Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

Hi Jo,

I have read about taoism before and it seems practically atheist. I might describe taoism as spiritual (to use the term in a Sam Harris sense) but not religious.

I find that existentialism is missing in many sects of the monotheistic religions, particularly (even doctrinally) in Calvinist/Baptist christianity. The belief that we are merely pawns and that our actions in this world matter only in that they might be judged after death is, i think, quite damaging. I think we should do good for goodness' sake and not for the sake of an all powerful supreme overlord/father.

I have not heard of the names you refer to in the existentialist italic section. Although this will change soon (thank you wikipedia!).

Maxwell

Taoism is atheist ... or not ... depending on the taoist. Taoism does not admit the existance of a god. Neither does it deny it.

The Tao is everything, and everything that is not and everything that does not fall into either of those categories, plus everything else. Therefore every god, and every denial of god is part of the Tao. Interestingly, everyone is therefore a Taoist, whether they admit / know it, or not ... (or any other form of perception not already covered )

If you like reading, you may also enjoy Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. It's off the wall and ridiculously biased, but introduces some interesting ideas.

Hugs and respect

Jo

Taoism can definitely be a religion. In some interpretation, it can even be a monotheist. You can consider the Tao as the god and Lao'zhi as the messenger. I personally accept Taoism as a philosophy of life not as religion.

However, the main problem for me to understand J/C/I family of religion is the claim that one has ability to obtain "favor" from said all powerful God. Just as discussed in Jozism. For the topic of Jozism, what if Jozi exists but he chooses not to interfere with your boring day to day operation?

For many people I have met who departed J/C/I faith, the existence of god is not the problem. The problem is the various organization who claim to have the only "right answer".

I dream of becoming a butterfly or my life is the dream of a butterfly?

Live long and Prosper

Just Spock

Spock: I hear similar comments; essentially against organised religion or claims of absolute knowledge. The term 'spiritual' is often used in such comments.

It seems to me that if one does believe in the existance in a theist god than the most sensible thing is to try to determine what he wants and do it rather than risk damnation etc. This generally involves abiding by the strictures of some form of organised religion. I would argue that the bible is a compilation of such strictures. Therefore, it seems to me incongruous to claim to be against organised religion and believe bible is, at some level, a guide to god's will.

The apparent non-interference of god in the case of evil is a powerful arguement against the existance of a theist god. All counter arguements that come to my mind basically come in three forms: god chose not to act (pray more/better etc), god was powerless to act or the event was part of the greater

The Bible is sadly the least understood book in human history.


Perhaps a slight demonstration...

King James Version:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

1.In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2.And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.<!-/Quote-!>

Which is where we get the people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Understandable according to this particular translation...

Now the literal translation from Hebrew.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2.the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,<!-/Quote-!>

Assuming one accepts the nature of this creator as a genuine deity, rather than a primitive form of social control.

God is a personal entity. Debating his existance seems something of a moot point, as its all about perspective.

What I will say is that I find the insistant forcefulness with which organised religion attempts to imprint itself unto our lives both repugnant and distressing - especially those faiths of Abrahamic descent.

I care not for anybodys' gods but my own.

My thought proviking reply was lost! Curse you, authentication error! If you dislike anything I write, then clearly its because the bettwer version was lost. Anyway a brief synopsis:

Pope: You seem to claim that it is translation rather than interpretation that causes doctrinal differences.

I would argue that you are interpreting 'void'. Indeed, the claim, that a void exisited before the earth (ie a space, into which the universe expanded: Big bang) is inaccurate. The big bang theory involves an expansion of space itself. Really, it all depends on how you interperet 'void'.

I would also argue that if your aim is to transfer knowledge, especially really important, eternity affecting knowledge, then relying on text which must be interpreted is a method which will result in failure a vast majority of the time. It seems to me immoral to damn the majority for eternity because they did not interperet the words i

If there is no God, if he is just a personal entity, does that mean this life of 70-80 yrs really all that there is? Although I do enjoy life, is this all that there is? If there is no God, then who is it that determines what if any are the 'moral' constraints that is acceptable?

If there is a God, that did indeed create everything we now see and experience, then would he not also have the power to intervene and make the world a better place? If so, why hasn't he? And would it be reasonable to conclude that a person could choose to have their own 'morality' and he still approve of it?

Those are simple questions with complicated and often 'insightful' answers either way you choose to answer!

As a wise old gypsy once told me:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

An undocumented hell blackmails atheism. Atheism utters an unfortunate blade. Our remaining frown misrepresents the rubber heterosexual. Atheism maximizes the sole kitchen on top of any ridden lawn. Atheism worries god after the sketch. A falling shot values atheism.

<!-/Quote-!>

"The apparent non-interference of god in the case of evil is a powerful arguement against the existance of a theist god."

Your ensuing argument is that God is not simultaneously all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, therefore God does not exist. That's not a powerful argument.

Further, your definition of all-loving seems to be circular.

Finally, it's not difficult to think of other possibilities besides the three you presented.

Serpent: I do not know the answer to your first question for certain. I personally think that living forever would be terrible. I would get bored after a million or so years and then there is still infinity more years to come. Eternal bliss sounds vegetative to me.

As for the origin of morality, I argue that morality is subjective and not objective. I live my life to the fullest and help others to do so too. I determined that moral by a combination of upbringing and personal experience. If I was brought up differently or had different experience, it is quite probable I would use different morals. When I look at the bible or the quran I see some stuff I regard as moral, some stuff which could be improved and a lot of stuff which is downright immoral. By immoral, I mean against my, subjective, morality (such as killing for lack of faith, treatment of women & children).

In your next paragraph you seem to say that an all powerful

I apologize for my ignorance, but what is 'Omnimax"?

Why get so hung up over one particular characterization of God, to the point that if you think you've shown God is not that way, then you think there is no god, period? Like getting obsessed with circular orbits when there are thousands of ways to construct ellipses. What in the world do you mean when you refer to God being omnipowerful, or omnibenevolent, anyway? Just for example, let's say you found out for a fact there was a being that had created the material universe, and in a very particular way so as to make beings like us possible, then just left it alone, would you say "Nope, not omnibenevolent, can't be God"? Would you refuse to say "God" if it turned out the creator of the universe could only intervene in it in limited ways, without completely messing it up? Use the old coconut, don't restrict yourself to one or two traditional pictures.

"An all powerful god which chooses not to act when harm occ

Omnimax is a shortning of omnipotent, omnipowerful and omniscient. It also takes care off the logical impossibility of being able to make something so heavy you cant push it. It is a quality of the theistic god.

Jojo: I am not claiming that because I can argue against one god character, that I can argue against them all. I would say that the uncreated creator god is a deist god and not the theist god. I must make it clear that I argue against the theist god, rather than the creator god. Although, I have yet to be presented with convincing evidence of a creator god.

You make a fair point about a parent allowing hrm to a child in order for the child to learn from the pain and then drawing an analogy to god and humanity. I would argue that god is quite a neglegent parent by that analogy. Not only does the god allow us to fall down, it never picks us up or, in fact, ever makes any (demonstrable) attempt to avert falling down despite t

Ok thanks for the definition, Omnimax = Omni-everything!

From a biblical standpoint all of those questions that have been presented are answered, of course, if you do not view the bible as an authority, it is little use. But for those that are interested in those answers, here are some of them (according to the bible that is).

But first as for living for eternity, would that really be boring? I mean how many times have you seen a sunset, a mountain, or a vibrant colored flower? No doubt many times. Each time you see it does you appreciation and enjoyment diminish a bit, cause you have already experienced it before? What about food? I typically enjoy the same kinds of food. And I enjoy them as much now as I did several years ago. Even with learning games and such, even tho I understand the concept of them, I still enjoy trying to master them. On top of this, there are people that spend a lifetime in study of ONE thing, and at the e

Serpent: You didnt seem to get to making a point about living for eternity. Are you implying that it would be like all the things we enjoy, but that never get old? If so, my experience of these things would be vegetative or become profoundly boring after ETERNITY has passed (and I still have another infinite number of eternities to pass). Basically, the offer of heaven (eternal bliss) is my idea of hell.

You are right to assume that I would not regard the bible as entirely factual in nature. But this shouldnt affect either of our decisions as to whether the content is moral. Unless you believe in absolute morality. In which case, if god ordered you to commit murder (as it apprantly has, many times) then you would have to regard that murder as moral.

Now we have come to the question of free will. The crucial point to the story you related is the free will of Eve (and lesser, of Adam). Basically, was the devi

Many religious people have different takes on what the Bible is saying. It is open to interpretation in many respects...perhaps contributing to its popularity and durability. For example, some take every word to be literally true. Others take it all to be allegory. Many, perhaps most, take it that some is literally true, and some allegory, and take upon themselves the difficult task of trying to decide which is which. Not necessarily as a formal, organized endeavor, but piece by piece, as it comes up or as they think of it, over the years, they just naturally take it that some parts make more sense if seen one way, and some the other way.

While science seems to be pointing to the fact of an "Eve," a common homo sapiens mother to us all, I see the Adam and Eve story as an allegory, an insightful story of some event in human development, when we developed or recognized we had developed this thing that we call free will. Was it the res

The point I make about eternity is that all because you may have experienced something before, does that mean it looses it appeal? And there are many many things that we can learn about and do that we can not do in our limited lifespan. I don't understand how somebody can get bored, or tired of living, but oh well, that's just me I suppose!

As for the devil, the bible says that at one time the devil was a good creature, but then rebelled and sought worship for himself. Then he tempted Eve. She choose to follow him, instead of the simple command of God. He had given them everything, so how did he stack any odds? If anything the odds were stacked IN their favor, not against them. The devil did not have to succeed in tempting Eve.

Free will of course does not mean that you are not accountable for your actions, I'm sure you understand that. I have free will to jump off of a cliff, but there will be consequences of that action, so

Jojo: I find this process very interesting. Every individual has a different take on what is literal and what is not. This is the essence of the personal god I talked about earlier. I have less respect for this kind of cafeteria (pick and choose) christianity then I have for entirely literal (ala Fred Phelps) readings. Disclaimer: I am in no way endorsing the Phelps world view.

With regards Eve as a 'common mother': There would not be one person who was the 'first human'. It is more like a small band (<1000) strong, which was the separate population which evolved into humans. This is what mitochondiral DNA studies are telling us. This claim is an example of the marksman's fallacy. If the genesis story is referring to this, then it is incredibly vague. Why doesnt the bible refer to antibiotics or atoms or anything else infinitely more useful?

You then give a list of possibilites. I do not reg

Could somebody offer me a proof of God please?

and proof of the so-called free will too while at it.

We first need to define both.

What type of proof do you mean? How about giving an example...say, prove that Jozi exists, from in-game information only. Or, real-life, prove that William the Conqueror existed. Or prove that grass is green. Show what kind of proof you will find convincing, that will refute the skeptic.