HoosierGuy28

I know a lot of you have asked questions and I will attempt to respond to some of them tonight. Unfortunately, I had to spend the afternoon writing a paper and now I have about 3 hours of class to deal with. After that, I hope to go through at least some of these posts and give responses.

Joel

Marduk

"Still waiting for you to address the big fish question, Joel."

ixnay on the ishfay (I read a story in our local paper about some South American guy who was stuck in the belly of a whale shark for seven days, they showed his picture, he was bleached white from the digestive juices of the fish, but he survived) Whale Sharks are fish not whales and are huge but usually harmless, guess this guy got too close.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]</p>

Brian63

galiel

Actually, I disagree in most instances. Words acquire their common meanings precisely because they are commonly used in certain circumstances, not because somebody sat down and decided what words meant what and subsequently instructed others to use them in those ways. Descriptive definitions of words are made exactly that former way, as opposed to prescriptive definitions of words which are created for precise situations.

Well, most atheists that I encounter on this site use the "strong atheist/weak atheist" distinction, but when I come across atheists either elsewhere online or in real life that have never really studied atheism at all and never heard of this website, they tend to use the definitions that I tend to prefer as well. You are right though that this is based mostly on anecdotal experience, and that neither of us (presumably) has conducted formal studies of this word usage.

Cipher Girl



Definitely true, and I define the former as nontheism, and the latter as atheism. Such terminology I feel works well for various reasons.



I would recommend reading the article I linked to on the first page (which I thought was superb) and see if that helps. If you believe there is evidence for non-existence of God, and thus you believe the statement "God exists" is false, then you are an atheist. If you can't decide, you are an agnostic (at least according to those definitions).

Goliath


This is an important point, but we must keep in mind that some words are sooooo accepted by sooo many people for having specific meanings that we can get away with saying that a particular definition is "right" or "wrong," but there are other words which I believe we cannot, because their common usage is so varied among various people.



Let's not get nasty now, ok? I just wanted to interject an alternative system of defining the terms than the one you were presenting.



I think this line is cute, but a bit overused. People have started using it in contexts that really are not appropriate, such as this. If you think I was suggesting that I was speaking on behalf of all atheists, then that is a misconception. Obviously there are a lot of atheists that use the "strong/weak" atheism identifiers, but it sounded like you were saying that that was the *only* way of defining the terms. Indeed, you implied it was the *correct* terminology, which I disagree with.



Well, can you likewise back up the claim that "banana" has a different meaning than "blackboard" according to, as you say, "most everyone?" Have you conducted surveys of any kind to conclude this? I doubt so, but I would still agree with you that they have different meanings. We rely on our own personal, anecdotal experiences to conclude that. Similarly, I have not done any formal scientific surveys on the usage of "atheism" among the general population, but I still rely on my own personal experiences just like you rely on yours. According to my own experiences among the general population, nearly everyone perceives atheism to be "the belief that God does not exist." You are free to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me if you wish, but I really doubt you could sincerely believe that most of the general population does not see it that way.

Brian

Ronin

But you may as well wait until I ask!

~ As always.

<a href="http://www.tragickrecords.com/TragickWebSite/Audio/SL/LastCh_W.mp3" target="_blank">For you ~ one Ronin to another</a>

edited to establish song link ~ used with permission of artist

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Ronin ]</p>

Buffman

Joel

When time permits, I wonder if you could provide your explanations concerning the differences in the total number of books considered "divinely" inspired by these different Christian Sects and specifically what criteria was used, when and by whom, to make that determination? (Thanks for your input.)

<a href="http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/3old.htm#ORIGINS%20OF%20THE%20BIBLE" target="_blank">http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/3old.htm#ORIGINS%20OF%20THE%20BIBLE</a>

(Extract)
Protestant Church
Historically, Protestant churches have recognized the Hebrew canon as their Old Testament, although differently ordered, and with some books divided so that the total number of books is thirty-nine. These books, as arranged in the traditional English Bible, fall into three types of literature: seventeen historical books (Genesis to Esther), five poetical books ( Job to Song of Solomon), and seventeen prophetical books. With the addition of another twenty-seven books (the four Gospels, Acts, twenty-one letters, and the book of Revelation), called the New Testament, the Christian scriptures are complete.[6]

Roman Catholic Church
The Protestant canon took shape by rejecting a number of books and parts of books that had for centuries been part of the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate, and had gained wide acceptance within the Roman Catholic church. In response to the Protestant Reformation, at the Council of Trent (1546) the Catholic church accepted, as deuterocanonical, Tobit, Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, three Greek additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), and I and 2 Maccabees. These books, together with those in the Jewish canon and the New Testament, constitute the total of seventy three books accepted by the Roman Catholic church.[7]

Anglican Church
The Anglican church falls between the Catholic church and many Protestant denominations by accepting only the Jewish canon and the New Testament as authoritative, but also by accepting segments of the apocryphal writings in the lectionary and liturgy. At one time all copies of the Authorized or King James Version of 1611 included the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments.[8]

Greek Orthodox Church
The Bible of the Greek Orthodox church comprises all of the books accepted by the Roman Catholic church, plus I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees. The Slavonic canon adds 2 Esdras, but designates I and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras. Other Eastern churches have 4 Maccabees as well.[9] (See below)

Coptic Church
Athanasius issued his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle not only in the Greek but also in Coptic, in a slightly different form - though the list of the twenty seven books of the New Testament is the same in both languages. How far, however the list remained authoritative for the Copts is problematical. The Coptic (Bohairic) translation of the collection knowns as the Eighty-Five Apostlic Canons concludes with a different sequence of the books of the New Testament and is enlarged by the addition of two others: the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen Epistles of Paul (not mentioned individually); two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; the Apocalypse of John; the two Epistles of Clement.[10]

Ethiopic (Abyssinian) Church
Until 1959, the Ethiopic Church was under the jurisdiction of the head of Coptic Church. Hence it is not surprising that its canon of Scripture should parallel in some respects that of the Coptic Church.
The Ethiopic church has the largest Bible of all, and distinguishes different canons, the "narrower" and the "broader," according to the extent of the New Testament. The Ethiopic Old Testament comprises the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as all of the deuterocanonical books listed above, along with Jubilees, I Enoch, and Joseph ben Gorion's (Josippon's) medieval history of the Jews and other nations. The New Testament in what is referred to as the "broader" canon is made up of thirty-five books, joining to the usual twenty-seven books eight additional texts, namely four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. When the "narrower" New Testament canon is followed, it is made up of only the familiar twenty-seven books, but then the Old Testament books are divided differently so that they make up 54 books instead of 46. In both the narrower and broader canon, the total number of books comes to 81.[11]
(End extract)

In your research, you might find this helpful.

<a href="http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.innvista.com/scriptures/pseudep/default.htm</a>

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

HelenM

Thanks for the song clip; however:

From <a href="http://www.tragickrecords.com/" target="_blank">www.tragickrecords.com</a>

"We ask however that you do not use these clips for any purpose such as distribution, linking, sales, or duplication of any sort without our permission. These sound recordings have all been copywritten by their respective authors and are published by Tragick Records. Enjoy!"

Doesn't this mean you should not have linked to that song without permission? Do you have permission? Am I misunderstanding the above?

Helen

Silent Dave

Joel--

If you had the ability to go back in time and attempt to rescue Jesus from crucifixion, would you do so? (Assume that such an attempt would have at least a 50/50 chance of success.)


Dave

Kosh

You know, when I get too drunk at the local strip joint, at least I have the balls to admit it!

URL please?

Rusting Car Bumper

HoosierGuy28,

Here is my question:

How can god condemn one to hell if one has no reason to believe that god exists? Doesn't god realize that he is culpable for my beliefs since he, being all powerful, can control what experiences I have which would cause my believe or not to believe?

(Please do not respond by saying Jesus is proof or that I choose not to believe. Jesus, assuming he existed, was proof only of Jesus. I don't choose not to believe any more than I choose to believe I have 10 fingers.)

DC

Goliath

Brian,

Agreed,

I wasn't getting nasty. I was asking why I should care.

Very well. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And when did I claim this?

My definition, however, is the most inclusive one, and it seems to be the most consistent with the etymology of the word atheist ("theist" meaning "one who believes that a god exists," and "a" meaning "not.")

I can give a strong evidentiary argument (consisting of things like "bananas are yellow, blackboards are not. Blackboards are flat, bananas are not." etc, etc). I kinda doubt that there have been any polls to determine if a majority of the populace thinks that bananas and blackboards are different, though.

And almost every atheist that I know can tell the difference between someone who does not believe that any god exists, and someone who believes that no gods exist, and almost everyone that I know calls both kinds of people "atheist."

Actually, it seems to me that a majority of the population equates atheist with titles such as "wicked," "rapist," and "murderer."

Sincerely,

Goliath