My problem with atheism

[Vishvavajra]

You said that one must must read within the context, and then said Paul is couching his terms. These two thoughts are diametrically opposed and demonstrate a biased perspective.

No, still doesn't make sense. If I said that an article in a classical journal was couched in academic terms, and for that reason might be difficult for non-academics to understand if they assume the words have the same meanings as in casual discourse, there would be no controversy or accusation of bias. Since you're hung up on the word "couching" for some reason, ignore it and instead pretend I said Paul is expressing his ideas within a conceptual framework that make sense to him and his audience. That is the context.

The context I'm ignoring is the modern Christian one that wants to interpret all these statements in terms of souls going to heaven or hell, which is a framework that didn't exist in the 1st century but developed later. That is ignoring the context. As for the rest, frankly, one doesn't have to read much of Paul to see clearly how he's using conventional language to convey non-conventional ideas, to the point where he struggles against the semantic boundaries he has to deal with. He can't express transcendent concepts in ordinary language, but that's the only kind of language there is, so he uses conventional terms while pointing to unconventional ways of understanding them. He even uses overtly mystical language to point this out, including coming out and calling something a mystery.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No, still doesn't make sense. If I said that an article in a classical journal was couched in academic terms, and for that reason might be difficult for non-academics to understand if they assume the words have the same meanings as in casual discourse, there would be no controversy or accusation of bias. Since you're hung up on the word "couching" for some reason, ignore it and instead pretend I said Paul is expressing his ideas within a conceptual framework that make sense to him and his audience. That is the context.

The context I'm ignoring is the modern Christian one that wants to interpret all these statements in terms of souls going to heaven or hell, which is a framework that didn't exist in the 1st century but developed later. That is ignoring the context. As for the rest, frankly, one doesn't have to read much of Paul to see clearly how he's using conventional language to convey non-conventional ideas, to the point where he struggles against the semantic boundaries he has to deal with. He can't express transcendent concepts in ordinary language, but that's the only kind of language there is, so he uses conventional terms while pointing to unconventional ways of understanding them. He even uses overtly mystical language to point this out, including coming out and calling something a mystery.

Well I have to disagree with you. You clearly state that I fail to consider the context, then proceeded to suggest that terms are couched in terms that are not within the context. Please feel free to pour additional terminology on the subject. Not much is going to change the facts.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No, still doesn't make sense. If I said that an article in a classical journal was couched in academic terms, and for that reason might be difficult for non-academics to understand if they assume the words have the same meanings as in casual discourse, there would be no controversy or accusation of bias. Since you're hung up on the word "couching" for some reason, ignore it and instead pretend I said Paul is expressing his ideas within a conceptual framework that make sense to him and his audience. That is the context.

The context I'm ignoring is the modern Christian one that wants to interpret all these statements in terms of souls going to heaven or hell, which is a framework that didn't exist in the 1st century but developed later. That is ignoring the context. As for the rest, frankly, one doesn't have to read much of Paul to see clearly how he's using conventional language to convey non-conventional ideas, to the point where he struggles against the semantic boundaries he has to deal with. He can't express transcendent concepts in ordinary language, but that's the only kind of language there is, so he uses conventional terms while pointing to unconventional ways of understanding them. He even uses overtly mystical language to point this out, including coming out and calling something a mystery.

You clearly do not seem to understand what 'context' means.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Context DOES NOT mean expressing ideas with a conceptual framework of any sort whatsoever. It means interpreting what is said within the EXPLICIT framework of what is said with the text surrounding what is being interpretated. You are 180 off.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Stephen Fry's reply was less than stellar - but wasn't he posed with a scenario in which he was confronted with the Judeo-Christian God? He simply responded in kind, and I don't know that he really gives his views on other forms of faith - at least not enough to assume he's painting things as black and white in the global/universal sense the original poster seems to describe.

It's an interesting question he was faced with. Fry should certainly realize that there is no use insulting or demeaning a being who is all powerful. In no way would it answer to you, and it would, obviously, know this. I think I'd take a different tack entirely and offer God this: "If you love me, if you ever loved me, as your followers have told me countless times that you do, then I implore you - obliterate me." See if asking for a third option, one in which I simply no longer exist, would get me anywhere.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Context DOES NOT mean expressing ideas with a conceptual framework of any sort whatsoever. It means interpreting what is said within the EXPLICIT framework of what is said with the text surrounding what is being interpretated. You are 180 off.

It is impossible to even conceive of ideas outside of a conceptual framework, much less to communicate them to others. What you're saying sounds suspiciously like the fundamentalist claim that they don't interpret scripture, they just read it as it is.

 

[JoStories]

and explore other ways of looking at existence.
Well, I'm sorry, but the supernatural is not a way of looking at anything, but building totally unsubstantiated presumptions, which convinces the adherent to such an extent, that offer nothing but wishful thinking.

What "other ways" of looking at existence, aside from what we can observe and what we can discover as we progress, do you suppose?

There are many questions that have yet to be answered by conventional means. I would mention some but I suspect you would scoff and I am in no mood for more incivility here. I will just say that until people who hold such rigid beliefs can answer some of these unanswerable questions, I will continue to investigate the subject of my dissertation.

 

[Nakosis]

The way I see it you have these options:

1. Accept one of the world religions
2. Draw your own conclusions, perhaps using religious teachings or philosophy as a source of wisdom.
3. Believe none of it all and be atheist.
4. Realize that options 1, 2, and 3 all require attachment to a position that can't be proven true one way or another and be agnostic.

I don't see 2 and 3 as being exclusive. Some religions don't require a belief in God.

Like Buddhism for example.

I don't believe in a God, draw my own conclusions. I happily investigate the wisdom offered by different religions and philosophies.

I'm not attached to my conclusions especially if they can be shown to be wrong.

 

[Izdaari]

It depends on what one means by "atheist".

If someone simply lacks a belief in any gods, I can't argue with that. They haven't been shown or experienced otherwise, so it's reasonable.

If someone dogmatically asserts that no god exists, something I think is categorically impossible to know, I think that's being a pigheaded ignoramus, but again, I can't argue with it. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It won\t work, and it annoys the pig."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Put directly it would require a God to present itself and not people alluding there is a presenting God. Dosent work that way. Lol

There is no God at all as it stands.

Just people talking.

That is all.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It is impossible to even conceive of ideas outside of a conceptual framework, much less to communicate them to others. What you're saying sounds suspiciously like the fundamentalist claim that they don't interpret scripture, they just read it as it is.

What I am saying is that CON TEXT means with the text surrounding it. What you are saying is that context means some conceptual framework free of the text surrounding the phrase you wish to interpret.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It is impossible to even conceive of ideas outside of a conceptual framework, much less to communicate them to others. What you're saying sounds suspiciously like the fundamentalist claim that they don't interpret scripture, they just read it as it is.

How does you opinon of what is possible and not possible have to do with what the term context mean? CON = WITN; TEXT = TEXT; Context mean within the framework of the text around it. You seem to think that context means to be interpreted within some 'conceptual framework' FREE of the text surrounding it. ARSE BACKWARDS!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It is impossible to even conceive of ideas outside of a conceptual framework, much less to communicate them to others. What you're saying sounds suspiciously like the fundamentalist claim that they don't interpret scripture, they just read it as it is.

LOL, "susupiciously"...as if 'read as it is?'...LOL yes, that is what con text means. If you'd like to call reading it without regard to what it actually is..is. Then go ahead. But that would not be literal, and it would not be context. It would be whimsical, phonetical, personal, or even individualistic. But it would NOT BE CONTEXT!

 

[skl]

It depends on what one means by "atheist".

If someone simply lacks a belief in any gods, I can't argue with that. They haven't been shown or experienced otherwise, so it's reasonable.

If someone dogmatically asserts that no god exists, something I think is categorically impossible to know, I think that's being a pigheaded ignoramus, but again, I can't argue with it. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It won\t work, and it annoys the pig."

When you consider Pagan gods and many other Greek and Roman gods lasted for hundreds or thousands of years and the Neanderthals were the ones to first exhibit what could loosely be described as religious practice, evidenced by burial sites that have been uncovered it becomes obvious that worshiping a god or gods has evolved into the religions we have today. It also becomes obvious all these gods were made up by somebody, therefore why would the Christian God or any other god worshiped today on this planet be any different or more substancial than the gods that have been and gone? The bible is far from being solid evidence except proving that this is the most sophisticated god so far that actually has a book to rule your life and guess what ? It was written by humans.... Got to be the biggest con of all time.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A nice thing about being an atheist is you don't have to bother with morals because God invented them.

 

[Izdaari]

When you consider Pagan gods and many other Greek and Roman gods lasted for hundreds or thousands of years and the Neanderthals were the ones to first exhibit what could loosely be described as religious practice, evidenced by burial sites that have been uncovered it becomes obvious that worshiping a god or gods has evolved into the religions we have today. It also becomes obvious all these gods were made up by somebody, therefore why would the Christian God or any other god worshiped today on this planet be any different or more substancial than the gods that have been and gone? The bible is far from being solid evidence except proving that this is the most sophisticated god so far that actually has a book to rule your life and guess what ? It was written by humans.... Got to be the biggest con of all time.

True that the Bible was written by humans. Of course, we weren't there and can't know for sure what may or may not have influenced what they wrote. I say that was God letting His kids tell the story of their history and relationship with God themselves, in their own words, with their own cultural referents.

I don't know for sure what gods exist, and neither do you. Human inventions? Probably... but the humans who made them up may have had something real happen that made them think so. Did Moses really see and talk with a burning bush? We can't know. And if he did, was it really there, or was he hallucinating? We also can't know.

 

[JoStories]

True that the Bible was written by humans. Of course, we weren't there and can't know for sure what may or may not have influenced what they wrote. I say that was God letting His kids tell the story of their history and relationship with God themselves, in their own words, with their own cultural referents.

I don't know for sure what gods exist, and neither do you. Human inventions? Probably... but the humans who made them up may have had something real happen that made them think so. Did Moses really see and talk with a burning bush? We can't know. And if he did, was it really there, or was he hallucinating? We also can't know.

Well said and I agree. I can't say that God or doesn't exist. I have had enough odd experiences to give me pause and consider that, for me, I do believe in God. If, however, some rational explanation was found for these experiences, I would reconsider my position. I don't however, reject ideas as vehemently as some here do. IMO, and I mean no offense at this, there to be some reason for the vehemence of the rejection.

 

[JoStories]

When you consider Pagan gods and many other Greek and Roman gods lasted for hundreds or thousands of years and the Neanderthals were the ones to first exhibit what could loosely be described as religious practice, evidenced by burial sites that have been uncovered it becomes obvious that worshiping a god or gods has evolved into the religions we have today. It also becomes obvious all these gods were made up by somebody, therefore why would the Christian God or any other god worshiped today on this planet be any different or more substancial than the gods that have been and gone? The bible is far from being solid evidence except proving that this is the most sophisticated god so far that actually has a book to rule your life and guess what ? It was written by humans.... Got to be the biggest con of all time.

Perhaps. I can't deny that your view has merit. However, can you explain the pervasiveness of the concept over so many centuries? How the idea of God has continued to be a part of our human condition for well over 4000 years?

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps. I can't deny that your view has merit. However, can you explain the pervasiveness of the concept over so many centuries? How the idea of God has continued to be a part of our human condition for well over 4000 years?

Two main reasons; 1. Human nature, we tend to attribute things we do not understand to the supernatural.
2. We can be controlled by what we believe, religion is a powerful political weapon.

 

[JoStories]

Two main reasons; 1. Human nature, we tend to attribute things we do not understand to the supernatural.
2. We can be controlled by what we believe, religion is a powerful political weapon.

Ok, I must concede that, as a person of science. But I would then ask you why, in an age of science, such as we are in now, why has that belief not wavered or decreased. After all, many of,the things once thought to be supernatural have been explained. Yet, belief in God continues. Why?