I'm going to have to lend my voice to faithful atheism camp :D. A good atheist cannot be swayed in his... nonbelief. No matter how good an arguement you throw in his direction. Just like a good Christian shouldn't be swayed.
Printable View
I'm going to have to lend my voice to faithful atheism camp :D. A good atheist cannot be swayed in his... nonbelief. No matter how good an arguement you throw in his direction. Just like a good Christian shouldn't be swayed.
Koa, allow me point this, if atheism is certainty, then it opposes belief. Belief can only manifest itself when there is a lack of certainty of some sort. It replaces the absence of confirmed knowledge with a sense of reassuring thoughts. If you're certain, why would you need faith? You have no reason to go beyond that point...Quote:
Originally posted by Koa
But atheism is certainty... like a believer firmly believes in God, an atheist is sure that God doesnt exist... And it takes faith to believe in anything.
MSN encarta dictionary defines faith as:
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
2. religion religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. religion trust in God: belief in and devotion to God
Her faith is unwavering.
4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
people of different political faiths
5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something
I, personally can see that this entire definition can support the idea that atheism requires faith. Faith only requires that a person believe something that other people do not, and that while there is no proof for, or against their claim, they believe it anyhow, and trust that they are right. A Christian is as secure in his "knowledge" that there is a God as the Atheist is in his "knowledge" that there isnt. neither can be proven right or wrong. but each believes what they believe regardless. i think that both require faith, in equal amount. WHAT you believe is not the point of faith; the fact that you DO believe is.
i think....
Yeah, but the point is that atheists disregard belief. They don't object the idea of a god in itself, they object the belief system associated to it. That people would do a number of things just because their belief dictates them to do so.
That my $ 0,02 anyway.
Well, I'm not sure... I think true atheists disregard God... That's why I feel more sensible to call myself 'agnostic', cos something I don't like is the church as an institution, but I'm not so strong in my ideas to claim I'm sure there's no God...
Religious people have faith yes, but their faith is on the positive said...they thing God etc DOES exist... so they have a 'certainty' too...Go and ask my granny if God exists, she'll say for sure...go and ask her if there's heaven, she'd scream cos I only question that...
I'm confused about your definition of "belief," Crisaor. It doesn't just mean a belief IN something, in the positive. It just means "to think something is so, usually without evidence to back it up." Anyway, I think you're mistaken: atheism IS the rejection of a god. That's the definition of atheism. Whether someone objects to other people believing in god is just a personal matter, not something that defines one's atheism.
atheism /n/ 1 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity. b: the doctrine that there is no deity.
atheist /n/: one who denies the existence of God
Koa, the certainty of your grandmother is a different type of certainty that we're accustomed to. I have a bit of misunderstandings with the church as an institution, but I still consider myself christian. I guess it's all a matter of perception after all.
Emily, your definition is right :) . Atheism is in fact the rejection of a god's existance. But I was referring to the cause of this fact. Why do they negate a god's existance? I don't think that it's because they consider it as an improbable truth, or because it has little or no empyrical value whatsoever. There are far too much things in life with this characteristics. I believe that it's the set of consequences associated to a god's existance the thing that bothers them. Of course, this is merely my opinion. Atheism can have lots of reasons. It is, after all, a subjective issue.
Hehe. Maybe it's hard to believe, but yes, most atheists simply don't think it's possible that there is such a thing as a god at all. Big Bang, evolution, supernova, The End. That's what atheists firmly believe is the truth. I think what you're talking about is agnostics. Agnostics don't discount the possibility of god, like atheists, they just don't personally feel it to be true, or more specifically -- they don't care if it's true or not.
No, I'm referring to atheists. I know what an agnostic is.
Personally, the theory of the big bang doesn't strike me as truer than the belief in God. Both science and religion have plenty of holes, so I don't think that supporting blindly any of those choices is wise. If they aren't used in order to improve humanity, they're pretty useless then.
All any of us can do is support blindly, if we choose to follow one or the other. That's called faith. ;) Any belief is useless if one doesn't use it as inspiration to live a good life. Unfortunately I've seen a lot more people -- on both sides -- who get wrapped up in trying to answer the unanswerable and turn a blind eye to their neighbor. Sometimes I think, maybe people are better off just not trying to understand the mysteries of the universe, because they all seem to conclude something different about it, and then make war with each other like children over who is right. (I mean on a global scale. If more people would sit down and discuss, like we're doing, and listen and learn what one another believes, we'd be a lot better off as a planet.) We're all just guessing, after all. History seems to support that it can be dangerous to dedicate all the meaning of one's life to what is ultimately only a guess. If I took a test, and everyone's answers were different from everyone else's, I wouldn't put such unwavering stock in my own being the correct one. Maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with the question, or maybe the human species just isn't created with the capacity to understand it.
I couldn't disagree more.Quote:
Originally posted by emily655321
All any of us can do is support blindly, if we choose to follow one or the other. That's called faith.
Yeah. Make us your liders. :D ;)Quote:
Originally posted by emily655321
Unfortunately I've seen a lot more people -- on both sides -- who choose to just repeat their dogma and turn a blind eye to their neighbor. Sometimes I think, maybe people are better off just not trying to understand the mysteries of the universe, because they all seem to conclude something different about it, and then make war with each other like children over who is right. (I mean on a global scale. If more people would sit down and discuss, like we're doing, and listen and learn what one another believes, we'd be a lot better off as a planet.)
Hehehe. Right, let's start the revolution!
The Forum Members as the new masters of the planet. :D
Gee, I just found out that you don't discover interesting threads until you have a paper to write.
Anyway, my two-cents.
I'm a Catholic, though not a very good one. I think the scene where Jesus got beaten up was unnecessarily gruesome. Too much blood. On the other hand, it made me aware of how much Jesus really suffered prior to the crucifixion.
One thing that I thought was important was how Jesus kept seeing Satan as He was carrying His cross. I didn't realize until I saw the movie that it must be very tempting for Jesus to "follow" Satan. I mean, He was bleeding and suffering, and as the Son of God, it was easy for Him to say the words and punish everyone who tortured Him, you know? But He went through with everything, so that was something.
For those who know about the Bible, I have a question. I heard that nowhere in the Bible it says Mary Magdalene is a prostitute. But in the movie, she is shown as the unnamed woman in John 8 or 9, so is that just a production of Mel Gibson's imagination or it was true?
It's a long-standing myth that Mary was a prostitute. Actually, it used to be a big topic for discussion among theologians, but now most of them conclude that she was not. It's generally believed that it was a deliberate move by early Christian leaders to undermine her significance as an important figure in Jesus' group. Powerful women are slandered this way still in our times, but in a first century Jewish community she would have seemed many times more threatening. A new (and obviously controversial) theory is that she may be the real author of the Gospel of John, but I haven't heard the arguments on either side of this yet. About 50 years ago the Gnostic Gospels (the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary) were discovered in Egypt. They were written and circulated along with the other Gospels, but never made it into the Bible. An early Christian group known as the Gnostics used them as a regular part of their teachings, thereby preserving them.
Here's an excerpt from an article about Mary in Time magazine:
Nothing in the Bible says she was a prostitute. Magdalene is named by Mark (15:40-41) and Matthew (27:55-56) as one of the women from Galilee. Luke (8:2) says seven devils (probably mental illness) were cast from her. The Gospels place her at the crucifixion, watching from a distance. She might have remained a minor character in the story, except that the Bible says she was the first witness to Jesus's resurrection -- therefore a critical figure in the Easter story.
In John (20:16), the weeping Magdalene mistakes Him for the gardener. "Jesus saith unto her, 'Mary.' She turned herself and saith unto Him, 'Rabboni,' which is to say, Master." But after telling the disciples what she has seen, she's never mentioned again in the Scriptures.
There are three prominent Marys in the New Testament: Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and Martha; and Mary of Magdala. John describes Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus's feet and wiping them with her hair. In Luke, an unnamed woman does the same thing, but this one is called a sinner. In the very next chapter, Luke tells the story of Magdalene and her demons.
Magdalene's reputation as a wanton woman was sealed by [AD]591 when Pope Gregory announced that the Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the sinner were, in fact, the same woman. (It wasn't until 1969 that the Catholic Church restored them to three separate individuals.)
This by Victor Greto of The Gazette:
The misreading of Mary Magdalene, critics say, is almost as ancient as the Gospels of the New Testament themselves, if only because there are up to five different Marys in the Gospels and seven in the New Testament as a whole.
The greatest damage done to Magdalene's reputation, however, is only partly the confusion of these Marys, says Sister Evelina Belfiore, director of Catholic education for the Colorado Springs, Colo., diocese. The main problem is the way some decided to identify an unnamed woman with Magdalene in the Gospel of Luke.
In 7:37-38, Luke tells the tale of a woman, "a sinner" who goes into a dinner party and anoints Jesus' feet. The following chapter immediately introduces "Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out. . . ."
"In the early church," Belfiore says, "as people have placed her in art and legend and misinterpretation, they linked her with the sinner from the chapter before."
Here's also a link to a university paper someone wrote on the subject:
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/ic/mcbr...00/marymag.htm
At the bottom is a link to an excerpt of the Gospel of Mary.
[edit] Better: here's the whole thing. http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
The other Lost Gospels are here too, for anyone who's interested. (I know they published them all in a book recently. Does anyone remember the name of it?)
Wow, first time to respond in a forum, EVER. Maybe I live a sheltered life but I was very moved and impressed with the way Gibson depicted scripture so well. There were several scenes that someone who was not versed in the scripture wouldn't have a clue about. I felt it was a movie that I had to see, not for entertainment. My family and I did not buy any concessions out of respect. God does use his followers, we are to be missionaries to all, preaching the gospel, throughtout, it just may be your next door neighbor. (Getting off the subject, didn't mean to preach here.) Anyhow, as a Christian for more years than I want to admit due to revealing my age, I was still moved in the deepest way within my heart and glad I saw it.