 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No doubt influenced by the fact that you live in New York. |
Four years out of 27. Sorry, that's not it. I don't think you're particularly familiar with Buddhists, though.
quote:
Ever hear of the concept of negative soteriology? Everything in Buddhism is structured more on personal fulfillment, rather than getting close to God. So it is little surprise for me to hear that atheists like Buddhism. |
And you don't "Get close to God" because it makes you feel more fulfilled? I doubt that. All moral philosophy is ultimately about personal fulfillment, whether it be gussied up as religious "doing good for the soul" or whatever. Nobody converted to a religion because they thought it would end up being less fullfilling.
quote:
Thank you. That's precisely what I was looking for. |
Somehow I doubt that. You were looking to cast a wide net over atheists by making an unsupportable claim that their belief should lead them to behave badly, and you've been proven wrong. These disingenuous arguments you engage in really are surprising--I'd think honesty debate would matter more for you. After all, it was Aquinas who coined the phrase "Pious Fraud."
quote:
So why be an atheist then? Why not just be a utilitarian? |
Why are you relating them? Atheism and Utilitarianism aren't necessarily coterminous. Granted, Utilitarians are probably more likely to be atheists, but I can't see why a Deist or pagan couldn't be a Utilitarian. A Christian certainly couldn't, unless there was a great amount of liberties applied to their interpretation of their religion's dogma.
The answer lies in the common thread of the argument--atheism isn't about a moral philosophy, it's solely a stance on the existence or non-existence of a deity. So asking why a Utilitarian is an atheist is essentially asking why anyone is an atheist. And the answer is simply that they don't believe in a god. I'd think this would have been simple enough to grasp by now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
Molly:
So let's see.
Taking your last post, and the latest one.
quote:
You appear to be unfamiliar with atheism, or what it actually is.
|
Accusation.
quote:
you still seem unable to comprehend that atheism in itself is not a philosophy
|
Again, accusation.
quote:
how I believe in taking personal responsibility for my beliefs and their consequences? I've actually had to make the effort to work out my principles and ethics for myself.
|
Implies I do not.
quote:
Christian religionistas like you are more familiar with banning and anathemas and excommunication
|
Accusation
quote:
As solid, as say, faith in Tarot cards, or astrology, or knocking on wood.
|
Insult.
quote:
I think you claim too much solely for theism
|
Misrepresentation. I say that Theists have Free will to apply moral responsibility. Nowhere do I claim that it is only Theists who believe this.
quote:
Is it a habit you had before you espoused your sect's beliefs, or one you acquired with their religious instruction?
|
Again, accusation.
quote:
The Christian Bible has been used to justify any number of immoral actions- from genocide to slavery and apartheid.
|
Accusation.
quote:
Of course, you'll just whip out your trusty and much used 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and say, 'ah, well they aren't real Christians'
|
Accusation.
quote:
then with so many Christian sectaries leaping up and down shouting that their way is the only way,
|
Implies I do so also.
quote:
Seems the Jesuitical part of Catholicism is appealing to you.
|
Accusation.
quote:
why not Wicca, or Flying Roll Jezreelism, or the International Society for Krishna Consciousness?
|
Bona-fide troll.
Is it any wonder why I snipped your post?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Your belief in the doctrines of Christianity are totally based on your opinion that it's the "truth."
|
No. They are based on Scripture, and on the teachings of the church. None of the positions that I have cited, have I come upon my own, I have instead seen them in scripture, and argued as such.
I could not be so original Boris, as to devise my own teachings.
quote:
your acceptance of them are based on opinion, and if in your opinion the doctrines were wrong, you wouldn't ascribe to them.
|
I do so with the arguments from Catholicism for a number of different reasons. Either there is not scriptural reference, or they come quite late into the history of the church. And again, these arguments have been considered, and examined, why else would I be going tonight to the Mass? Why would I go to an RCIA class?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. They are based on Scripture, and on the teachings of the church. None of the positions that I have cited, have I come upon my own, I have instead seen them in scripture, and argued as such.
I could not be so original Boris, as to devise my own teachings. |
Wait, you said in your respone to molly above, when he said:
quote:
how I believe in taking personal responsibility for my beliefs and their consequences? I've actually had to make the effort to work out my principles and ethics for myself. |
That it:
So he's correct, and you don't! 
Regardless, your belief in Christianity is still an opinion, Ben. You don't seem to grasp this point. Your opinion is that Scripture is correct, so that's why you follow Christian tenets. If you thought Christian tenets were wrong, would you believe in them? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?
quote:
I do so with the arguments from Catholicism for a number of different reasons. Either there is not scriptural reference, or they come quite late into the history of the church. And again, these arguments have been considered, and examined, why else would I be going tonight to the Mass? Why would I go to an RCIA class? |
This isn't refuting my point whatsoever, and isn't even really addressing it. See above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Four years out of 27. Sorry, that's not it. I don't think you're particularly familiar with Buddhists, though.
|
Then where did you meet the Buddhists?
As for my familiarity, I'm familiar enough.
quote:
And you don't "Get close to God" because it makes you feel more fulfilled? I doubt that. All moral philosophy is ultimately about personal fulfillment, whether it be gussied up as religious "doing good for the soul" or whatever. Nobody converted to a religion because they thought it would end up being less fullfilling.
|
I converted because I believe it to be the truth. A warm fuzzy feeling when you first go is not going to sustain you.
quote:
Somehow I doubt that. You were looking to cast a wide net over atheists by making an unsupportable claim that their belief should lead them to behave badly, and you've been proven wrong.
|
No, again you assume what I wanted, based on your perspective.
You do not know my mind, so don't presume. All I wanted is an answer based on loving your enemies, and I have recieved the answer I wanted. I am satisified, but clearly, you are not.
quote:
These disingenuous arguments you engage in really are surprising--I'd think honesty debate would matter more for you. After all, it was Aquinas who coined the phrase "Pious Fraud."
|
 Another accusation. I should really keep a collection for my clipboard.
quote:
Why are you relating them?
|
You brought it up. Curious I am as to why you mentioned them, so I asked.
quote:
And the answer is simply that they don't believe in a god. I'd think this would have been simple enough to grasp by now.
|
Fair enough. I prefer to ask rather than presume the whys.
I have to go, I am late.
Night all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then where did you meet the Buddhists?
As for my familiarity, I'm familiar enough. |
Many different places, including college in Maryland. And I've met Buddhists who hail from all different places here. Let's not get into a debate about who has greater exposure to a wide variety of beliefs--I'll win. 
quote:
I converted because I believe it to be the truth. A warm fuzzy feeling when you first go is not going to sustain you. |
First, glad to see you admit that your belief is based on an opinion. Second, do you honestly not believe that Christianity gives the most personal fulfillment to you of any possible tenet? Do you not achieve personal fulfillment in practicing your religious doctrine? If not, I'd be amazed, and I actually might have to feel sorry for you...
quote:
No, again you assume what I wanted, based on your perspective. |
No, I took your statements at face value when you accused atheism of promoting religious intolerance, which is false. If you didn't mean what you said, then stop making disingenuous arguments.
quote:
You do not know my mind, so don't presume. All I wanted is an answer based on loving your enemies, and I have recieved the answer I wanted. I am satisified, but clearly, you are not. |
Wait, you started this whole thing with a presumption of the minds of atheists, and you get your panties in a twist when someone presumes what you are saying based on your statements? Rich!
quote:
Another accusation. I should really keep a collection for my clipboard. |
Hey, when you've done stuff the warrant the accusations, you expect not to be called on them? If you don't want to be accused os disingenuous arguing, then stop doing it.
quote:
You brought it up. Curious I am as to why you mentioned them, so I asked. |
 I never said they were coterminous, as I stated before. I merely cited Utilitarianism as an example of a philosophy an atheist might follow, to highlight the fact that atheism isn't a moral philosophy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Accusation.
Bona-fide troll.
Is it any wonder why I snipped your post? |
'I would argue that the ideal for Atheists is to reject all forms of Christianity, and to belittle believers.'
Obi Gyn
No, it is no surprise you snipped my post, because it is clear you still do not grasp the concept, that unlike the various strands of humanism, atheism is not in itself, a moral philosophy, nor is it the rejection of the Christian deity or religion alone. And more to the point- you can be an atheist and not abuse Christians- although I confess, you make it mighty tempting. After all, the above quote from you makes it fairly clear you claim to know what atheism is, or purports to be, and what the ideal is that individual atheists aim for.
I'll say it again- there are no club rules for atheism, no dogma, no orthodoxy, no ritual, no pope, or bishop, or pastor. Scary isn't it, the thought of personal responsibility?
My question as to why you don't believe in Krishna Consciousness or Wicca or any sect of Christianity from the one you do adhere to, is quite valid:
if that particular supernatural being, why not another?
Or several?
After all, if you were say, a Hindu, you'd be expounding why Hinduism is the revealed truth- not that different with you acting as pundit for your particular sect of Christianity.
I must say, I don't think much of the way you belittle the nature of Buddhism though- you might want to check that tendency to denigrate other people's faiths.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. Not my opinion.
Manuscript evidence argues in favour of the accuracy of scripture.
You've heard this argument before.
|
Yes, we have. And throughout, your "proofs" amounted nothing more to subjective opinion of what the evidence told you. There is nothing to validate the supernatural claims of scripture that supercedes similar "evidence" for the existence of Zeus and Aphrodite, for the truth of Allah, the rightness of Brahma or the claims of Mormons.
Face it, your acceptance of Christianity and rejection of other beliefs--and your acceptance of a particular brand of Christianity--is based on your opinions that the gospels are accurate and truthful. Your claims to their being truthful have been of the "well, in this part, it mentions this town, and we know this town really existed, ergo God is real" variety. I don't need to expound on the large logical leap one has to make for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What in Buddhism makes any reference to a God, Ben? Nothing. Now, Buddhists can be theists, sure--but most I've met have no belief in a deity. |
most buddists are theists
it is just that here in america, Zen Buddism, the main one that is less diestic, is predominant
all other main buddhisms are predominantly theistic, as is buddism overall
you can look it up in a stat book
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
That is b*llshit. Mainstream Asian Buddhists, be they Theravada or whatever, are theists. It's only the crazy Western hippy Buddhist fringe that says otherwise. |
It's not bullshit, AH. Have you read the tenets of Buddhism? It takes absolutely NO theistic stand whatsoever. That leaves Buddhists to decide for themselves, and some choose to be theists, some nontheists. Have you ever actually bothered to read their beliefs?
http://wri.leaderu.com/wri-table2/buddhism.html
"There is no absolute God in Buddhism, although many have interpreted Buddhism as a search for God. The Buddha did not deny the existence of God outright but said that the question of His existence "tends not to edification." That is, those seeking enlightenment need to concentrate on their own spiritual paths themselves rather than relying on an outside support"
The Buddha did not claim divinity or even a divine source for his teachings. He saw himself as only an example to fellow monks and compared his teachings to a raft that should be left behind once the other side of the river has been reached.
Many Buddhists believe the existence of suffering and evil in the world is evidence against belief in God.
Although belief in an ultimate God is opposed by nearly all Buddhists, the Mahayana school developed notions of the Buddha as still existing for the sake of men and propounded the existence of many semi-divine beings, who came to be represented in art and have been revered in ways very similar to worship of Hindu gods."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Just because the dharma is silent on the nature of God doesn't mean Buddhism is Godless. |
That's precisely what I'm saying! It's silent on God, so almost any theistic approach can be accomodated by Buddhism! So you have atheist Buddhists, "agnostic" Buddhists, monotheistic Buddhists, polytheistic Buddhists...
Because Buddhism itself isn't a theistic philosophy, it's a personal one! Yes, there are strands that are theistic, but the original teachings of Buddha are, as you say, silent on God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Boris-
I disagree. There may be some semantic argument- Jesus was not named Jesus, etc. Show me the serious scholarly argument that takes the position that no such person existed in history. I |
You can start with any number of the books written on the subject:
W.B. Smith, "The Birth of the Gospels," (1957)
Prosper Alfaric, "Origines Social du Christianisme," (1959)
Guy Fau, "Le Fable de Jesus Christ," 3rd edition (1967)
John Allegro, "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," (1970)
G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus," Prometheus, (1982)
G.A. Wells, "Did Jesus Exist?", Revised edition, (1986)
If there's no serious scholarly debate about whether or not Jesus existed, why are many Christian theologians going to great pains to try and prove it? It would be nonsensical of them to address a controversy that wasn't there, wouldn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barinthus
|
 |
A Magical Moment...
Jan 2004
time: 21:34
|
|
*Sigh* People will read what they want to read out of anything... 
quote:
Passion tickets bear 'mark of the beast'
ROME, Georgia (AP) --Tickets at one movie theater screening Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" are being deemed decidedly unholy.
The number 666, which many Christians recognize as the "mark of the beast," is appearing on movie tickets for Gibson's film at a Georgia theater, drawing complaints from some moviegoers.
The machine that prints tickets assigned the number 666 as a prefix on all the tickets for the film, said Gary Smith, owner of the Movies at Berry Square in northwest Georgia. The 666 begins a series of numbers that are listed below the name of the movie, the date, time and price.
"It's from our computer and it's absolutely a coincidence," Smith said. "It has nothing to do with the film company or any vendor. It's completely in our computer."
In the Bible, the book of Revelation says 666 is the "number of the beast," usually interpreted as Satan or the Antichrist.
Several patrons have made comments about the numbers, and one person who was uncomfortable having 666 on her ticket asked for a pass to be substituted for a ticket.
"A lot of people have asked what the numbers mean, some said it seemed odd, some said it was inappropriate," said theater employee Erica Diaz.
The movie, which opened Wednesday, is a bloody depiction of Christ's final hours and crucifixion.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03...n.ap/index.html |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Yep... I seem to recall some Religionists (sic) mumbling something about offering the other cheek... but I guess its a case of do as I say, not as I do, huh?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You can start with any number of the books written on the subject:
W.B. Smith, "The Birth of the Gospels," (1957)
Prosper Alfaric, "Origines Social du Christianisme," (1959)
Guy Fau, "Le Fable de Jesus Christ," 3rd edition (1967)
John Allegro, "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," (1970)
G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus," Prometheus, (1982)
G.A. Wells, "Did Jesus Exist?", Revised edition, (1986)
If there's no serious scholarly debate about whether or not Jesus existed, why are many Christian theologians going to great pains to try and prove it? It would be nonsensical of them to address a controversy that wasn't there, wouldn't it? |
Just because religious people want to defend their belief, does not mean they are grasping ropes of sand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gibsie
I can't be bothered to read the last 100 or so posts, so can someone just tell me if Ben is still saying that Christians are obligated to love atheists, whilst simultaneously attacking and generalising against atheists, saying that most of us belittle Christians? Where's the love maaan? |
The love is an 'idea of love'- presumably one he doesn't feel obligated to put into practice, at least with regards atheists and queers. I can't include lesbians, because he seems to have a blind spot about them, and real life women in general.
He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about atheists rejecting Christians- some of my closest friends are Christians (or purport to be) and I haven't done any rejecting of them.
He doesn't understand- there is no great Atheist Rejection Front, it's not like we go around in gangs tripping up nuns or breaking windows in cathedrals, or giving scathing remarks to bishops about jejune mitre patterns. And, more to the point- atheism isn't a religion or an evangelical operation. You can be a utilitarian atheist, a humanist atheist, a Communist atheist, whatever flavour you want.
Perhaps he's so used to the way religions work, he can't think outside the religionista box....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You can start with any number of the books written on the subject:
W.B. Smith, "The Birth of the Gospels," (1957)
Prosper Alfaric, "Origines Social du Christianisme," (1959)
Guy Fau, "Le Fable de Jesus Christ," 3rd edition (1967)
John Allegro, "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross," (1970)
G.A. Wells, "The Historical Evidence for Jesus," Prometheus, (1982)
G.A. Wells, "Did Jesus Exist?", Revised edition, (1986)
If there's no serious scholarly debate about whether or not Jesus existed, why are many Christian theologians going to great pains to try and prove it? It would be nonsensical of them to address a controversy that wasn't there, wouldn't it? |
That Wells is an amateur in the field of New Testament Biblical Criticism is overwhelmingly demonstrated by:
(1) His lack of academic credentials in the field.
(2) His lack of standing in the professional organizations which govern the standards and norms for practical scholarship in the field [specifically, I am speaking about the American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, and similar European academic credentialing organizations].
(3) His lack of publications in the recognized academic periodical literature of the field [specifically: the Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Interpretation, Novum Testamentum, Semeia, Biblical Theology Bulletin, Harvard Theological Review, American Academy of Religion Journal, Biblical Archeological Review, Biblical Review].
(4) His lack of publications from any of the recognized (frequently University-sponsored) Academic publishing houses.
(5) His lack of standing on the New Testament Biblical Critical faculty of any Institute of Higher Education.
(6) The severe and almost total lack of recognition among credible and well-noted scholars in the field.
(7) The lack of bibliographic citation of his works in the scholarly literature of the field.
If only one, two, or even three of the above applied, one might be able to make a good case for Wells being a "scholar" in the field. However, ALL of the above apply to him to one degree or another. Occasional references to his work ... including Forwards and dust-cover advertising blurbs (both of which are always worked over by the publisher to put the book in a good light) ... by minor, lightweight scholars in the field are noted; but they don't offset the silence which is so deafening among scholars of note in the field.
-source: Gregory Neal
The next most recent book you reference is over 30 years old.
I think you will find that any SERIOUS scholarly work does not question whether Jesus existed. Just whether or not he was divine.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2004 07:49
|