Topic for Atheists

[Aardverk]

Not sure what you've read from a Jewish perspective on 66-70 AD, but it's not pretty.

Indeed! It took them 1,877 years to get their promised land back.

..... they would not have welcomed any gentile, let alone Christian to Nazareth, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be on a pilgrim map since they would not have been welcome there. Think about it for a moment. You would't put a hostile place on the map for pilgrims to visit knowing it was a hostile place. People could have gotten killed.

I think the hostility from Christians was rather worse especially against a thoroughly defeated and occupied nation. I can't remember which pope(s) but at least one told Christians that they would be absolved of their sins if they killed Jews. Was it Augustine?

I think we may have a misunderstanding here. The Pilgrim maps were prepared by Christians, not Jews and Christians would obviously want to go to Nazareth. As for being a hostile place, anywhere in the holy land has been a hostile place for the last 3,000 years virtually without break. It has a terribly sad history of invasion after invasion. Even the creation of the modern Israeli state in 1947 only lasted 32 days before it was invaded once more.

Strong though Israel is today, it is a fair bet that they will suffer greatly again in the not too distant future with the growth of Islamic power. As more and more Islamic countries get nuclear weapons we are almost bound to see nuclear terrorists both in Israel and the US.

 

[stovebolts]

Indeed! It took them 1,877 years to get their promised land back.

Well, I was referring more around the 1st century.

I think the hostility from Christians was rather worse especially against a thoroughly defeated and occupied nation. I can't remember which pope(s) but at least one told Christians that they would be absolved of their sins if they killed Jews. Was it Augustine?

You probably think that because you haven't read much Jewish history and when it comes to history, I think your talking about the Crusades around the 13th century where the Pope of the Roman Catholic church ordered those killings. BTW, Augustine wasn't a pope and was influential in the late 4th and early 5th century.

If we go back to the first three centuries, most of the rucuss was about Jews, not Christians. Keep in mind that most Christians in the first century were Jews, so when it came to Rome persecuting the Jews, it didn't matter if they were Christian or not because to the Romans, they were all Jews. Even Gentile Christians persecuted the Jewish Christians, which is one reason why Paul wrote the book of Romans. Actually, in 49 AD all Jews were banished from Rome by Claudius and were not allowed to return until after the death of Claudius until around 54 AD. Many of those Jews returning to Rome were Christians.

I think we may have a misunderstanding here. The Pilgrim maps were prepared by Christians, not Jews and Christians would obviously want to go to Nazareth. As for being a hostile place, anywhere in the holy land has been a hostile place for the last 3,000 years virtually without break. It has a terribly sad history of invasion after invasion. Even the creation of the modern Israeli state in 1947 only lasted 32 days before it was invaded once more.

I don't think we have a misunderstanding on the Pilgrims. Obviously they are gentile Christians, not Jewish Christians. The point I was trying to make is that the Jews were extremely hostile toward any outsider (including Jewish Christians) for the first 300 years as Rome persecuted them heavily. Rome actually started murdering all the priests and sages who held the Oral Torah. In fear of loosing all that Oral Tradition, they actually started writing it down in an attempt to preserve it. To date, this is how much of the Talmud came about.

The article I posted shows that particular Priestly line moving to Nazareth, which at the time was solely a Jewish community. Considering the persecution the Jews encountered, and considering the rebel fighters within the Jewish community, I"m sure that visitors were not greeted with open arms. And to put it on a Pilgrim map would be just stupid. It's like me giving you a map to the east side of Detroit. Some fool would wander down there.

Strong though Israel is today, it is a fair bet that they will suffer greatly again in the not too distant future with the growth of Islamic power. As more and more Islamic countries get nuclear weapons we are almost bound to see nuclear terrorists both in Israel and the US.

Now that's a can of worms...

 

[Sand Igloo]

We are born atheist. Atheism is the default position. Theists choose to be so. Anyone who asserts that god(s) and/or goddess(es) exist has the burden of proof. It has yet to be done.

It's that simple.

 

[Free]

We are born atheist. Atheism is the default position. Theists choose to be so. Anyone who asserts that god(s) and/or goddess(es) exist has the burden of proof. It has yet to be done.

It's that simple.

Agnosticism would be the "default" position. Atheism also requires the burden of proof.

 

[Sand Igloo]

Agnosticism would be the "default" position. Atheism also requires the burden of proof.

Agnosticism is an opinion of doubt that is reached after considering information that is currently available. One can not be born in that state.

There is nothing for an atheist to prove. Atheism is not an assertion. It is disbelief in the theist's assertion. It is the burden of the theist to prove their god.

 

[stovebolts]

We are born atheist.
It's that simple.

I disagree. We are born human and have to be taught that there is no god. It's in our very nature to believe there is something bigger than ourselves out there.

 

[Sand Igloo]

I disagree. We are born human and have to be taught that there is no god. It's in our very nature to believe there is something bigger than ourselves out there.

It is human nature to fill voids with the beliefs, traditions and practices of others if such is not first taught to us. Hence the thousands of gods and goddesses worshipped by billions of people over the history of man.

 

[stovebolts]

I agree, it is our human nature to do those things. Unless you can show me an animal bowing down to a block of stone I'd say it was by design.

Which is why the Lord showed, and made himself known to a people, and later sent his Son to save us.

 

[WIP]

It is the burden of the theist to prove their god.

To whom? I don't think I would ever want to take on the challenge of proving God. He can and does do that all by himself. The problem is that some see and others do not.

 

[Free]

Agnosticism is an opinion of doubt that is reached after considering information that is currently available. One can not be born in that state.

Then one cannot be born an atheist as one must consider whether any evidence supports the idea of God. One need not consider anything to be agnostic, one must just have no certain opinion on a matter. Therefore, agnosticism, not atheism, would be the state one is born in.

There is nothing for an atheist to prove. Atheism is not an assertion. It is disbelief in the theist's assertion. It is the burden of the theist to prove their god.

Atheism, by definition, is the positive assertion that there is no God. So-called "weak" atheism, that one doesn't believe in God because one thinks there is no evidence, is actually agnosticism, as it is implied that if sufficient evidence could be provided then one would believe in God. Hence, for the atheist, there is burden of proof.

 

[Mike]

Agnosticism would be the "default" position. Atheism also requires the burden of proof.

Why do theists need to prove this at all? I don't understand why you feel there's any kind of burden on us. We believe God will reveal Himself to everyone in some way. It's humbling to be used, but it's not necessary. If we don't convince someone who's hard-headed (no offense. just sayin'), that's not on us. I'm just a little dismayed by this notion that we in fact are somehow strapped with an obligation to make you believe something you don't want to believe. I'll believe the revelation I've been given and live peacefully with people who choose not to. I want them to believe and be saved, but I don't feel that burden, because I know I can't change them. He can.

 

[Jam]

If I am trying to convince someone that God exists, then the burden of proof lies with me. If I am trying to convince someone that God does not exist, then the burden of proof lies with me. If I am living my life under my own personal belief, I have no "burden of proof" with respect to anything, including said beliefs.

Also for our notes, ladies and gentlemen, the definition of "atheist" is much disputed on the internet. Until fairly recently it almost exclusively referred to the belief that there is no deity, but the majority of those today who identify as atheists actually mean that they do not believe that there exists deity. Most impartial dictionaries define it is the belief in a lack, rather than lack of belief, and so when I use the term "atheist" that is usually how I use it. Of course, given the confusion, it probably makes more sense not to use the word at all


Depending on definition, it's probably not wise to say that we are theistic or atheistic as babies - the possibility of the existence of deity probably hasn't crossed our minds at this point. That's speculation though, I guess; I have no way of testing my hypothesis;)

 

[stovebolts]

If I am trying to convince someone that God exists, then the burden of proof lies with me. If I am trying to convince someone that God does not exist, then the burden of proof lies with me. If I am living my life under my own personal belief, I have no "burden of proof" with respect to anything, including said beliefs.

If you visit an Atheist forum and you're trying to convince an Atheist that there is a God, then yes, I'd say that the burden of proof is on YOU>

However, if somebody comes to this site claiming that there isn't a God, then the burden of proof is on him.
And if one pushes that issue very hard, they will be reminded that this is a Christian Forum and they are visitors, and simply put, pushing Atheism isn't tolerated per the TOS that they themselves agreed to when they joined this Christian Forum.

 

[Aardverk]

...... the definition of "atheist" is much disputed.... Until fairly recently it almost exclusively referred to the belief that there is no deity, but the majority of those today who identify as atheists actually mean that they do not believe that there exists deity. Most impartial dictionaries define it is the belief in a lack, rather than lack of belief, and so when I use the term "atheist" that is usually how I use it. Of course, given the confusion, it probably makes more sense not to use the word at all.

..... it's probably not wise to say that we are theistic or atheistic as babies - the possibility of the existence of deity probably hasn't crossed our minds at this point.

Well put sir. I posted something similar earlier today but it has mysteriously disappeared.

The problem is that the terms atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Pagan, etc are often misused, emotive and inaccurate labels which are no more than generalizations. The individual person is likely to be rather more complex.

Frequently theists and atheists simply do not understand each other. The best way of achieving understanding is set out in the following quotation. Unfortunately I do not know who said it originally and I may not have quoted it accurately.

The difference between a Christian and an atheist is that the atheist does not believe in any of the 3,000 'Gods' and the Christian does not believe in 2,999 of the 'Gods'. If the Christian can explain why he does not believe in 2,999 of the 'Gods' he will understand why the atheist does not believe in 3,000 of them.

Understanding is far more likely to lead to mutual respect and love than knee jerk objections to a misleading label.

 

[Jam]

If you visit an Atheist forum and you're trying to convince an Atheist that there is a God, then yes, I'd say that the burden of proof is on YOU>

However, if somebody comes to this site claiming that there isn't a God, then the burden of proof is on him.
And if one pushes that issue very hard, they will be reminded that this is a Christian Forum and they are visitors, and simply put, pushing Atheism isn't tolerated per the TOS that they themselves agreed to when they joined this Christian Forum.

I agree absolutely, my friend.

 

[Aardverk]

Unless you can show me an animal bowing down to a block of stone I'd say it was by design.

Come now Stovebolts, you obviously don't think that the thousand of 'Gods' mankind has worshiped made them believe in that particular 'God' by design - do you! Nor, I presume, would you think that God Almighty made people believe in, say, Thor by design

An animal will not worship a stone but it will be terrified of the unknown, just as 'man' would have been and often still is. It is a very small leap of imagination to suppose that there was a mighty being, a 'God', out there making thunder, storm, flood, sun, moon etc. Mankind has long been intelligent enough to recognize a mystery, to talk about it and to think about it. He often comes up with wrong answers too.

Sadly there is always someone ready to take advantage of their fellow man and very soon some people would have started saying that they 'knew' what that particular 'God' wanted, 'He spoke to me in a dream'. Follow that priest and you will be saved etc etc etc etc etc for thousands and thousands of years. The story that most of those priests told was that IF the 'God' did not take your offering, that meant the 'God' wanted the priesthood to have it instead. Yeah!

Please bear in mind that I am not talking about Christianity here, I am talking about mans propensity to invent and believe in false 'Gods' as a way of 'understanding' mysteries.

 

[stovebolts]

I understand that you ain't a talken about Christianity nor our Jewish roots... As it pertains to this topic, God said not to worship sticks or stones, nor any other god... I'm sure you'll agree that's good advice., even if it did come from 'Gods' word.

 

[Aardverk]

As it pertains to this topic, God said not to worship sticks or stones, nor any other god... I'm sure you'll agree that's good advice., even if it did come from 'Gods' word.

I agree, it is good advice.

The topic (thread?) is inter alia about myth. The comment you were responding to was a comment about human nature. I was attempting to link the two in a constructive manner.

The other reason I chipped in was that you appeared to be asking for unreasonable 'proof'. I guess you didn't really mean it though.

 

[Aardverk]

I disagree. We are born human and have to be taught that there is no god. It's in our very nature to believe there is something bigger than ourselves out there.

I think you are absolutely right. I once read some very convincing psychological evidence for that notion but I can't remember enough of the details to quote it.

We are also born believing in and fearing mysterious unknown things that go bump in the night and have to be taught that they are not real and there are no monsters under the bed - most of the time.

 

[abrown9]

It kinda goes back to the question a biologist I know says. "How do we know George Washington was president?" Well the records say so, that's what we have. You can't go and meet George Washington he is simply gone, but the records say he did exist. Same with Jesus, the Bible can be taken as a record to Jesus being real.

It's strange that this argument is now being used in favour of Jesus being a real person while I've often seen many examples of "we didn't see it evolve so it's not proof".

EDIT: Not that I don't think it's a valid argument. Jesus, from what we can tell, was likely a real individual and George Washington certainly was one!