth of the claim. None at all. Yours is an argument from popularity, a fallacious argument. You should not only look at the facts, you should learn the difference between a fact and a claim with no evidence. You have shown here that you don't know the difference. When you do, come back and we can talk. Lois
Witness Hypatia, who was literally torn to pieces by a religious mob.
Regarded as the first woman astronomer, Hypatia was also an accomplished mathematician, an inventor, and a philosopher of Plato and Aristotle, She lived during the late 4th, early 5th centuries--a time of great change.http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm
Lois,
I have to agree with you, it would be very bad for an atheist to speak out in any Arab country.
You have not presented one fact.
Billions of people believe in some kind of god or many and those gods number in the hundreds. To say that billions of people believe in god is a false claim because they do not believe in one god. Besides that, it doesn’t matter how many people believe in anything, it has no bearing on the truth of the claim. None at all. Yours is an argument from popularity, a fallacious argument.
You should not only look at the facts, you should learn the difference between a fact and a claim with no evidence. You have shown here that you don’t know the difference. When you do, come back and we can talk.
Lois, facts are “the proof is in the churches, institutions, and gathering of people, books, songs, buildings, prayer and people commitment." These are physical facts that do exist in the Power of God. Christians that believe in Evolution, just like the Atheist, also believe in God. Not as the creator of 6 day earth, (as in the bible) but as the creator of intelligent design (that’s not in the bible) that can only be described as the “Power of God".
Standard thinking would be, so what, if the Christians got it wrong, they need to fix it, not us. That does not hold true when we are the 2%ers. We need to fix this. The Christians are just fine with the word Atheist not being understood the way the Atheist would like, after all, I agree that no Atheist are having any trouble with the meaning.
What I am now seeing is it is the Atheists who is having trouble understands the facts. And the fact is that there is a “Power of God" that is in the mind and is real.
Take a real hard look at how the Christians view god today. Especially the ones that believe if Evolution.
You had to go and bring facts into this. First, 1 of 6 people in the world have no religious affiliation. Second, every church I’ve ever heard of, every scripture, speaks to the problem of people claiming to be part of a religion but not living by it. It’s just part of religion that people accept the label but ignore most of the beliefs and the beliefs change over time, that’s all you’re seeing. You seem to have some insight into the minds of billions of people that nobody else has. I’m pretty sure you don’t. I’m pretty sure you are misinterpreting the data that you have barely skimmed over.
Buildings, and people checking a box on a form that says “Protestant" don’t mean much. Those are, as you say, “physical facts", but they don’t lead to the conclusion “These are physical facts that do exist in the Power of God." That is barely a coherent sentence.
Read a book for Christ’s sake. Or just read some blogs. You’ll find that you are lacking data and that it is not true “that no Atheist are having any trouble with the meaning". Scientists, regardless of their spiritual beliefs, are doing a lot of study on the mind, on how it reacts to culture, to indoctrination, to contradictory information. It’s really quite interesting. Your time would be much better spent studying that than sitting at your computer making erroneous claims.
Lausten,
It’s just part of religion that people accept the label but ignore most of the beliefs and the beliefs change over time, that’s all you’re seeing.
That’s what I am seeing too. From the time when the creation of Intelligent Design came about, I’ve seen the rapidity shifting views of the “Power of God" where it is now the response to every one of questions and view points that were unresolved issues between the Atheist and Christians before.
For example, DNA, astronomy, stems cells, scientific discoveries and so forth used to be part of the Atheists backyard. Now it is taken over as just part of God’s Intelligent Design. Thus the meaning of Atheist says that this God’s Intelligent Design is bogus and not to give it any weight. As the hard headed Atheist is standing their ground the Intelligent Design is steam rolling over them.
Lausten, It’s just part of religion that people accept the label but ignore most of the beliefs and the beliefs change over time, that’s all you’re seeing. That’s what I am seeing too. From the time when the creation of Intelligent Design came about, I’ve seen the rapidity shifting views of the “Power of God" where it is now the response to every one of questions and view points that were unresolved issues between the Atheist and Christians before. For example, DNA, astronomy, stems cells, scientific discoveries and so forth used to be part of the Atheists backyard. Now it is taken over as just part of God’s Intelligent Design. Thus the meaning of Atheist says that this God’s Intelligent Design is bogus and not to give it any weight. As the hard headed Atheist is standing their ground the Intelligent Design is steam rolling over them.No, they aren't. Nobody is steamrolling over atheists. Just because the IDers have now decided that their god actually created evolution, astronomy, DNA, stem cells, and other scientific discoveries, intelligent people don't fall for such specious arguments. You have fallen into their trap. The atheist community has not. I don't know one atheist who thinks atheists have been steamrollered by Christians' transparent stupidity. We all have more sense than that. In fact it's quite funny. We're having a good time. Lois
You have fallen into their trap. The atheist community has not.
Lois,
A couple points.
First the Atheist has no problem with the definition.
Second the Christian has no problem with the definition either.
Third, the Christian comprehension is different than the Atheist’s comprehension of the definition.
Fourth, the Christians don’t care and are not going to change the definition. Why, because it is right where the Church wants it to be.
How long is it going to be before the Christians view the Atheists as just a part of the Intelligent Design?
The Atheist is the one telling the Christian what the meaning is. Don’t you think it would be a good idea if we made them understand exactly what we are saying?
Not recognizing the signs of Theology evolving to a more accurate representation of ultimate Truth?
Foolish, stubborn, self righteous, stuck in rhetoric? Which camp does this apply to now?
You have fallen into their trap. The atheist community has not. Lois, A couple points. First the Atheist has no problem with the definition. Second the Christian has no problem with the definition either. Third, the Christian comprehension is different than the Atheist’s comprehension of the definition. Fourth, the Christians don’t care and are not going to change the definition. Why, because it is right where the Church wants it to be. How long is it going to be before the Christians view the Atheists as just a part of the Intelligent Design? The Atheist is the one telling the Christian what the meaning is. Don’t you think it would be a good idea if we made them understand exactly what we are saying?Atheists have the right and responsibility to define their position, just as theists have. Theists shouldn't claim to know what atheists think or how they define themselves. The same thing goes for atheists. They should not be presuming to know what a theist is or what an theist's position is. That would be the height of a straw man argument. You define your opponent's position and argue against a false definition because it's easier to do than arguing against the truth.
Theists shouldn’t claim to know what atheists think or how they define themselves.Not sure I'm following here Lois. I agree that Mike's definition is way off but it seems here like you are saying it is not even possible for theists and atheists to understand each other. I'm taking your statements to an extreme but the way you wrote it up, there are only straw man positions, any attempt to reflect and clarify is out of bounds. Having spent a lot of effort to develop a worldview, I feel mine is correct and theists are dysfunctional in some way. I'm sure they feel the same. If we can't explain to each other what we think the other is thinking, how do we ever fix this situation?
If we can’t explain to each other what we think the other is thinking, how do we ever fix this situation?
Bingo
Sometimes it isn't possible for atheists and theists to understand each other. It's only a straw man argument when one party redefines the position of his opponent and argues against that redefinition. We can ask the other person to say what he is thinking. We can ask further questions to clarify our understanding. We can agree on a definition before starting the debate. I'm sure atheists have misinterpreted theists' positions on occasion, but I hear bad definitions of atheists over and over again from theists, no matter how many times atheists have tried to explain that atheism to most atheists is simply a lack of belief in any deity on evidentiary grounds and that they don't "believe" there is no god. It seldom has any effect. They will come back with the misdefinition time and time again and will argue against their definition. It's as of they cant understand that a person can reject a claim without believing something about it. They seldom understand the difference. Unfortunately, there are a few atheists who don't understand the difference, either. LoisTheists shouldn’t claim to know what atheists think or how they define themselves.Not sure I'm following here Lois. I agree that Mike's definition is way off but it seems here like you are saying it is not even possible for theists and atheists to understand each other. I'm taking your statements to an extreme but the way you wrote it up, there are only straw man positions, any attempt to reflect and clarify is out of bounds. Having spent a lot of effort to develop a worldview, I feel mine is correct and theists are dysfunctional in some way. I'm sure they feel the same. If we can't explain to each other what we think the other is thinking, how do we ever fix this situation?
... What is faith? It is what ever you want to believe. So where does that leave the meaning of “Atheist"?I think that faith is more of a verb than a noun, i.e., deciding to believe something without relying on the presence or absence of any, natural and objective, supporting or countervailing evidence. Anyway the important part is that faith doesn't rely on objective evidence. What does it rely on, then? Lois
Lois,
What does it rely on, then?
Human needs.
The makeup of mankind.
That that makes us humans.
The desire to live forever.
To have the most powerful entity in the universe to talk to and have a relationship with.
Lois, What does it rely on, then? Human needs. The makeup of mankind. That that makes us humans. The desire to live forever. To have the most powerful entity in the universe to talk to and have a relationship with.In other words, wishful thinking. It is not a human need, since many people don't have that need. It isn't what makes us human unless you are claiming that atheists are not human. Not everyone has a desire to live forever, and certainly not an expectation. Many people have more sense than that. A most powerful entity in the universe is a figment of the imagination and that we humans could actually talk to such an entity and have a relationsip with it if one did exist is even more laughable. You may be right that those reasons are the reasons people would give, but that doesn't mean they are rational or that humans with normal intelligence wouldn't see through it if they weren't indoctrinated into believing impossible things. Lois