Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Do you read the fable stories in the Bible as history? That would explain a lot. For some reason most Christians ignore the "meat" of the Bible which is everything else besides the stories.
This thread was not intended to debate these ideas with Christians, and now you are trying to push your Christian ideas into the atheism forum.
You should look me up sometime. (Or just check my post #7 of this very thread.) You will find that I am an adamant atheist. That doesn't preclude me knowing something about the bible.
I know of no biblical scholars, whether they are theist or atheist, who would take seriously the idea that jesus was pushing modern science.
And if you are surprised to hear that there atheist biblical scholars, you have just proved my point - you know little about the bible.
The idea that religious ideas cause more harm than good was hardly invented by the New Thought folks. Neither was the idea that a person's state of mind influences physical health.
Assuming jesus existed at all (and for the record, I do think that at least one real person and his teachings is at root of the gospels), he was a jewish reformer, not a person who was trying to free people from religious dogma.
Modern-day faith-healers are outright charlatans or deeply superstitious people. I say this as a person who was dragged to events where faith-healers did their thing and people spoke in tongues. It's true you don't need a god to foment mass hysteria, but I fail to see why you think atheists should be good with that.
Okay. But it doesn't matter who was first to criticize religion. That has been occurring throughout history.
Whether he existed is not really the point. The point is more about the beliefs and principals that were trying to be expressed by the early movement, which was largely a reaction to the existing religion. A criticism of religion.
New Thought takes a bold approach to religious criticism. Most people are not going to accept atheism or deism, etc. But if they hear something about the "truth" of the Bible in a way that relates it in a more positive direction, that could be a major step which could open the floodgates of human understanding if people begin to question traditional beliefs.
The problem with the pure atheist who rejects the Bible completely (and I'm not accusing you or anyone else of doing this) is that it sends a message to religious people that the atheists are unable to see something in the written words, which they believe has a profound truth. It doesn't matter if the Bible was altered or edited later. There are many remaining pure thoughts from real "visions" or understandings, still in the Bible. The fact remains that many of the writers had profound spiritual/psychological experiences which readers today can identify with. Even if they don't understand what it means. Paul might have been trying to give credit to the type of "common" person who believes in superstition, and explaining why their beliefs are so important to them.
Atheists now have an opportunity to present the good ideas which are in the Bible, and explain them as psychological writings. This would cause more people to rethink or even question their beliefs about religious superstition, and more and more people would begin to start thinking clearly.
because that has been what I have been saying for years! I criticized you for taking the opposite stance in your post right there. at least to me. some atheist have the chance to be reasonable and rational. WOW and HOW ... what a concept. Abused children grow up to act like abused children. rational people don't have to act irrationally. it aint rocket science
because that has been what I have been saying for years! I criticized you for taking the opposite stance in your post right there. at least to me. some atheist have the chance to be reasonable and rational. WOW and HOW ... what a concept. Abused children grow up to act like abused children. rational people don't have to act irrationally. it aint rocket science
Most of the time I don't understand what you are trying to say.
To me, it sounds like too much thinking. Most people do not like that.
So don't expect your Clear Thinking stuff to have a large following.
Maybe that's not the best phrase. But isn't that sort of what atheism is?
The more I listen to atheists, many of them don't seem to necessarily deny the existence of a creator. But their focus seems to be more about criticizing religion.
You say it can't have a large following. The truth is, popular preachers like Joel Osteen have been accused by fundamentalists of having too much of a "dangerous" New Thought influence. In fact, that is how I first heard about this.
Last edited by OzzyRules; 03-18-2015 at 09:01 AM..
Maybe that's not the best phrase. But isn't that sort of what atheism is?
The more I listen to atheists, many of them don't seem to necessarily deny the existence of a creator. But their focus seems to be more about criticizing religion.
You say it can't have a large following. The truth is, popular preachers like Joel Osteen have been accused by fundamentalists of having too much of a "dangerous" New Thought influence. In fact, that is how I first heard about this.
Your observations are not wrong. Being based on the rationale not believing that something exists that is not known to exist means that we cannot rule out a creator. We do leave options open. Theists close them by claiming they either know on faith or on reasoning, neither of which convince us.
As to religion, that is a serious beef. We argue against it on evidential grounds and on social grounds, too and we militant atheists do have an agenda and an aim in view and that is removing the influence and authority of religion from society. That also means from Law, politics, the workplace, sport, education and science. If anything flagged up now needful this is it was the attempt to replace science with Genesis. That does not mean hunting down and eradicating all traces of religion. Freedom from religion also implies freedom for religion -of all kinds.
I do hope that atheism and what it is about is a bit clearer now.
Okay. But it doesn't matter who was first to criticize religion. That has been occurring throughout history.
Oh that's true. But you are criticizing mainstream christianity from a point of view that, IMO, is as full of woo as any faith healer *and* subscribing to particularly tortured view of the bible that makes it out to be what it is clearly not.
The bible is a very significant book, because
a) especially the old testament presents another data point into the very beginnings of written history - so it is studied for the same reasons that egyptian and sumerian writings are studied
b) because of its influence today, it is important to understand it
These early writers, like all writers, deserve to have their reasoning and beliefs taken for what they are, and not twisted to support some other agenda. It's analogous to all those paintings of jesus portraying him as a northern european. If he existed - and I am willing to posit that he did - he would have resembled osama bin laden more than brad pitt. If you're going to imagine how he looked, you owe it to him to at least make an honest effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Whether he existed is not really the point. The point is more about the beliefs and principals that were trying to be expressed by the early movement, which was largely a reaction to the existing religion. A criticism of religion.
I agree that whether he existed makes little difference to the religion that claims his name. But the early movement - both the jewish christians led by jesus' brother james and the pagan christians, led by paul - was emphatically not about a scientific understanding of the world. It was about getting right with god who was coming back *real* soon.
And the criticisms jesus' followers were making was that judaism had been corrupted by money and by subservience to a pagan world conqueror. But god was gonna save the downtrodden if they repented of their sins.
And what science existed at the time was largely from the greco-roman tradition, which the early christians abhorred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
New Thought takes a bold approach to religious criticism.
Yes, I guess pulling claims about the bible out of thin air is pretty bold. Me, I'm a big fan of history - rather than making stuff up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Most people are not going to accept atheism or deism, etc. But if they hear something about the "truth" of the Bible in a way that relates it in a more positive direction, that could be a major step which could open the floodgates of human understanding if people begin to question traditional beliefs.
It would be very surprising if a book written by human beings did not contain at least some truths about the human condition. Especially a book written by the most thoughtful people of the time. If you are looking to get people to question traditional beliefs - by which I assume you mean traditional christianity, since traditional jews or hindus are not likely to be mightily impressed by any new interpretation of the bible - why not just question them on their own terms?
In my view, the basic problem with any religion is blind faith itself, rather than evidence seeking. Evidence seeking can stand on its own. If the issue is faith vs. evidence, of what value is substituting one form of faith for another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The problem with the pure atheist who rejects the Bible completely (and I'm not accusing you or anyone else of doing this) is that it sends a message to religious people that the atheists are unable to see something in the written words, which they believe has a profound truth. It doesn't matter if the Bible was altered or edited later. There are many remaining pure thoughts from real "visions" or understandings, still in the Bible. The fact remains that many of the writers had profound spiritual/psychological experiences which readers today can identify with. Even if they don't understand what it means. Paul might have been trying to give credit to the type of "common" person who believes in superstition, and explaining why their beliefs are so important to them.
What do you mean by rejecting the bible? It exists, it is pretty old, and it contains a wealth of valuable information about what people were like thousands of years ago.
I can see it as valuable without subscribing to its theology - which, by the way, is not as monolithic as christians like to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Atheists now have an opportunity to present the good ideas which are in the Bible, and explain them as psychological writings. This would cause more people to rethink or even question their beliefs about religious superstition, and more and more people would begin to start thinking clearly.
And why on earth should atheists focus on the bible (or any of the other holy scriptures which litter the earth) as a teaching tool? If you want to do that, you go right ahead, no one is stopping you. Like most atheists, I do want people to think clearly, so I'm a big fan of logic and evidence in all its forms. A good idea does not need a scripture to support it - that's one of the ways you can tell it's a good idea.
The more I listen to atheists, many of them don't seem to necessarily deny the existence of a creator. But their focus seems to be more about criticizing religion.
I agree that many of us Atheists seem to criticize religion a lot. Maybe it is because they had religion drummed into their heads when they were young and now they are speaking out.
As for myself, I was made aware that some people believed in a god or something like that, just like you were made aware that some people believed in Superman. But an organized religion has never caused me any unhappiness.
Anyway, the only religion I criticize is the Mormons, but I do argue a lot with one Muslim who claims his religion is better than the others and with one Jew who tries to justify a passage in the Torah that I think represents evil.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.