sandlewood

I haven’t read this whole thread, but I was just browsing through and happened to come across this statement: I guess it just boggles my mind that you’ve apparently had discussions with atheists for years and yet don’t seem to have a handle on atheism at all. If you start out with the whole population of the Earth, then you take away the people who claim to be yahwists, take away the people who claim to be allahists, take away the people who claim to be zuesites, etc., the atheists are simply all the people left over.

Non-praying Mantis

Well, Abe Smith,[deleted]You would ignore Rainbow Walking's beautiful poem (on page 5, I think) because it is more than one page long? [deleted]


PS: and BTW, it is philosophers not philosophes(sic)

NPM

[Edited to remove several nonconstructive personal insults that I felt were over the line. -PB]

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

lpetrich

Which proves nothing. If you don't know who lives in a certain house, does that mean that that house's inhabitants are really visitors from another planet?

Commendable humility.

By definition? That reminds me of the story about Abraham Lincoln and how many legs a dog could have if one counted its tail as a leg. His answer was that counting its tail as a leg does not make it one.

So that temper tantrum was allegorical?

Aristotle's God was essentially a sort of cosmic mainspring, and in one place, he states that there may be 47 or 55 of such entities. But Aristotle was only Aristotle, and not the author of the Theogony, which describes this sequence: primordial chaos -&gt; Oranos -&gt; Kronos -&gt; Zeus

However, the Vedas and many other Hindu writings describe lots and lots of deities.

Which is what I had commented on.

They are no more "imaginary" than any other kind of number; they were named that because some early-modern mathematicians had not completely appreciated that.

wordsmyth

No, you have misunderstood my question. What I’m trying to find out is, if Jesus’s message remained the same, but all mention of his divinity and supernatural powers were removed from the bible, would you still be a xian?

The point is that I personally did not make ANY such comments about you or any other xian, but you have taken it upon yourself to attribute the words of other atheists to me. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I do not believe that you would appreciate me attributing the words and actions of other xians to you. You may classify me as an atheist if you wish (I’m agnostic actually, but I’m sure the distinction matters little to you), however, you must understand that each atheist is an individual just as each xian is an individual. Stereotyping is the product of ignorance.

I’m sorry, but you are quite wrong. It is true that all three make a claim to the God of Abraham; it is far from true that any one of those three distinct religions believes their God is the same as either or both of the other two. Muslims absolutely do NOT consider Allah the same as the Xian or Jewish deity. For you to claim as much tells me that you have very little understanding of Islam or Judaism. The Xian concept of the Trinity is irreconcilable with either Judaism or Islam and is the primary reason that Jews and Muslims do not consider the Xian deity the “one true God” (tm)

I suppose its possible that among the followers of Islam and Judaism there are a few members like yourself who believe as you claim, however the majority absolutely do not and I challenge you to produce any evidence that Muslims, Jews, or Xians generally believe their deity is the same as the deity of either or both the other two.

Apparently they are the only qualities relevant to you. It does not change the fact that you were mistaken in your initial assertion that the attributes of the Xian deity are the same as the attributes of every religions deity(s) which is what you asserted, but have yet to support.

Additionally and hypothetically of course… If the Xian deity did exist, I think he might resent your belief that his transcendental qualities are his only relevant attributes.


You agree that it is good for supernatural explanations to die out as natural explanations are discovered? Will you be so agreeable when we discover a natural explanation to replace the belief in a supernatural cause for the universe?

Most fundamentalists (and I hope you are not one of these) are under the misguided impression that because science has not discovered answers to certain questions it never will. When you consider how many scientific discoveries have been made in the last century alone and compare that with the amount of time mankind existed before those discoveries were made, it really seems quite absurd to believe that the human race is at a standstill in its discoveries.

Regardless of what you think, you accused me of stating something specific for which you have not a shred of evidence. That is both offensive and slanderous. You would not appreciate me attributing statements to you that you have not made and so I ask that you refrain from doing the same to me.

What standard of evidence did you use to arrive at the conclusion that the Xian texts were fact and not fiction?

You have stated that you believe some of the Xian stories are simply allegories and not literal truth, so what standard of evidence did you use to deduce which stories were allegories and which stories were literal truth?

Waitaminute. You stated that the bible was written only for those who already believe, but now you are stating just the opposite in that people who don’t necessarily believe or perhaps hold a differing belief can learn a lot from the bible provided the read and understand it. However, by your definition and in this context, “understand” would imply that they must already believe. Otherwise if they read the Bible, but do not believe it’s a simple matter for you to claim that they merely did not understand it.

Is it your assertion that only those who already believe the bible can understand it?

It seems as though you only read halfway through my posts before beginning your response, otherwise you would see that you are arguing against exactly the opposite of what I stated. Your first sentence in this reply begins with… “If that is the reason why you don’t believe in God”… however if you return to the very last sentence of my post, you will discover that I implicitly stated that it was NOT the only reason why I did not believe in God.

Additionally, you need to let go of your personal bias against atheists and forget everything that you think they/we all believe. Every post you make in which you throw out accusations and assertions concerning all atheists in general rather than responding directly to the words of the individual reveals you to be a bigot with a deep seated hatred of all unbelievers.

If you attribute a statement to me that another atheist has said in the ignorant belief that all atheists think the same, then yes, it IS a wild accusation. Atheists agree on one specific thing in particular, and that is the non-existence of God(s). Any belief or statement other than this is a declaration of the individual and not a claim of atheism or atheists in general.

David Mathews

Hello HelenSL,

David: I suppose that my definitions of these terms are identical to yours, assuming that you are an evangelical Christian. Are you not an evangelical Christian?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Ryanfire,

David: Why do you suppose that humans are spiritually lonely and longing for God?

David: That is a possibility.

David: Imaginary numbers are abstract concepts but that doesn't make them false or useless. Mathematics has a use for these imaginary numbers and that is why they are still taught and used today.

David: The concept of religion has inspired numerous poets, sculptors, poets, statesman, saints, doctors and peacemakers. The concept of God has motivated humans to commit extreme acts of sacrifice on behalf of other humans, compelling them to leave house and homeland to assist strangers in hostile, dangerous and impoverished lands.

Religion has done all of this and it continues to do so even today. God blessed humans when He gave us religion and instilled in humans the desire to know Him.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: I don't imagine so. People who go to hell choose to go to hell. People who are in heaven will be too busy to mourn for the lost.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello BH,

David: I cannot know anything with certainty regarding the life, death and resurrection of Christ. I know that Christ lived, died and was resurrected by faith.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

B. H. Manners

All right, I will ask the question again. How do you know that the resurrection story was not allegory as well? I read Genesis 1 just 5 minutes ago and see no reason the writer intended it to be taken allegorically.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello lpetrich,

David: No, it does not mean any such thing.

David: Yes, by definition.

David; Jesus' cursing of the fig tree was not about the fig tree. The fig tree functioned as a symbol and its death had a symbolic significance.

David: I don't know what sources you are referencing in the comments above.

David: Without doubt, but the question was regarding the existence of a supreme deity in Hinduism. The Bhagavad Gita indicates as much in those quoted passages.

David: The Imaginary Numbers are purely abstract conceptions which are useful to mathematics. God is also a purely abstract concept which is similarly useful to theists. Abstract concepts are not inherently false merely because of their imperceptibility.

Sincerely,

David Mathews