"We are all atheists ... (page 5)

leavingwt

One need not believe in ALL magic, just some.

John W. Loftus:

"The overwhelming numbers of Jews in the days of Jesus did not believe he resurrected even though they believed in a miracle working God named Yahweh and the Old Testament"

PSacramento

"The overwhelming numbers of Jews in the days of Jesus did not believe he resurrected even though they believed in a miracle working God named Yahweh and the Old Testament"

It is noted that Jesus was accused of sorcery so they did believe he had "powers" and some Jews did believe he was ressurected.

The fact that the majority didn't believe that makes sense and I bet that those alive AFTER the fall of Jerusalem believed even LESS in a "miracle worker" God then those, say, 300 years before them and those believed in miracles even LESS than those that were alive before the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC, and so forth...

Nickolas

Hi there, Nickolas. I realize that these labels are not derogatory but they are not always helpful either. As humans, with the power of speech, we tend to try to reduce everything to words. This is essential on a forum like this. However some things cannot be appreciated or explained through words.

No disagreement here, trevor. Language has many limitations, particularly when it is solely in text form, as it is in forums like this. To get a more complete understanding of what is being conveyed in a conversation, one needs to be in the same room as the person talking. Otherwise you miss the subtle vocal inflections, facial expressions and body language that augments the message. The #1 cause of misunderstandings in text conversations is this.

so then, nikolas, if babies are atheists at birth, where on the scale of 1-10 would you locate them. Is dawkins saying that lack of specific knowledge is lack of belief. There is something wrong here but I can't quite put my finger on it.

SBC answered this question very well (I was out to visit the dentist). And, per his post previous to that one, I will hope and trust that Tammy will not take my deist comment as offensive, if only because she is less inclined to take offense than most. If it is off base it is off base and I am quite ok with being corrected on it. Thanks for paving the way, SBC.

SweetBabyCheezits

My pleasure, Nick. And you're right, Tammy doesn't seem the type to get offended by anything like that.

tec

I'm sure she'll be able to clarify better when she logs back on later but Tammy feels she has a personal relationship with Christ. I'd say she practices a unique, individual form of Christianity and to imply she is in any way "approaching deism" might be offensive. At it's most basic level, deism rejects belief in a personal, intervening god. Tammy most certainly does not. While she rejects the mainstream evangelical machine, she absolutely adheres to the words attributed to Jesus.

I don't know if I could have said it better myself :) Thanks, SBC. I was speaking in general terms with Nick earlier, and leaving my personal belief out of things for the sake of the discussion, so I understand how he came to his conclusion. And of course, no offense taken; there was nothing to be offended about.

Thank you both for 'seeing' me.

Tammy

Nickolas

PSacramento, a question. Since Sam Harris' treatise has been roundly criticized by both atheists and theists (the former didn't appreciate his final chapter in particular) what is it about the book that you found objectionable? Aside from the odd bit of sarcasm, which adds little if anything to understanding of a point, I thought it was rather well done. Then again, I thought about you because I thought you might object on principle to some of his more critical points about faith so perhaps I have already answered my own question.

PSacramento

PSacramento, a question. Since Sam Harris' treatise has been roundly criticized by both atheists and theists (the former didn't appreciate his final chapter in particular) what is it about the book that you found objectionable? Aside from the odd bit of sarcasm, which adds little if anything to understanding of a point, I thought it was rather well done. Then again, I thought about you because I thought you might object on principle to some of his more critical points about faith so perhaps I have already answered my own question.

It's been awhile since I read his book so bare with me but I recall that I didn't care for how he was overly bias VS other religions but seemed "OK" with Buddhisim ( forgive me if I am mistaken here but I think he is ok with buddhisim but if I am mistaken, I apologise), he seemed to make quite few factual and statistical errors, but I just felt that his WHOLE premis was far more personal than it was anything else, which is fine of course, but the thing is that he makes it out to seem this "logical conclusion" where the "facts" that he presents are just not right, misinterpreted or just plain "made up" at times it seems.

I am very critical of religion and organized religion in particular, I am very critical of what religious leads have allowed to happen and been part of and history speaks for itself and there is no need to embelmish or exagerrate or just make up stuff.

Religious idelogies are man-made interpretations of God's will and as such, they are flawed and imperfect, just as Man is and that should be rightly pointed out.

I don't have any issues with people pointing out the potential for religion to be a bad thing, but to say that it is the "root of all evil" or the casue behind all that is wrong in this world is just too silly to even bother giving a serious reply to.

Point out the crap, yes, of course, but lets be realistic and critical here and realize that never has anything in history been that black and white.

If you want specfics and I cango back and read His books, I have:

End of faith and Letters to a Christian Nation, but I don't have "the moral landscape".

Nickolas

Yes, it was his chapter on Bhuddism that alienated the hardcore atheists. But he doesn't think Bhuddism is a relgion. He thinks it's a philosophy. I didn't get much out of that final chapter, either, but it didn't take away from the central treatise for me.

I didn't get the impression that Harris is saying that religion is the root of all evil. Hitchens, who you admire, is more strident in that regard. I think Harris is saying systemic religeous intolerance a major component of the root of all evil and that by its very nature it is irreconcilable with peace in the world.

I'll see about getting those other books you mention. Thanks.

moshe

Many Jews wear a pin that says, M.O.T., member of the tribe, and for them that is the real meaning of being Jewish.

PSacramento

Hitchens is unapologetic in his hatred of religion but he makes it clear that it is his personal opinion ( one not shared by his brother for example) and he doesn't try to come off as this "authority" on religion, he just can't stand it and that I can respect.

Plus I love his style, LOL !

I think Harris is saying systemic religeous intolerance a major component of the root of all evil and that by its very nature it is irreconcilable with peace in the world.

I would agree that religious intolerance is used as an excuse for far too much crap, but I think that it is "dishonest" to view it as the sole or even main cause of it.

Radical Islam's "hatred" of the west may be manifested in religious terms, but it has nothing to do with the religion of the west and I think that Harris doesn't do a good enough job of make that clear and I think he doesn't do that because that is his aggenda, to make religion the reason for hate and that is not the case.

I was in Bosnia, I saw the Muslims there and what was doen to them, it was a tribal hatred, a historical hatred and while it could have been very easily be viewed or mad eup to be about the different religions, anyone that was there saw that it wasn't the case, anyone that knows the history knows it wasn't the case.

"We are all atheists ...

Share this