A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

[KCurtis]

The Quakers were one of the first religious groups involved in the abolition of slavery and played a large role in the abolitionist movement. There was other prominent religious leaders like John Rankin and many others who took a religious moral stance against slavery and played prominent roles in the abolitionist movement. Religious opposition to slavery on moral grounds played a clear and important role in the abolitionist movement. But, of course, the south justified their slavery on religious grounds too. So it also played an important role in justifying the slavery in the first place.

Thankyou for your sensible historical reminders of this time period- you are absolutely correct.

[BienvenuJDC]

You are wrong. Allah is the Arabic word for God, plain and simple. Religious prejudice is separate from this- look in an Arabic dictionary.

Just because the words mean the same thing doesn't mean that it's the same god. When you look at the teachings from them, they are not comparable at all. I'm sorry, but Jehovah and Allah are not the same. Allah never claimed Jesus Christ as his son. You can claim that as much as you want, but it doesn't make it reality.

[Darcy88]

I can never take people's criticism of the Trinity seriously. The idea that it's just entirely incoherent is laughable. The average child understands it. Does the fact that matter can exist in different forms--solid, gas, liquid--completely bewilder you? Does the fact that you, yourself, have different aspects of your person give you a headache? Jesus was the Logos, which Philo used to mean not "word", but "mind". Does the fact that the mind of God was put into a mortal body seem totally incomprehensible to you? Does the division of being into mind/body/spirit seem entirely outlandish?

As for conquering your disbelief and joining Islam, I would recommend you be absolutely sure about such a decision since the penalty for changing your mind is death.

My objection is not as easily dismissed as you make it out to be. God created Christ. Christ is the son, God the father. Christ speaks to God in the new testament. Only by a fantastic leap can you make "he gave his only begotton son" mean what you would have it mean. I share my humanity with my father as Christ supposedly shared his divinity with his. We are, however, not one and the same person.

[stuntpickle]

My objection is not as easily dismissed as you make it out to be. God created Christ. Christ is the son, God the father. Christ speaks to God in the new testament. Only by a fantastic leap can you make "he gave his only begotton son" mean what you would have it mean. I share my humanity with my father as Christ supposedly shared his divinity with his. We are, however, not one and the same person.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Word-->Logos

[Darcy88]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Word-->Logos

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

"But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things and we in Him; and ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him."

"I came not to do mine own will."
"I can of myself do nothing."
"The Son can do nothing of himself."
"The Father that is in me, he doeth the works."
He calls himself, "he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent."
He says, "I am come in my Father's name."
And after his resurrection he says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him."
"Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour."
"at the right hand of God exalted."
"made both Lord and Christ."
Because of his obedience unto death, "God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name."
In the end he shall "deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all."

I think you have a few things going on here. Some thought Jesus was merely a man chosen by God. Some thought he was the Son of God. Some thought he was God himself. It is clear to me that Christ is subordinate to God. And why people pray to Jesus when he is as you say the physcial manifestation of God, I don't know. Is he physically there somewhere still to this day?

[Charles Darnay]

ah, the monophysite debate. I can't think of it without being reminded of that time Arius died on the toilet. Such was the will of God. (seriously, look it up)

[Darcy88]

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

I think that one clinches it, or at the very least leaves the matter wide open to debate.

[BienvenuJDC]

My objection is not as easily dismissed as you make it out to be. God created Christ. Christ is the son, God the father. Christ speaks to God in the new testament. Only by a fantastic leap can you make "he gave his only begotton son" mean what you would have it mean. I share my humanity with my father as Christ supposedly shared his divinity with his. We are, however, not one and the same person.

He was the only begotten in the consideration of the the only heir. There is much that you don't understand. and I don't think that you're willing to accept with a sincere desire to understand.

[Darcy88]

He was the only begotten in the consideration of the the only heir. There is much that you don't understand. and I don't think that you're willing to accept with a sincere desire to understand.

Actually I do have a sincere desire to understand. I've thought long and hard about this. I've read a fair bit on it. Its just that, given those quotes I put up earlier, I don't see how it makes sense that the father and son combine to form a single God.

[YesNo]

I agree with Darcy88 in the discussion of whether Jesus is separate from his Father. It appears to me that there are, at least metaphorically, two Gods involved here. The number three probably had some significance to early Christians, so the Holy Spirit was added. Since the Holy Spirit is gender-neutral, I think, the early Christians missed their chance to add a female deity.

But the original question of this thread was about atheism and whether it is only reactionary and because of that doomed to failure.

To tie this to Darcy88's questioning of Christians, the problem of a general atheism is that it rejects all spirituality. If atheism is not purely reactionary, what sort of alternative could an atheist offer to this Christian trinity of Gods--or for that matter to a Hindu's millions of Gods? I'll answer that question: It offers nothing. General atheism, the kind promoted in these forums, acknowledges nothing spiritual--not even a significance to the consciousness of the people in the discussion.

I take the Christian trinity as a metaphor of God. I take the Hindu collection of deities as a metaphor of God. I take the Buddhist non-Atman meditative investigations as a metaphor of God. I take Israel's Yahweh and Islam's Allah as monotheistic metaphors for God.

The key point related to the OP is that there is nothing from atheism that I can use as a metaphor of God. And because of that, it is a waste of time.

[Darcy88]

I agree with Darcy88 in the discussion of whether Jesus is separate from his Father. It appears to me that there are, at least metaphorically, two Gods involved here. The number three probably had some significance to early Christians, so the Holy Spirit was added. Since the Holy Spirit is gender-neutral, I think, the early Christians missed their chance to add a female deity.

But the original question of this thread was about atheism and whether it is only reactionary and because of that doomed to failure.

To tie this to Darcy88's questioning of Christians, the problem of a general atheism is that it rejects all spirituality. If atheism is not purely reactionary, what sort of alternative could an atheist offer to this Christian trinity of Gods--or for that matter to a Hindu's millions of Gods? I'll answer that question: It offers nothing. General atheism, the kind promoted in these forums, acknowledges nothing spiritual--not even a significance to the consciousness of the people in the discussion.

I take the Christian trinity as a metaphor of God. I take the Hindu collection of deities as a metaphor of God. I take the Buddhist non-Atman meditative investigations as a metaphor of God. I take Israel's Yahweh and Islam's Allah as monotheistic metaphors for God.

The key point related to the OP is that there is nothing from atheism that I can use as a metaphor of God. And because of that, it is a waste of time.

I can't agree that atheism precludes spirituality. One can be a Taoist or a Buddhist and still be an atheist. Atheists can still attach transcendent value to things like love, beauty and compassion. Reality may be limited to the material but there is no limitation on how reality can be interpreted.

[YesNo]

I can't agree that atheism precludes spirituality. One can be a Taoist or a Buddhist and still be an atheist. Atheists can still attach transcendent value to things like love, beauty and compassion. Reality may be limited to the material but there is no limitation on how reality can be interpreted.

I don't know about much about Taoism, but Buddhism has reincarnation. Do atheists find that acceptable? My suspicion is that atheists who want to practice Buddhist mindfulness will ignore that part of Buddhism.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that when Buddhists promote their non-Atman type of "atheism" they are rejecting the avatar love relationships that Hindus have with Rama or Krishna--or Christians have with Jesus. I suspect some of them replace these avatars with the Buddha himself. There are still other-worldly, supernatural hells and heavens where the dead wait until their next reincarnation. A Buddhist would expect to continue to go through these cycles until he or she got enlightened. Is that an idea that Dawkins would tolerate?

But to get back to the thread, what is the alternative that atheists would have to the Christian trinity? I agree with you; the Christian trinity implies three more or less separate Gods.

Reality can't be limited to the material if there was a finite beginning to that material stuff. Also out-of-body experiences provide other evidence that this material stuff is not all there is. Atheists try to use ideas to deny these experiences. They provide nothing to help interpret these experiences since they refuse to acknowledge the evidence. Because of the rejection of these experiences I view atheists the way they view people who think that humans co-inhabited the earth with dinosaurs like T-Rex.

[Darcy88]

I don't know about much about Taoism, but Buddhism has reincarnation. Do atheists find that acceptable? My suspicion is that atheists who want to practice Buddhist mindfulness will ignore that part of Buddhism.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that when Buddhists promote their non-Atman type of "atheism" they are rejecting the avatar love relationships that Hindus have with Rama or Krishna--or Christians have with Jesus. I suspect some of them replace these avatars with the Buddha himself. There are still other-worldly, supernatural hells and heavens where the dead wait until their next reincarnation. A Buddhist would expect to continue to go through these cycles until he or she got enlightened. Is that an idea that Dawkins would tolerate?

But to get back to the thread, what is the alternative that atheists would have to the Christian trinity? I agree with you; the Christian trinity implies three more or less separate Gods.

Reality can't be limited to the material if there was a finite beginning to that material stuff. Also out-of-body experiences provide other evidence that this material stuff is not all there is. Atheists try to use ideas to deny these experiences. They provide nothing to help interpret these experiences since they refuse to acknowledge the evidence. Because of the rejection of these experiences I view atheists the way they view people who think that humans co-inhabited the earth with dinosaurs like T-Rex.

I was once a Zen Buddhist and I held no supernatural beliefs. The interconnectedness of all things and the transcendent value of compassion constitute spirituality in my opinion.

As we previously discussed, near death experiences have been induced in laboratory settings, thus proving that they have a material cause.

If by atheism you mean materialism then I suppose yes, atheists recognize nothing beyond the material, scientifically verifiable world.

[YesNo]

Yes, near-death and shared-death experiences, since they are experiences, have a cause. I think we agree on that.

The only atheism that I'm opposed to, based on your comments, would be "materialism". There are plenty of Gods I don't believe in so I would not want to be opposed to atheism in general.

[JuniperWoolf]

Thankyou for your sensible historical reminders of this time period- you are absolutely correct.

He's also correct in stating that the SOUTH was very religious as well. Saying that abolition was the result of religious people in order to prove the inherant goodness of religion is like saying it was the result of people with brown hair, and therefor people with brown hair are morally good. The vast majority of people were Christian at that time period. Also, my OP specified that I was discussing the last two decades, not 1861.