Lucky13

Churches were made for people to worship God. not for atheists both religious and non-religious people to go get married and then divorce a year later

Fixed it for you.

And just because I am highly amused by this thread, let me end it.

This thread was Godwinized at 2006-05-05 12:46:43 PM

Thank you, and good night.

One word for the worth of this movie. TORRENT.

/that is all

Lollipop165
It is a belief if my coworker comes up to me in the office and says "there are pink unicorns in your apartment right now".

Ah, the IPU, patron deity of alt. and talk.atheism... those were the days, heady with our atheist numbers and ham and pineapple pizza...

Were you a reader, Lollipop?

Albert: I'm talking about Adolf Hitler. Not sure which Hitler you're talking about but I was reffering to Adolf Hitler. The guy who killed millions and said the following things:


Cool, and I was talking about the Adolf Hitler who said:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.....

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man....

As a Christian I have....

For as a Christian I....

So I guess he identified himself as a Christian but was still critical of the faith at times, sounds like a reasonable conclusion to me.

Yup, he was one murdering ass Christian.

Oh, and since you decided to drag history into this. How many people did athiests kill during the Crusades?

Idbecrazyif I realize what your trying to do, however you cannot invalidate the fact that the bible is great example of cultural history and part of the birth of written law.

I'm not "trying to do anything" other than refute the point that the bible was the first codification of laws.

I understand the bible is an important document, but it's certainly not the first code of laws. Jewish law (Leviticus), yes - as part of the Torah. As the first in the foundation of western law? No.

I_C_Weener
I believe that the Mongol Horde could be described as an athiest terror group.

Except that the Mongols did venerate a sky spirit, despite not having a particularly elaborate theology.

patrick862: I understand the bible is an important document, but it's certainly not the first code of laws. Jewish law (Leviticus), yes - as part of the Torah. As the first in the foundation of western law? No.


Aplogies for reading into your comment then.

We're in agreement I guess.

MayorYana

And to be honest, I'm fairly sure Athiesm is a belief, but I'm not closed to the idea it isn't, I just need a good reason to think so.

And that's the root of your debate issue.

You're mixing up antitheism with atheism.

Amoral - without moral
asexual - without sexuality
asyncronous - without being syncronized
atheist - against/opposed to theism

Wait.. what?

Shouldn't that read:
atheist - without a belief in god

We KNOW the bible is true, because the bible says it is.

What makes me laugh is all the yelling and hollering about whether this book is "heretical" in Christian terms.

Of course it's not! If you buy the premise of the story, that means that you also buy the premise that Jesus of Nazareth (a shadowy, vague historical figure at best), was a divine being. So, that's heretical?

Divine beings-- well, forget it, okay, people? Grow up and learn to sleep without a night light on.

Just for that kind of insolence, I'll never get another quarter from the Tooth Fairy... and at the age when all my teeth are falling out, too.

I_C_Weener: If they found a pillar of salt that looked like Lot's wife, would that convince anyone?


It might convince me that Lot's wife existed, but it doesn't nececeraly follow that the J man existed.

Well my nets on the frits, but check dictionary.com for the definition of an athiest....

Drasancas

Actaully, that would make a lot of sense, and now I'm actaully fairly convinced I was wrong. But could someone c/p the definition from dictionary.com ?

Fark It

That makes you an agnostic.

Incorrect. If you wish to utilize the error of the dictionary, then fine.

But it makes no logical sense.

According to the dictionary, one cannot have a 'conversation' online, becuase it must be oral. Because, you know, the dictionary is the end-all authority on the english language, never makes any errors.

Think for yourself on occasion.

This Christian thinks the Da Vinci Code is heresy.

Some people claim that Jesus never died, that He married Mary Magdalene and had children. Royalty today claims to be descended from Jesus and Mary.

I've traced the line back to Judah...but not through King David. I have a .pdf file on this that explains it.

Jesus never married or had children. That's just another example of people trying to discredit the Bible (can't be done).

/if the da vinci code were true i'd be a descendant of Jesus
//da vinci code is a crock

occams_electric_razor
Christian extremists are only the way they are in America because they already run the place. If they really were as powerless and marginalized as they like to say they are, they likely would resort to more forceful tactics.

You're telling me that Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. are marginalized and powerless? That's where all the rioting took place. Give me a break.

Albert: Immaculate_Misconception, You need to beef up on your history lessons a little and maybe you'd understand why Hitler once claimed to be Christian. Your qoutes are from when he was a young man, he later became an atheist and slaughter millions of people. Read up on it before you post and make fools of yourselves.


Make fools of myselves?

Who's the fool here.

It doesn't matter why he made his claims, it matters that they were made and recorded.

It's no different than every shady-assed used-car dealer I know claiming to be a Christian, he does it to gain trust.

The bottom line here is that there is no evidence anywhere that Hitler ever professed to anyone that he is an atheist. While you can find examples of him bashing religion, you'll not hear him deny his claims of being a Christian.

With that said, I don't believe that he lived by Christian principles. But going by his own words, he claimed to be a Christian. So I stand by my original assertion that he was one murdering ass Christian.

I_C_Weener: Damn, though. It be as cool as finding a 2001 Monolith.

I'd agree. Archeology is teh cool. A pillar of salt in a wasteland would be...interesting. Another piece of a puzzle that I'm constantly putting together.

MayorYana:
Being an Athiest means you've made the choice/leap of faith that you are absolutly certain there is no god.

It doesn't become true just because you repeat it.

I'm atheist. I don't believe there are any gods.
I don't claim to know, and I don't claim absolute certainty about it or anything else.
And I'm not agnostic. I don't believe it's unknowable and I don't feel a need to label an ignorance I share with everybody else.

Other atheists may see things differently. It's not like we're an organized religion.

Fark It

Drasancas

Incorrect. To be an atheist, you simply lack a belief. You don't believe god exists. You don't belief he doesn't exist either. You simply don't believe either way, due to lack of evidence.

That makes you an agnostic.


[A]gnosticism and [a]theism are not mutually exclusive.

The former is a statement about a belief on the knowability about God, the latter is a statement about a belief on the existence of God.

It is perfectly possible to be an agnositic theist, in which case you would be a mystic, or a gnostic (hard) atheist, in which you believe it is possible to know things about God, including the fact that he cannot exist.

Here's both:

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


what the hell?
"Antitheist" disappeared from m-w.com

antitheist

\An`ti*the"ist\, n. A disbeliever in the existence of God.
(dictionary.com)


It's nonsequitur why two words with the same root word, with vasly different prefixes, would mean the same thing.

Alexandra: I've traced the line back to Judah...but not through King David. I have a .pdf file on this that explains it.

Jesus never married or had children. That's just another example of people trying to discredit the Bible (can't be done).

Absence of evidence is not proof.

Lady J: I hate this dumb book for the fact that so many thick people think it's true.


Yeah, butr at least only a few believe it's true. The Bible on the other hand...

seventypercent: The thing that gives me the biggest amount of solace is the knowledge that the people involved with this film -- every last one of them -- will face an eternity of unimaginable pain, butchery, and torture. For me, that's enough. Sure, there's always the temptation to exact some more Earthly revenge on this people, but we have to put our faith in God and in His ability to exact vengeance on those who attack His son.

Thundercats, TROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLL

But the biggies, such as the Exodus, the capture of Canaan, the Davidic united kingdom, and so on, are completely fictional/mythic accounts dismissed by serious Levantine and Egyptian archeologists.

You are partly correct. Although the early books are clearly adaptations of prior work from other mesopotanian myths/religions, there is some evidence that the exodus did occur, but not in the manner precisely described in the Biblical accounts.

The hebrew were a motley nomadic crew, looked upon by the middle/upper class egyptians much the way we look upon gypsies. In fact, some translators claim "hebrew" is an egyption expression meaning "thiefs from across the river".

Regardless, they were troublesome, and were finally placated by some pharoah by allowing them to settle in egypt, and incorporating them into the egyption bureaucracy, hence the story of "the coat of many colors", etc. They later betrayed the egyptian aristocracy to some tribe (I forget who), and upon regaining power the aristocracy invited them to leave.

Even the origins of Abram are questionable. In other words, was Abram (abraham) actually a man's name? Or was it the name of a religious group (i.e. a-brahm, or "no longer believers in brahm). There are many interesting possibilities here, and this is as likely true as any other.

People were not classified (during those times) along ethnic lines. They were classified along religio.socio/tribal lines that could be composed of several different peoples, leading tribal members, slaves, and hangers-on.

Does this movie have any hot scantily clad women in it? If not, why go see it??

Article green lighters must have gotten too drunk at lunch.

Agnostic is just something athiests call themselves to avoid getting in tiffs with theists. Neither one cares if there is a god, and both agree God has no affect on their lives. Who cares if you leave open the possibility when it clearly will never be proven.

This is how Christians should greet De Divinci Code, pretend it's a Hollywood know-it-all coming to your house.
1) Don't take it seriously for its main goal is publicity seeking, money making and an attempt at corrupting. Just to make sure, lock up your daughters and, just in case, your weird son if he's constantly found in his room watching Matt Damon movies as ABBA's "Dancing Queen" is being played in the background.
2) The information it contains is not based on facts, like a biased documentary on the tse-tse fly or a biography trying to make everybody's certain favorite Hollywood sicko into a semi-digestable pervert. You will find the Da Vinci code in the FICTION area of bookstores and that should give everyone a clue as to what this book is about. It would be like finding Madonna'a autobiography sitting next to Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard's dissertation "The Concept of Irony with constant reference to Socrates". Not gona happen Barney and if it did there wouldn't be enough energy in the universe to restart people's neurons.
3) Christ is a prophet. This book is insulting a prophet. This will make many religious followers very upset. Get it? Don't be so stupid as to ever ask, again, why so many hate the USA. Granted all of this can be ironed out with our Hollywood ambassadors: Madonna can explain the virtues of slutting to innocent girls, Brad Pitt can define what it means to be an honorable man and the rest of Hollywood can issue communiques from their mansion blasting the evils of capitalism.

Immaculate_Misconception: The bottom line here is that there is no evidence anywhere that Hitler ever professed to anyone that he is an atheist. While you can find examples of him bashing religion, you'll not hear him deny his claims of being a Christian.

With that said, I don't believe that he lived by Christian principles. But going by his own words, he claimed to be a Christian. So I stand by my original assertion that he was one murdering ass Christian.


Weren't the Nazis obsessed with the spear of christ? Some magical powers infused in it that would be transferred to them with it's find or something like that?

MayorYana

it just seems like there is a contradiction in Lollipop165's words. there is no proof that there is a pink unicorn in her apartment. there is no proof that there is not a pink unicorn in her apartment. both would have to be non-beliefs according to that logic, not just one.

Okay
But can we all agree on 1 thing....

Religious threads are retarded.

Tatsuma: yeah, you are right on that.

I welcome people who want to criticize my beliefs. If I'm short of answers, then it's for me to reexamine my beliefs, not to yell at them "Heretics! Die in a fire!"


Ahh yea.. was waiting to play this card all afternoon

2006-05-05 01:14:34 PM Immaculate_Misconception
Who's the fool here.

You disproved yourself and strengthened my point. Hitler killed no one as a Christian and millions as an atheist. You tell me who the fool is.

Unfortunately, we're talking about THE DAVINCI CODE, which is about as big a piece of shiate masquerading as 'literature' that has ever been perpetrated on the buying public.

You forgot to say the HARRY POTTER series is as big a piece of shiate masquerading as 'literature' that has ever been perpetrated on the buying public. Davinci Code comes in #3 right after the Koran and other 'holy' books.

Clever Neologism


The former is a statement about a belief on the knowability about God, the latter is a statement about a belief on the existence of God.


I hate to break it to you, but that's what I've been saying!
Or at least trying to.

In the end, it doesn't really matter either way, which definition one uses.

But we have this situation where we have
1) Atheists(logical) who use one definition
2) Theists who use another definition of "atheist".

And the two groups argue furiously and simultaneously about two different stances, thinking they're talking about the same thing.

I think we could cut arguments down to like half if the definitions thing were set straight.

"To be an atheist, you simply lack a belief. You don't believe god exists. You don't belief he doesn't exist either. You simply don't believe either way, due to lack of evidence."

While I completely agree with you, atheist to atheist, I want to say, rahter than saying that I lack the belief that the supernatural exists or doesnt exist, reason tells me not to agree or disagree (make a judgement) on something for which there is no proof (knowledge) as that would be irrational.

Therefore as of now, I dont have a belief in God, but if I am proven wrong and literal proof comes from up high that S/He exists, then I technically could still an atheist, because I do not believe in God(s), but rather I KNOW him/her to be real.

Kinda like I might believe in theory Y for the death of the dinosaurs, as it seems to fit what I find in the world, but I have no proof. That would make me an Yist. However, atheist person says all of these theories are equally irrelevant with out proof. Let's say theory Z was entirely proven as correct. An Atheist can now become a theory Zist and still be an atheist on other matters of the unkown.

/i hate these threads
//before i have my coffee
///I just rambled forever

tatsuma

hell yeah! whats your opinion on today's hot topic?