I assume he's referring at least in part to the Gospels which describe the life of Jesus. Straight from atheism.about.com, the latest dating for the Gospel of Mark is 75 CE (the earliest dates being from 40-60). Now if Jesus died about 30-36 CE, then would there really not be anybody around who could dispute the claims in this letter which was circulated? And would the author really have needed tenth-hand reports? And Paul was not illiterate having been a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin (ruling body of priests). Anyway, this is obviously just a broad look at these points. You can PM me if you want to discuss more. You should check out his younger brother Peter Hitchens's writing too! He was an atheist who's now a Christian.
She's been there for me financially, as a mom, not usually no matter how much she believes she has. I swear she's always telling me how much she loves, this and that, yet she decided to always be far from me. I can't disconnect myself from her though, it's not in my nature, but I still struggle not being mad at her so it doesn't allow me to show love either. I find it quite sad and selfish of myself, yet I can't muster up the strength to forgive her. What's worse is the fact that I cannot being this up her because she'll turn into an emotional mess.
The concept that God sends his son, who is actually himself, to earth, to right the wrongs that God himself started in the first place, is totally bizarre.
Well said, Rashmon... well said. A part of my own philosophy, which was influenced both by my upbringing, and extensive travel and interaction with people believing in a host of different religions (every one of those you mention, excepting Zoroastrianism, which I've read about), is that if one leads a life that encompases this essential aspect of the major religions, boiled down to treating others as you would like yourself to be treated by them, then actually belonging to a particular religion, or even believing in a religion (personally, I'm agnostic) is irrevelent. If any of them has some form of "supreme being," living a life that has this idea at its center precludes needing to surround one's self with the trappings of organized religion. Assuming that "god" is "up there," or somewhere, and is "all seeing," then he/she/it will have known the life you lead and make a judgement about you, if this being is judgemental (I have a problem with the "judgemental" part, but that's another topic), and it wouldn't matter if you worshiped a turnip. It is how you live your life that matters. The rest... the great churches, mosques, synagogues, etc., are for the comfort of the people. It is something they think is necessary. The "supreme being" could care less. I mentioned a while back that I had a problem with a sign I drive past on my way to Houston from Austin, a trip I make several times a year, that reads - "God Loves You. Praise Him." While I don't believe in God, I can't imagine a god that would require praise if he/she/it loved you. That's a human emotion. Why would a supreme being require praise? The entity would know what is within you, and "needing praise" is an entirely human form of thinking. Why would a God need or desire it? What you do is what would matter. Worship, whether in an edifice built on the backs of two centuries of human labor, like one sees in Europe, or a hut in the hinterlands, would make no difference if you finish your "service" or "worship," and then proceed to abuse your wife, beat your children, assault or steal from your neighbor. Those are the things a God would be interested in. The rest is a human construct built by humans, for humans. A "God" would care less about the trappings. In my opinion.
I'm curious why you guys (Deckard, Rashmon) don't refer to yourselves as atheists. I think I know why, but I'd rather start with explanations rather than make assumptions.
I can only speak for myself, but I am not an atheist. If I'm ever confronted with actual proof that a "supreme being" exists, then I'll probably be on board. I'm open minded about the idea, but have yet to see a shred of proof that I can "believe" in. That's not being an atheist.
parents do their children a disservice by raising them to believe anything. help them think for themselves, the rest should fall in to place.
You actually are an atheist. You're just confusing the terms. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism This guy's delivery is pretty boring, but he gives a good clarification on the subject. <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n6VXCf6M7OE?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n6VXCf6M7OE?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> Don't get me wrong. I certainly realize that there is widespread misuse of the terms, and calling yourself "agnostic" is much less likely to result in social suicide. But personally, I feel that atheists who label themselves agnostic are doing themselves and their fellow non-believers a disservice. Atheism should not be a dirty word, but as long as even atheists themselves steer clear of it, it will be.
Yes, people are free to define themselves as whatever they want, but labels become useless if not accurate. To say they don't matter is disingenuous. I can say I'm a black woman (Baylorbear), but that doesn't change the fact that I'm a white man. That said, I'm not trying to bully anyone into anything. Just sharing some information - with a small dash of opinion.
At the risk of jiving you with cosmik debris and stirring up the atheist fervor in those waiting to pounce at their keyboards, I would consider myself a seeker and have no problem correlating the concept of god or an afterlife with the laws of thermal dynamics: energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. Is god pure energy? I don't know, but I can intellectually wrap my mind around that concept. With or without someone else providing the interpretation and real or imagined consequences of that conception. I understand and have no problem with ancient and modern man's desire to come to grips with the same epistemological conundrum that seems to cause so much consternation for so many to this very day. Do I believe in a life after death based upon ancient texts? No, but in addition to the "immortality" afforded by the first law of thermodynamics, I will live on in the thoughts and memories of those I have encountered in a sort of ethereal world of neural synapse. I have broken one of my own internal rules and probably tread too deeply into this debate. I hope I don't pop a chakra. Live long and prosper. PS: ElPigto, hang in there.
but why would you label yourself a black woman? why does rashmon, or anyone else, need to label themselves? is it so you can pigeonhole them? please try not to see the world as black and white.
Nobody needs to label themselves. But what Rashmon and Deckard seem to have done here is to say "I am without belief but I am not an atheist." That, to me, is like saying "I am without sexuality but I am not asexual." I think the definition of the word atheist has been corrupted. If an atheist were against religion or denied existence of God he should be called an anti-theist. Atheist should, according to its etymology, literally mean without religious belief.
It doesn't matter to me either way. Once you have uncorrupted the word atheist maybe you could start a poll with specific definitions and I could choose the one that most labels me within your terms? Seems like even those who don't believe, aren't quite sure what they don't believe. Sounds a lot like religious folk arguing amongst themselves to me.
See Batman Jones' post. I'm not really asking anyone to label themselves. Rather, I'm curious as to why they reject a label that accurately defines them.
It doesn't particularly matter to me either; I'm just killing time. I used to say I was agnostic so as not to appear (or be) an extremist or one who 'knew' there was no God, as the only thing I feel I can confidently know is that I know nothing. And so I am without knowledge: literally, an agnostic. But I am also without religious belief: literally, an atheist. I'm pretty sure it was somebody here that pointed this out some months ago and I thought, ah, why didn't I realize this before? Maybe it was CCR. Regardless, I can't claim credit for the idea but I do subscribe to it. And so I now must regard myself to be both an agnostic and an atheist though I also regard myself to be a spiritual seeker and a wannabe Buddhist. Not to mention the fact that I embrace my Jewish heritage and cultural identity. I don't see any paradox or contradiction in being all five things at once.
