Quote :

"nutsmacker do you ever use your brain or just post what other people have written about the bible i think you need to read froshkiller's post"

you have no idea

and froshkiller's post whether or not you want to believe it attacks a lot of your stances on christianity.

when you read the medieval theologians like I have instead of the most recent new age hippie theologian that allows you to conform your life to whatever religion you like, then we'll talk.

and the fact taht you tried that bullshit post proves taht I have beaten you. Just admit not everything in the bible is 100% true.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 4:16:53 PM

oh i didnt know you were an expert on my theological studies

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : wow is there anything you don't know?]

2/28/2006 4:17:50 PM

you bring about the same trite new age bullshit.

Christianity, changing christain beliefs for centuries to match the current social mores

2/28/2006 4:18:47 PM

i havent really said anything in this thread that is new age

2/28/2006 4:23:07 PM

This thread is a perfect example of the lazy, insecure evangelical -- they are jealous of how atheists can be secure in their belief, while they try every sleight oh hand in the book to argue for the supernatural without actually producing evidence!

Maybe this weak shit tricks your stupid churchgoing friends into believing you have proved something, but anyone with a brain knows that a proof requires..... PROOF

2/28/2006 4:29:54 PM

Quote :

"thats one interpretation, not the interpretation of most biblical historians"

this is the new age bullshit I'm talking about.

2/28/2006 4:31:06 PM

the real question is

is there such a thing as a true monotheist?

seems rather silly for the One god to be a jealous entity unless there's competition out there...

[/said before, but never hurts to say it again]

2/28/2006 4:35:45 PM

A jealous entity that's really three entities.

Jeebus, The Spook and The Old Man.

2/28/2006 4:37:02 PM

^^he could be a she, the she would just be vain as fuck. that makes sense, as well

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:37 PM. Reason : dg]

2/28/2006 4:37:24 PM

^ wtf are you talking about? my post doesn't assume a gender at all. an all-encompassing god would transcend gender and gender stereotypes.

but i suppose an all-encompassing god wouldn't be constrained by rationality either, so you could be on point, too. i find the concept of a totally irrational god a lot more believable.

^^ Explain. I mean, I know you're talking father/son/holy spirit. I just struggle with the concept at times.

msb2ncsu would probably give a helpful reply, too.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ...]

2/28/2006 4:40:20 PM

Quote :

"this is the new age bullshit I'm talking about."

yes, agreeing with the popular interpretation of most biblical scholars and historians
IM SO NEW AGE

Quote :

"This thread is a perfect example of the lazy, insecure evangelical -- they are jealous of how atheists can be secure in their belief, while they try every sleight oh hand in the book to argue for the supernatural without actually producing evidence!"

the zealous nature that people attack christianity is evidence of how jealous athiests are that they can't have faith in something that brings them joy and happiness

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 4:40:23 PM

new age = anytime after 1700

2/28/2006 4:42:04 PM

Quote :

"yes, agreeing with the popular interpretation of most biblical scholars and historians IM SO NEW AGE"

number one, you haven't said who these people are
number two, this is new thinking that contradicts even jesus in the new testament
number three, if it it truely is the word of god it shouldn't need "interpretation"

that's what christians do, when something doesn't go their way they just "interpret" it differntly until there is no semblance of the original doctrine.

Quote :

"the zealous nature that people attack christianity is evidence of how jealous athiests are that they can't have faith in something that brings them joy and happiness"

nope, this thread is evidence that Christians make stupid claims get called out on it and say, "that's just an interpretation." etc. If you remember, a Christian, not an atheist made this thread.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 4:42:16 PM

you know who else transcends gender?

2/28/2006 4:42:38 PM

^^^^^

Well they say that Jesus, The Holy Spirit and God are all the same entity, but treat them as seperate entities.

Muslims and people of other religions struggle with that and call Christianity polytheistic.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:43 PM. Reason : *]

2/28/2006 4:42:51 PM

Quote :

"number two, this is new thinking that contradicts even jesus in the new testament number three, if it it truely is the word of god it shouldn't need "interpretation""

see those two statements are just false

2/28/2006 4:50:34 PM

prove it?

2/28/2006 4:52:08 PM

prooof oh no!!!

2/28/2006 4:54:15 PM

im not the ones that made those claims, i dont have to prove it

i have a rocket ship for a penis, PROVE I DONT

2/28/2006 4:56:17 PM

That is an open invitation to kick him in the nuts!

2/28/2006 4:57:17 PM

kicking him in the nuts wont prove anything about the makeup of his penis

2/28/2006 5:02:50 PM

Quote :

"im not the ones that made those claims, i dont have to prove it i have a rocket ship for a penis, PROVE I DONT"

Thanks for summing it up

OMF, god exists. PROVE THAT HE DOESNT

2/28/2006 5:10:28 PM

i mean if you are stubborn enough

then you can't PROVE that anything exists or doesnt exist so just believe whatever the fuck you want to

2/28/2006 5:21:46 PM

how new age!

2/28/2006 5:27:57 PM

the originator of this thread is an idiot and that's all that there really should have been said - the basic assumptions made are horrible

2/28/2006 5:50:03 PM

Quote :

"the old testament is filled w/ prophecy "

Hesiod tells us Prometheus prophesized that Thetis would bear a child stronger than her father. (He got in trouble for trying to keep this from Zeus, since Gods had been overthrown by their fathers up until Zeus, who was more lenient, took the thrown) A mortal ended up mating with the Sea nymph instead and instead & Achilles (from the Trojan war) was born who was much more powerful than his mortal father.

The ancients Greeks knew of countless prophecies fulfilled, & we know of many “myth sites” that have been excavated like Knossos (where the Minotaur in the labyrinth was kept), Mycenae (where Agamemnon lived), & even Troy was found. A Troy with archeological evidence of destruction as in a war.

Quote :

" What does make me worry about the big 3 religious doctrines (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam) is the whole end of the world/amargeddon/rapture/revelations thing. I just find it ridiculous that someone can teach their family that the world is going to end and that only them and other saved ones are going to a peaceful afterlife in a magical painless transition as the rest of the world is going to be swallowed up in fire and the remains of human civilization is going to have to fight deamons and other underworldly creatures. That is the general ideology that a lot of true believers have."

The Greek polytheistic religion tells us that time is cyclical. No beginning & then horrible end. So this religion can take care of "what does make you worry."

Maybe a big bang followed by a big implosion, & the universe does this over and over.

A non cyclical view would either have to say the universe has always existed (but since space is expanding, if you run it backwards then eventually it all comes together), or the universe is temporary then its a lot harder to explain how things got started. A cyclical view can have a universe that deals with the perceived expansion & doesn’t have to answer how things got started. Its just Chaos & Eros causing things to spread apart & come together again.

Quote :

" account in Genesis "

Its like every time you say Genesis you admit that it was Ge who is responsible for the creation of the earth, not Yahweh.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 6:12 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 5:59:33 PM

You do know when I said "make me worry" I meant it troubled me, not that i'm scared about any cataclysmic end (not afraid of dying by the way, it's a fate we all go through) but that the people that I live with day by day actually consider such a fatasy real.


When you talk about imploding and expanding universes/cyclical and non-cyclical it interest me. I thought about how astronomers uses red shift light patterns to percieve that a certain galaxy is moving away, a la the big bang theory.

Contrary to popular belief this is not really a solid theory.
for 1. Astronomers have not found the center of the universe, in fact the latest mapping of the universe comprises a cube of theoretical space a certain amount of light years across, about 13 billion l.y. or whatever. 2. How does one really know then that the universe is expanding if only a small portion can actually be seen. 3. Sure the fathest away galaxies are moving away at a rate that we wont be able to continue studying them, but does that mean that what we cant see doesn't exist. Who deemed that all galaxies are expanding outward if we cant look beyond the so called light year threshold.

Something to think about.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 8:42 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 8:42 PM. Reason : sp]

2/28/2006 8:41:09 PM

I'm not an astonomer, although I will be taking a class come fall. I know challeging the big bang theory is something not to take lightly but I do because theories are meant to be challenged. Thats what science is about. You can try to disprove as much as you like and no one will burn you at the stake or excommunicate you.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 8:53 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 8:57 PM. Reason : sp]

2/28/2006 8:53:35 PM

^Science is good that way... its more tolerant. Polytheism can be too. Aphrodite is said to be either motherless with being formed just out of the blood & semen of Kronos when his genetalia were cut off and fell into the sea near cyprus. Also she is said to be a daughter of Zeus & Dione. Theseus (slayer of the minotaur, king of athens pre democracy times, husband of Hippolyta - Queen of the Amazons) is said to have his father either be Aegeus or Poseidon. Eros (also called cupid by the Romans) can be from Chaos or can be a son Aphrodite.

You have multiple Gods, there is tolerance in that you can incorparate new Gods into your system, there is room for disagreement about the gods, and you can emphasis whatever characteristics(gods) you want. If you value Wisdom you can praise it, or you can worship Erotic Passion, or War.

---
Instead of a new post, I went back here to respond. So everything below this point is a response to the post that actually comes after this post, so you might what to read it in that order to make sense of it. I just didn't want to add a new post that was only about Greek Polytheism when this thread is a discussion of Atheism


Zeus was able to keep his throne by practicing tolerance, paying attention to prophecy like avoiding mating with Themis, and by trying new tactics. Each generation was overthrown up until Zeus came along. Earlier Kings of the Gods had tried new tactics like Uranus burying them in their mother Gaia (burying them in the earth, in some sense not letting them be born), or Kronos swallowing the children inside himself, but Zeus swallowed his wife Metis to keep from her bearing any stronger children. She was pregnant at the time so a child was born in Zeus. In some sense Zeus is mother and father as he kind of absorbed the traits of Metis. This feminine balancing might be where his tolerance comes. She was born in a warriors outfit and had she been male (had Zeus had any more children with Metis) he very well could have been over thrown.

Yeah his head is in some versions told as cut open (I think by an axe of Hephaestus) to aid the birth... I guess getting the birth out of the way would relieve the headache.






As for the astronomy classes at NCSU, I do recommend them. I've had or am currently in 2 classes and 1 lab which I think is as much as a normal student is allowed to take (I inquired into a computer lab class, but they said that astronomy class was only for grad students in physics). The lab isn't great, but its not worse than the chemistry lab I had. I recommend Egler in particular. I have him for the local solar astronomy & had a different professor for the larger scale universal astronomy class, but Egler addresses the Big Bang more.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 9:42 PM. Reason : added a response to the post below V]

2/28/2006 9:13:19 PM

I found it funny when my high school english teacher told me that Athena was born after Zeus cut open his head to relieve a painful headache.

Yeah, it did vary in Greek and Roman times as to which gods did what and how they came into existance. Juno-Zeus, Pluto-Hades, et cetera.

As for the NCSU classes, I might go take them after i'm done here in G-Vegas. Taking advantage of the cheap tuition.



[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 9:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 9:23:23 PM

Quote :

"I'm not an astonomer, although I will be taking a class come fall. I know challeging the big bang theory is something not to take lightly but I do because theories are meant to be challenged. Thats what science is about. You can try to disprove as much as you like and no one will burn you at the stake or excommunicate you."

...unless you are on tww, where you'll be called an idiot and later proven to be correct.

2/28/2006 9:51:30 PM

Quote :

"the definition of an atheist from webster.com states:: "one who believes that there is no deity""

believes, not knows.

[/thread]

(sorry if that point has been made before, haven't read anything but the first post)

2/28/2006 10:04:36 PM

Quote :

""I'm not an astonomer, although I will be taking a class come fall. I know challeging the big bang theory is something not to take lightly but I do because theories are meant to be challenged. Thats what science is about. You can try to disprove as much as you like and no one will burn you at the stake or excommunicate you.""

Polytheism & science allow for different beliefs. Religions that make decision on what truth is, and then define themselves by it regardless of what discoveries are made later in history on the accuracy of these truths, feel threatened by anyone who attacks their identity. They either have to break off & thus end up with countless sects of a given religion, or silence those they disagree with.

2/28/2006 10:05:31 PM

I'm not familiar with other religions, but the only thing that is required to be a Christian is to believe in and accept Jesus as your savior right? I'm not sure how a Christian should feel threatened by something another Christian said being proved wrong any more than a scientist should feel threatened by something another scientist said being proved wrong.

2/28/2006 10:13:55 PM

Yeah, those scientists regularly engage in wars that wipe out huge junks of the European population.

The modern republican philosopher's that I've read (like Sandel... I think thats the right name) do indeed argue that being christian is so much of who they are that it is a personal attack to have your beliefs questioned.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 11:59 PM. Reason : republican in the philosophical sense, not the name of the political party in the US]

2/28/2006 11:53:05 PM

I wasn't aware Christians regularly engage in wars that wipe out huge junks of the European population. I'll get on the phone with the Christian community and ask them to stop it.

My point was that not every Christian's mind is wrecked when their identity as a Christian is attacked. Also, not every Christian defines themselves, as you put it, in as many faith dependant truths as some would assume.

Some scientists have lied in papers, manufactured evidence and fixed experiments so their identity wouldn't be questioned and I've seen many get angry when asked questions they can't answer. It seems that man's pride is the issue and not the particular belief.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 12:06:56 AM

My specific reference was to events like the ones that brought about the Peace of Augsburg which I think took out about 1/3 of the Europeans. But I certainly think more people band together in the name of God to go to war than they do in the name of science.

"My point was that not every Christian's mind is wrecked when their identity as a Christian is attacked."

I agree, I was just (perhaps too dramatically) trying to make the point that a scientists are less likely to consider new information as a personal attack, and that polytheists are less likely to fraction like countless protestants breakings from the Catholics & the Catholics (in the orthodox POV) breaking from the orthodox, since polytheist have a stronger mechanism for incorporating new beliefs.
---
I guess I didn't make a clear distinction earlier about which statements were supposed to show relative points (scientist as a whole compared to monotheists throughout time), and which one were defining point (like monotheism’s tendency to fracture). Sorry bout that.


[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 12:58:21 AM

ah, I see now. You're right.

3/1/2006 1:08:52 AM

where's the center on the surface of a sphere?

3/1/2006 1:19:12 AM

everywhere.



I like the super-theoretical idea of our universe being the product of two branes colliding. That m-theory shit is some deep shit. The only terrible part is, that since we have yet the mathematics to describe what goes on in the line of strings and branes, it cant be tested. While some argue that this makes it to be no more than a philosophy, its like so many signs are pointing to this sort of theory thats its only a matter of time before we figure out what we're missing scientifically.

It throws your since of perspective for a loop. You are just a dot in a infinte universe in something else full of infinite universes.

NAH

it was probably just some superior being. why would something so advanced even give a shit about us? please.

3/1/2006 1:49:17 AM

Quote :

"where's the center on the surface of a sphere?"

nowhere(on the sphere), otherwise the symmetry is broken and it's not a sphere.

Quote :

"I like the super-theoretical idea of our universe being the product of two branes colliding. That m-theory shit is some deep shit."

interesting though it is, the question still remains why are there brains and why does
a particular string theory describe the universe we live in. It has become much clearer after
a few decades of research that string theory is not just one theory, but rather a whole family of
string models. People still seek this holy grail of self-consistency (which would in principle allow
us to select just one string theory out of the multitude), but logic and experience
points to the fact that this is a unjustified expectation for string theory. Sure it will be a more
sophisticated depiction of the universe, but there will still be initial conditions left to explain. And more profoundly, the question of why there should be physical law at all.

Quote :

"it was probably just some superior being. why would something so advanced even give a shit about us? please"

Why wouldn't He? Maybe the fact that life thrives here could be a clue that some intelligence cares
about us and has created a universe in which we can live. Maybe we could know that because He told us He cares.

Anyway, the fact that we have a physical description of the world doesn't really change the relation
of God and man. It is an intellectual swindle, a trick, to suppose that just because science describes
some phenomenon that means that God is not involved. All the ever increasing sophisitcation of science entails to the Christian is that we understand how God's creation is put together a little better. We might even get a glimpse at how God created the universe, some description, branes perhaps. But, God's promises stand independent from the progress of science. And God will continue to work in this world wether or not we have a mathematical depiction of how He does that.

3/1/2006 3:02:41 AM

kbncsufan said:

Quote :

"but w/ science too there have been hundreds of things thought true and then proven false therefore making science fallable"

No, that makes the disproven hypotheses fallible. I don't think you understand what science is. Science is a self-correcting methodology of drawing conclusions about nature of the universe and its constituent parts based on observed phenomena. When a scientist discovers new evidence that upsets old hypotheses, those hypotheses get revisited and revised. This is pretty much the exact opposite of religion, in which a set of conclusions is presented to the believer as true and unchanging. Religion requires faith in order for its adherents to toil in the darkness; science shines the light of reason on the world and frees us from the shackles of superstition.

That said, science doesn't say there was no Creator, or that there was no Eden, or that there is no Heaven, or that there is no Hell, no immortal soul, no possibility of the divinity of Jesus. What science does say is that no evidence for any of those things has been discovered and that half of them aren't even testable hypotheses in the first place. Science does not deny the existence of a thing—it just doesn't assume the existence of a thing until there's evidence to investigate.

kbncsufan also said:

Quote :

"according to the bible, the rapture is when Jesus will return from heaven and take up all of the believers and followers of God to be with Him in heaven. There will then be a period of seven years when all of the non-believers will go through tough times but over those seven years anyone who declares Jesus Christ lord and becomes saved will then go to heaven. after that time will be that battle b/t good and evil, or Armageddon, and the bible tells us that Jesus will win and heaven and hell will be separated forever. Jesus will then create a new heaven and a new earth where all of the believers will prosper w/o pain and suffering."

You might want to check your Bible again. Scriptural support for the doctrine of the Rapture is pretty much nonexistent, and what little is in there doesn't mention your seven years thing.

JonHGuth said:

Quote :

"nutsmacker do you ever use your brain or just post what other people have written about the bible i think you need to read froshkiller's post"

Well, to be perfectly honest, that post is much more applicable to kbncsufan than anyone else in this thread.

3/1/2006 8:08:01 AM

"All the ever increasing sophisitcation of science..."

I first read this as him attacking science as sophistry, as a kind of bad relativism/skepticism, before ever considering it could have meant complexity. I've been at this too long.

3/1/2006 9:06:28 AM

frosh bringing the PAIN

3/1/2006 9:59:38 AM

“but Zeus swallowed his wife Metis to keep from her bearing any stronger children. She was pregnant at the time so a child (Athena) was born in Zeus. In some sense Zeus is mother and father as he kind of absorbed the traits of Metis. This feminine balancing might be where his tolerance comes from”

More evidence of this balancing. Apparently Zeus also “mothered” more children.

He, disguised, slept with a mortal Semele and impregnated her. Hera, being jealous, disguised herself as an old lady and told her to get her lover to reveal himself in his full glory. So Semele made him promise to grant her 1 thing she asked for. After he promised to, she said she wished that he would reveal himself, and he begrudgingly did so… but his fully revealed divine radiance burned her to a cinder. The child in the womb, being the son of a god survived, so in some versions he sewed the child (Dionysus) inside himself so it could be protected & grow until it was ready to be born.

3/1/2006 12:35:46 PM

Quote :

"Why wouldn't He? Maybe the fact that life thrives here could be a clue that some intelligence cares about us and has created a universe in which we can live. Maybe we could know that because He told us He cares. Anyway, the fact that we have a physical description of the world doesn't really change the relation of God and man. It is an intellectual swindle, a trick, to suppose that just because science describes some phenomenon that means that God is not involved. All the ever increasing sophisitcation of science entails to the Christian is that we understand how God's creation is put together a little better. We might even get a glimpse at how God created the universe, some description, branes perhaps. But, God's promises stand independent from the progress of science. And God will continue to work in this world wether or not we have a mathematical depiction of how He does that."

Somehow I highly doubt that "he" has directly told or promised you anything. You mean that the other aliens on this ball of matter have told you that "he" (Because we all know god must be male) promised/told you something. The idea of a god came about when there was essentially no explanation for anything, but there were beings intelligent enough to want an explanation. To me the entire idea is inherently flawed, in that I don't think it makes sense to believe in something with no real evidence to support it.

Nothing just jumped out and said, "There is a god," when you were born (Except other humans). The only evidence you have is other people's word, a book written by people, and your thoughts about what you see in the universe around you (Which have likely been influenced by those words and book). I also don't see how people don't think that the whole story behind their religion must have changed over the thousands of years of playing "telephone." I do not believe that there is any religion that truly describes what happened to create this reality or why, thus it seems pointless to claim one. Even if god had come to the earth directly a few thousand years ago, there would have been NO feasible way for it to explain anything to humans (Especially with the level of understanding they had at the time). How can these books written back then be so incredibly accurate?

I also have a very hard time understanding how there is supposed to be an afterlife... No living brain cells, no chemical or electrical signals, no input, no output, no perception, no thought. I have a feeling it will be exactly what it was like for the billions (If not infinite #) of years before you were alive. All of the matter/energy is there, but it isn't arranged the same way. I'm not sure that you can't be born again though..

Btw, I do agree that math and science in general attempts to model and/or explain natural occurances, and does not necessarily support or negate the existence of a god. I think it does likely negate the existance of a god (And more specifically an afterlife) in some of the forms accepted by many of the religions I know of.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 1:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2006 1:21:44 PM

Quote :

" I also have a very hard time understanding how there is supposed to be an afterlife... No living brain cells, no chemical or electrical signals, no input, no output, no perception, no thought. I have a feeling it will be exactly what it was like for the billions (If not infinite #) of years before you were alive. All of the matter/energy is there, but it isn't arranged the same way. I'm not sure that you can't be born again though.."

I believe many medieval Christians believed that at the end men would be resurrected (body & spirit) to enter heaven. They believed that your body is an important part of who you are. This I think has some appeal to our intuitions, I mean how many of us can claim that we are unaffected mentally by how we look, how strong we are, and other bodily/physical attributes.

3/1/2006 1:43:10 PM

Supercalo:"I'm not an astonomer, although I will be taking a class come fall."

Supplanter: "As for the astronomy classes at NCSU, I do recommend them. I've had or am currently in 2 classes and 1 lab which I think is as much as a normal student is allowed to take (I inquired into a computer lab class, but they said that astronomy class was only for grad students in physics)... I recommend Egler in particular. I have him for the local solar astronomy & had a different professor for the larger scale universal astronomy class, but Egler addresses the Big Bang more."

So as soon as I go and say I think I will have had all the astronomy courses that normal undergrads can take, they decide to add a new one in the fall after I graduate. Being that I'm graduating, Its unlikely I'll ever study the stars this way again. But maybe some of you, like Supercalo will get a chance and can tell me what its all about since I'll be sticking around tdub regardless of where I go to gradschool.

Heres the e-mail Egler sent to inform his class

Quote :

"Greetings, PY124 people, Just for your information: Because every semester several students ask if I teach any more advanced astronomy courses, I am offering a special, more advanced, section of astronomy in the Fall 2006 semester. The course is Spherical Astronomy, PY499-002. It is a much more in depth, and mathematical course. It has a prerequisite of 2 semesters of calculus-based physics (PY201/202 or PY205/208) and one semester of calculus (MA141, but MA241 would do as well). More information is available at: http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/courses/astron/py499-fall-2006.html - RAE "

3/2/2006 4:45:19 PM

So after all the arguments made here by different people.. kbncsufan do you still think there is no such thing as a true atheist?

3/4/2006 5:41:28 PM

^he has to relay his thoughts here to his pastor and get approval before that happens

3/5/2006 12:09:41 PM