retired_jmeshew

Actually, I agree. Perhaps I wasn't making myself as clear as I needed to. I think my point was deeper and also different. Let me try once more . Atheism is belief system for you. It might be a one man system, or perhaps we could find others who hold the same basic beliefs about life and humanity as you do. Still, it would be a small system . However, the similarity between you and me is this: what you believe and what I believe are both derived from external sources to some degree, maybe to every degree. My source is religion. Your sources might be Bertrand Russell and Gandhi (as examples). Thus, at its most basic level, there is no difference between us in that respect. That is what I meant, since so many were claiming that atheists and religionists have no relationship. With, of course, the point that presenting information that affirms or represents the atheist position (meaning simply the belief that there is no god) is akin to presenting information that is derived from a religious perspective.

retired_jsammut

I think we'll have to concede that we're not going to agree on this one. I know where you're coming from, but I'm going to have to be completely blinkered and stubborn and refuse to accept that atheism is a one-man belief system. Now if we could agree that it is a one-man disbelief system I'll be happy

retired_sargent

This is not the history I remember. Where in the bible does Jesus oppose the Romans, he helped a Roman centurion, and then said "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's". He was a jew and opposed the Jewish elders. He was never, as far as I am aware, a supporter of the guerilla warfare against the Romans.


Questionable, to say the least. It is still a theory and as yet, still unproven. There is no evodence that so many different species could have evolved from the primeval slime. It may be possibvle but it cannot be proved.

Would it?, Without some basic ethics, which in prehistory tended to come from the Shamans or priests of whatever belief system had grown in any particular tribe or people? I am not convinced.

I just feel that I do not need any organised faith system to reinforce my attitude to life, I have no belief in the afterlife nor do I worry that I will simply die and stop.

retired_sargent

You may find that in my post above, an 'i' has mutated into an 'o'. This is in no way evidence of evolution.
Also the blatant introduction of a redundant'v' in the middle of a perfectly good word is no evidence of a God.

retired_jmathias

Once, again, you missed the point. To belittle someones beliefes would mean I am rediculing your beliefes. I just said I am non-believer and I don't believe in that stuff.
I am pro any debate. But point of debate is to present proofs as well as your beliefs.And to debate over it. How can I debate on a topic, if I am suddenly accused of belitelling the other side. As I said many times, I don't care what you believe in, but to say that is the only right way is belitelling my and every atheists beliefs.

When you said, you chose what you want to believe. Read the Bible. There is no chosing what you want to believe. Either you believe it or you don't. There is no middle way.

retired_jsammut

Thinking back to my theology modules during my degree, we did some analysis of the bible from a historical perspective (the premise being that every story had some basis in fact and what could be interpreted if we looked at Jesus as a man through the Gospels, not as the Son of God). Certainly Jesus did act in a way of some kind of (for want of a better phrase) "insurgent". He only went into Jerusalem during the day and retreated to the hills at night. Then during a time when Jerusalem was actually quite quiet there are two uprisings hinted at in the Bible: Jesus himself "cleanses" the Temple of the money lenders (kicking out people and turning over tables sounds like a riot to me) and swings a lash and then, at the same time, Barrabas is arrested for insurgency and murder. There is some debate as to whether Barrabas and Jesus were are the same person (early versions of the Gospels refer to Jesus Barrabas). Even when Jesus is arrested, Peter apparently draws a sword and cuts off one of the guards' ears (can't remember which Gospel that's mentioned in). Humm, why would Peter have a sword?

If there was a historical Jesus (and I won't dispute the fact that there could be) then certainly I could see him as being a Jew who led a peaceful protest against the Roman occupation.

All this is from memory (the classes were over 16 years ago) so they are patchy at best: I'd have to dig out my old notes when I get home.

Uknowmehfo

Uncovering what might or mightn't have happened from the Bible is quite a heavy task, Liam.

I, for one, am of those who believe that Jesus was a reformist 'Rabbi' (probably a cynic), whose doctrine was later turned into a proxy to suit the people who had just gotten into 'power' better.

At this stage, we have the man who is running wild through Palestine denouncing hypocrisy and bad customs amongst the jews.

When does the 'supreme Christian ethics' and the 'Christ/hero/redeemer' enter the fray?

Quite possibly in the 2nd or 3rd Century, when Early Christianism needed an aglutinating figure who could be regarded as 'the chosen one/hero'

retired_jmathias

What I am most bothered about in the Bible and later teachings is that God is merciful and righteous.

No he is not. At least not in old testimony.
In a gospel about Lot, Lot offers his daughter to the people outside just so that God could have peace and tranquillity, while he rests in Lot's room. Now, can you explain to me, why Lot got praised for that one? That is neither righteous, neither merciful. That is egoistic.

Only the new testimony presents God as merciful and righteous. By Catolich faith, there can't be more than one God. Also the god is immortal. That brings a question. What is the cause of sudden change in God's behaviour?

retired_jsammut

True, it's nigh on impossible to get a historical perspective from the Gospels, Jordi, as they were written years after the death of Jesus (assuming he exists). Luke admits in the first verse of his Gospel that he hasn't seen Jesus but he knows people who has, so we can take his attempt to make the story as historical as possible with a large pinch of salt. Matthew's Gospel is clearly plagarised from Mark's (Mark's was written first) and even Mark is thought to have copied from an unknown 'Q' source. John's Gospel was reckoned to have been written around 100-120AD when the early Christians were suffering somewhat at the hands of the Romans (hence the change of tone in his Gospel).

Then there's the fact that the gospels have been translated and retranslated many times into and from different languages. That doesn't help much either.

retired_rwarner24

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.