ἄθεος From ἀ- (a-, “not”) + θεός (theós, “god”) Adjective ἄθεος • (átheos) m, ἄθεος f, ἄθεον n; second declension without gods denying or disdaining the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods) generally: godless, secular abandoned by the gods (lexicography) not derived from a theonym
Wrong again. Atheism is the assertion that there is no evidence for a deity, not "God doesn't exist". Sure there are thousands of self proclaimed atheists who state "God does not exist", but in reality they are stating "I live my life as if God does not exist because there is no evidence for the existence of a god that tangibly affects our day to day lives." I'm sure you have heard of the whole "flying spaghetti monster" concept which directly addresses this common misconception of what atheism truly is.
Probably already mentioned, but does anyone else think the picture of Muhammad on the Charlie Hebdo cover looks like an upside down penis?
I think that's comparable. Christianity says that all sins, even small ones, make one unworthy of the presence of God. It says that Jesus paid for the sins of others with his death so that those sins are forgiven and believers are cleansed before God. It says that for Jesus to be fit to be the sacrifice for the sins of others, he has to be utterly blameless and without sin. So, even a small sin would be a blemish on Jesus as the perfect sacrifice and undermine the whole edifice of the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. The Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, and it says having sex with a woman who is not your wife is a sin. So, if Pizza_da_Hut is right that Jesus was having sex with Mary Magdalen or anyone else, it's a challenge to Jesus' divinity and the whole Christian faith. Meanwhile, Islam doesn't really insist on the utter sinlessness of the prophets (so far as I understand) -- and besides marriage at that age wasn't very abberent at the time anyway -- so the fact that he had a child bride doesn't really undermine the tennets of the religion. So, in your eyes, the two cases aren't similar because what Mohammad did was so much worse; to my eyes the allegation that Jesus 'hooked up' is actually the bigger accusation. Christians just don't freak out about it nowadays because the cultures are different (plus there's some plausible deniability).
Think of the meaning of the greek prefix "a" used in such terminology as "amoral". Is "amoral" the same as "immoral"? "A-moral" typically means an entity that does not claim any sense of morality while "immoral" means the direct opposite of "moral" or "bad" vs "good". "Amoral" does not mean "bad" nor "good". It simply makes no claim towards morality. Same with "A-theism". It simply means someone who is not a theist. It isn't a positive claim as it makes no claim towards the existence of god.
"Practical" atheism is the misunderstanding of what atheism actually means. Yes, I live my life as if a god that tangibly affects our lives doesn't exist but that is me just applying the "theoretical" definition of atheism.
This particular aspect about the "divinity" of Jesus legitimizing the religion he is attributed to founding has always fascinated me, personally. It's difficult to accept for most people who have identified (in one way or another) with Christianity as it currently exists, that more than a little socio-political wrangling went into not only constructing the narrative of the life of Jesus of Nazareth...but also of the re-interpretation of the Jewish law that he espoused...is at the heart of what we think we can be certain about in terms of Jesus' "divinity". For instance: there are generally two widely accepted and referenced "eye-witness" testimonies of the time period in which "Christianity", then in its nascent stages, was evolving and developing - the Jewish historian Josephus, and the apostle Paul. Both men were Hellenized Jews (Josephus was a Roman chronicler of the region of Judea, Paul was a Roman citizen by birth...debatable by some standards, but not often refuted), and were influenced by their social upbringings outside of the very-much closed Jewish society that still existed in ancient Palestine. Josephus chronicled the Jewish revolt against Rome's rule that spanned from C.E. 66-70, which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans. This was a particularly vicious conflict, and the animosity between the Romans and the Jewish people would lead to enduring disdain...and as we all know...the winner of the fight gets to tell the story. Paul's earliest letter is believed to be the New Testament book of Romans (written likely by his own hand around C.E. 50). Josephus mentions Jesus briefly in his reports about Jesus as a charismatic preacher and teacher of the Jewish faith in Galilee, but reports nothing of any type of "miracles" that the gospel narratives attest. In fact, Josephus mentions Jesus almost in passing, as his works tend to mention more about John the Baptist and James of the Jerusalem "Christian" movement. Paul also, in the reports of the various letters that he wrote, mentions nothing of the "divinity" Jesus reportedly displayed in the gospel narratives of his life. That is especially strange, if we are supposed to believe (or at least accept) that the narrative of Jesus' "earthly" life in the New Testament is supposed to be sequentially plausible in relation to the rest of the New Testament. The general rule for Christian doctrine has been this: Jesus had to be divine, or what he espoused and subsequently died for and sought to accomplish through that death, would have no otherworldly or overarching merit. And he had to be divine from birth. It was widely debated, for nearly two centuries after his death, by followers and "pagans" alike, whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was born divine, or achieved divinity after his life. It goes without saying that much of what is "accepted" by Christian standards as narrative of Jesus' life (particularly his birth), is an amalgamation of numerous pseudo-religious, pagan or multi-theistic birth-stories of god-men at the very least...and possibly a nearly exact lift from the then-1000-years-old or more story of the Egyptian God Horus ("virgin birth", et al)... My point is that, at the time, Christianity was competing in the known world with dozens of beliefs with hundreds or thousands of different followers or practitioners, and to become palatable to wide masses, certain elements had to be introduced and woven into the fabric of narratives in order for people to accept it as a possible (or ultimately irrefutable) "truth". The New Testament Gospels did not come into being as we recognize them today until after C.E. 70. Jesus' "divinity" was not settled on until 3 centuries later in the Council of Nicea, which both sought to preserve what was left of the Roman empire by unifying Rome under one "religion" (Roman Catholicism's "birth"...which led to the eventual separation of church and state model of governing we know), and settling the question of Jesus' "divinity" being an aspect of a "Trinity" or "God-head" (not very different, in some respects, from polytheistic beliefs of many gods for many things).... Much of the literature circulated at the time had elements of Jesus earthly life that would or could be seen as "immoral" or "sinful". Jesus was, in the language of the time, actually "married" to Mary Magdalene, according to both the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene...two books which were decided were not part of the "canon" of what Christianity was. The Vatican actually has copies of many books that were considered blasphemous or inaccurate narratives of Jesus, because they did display human (if not necessarily "sinful") aspects of his nature that the governing Church body could not accept...and many of them are surprisingly available for public viewing... ...someone might think about passing that logic on to our Federal Government regarding President Kennedy's assassination, by the way.... The Eastern Catholic church also has as part of its "Bible" a series of books between our "Old" and "New" testaments called the Apocrypha...a historical narrative of the Jewish nation from about 300 B.C. until about 50 B.C...accounts that would be like what the Old Testament chronicles in its books of 1 and 2 Kings, but without "miracles" or divine intervention by God on behalf of the Jewish people... One of the problems with messages is that often times we cannot separate them from the messengers themselves. I don't believe an idea or a feeling is any less valid if it's presented to me by a human being, with all of the frailties and imperfections accompanying the human condition, no matter how transcendent the thought. I can throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. Not saying that Mohammad was always right or that Jesus was never wrong. Just that, often, people seem to look for outward expressions of divinity, when they may need to look no further than their own hearts and minds...
Can someone more aware of the history and circumstances behind this explain how this isn't restricting freedom of speech? Was the ban later overturned? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm
Black Americans aren't strapping bombs to their chest blowing up shyt like federal buildings and schools and killing people of all ages. So that is not a perfect example.... Especially when the only black person person who really has a problem with Quentin Tarantino is Spike Lee. That is no where near a perfect example.
I don't know but I sure hope so. I understand that France is a historically catholic country but I don't see how it makes it right and fair.
