On Sun 28 May 2006, Barry and Sandra <sasalobo@squaw.ca> wrote:
An atheist is one who believes that there is no deity, not one who
doesn't believe in a deity. That's an agnostic - one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of
God or a god.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In other words, an "agnostic" is a person who is committed
to believing that neither the existence nor the nonexistence
of God, or gods, can be proven to the aforesaid's personal
satisfaction. *Anybody* can deny their own vulnerabilities,
but that doesn't make them go away. :-D
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Agnosticism is properly defined as a "belief",
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Agnostic -
[coined (1870) by Thomas Henry HUXLEY < A-2 + GNOSTIC]
a person who *believes* that the human mind cannot
know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause,
or anything beyond material phenomena"
[end quote, emphasis added]
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM38786.0401967593@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRHncapljD7YrHM/nEQJxHwCg2SfDa2BpjQafrkzUheJJct+u5b8AnizU
3LWZm6HMbH47OWHPS08ev54d
=Rnph
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
`
.
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
29 May 2006 09:30:08 AM |
|
|
It's probably useless to try to define words like "theist", "atheist",
and "agnostic" without first defining, "god" or "the supernatural".
Does anyone who's reading this wanna have a go at THAT?
I certainly don't. I've already written enough on that subject over
the last forty years to fill a small book, and I doubt I've ever said
anything that hasn't been said innumerable times before. But if we
don't first define "god", then anything we say here about belief or
disbelief in such an entity will be moot...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
31 May 2006 05:11:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1148913008.155083.229250@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, says...
It's probably useless to try to define words like "theist", "atheist",
and "agnostic" without first defining, "god" or "the supernatural".
Does anyone who's reading this wanna have a go at THAT?
I certainly don't. I've already written enough on that subject over
the last forty years to fill a small book, and I doubt I've ever said
anything that hasn't been said innumerable times before. But if we
don't first define "god", then anything we say here about belief or
disbelief in such an entity will be moot...
I would say that broadly speaking, God can be defined into a certain 3
group category, that most people believe in...
1. God of the Bible (or Jewish or Islamic tradition - they are so very
similiar, they should be labelled the one God) - ie. those who believe
in this view, and take that text to be holy, etc etc.
This God is an entity, and spoke. Of course he doesn't speak today,
he only spoke in the Bible, which is a revisionist text - ie. it has been
edited, rewritten and translated any number of times. It's not like it
was written the 'once' and we have a direct accurate translation of
that text. Look at the Book of Ezekiel - does anyone know what was being
described there? At all? throughout the centuries...
2. The Universe is God, we are a part of the Universe, and therefore a
part of God. This is not an entity that speaks to us, is not the God of
the Bible, etc. There may? be some kind of communication - but it is not
like ordinary speech or communication.
3. This is probably linked to 2. being somewhat similiar.
This is whereby there is no God as such, but there is the 'creation'.
Whereby the creative forces in the universe are linked to the creation,
which we are part of. We can tap into that resource through inner
contemplation/meditation through our spirit.
This is what Jesus supposedly taught us, but which the Christian
church misunderstood and edited out. You could say that Paul misunderstood
and tried his best and put forward his ideas, etc which deviated from that
of Jesus.
And some explanation is needed to say, what was the basis for God in the
first place, and who spoke those words in the Bible, etc.
Well all gods, and God came from ET rulers or leaders in every culture and
country, that that is their origin.
Which does make sense, you have a primitive people, who are ignorant (at that
time in ancient past) - they meet ETs who are there to educate them and
help them with civilisation (agriculture, clothing and housing techniques),
and they get worshipped as Gods. Some even wanted worshipping - God in
particular wanted such attention, and the name changes were because his
Son took his place of office, so there were at least 3 generations of GOD
thereof. Of course he didn't create the universe, as such, etc - he was
just a very intelligent being, who lived for a very long time.
I hope this explanation suffices, and there is the reading material
that would say this is somewhat valid.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
01 Jun 2006 08:41:31 AM |
|
|
Hi Harvey,
IMO, all three of your explanations leave us right back at "square one"
as far as defining "God" is concerned.
1. The Jewish/Christian/Moslem religion has generated enough "holy
writ" to fill a very large library, but there's not enough internal
consistency within this enormous body of literature to allow the reader
to draw any firm conclusions about the nature of the "One True God"
allegedly worshipped in common by members of this religion. Even the
principal foundation documents of all three branches -- the Torah, the
New Testament, and the Koran -- are massively self-contradictory when
they try to describe "who God is, what he does, and why".
2. Defining God as "the Universe" or anything like that is just
creating a meaningless abstraction that can't be used to answer any
practical questions about "good from evil", "the afterlife, if any",
"free will vs. predestination", etc. So it's nothing more than a
clever way of refusing to seek an answer for such questions.
3. This is the area I deal with in my own writings on "the nature of
spiritual reality", but I always start off by saying that I'm a
complete atheist who doesn't believe in the "supernatural" at all. If
phenomena such as "telepathy", "the soul", "life after death",
"Earth/Extraterrestrial contact", etc. really exist -- and I personally
believe there's plenty of empirical evidence they do -- then they are
"natural", not "supernatural". The available indicates that terms such
as "deities", "angels", "devils", "space aliens", etc. may very well,
in certain cases, refer to actual intelligent beings. But this same
evidence indicates that the rule of "as below, so above" applies. In
other words, these entities aren't really that different from us
"ordinary humans": they have to obey the "laws of nature and science"
the same as we do. And like us, they have to deal with "ethics",
"politics", economics", "psychology", etc.
So doesn't this leave us right back where we started? Essentially, #1
demands that we accept a definition of "God" on faith, #2 begs the
question entirely, and #3 is actually accepting "rational,
materialistic atheism" on faith by claiming that certain pheonomena
common labeled as "supernatural" are real, but also part of "nature".
Kyle Griffith, 6/1/06
.
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
04 Jun 2006 03:58:02 AM |
|
|
In article <1149169291.572812.302130@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, says...
Hi Harvey,
IMO, all three of your explanations leave us right back at "square one"
as far as defining "God" is concerned.
1. The Jewish/Christian/Moslem religion has generated enough "holy
writ" to fill a very large library, but there's not enough internal
consistency within this enormous body of literature to allow the reader
to draw any firm conclusions about the nature of the "One True God"
allegedly worshipped in common by members of this religion. Even the
principal foundation documents of all three branches -- the Torah, the
New Testament, and the Koran -- are massively self-contradictory when
they try to describe "who God is, what he does, and why".
2. Defining God as "the Universe" or anything like that is just
creating a meaningless abstraction that can't be used to answer any
practical questions about "good from evil", "the afterlife, if any",
"free will vs. predestination", etc. So it's nothing more than a
clever way of refusing to seek an answer for such questions.
3. This is the area I deal with in my own writings on "the nature of
spiritual reality", but I always start off by saying that I'm a
complete atheist who doesn't believe in the "supernatural" at all. If
phenomena such as "telepathy", "the soul", "life after death",
"Earth/Extraterrestrial contact", etc. really exist -- and I personally
believe there's plenty of empirical evidence they do -- then they are
"natural", not "supernatural". The available indicates that terms such
as "deities", "angels", "devils", "space aliens", etc. may very well,
in certain cases, refer to actual intelligent beings. But this same
evidence indicates that the rule of "as below, so above" applies. In
other words, these entities aren't really that different from us
"ordinary humans": they have to obey the "laws of nature and science"
the same as we do. And like us, they have to deal with "ethics",
"politics", economics", "psychology", etc.
So doesn't this leave us right back where we started? Essentially, #1
demands that we accept a definition of "God" on faith, #2 begs the
question entirely, and #3 is actually accepting "rational,
materialistic atheism" on faith by claiming that certain pheonomena
common labeled as "supernatural" are real, but also part of "nature".
Kyle Griffith, 6/1/06
I tend to believe that people make up their mind, according to their
own life experience, what they have read and researched themself and
probably most importantly - who do they trust?
OK a diversion.
For a long time, just like everyone else, I tended to simply accept
what you are told, what you are presented with.
eg. With the Apollo Moon Landings and the NASA programs, I had an interest
in that kind of thing, growing up.
And in the last few years, there's been the various "NASA hoaxed the
Moon Landings" programmes which showed how they hoaxed it all.
Most people would react that - that's impossible! But when you look at the
evidence presented, it's actually pretty strong, the case that they did
hoax it all. It's only looking at the details, that the evidence mounts up,
and some of it is very strong indeed. Mostly photographic though, so you
would have to know something technically about photography, to know that
case is strong. NASA has been accused over the years of not releasing
all the information they have available, this is shown in one documentary,
"The Secret NASA Transmissions" in which a Community Cable Television
Manager downlinked the entire NASA transmissions on their space shuttle
missions in the early 90s' and they showed various strange objects on tape.
With my high school education, the teachers were Christians, and science
teachers too. Now looking back - I really can't see how they can be
happy with Christianity and Science - do they totally ignore logic and
reason, when they think about things Christian? Or more likely they just
compartmise their thinking into separate sections and never the twain will
meet?
There are a whole lot of strange things that has happened to people -
Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, encounters with ghosts, and
what have you.. I don't think you can ignore these things, just because
they may not figure in your world view.
I think you have to take all things into consideration - and you have to
verify things as much as possible - and to not simply accept things without
checking them out.
Information doesn't remain compartmised, and separated, and remain in
isolation. But that information connects with other information, and yet
more .. they interconnect - and they make more sense because of these
interconnections.
I don't accept the Christian story about Jesus - I never was quite happy
with their complete story.
I now know, I agree more with the Jmmanuel story (at www.tjresearch.info)
which says the resurrection never happened.
I tend to agree with the spiritual teachings of Jmmanuel (who became
known as 'Jesus') - there is an excellent overview of the teachings,
summed up by Dietmar Rothe, in a transcript of a lecture he gave on this.
What it basically is, is that Jesus did not teach of the God of the Bible,
as taught by Christians. That God does not exist.
That instead of praying to God, you should be praying to your own Spirit,
that you should connect with your own spirit, and we are always responsible
for our own actions.
Also that God, is a distortion, that god was originally a King of Wisdom,
an ET who was overseeing the human development on Earth.
Instead of God being the creator of the Universe, etc... there is no
Creator as such, but there is the Creation, which is the process by which
everything is linked to the creative force in the universe.
This is the process that animates all life forms, all life.
I don't have any respect for Jewish/Christian/Moslem religion and text.
Because it is all too apparent they are motivated by power for power.
For political purposes. Power and control.
None of their idealogy makes any real sense, nor is there any kind of
proof for it. Lacking reason and intelligence, etc etc.
What I have quoted for coming via Jmmanuel, I have read elsewhere -
and to me, that does make sense, what is taught there.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
29 May 2006 05:08:30 PM |
|
|
Real Astronomer wrote:
On Sun 28 May 2006, Barry and Sandra <sasalobo@squaw.ca> wrote:
An atheist is one who believes that there is no deity, not one who
doesn't believe in a deity. That's an agnostic - one who is not
committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of
God or a god.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In other words, an "agnostic" is a person who is committed
to believing that neither the existence nor the nonexistence
of God, or gods, can be proven to the aforesaid's personal
satisfaction. *Anybody* can deny their own vulnerabilities,
but that doesn't make them go away. :-D
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Agnosticism is properly defined as a "belief",
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Agnostic -
[coined (1870) by Thomas Henry HUXLEY < A-2 + GNOSTIC]
a person who *believes* that the human mind cannot
know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause,
or anything beyond material phenomena"
[end quote, emphasis added]
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM38786.0401967593@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRHncapljD7YrHM/nEQJxHwCg2SfDa2BpjQafrkzUheJJct+u5b8AnizU
3LWZm6HMbH47OWHPS08ev54d
=Rnph
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
One knows we are immeadiately in trouble, when "Minnie" gives forth,
there is the multiplicity of Beleifs, like what is God, if one is of
the USA, He (and it is a HE) is probably a cross between J Wayne and
Elvis, and then with Son, who also has imbued powers like a certain
blindness to wealth, and Greed, but just in case, the country has set
up this Huge gulag system, thus ensuring that the Messiah has plenty
of work cut out for him, making him an illegal alien with leftist
leanings.
Though it is not factored in just how many await a Saviour, never mind
the ones who believe theirs is the ONE, a shining example of Truth and
Justice.
WHites whiter than white.
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
