It wasn't that bad !
-
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(May 14, 2012 07:45 PM)
Everyone is Religious, and thuis includes Atheists. Religion is just what you beleive about the world we liv ein, its a Philosophy about who and what we are. Secular Humanism, Objectivism, both billed as Nonreligiosu Philosophies yet both do the same thign as religion in the same way, so whats the difference there?
However, in terms of Scientology, the reason its offensive to call it a Church to the abov is that Churches sdtarted based on genuine beleif and Scinetology began as a "Science of the Mind' that was turned into a Religion so Hubbard could get tax exemption and not need medical liscensing.
Oh and to avid beign sued. -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(September 05, 2012 05:59 AM)
Everyone is Religious, and thuis includes Atheists. Religion is just what you beleive about the world we liv ein, its a Philosophy about who and what we are. Secular Humanism, Objectivism, both billed as Nonreligiosu Philosophies yet both do the same thign as religion in the same way, so whats the difference there?
Theism - Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism - Lack of a belief in a god or gods.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheists do not "believe" in anything. In fact, they do the exact opposite. They do not practice any sort of organized theology. Atheism is not ritualistic in anyway. Nothing about Atheism is religious.
To put it simply, Atheism is anti-religion. How can one's religion be to be anti-religious? That doesn't make sense.
P.S. - Philosophy and religion are two completely different things. Philosophy is rational and is about trying to explain life, existence, purpose, etc through logic and reason.
Religion is dogmatic, spiritual, and about faith.
Philosophy is about the natural.
Religion is about the supernatural.
I hope this clears things up for you.
The world is yours & everything in it. Its out there; get on your grind & get it. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 05, 2012 06:07 AM)
Wel-
Theism - Belief in a god or gods.
Atheism - Lack of a belief in a god or gods.
Your definition for Atheism is wrong. It is not a lack of beleif in a god or gods. Sure, its popular to say it is, but its also impossible to actually lack belief in something you have a cpncept of. Once an idea is introduced, you can either accept it or reject it, but you cant lack it. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, it is not a lack of belief in a god.
Not that it matters, as Religion is not the same thing as Theism, and you seem to conflate the two as if Atheism is a lack of belief in a god therefore is not a Religion makes any sense to what Ive said
Atheism is not a religion.
I never said it was. But Theism is also not a Religion.
However, being an Atheist doesnt make you Non-Religious. What I said was that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. This is because Religion is a Philosophical understanding about the nature of the world we live in. Religion is not another word for Theism and doesnt require Theism.
If you are a Secular Humanist, you are Religious and Secular Humanism is your Religion. This isnt saying Atheism is a Religion, its saying that Secular Humanism is a Religion. Secular Humanism is Atheistic, but theres more to it than this.
Everyone has a Religion because everyone has some sort of Paradigm that tells them how the world works and thats all Religion is.
You cant prove that Atheists arent Religious by saying thy dont believe in a god.
Atheists do not "believe" in anything. In fact, they do the exact opposite. They do not practice any sort of organized theology. Atheism is not ritualistic in anyway. Nothing about Atheism is religious.
This is not True. Atheism is a positive position that there are no gods, it is not a lack of belief in gods.
Further, no one is ever just an Atheist, there are always corollary beliefs in addition to Atheism that explains how the world works. EG, if you follow Secular Humanism, the most common Atheistic Religion, then you subscribe to the tenets of Humanism as outlined in the various Humanist Manifestos. If you follow Ayn Rands Objectivism, you follow her outline of how the world works.
Atheists do not lack beliefs about the world they live in,.
To put it simply, Atheism is anti-religion.
This is only True is Religion is defined as Theism. Atheism is the opposite of Theism. But Theism is not the same thing as Religion.
How can one's religion be to be anti-religious? That doesn't make sense.
You misdefine Atheism, and Religion. Atheism is not a lack of belief in gods, and Religion is not the same thing as belief in gods.
And I never said Atheism is a Religion, I just said that being an Atheist doesnt make you Non-Religious and even Atheists have Religious beliefs.
P.S. - Philosophy and religion are two completely different things.
No, they arent. Religion is in fact nothing more than a type of Philosophy dealing with the foundational matters of our existence.
Philosophy is rational and is about trying to explain life, existence, purpose, etc through logic and reason.
Religion is dogmatic, spiritual, and about faith.
Faith is not belief without evidence, before that cobbler is thrown out there. And Relgiion is also about Logic and Reason. The idea that Religion rejects Reason in Favour of Faith is nothing but a Talking point in the neo-Atheist community, but anyone whose bothered to look into Religion realises that Religious thought is actually rooted in observation and logic as much as anything else. The idea that its not is simply daft nonsense.
Philosophy is about the natural.
Religion is about the supernatural.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Actually plenty of Philosophers have dealt with the Supernatural, and plenty of Religion deals in the Natural. Indeed, the very idea of the Supernatural didnt even exist till about 200-300 years ago, so what your saying is that Religion didnt exist at all till 300 years ago. This is of course silly nonsense.
Religion is not all about the Supernatural, and Philosophy does sometimes deal in the Supernatural itself. You are simply wrong. -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 05, 2012 02:42 PM)
Religion is not the same thing as Theism, and you seem to conflate the two
You are simply wrong.
I won't bother responding to the rest of your lengthy, contradictory post.
Instead, I'll just leave these here
theism
noun /ˈTHēˌizəm/
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures
religion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed.
If you need any more clarification as to why you are absolutely wrong, I'll refer you to this link.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 03:55 AM)
My post isnt contradixctory, and you are still wrong.
here are other definitios for Religion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
religion
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Modern Eno-Atheists fit def. 1. No, Def. 1 does not say that Relgiion requires beleif in a superhumn agency. The sdefinition ends at Universe. The word "Especilly" connotates a usual trait, not a Universal one. Itis not essential tot he definition. If you dont beleice me, look up the ord Especialy.
it also fits dedinitions 2, 3, and even 5.
Here are some mroe "conrradictory' materials.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes it plain that Religion doesnt reqire Theism.
So does the encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/497082/religion
So, you are wrong. Relgiion is not beleif in, and reverence of, gods and supernatural powers. Religion is a Philosophical system that explains the nature and meanign of our existance.
Tryign to make Atheism the opposite of Relgiion may help you define Relgion as a force you struggle agaisnt, but it doesnt change the fundamental fact that in reality allyou are doign is trign to oust one setof beleifsin favour of another. -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 04:47 AM)
First things first, did you actually read the link that I provided? It explains in great detail everything that I was trying to convey. It's even backed up with sources. If you didn't, which is most likely, I must suggest again that you read it. It is very informative and explains why you are wrong about what you are saying.
As for your links, they actually prove my point.
The Stanford article goes on and on about theism and religion and how they are interchangeable.
It talks about the history of religion, and how it evolved. It talks about the various forms of theism, such as monotheism and polytheism. The only possible exception would be "deism", but even then you are still expressing a belief in a god, you just choose not to define it. One could argue that Buddhism is a type of deism.
The point is that theism is a belief in a god figure of some sort. Whether you believe that "God" is Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Krishna, Osiris, Zeus, the Earth, or the Universe, you're still expressing a belief in some sort of "superior" or "supernatural" being. What you choose to call it is your prerogative.
Your Britannica link proves my other point. Religion is about a practice of beliefs. Religion is dogmatic and ritualistic. Even if you are a spiritualist and believe that "God" is the trees and the grass and the water and the sky, etc and don't actually believe in a singularly or plurally defined "God", you still believe in
something
.
The point of religion is that you practice something. You have a set of beliefs, rituals, and practices. You have dogma. Religion is organized.
There is no such thing with atheism. Atheists don't get together and hold services. Atheists don't practice any set of rituals. Atheists don't all hold a shared set of beliefs. Hell, the odds are that if you a group of randomly selected atheists together in a room, they'd all disagree with each other about a great number of things.
Atheism is literally a lack of a belief in any sort of "supernatural being". That's it. We don't just disbelieve in Yahweh and Jesus, we disbelieve in everything. We disbelieve in Islam and Greek Mythology and Wicca and everything in between.
What you're confusing is the true definition of an Atheist. If you actually bothered to read the link that I provided, you'd understand. To put it simply, people misunderstand what Atheism and Agnosticism mean. People think Agnosticism means "on the fence" or "undecided", but that is not true. Even somebody who is "undecided" is an Atheist. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Agnosticism literally means the belief that one cannot know or possess the knowledge of "God". There are actually Agnostic Theists. Imagine that! How can one be both undecided and firm in their belief in God at the same time? Because Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in a god or gods! Just like there are Agnostics Theists, there are also Gnostic Atheists!
What people misconstrue as "agnosticism" is actually weak Atheism. Strong Atheists are firm in their belief that there is no "God" of any kind and many of them are also anti-theists as well, which means that they oppose any sort of religion.
Weak Atheists are those that are not sure that there is "God" of some kind, but are also unsure that there is no "God" either. They are Atheists simply because they doubt the existence of God. One does not have to be firm in the belief that there is no God in order to doubt the existence of one in the first place. I cannot say with 100% conviction that there is NO Bigfoot, but I also cannot be sure that there is one. I am reserving judgement. The same goes for God. I'm what you'd call a weak Atheist.
The point is that you were completely erroneous in your original assertion that Atheism is a form of religion. This simply isn't so. Atheism is not a "religion" by any definition or sense of the word.
By the way, you also proved my point that Philosophy and Religion are two completely different things as well. The Stanford article you linked to is titled "The Philosophy of Religion". If Religion and Philosophy are one and the same, then you could alternately call that article "The Philosophy of Philosophy" or "The Religion of Religion". Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 05:56 AM)
First things first, did you actually read the link that I provided? It explains in great detail everything that I was trying to convey.
Do you really think Rational Responders is an academic and unbiased source? Its clear that they have their own agenda and he whole Anti-Religious mentality they hold to isnt going to allow them to honestly examine any topic.
I really dont care what they have to say. Just calling themselves rational doesnt mean they actually are and it certainly doesnt mean that they are right.
It's even backed up with sources. If you didn't, which is most likely, I must suggest again that you read it. It is very informative and explains why you are wrong about what you are saying.
I wrote a peer reviewed masters thesis, and your answer back to me is a website that makes it a point to attack Religion. Yeah, theres logic for you. Do you even understand the concept of bias?
The Rational Responders are what Im referring to, by the way. They have made a Religion out of hating Religion. They are clearly just a militant form of Humanism and dont really want you thinking for yourself and arriving at your own conclusions, they want you to arrive at the ready made conclusions they tell you are Rational.
As for your links, they actually prove my point.
No, they dont.
The Stanford article goes on and on about theism and religion and how they are interchangeable.
No, it doesnt. In fact, if you actually read the article ( as opposed to skim it) it mentioned non-theistic Religions like Theravada Buddhism.
It talks about the history of religion, and how it evolved. It talks about the various forms of theism, such as monotheism and polytheism. The only possible exception would be "deism", but even then you are still expressing a belief in a god, you just choose not to define it. One could argue that Buddhism is a type of deism.
1: it is stupid to see Deism as an alternative to Theism, as Theism mean you believe in a god. Deism is a type of Theism.
2: No, Buddhism is not a the of Deism. In fact, Buddhism comes in many varieties and some are Atheistic.
The point is that theism is a belief in a god figure of some sort. Whether you believe that "God" is Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Krishna, Osiris, Zeus, the Earth, or the Universe, you're still expressing a belief in some sort of "superior" or "supernatural" being. What you choose to call it is your prerogative.
1: Allah and God are the same thing. Allah is just Arabic for the God. Allah is not a proper name for God.
2: Your point here doesnt seem to mean anything. I never said Theism was not belief in a god, I said that Religion is not Theism.
Even Austin Cline agrees that Theism is not the same thing as Religion. Though he still says he has no Religion.
http://atheism.about.com/od/religionnonreligion/a/theism.htm
Im also certain that like most Neo-Atheists you wont listen to anything that contradicts your view and wont even Ive me the benefit of a doubt. You need to nto be Religious. Pity that in reality there is no distinction.
Your Britannica link proves my other point. Religion is about a practice of beliefs. Religion is dogmatic and ritualistic.
Actually Britannica doesnt say that religion requires Practice of beliefs or Dogma or Ritual. Not that it matters, as your own Rational Responders are very much Dogmatic. Oh sure, they will say they have no Dogma, but just try to contradict one of their own Sacred Cows. Calling Dogma something other than Dogma doesnt make it not Dogma. Atheists can be, and often are, very Dogmatic.
Below is what Britannica actually says.
religion, human beings relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of ones relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of ones relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshipers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.
Note: It does not say Ritual or Dogma are essential requirements of Religion.
It does mention Humanistic Religions, that are not Theistic, though.
Even if you are a spiritualist and believe that "God" is the trees and the grass and the water and the sky, etc and don't actually believe in a singularly or plurally defined "God", you still believe in something.
Atheists believe in something.
B -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 07:51 AM)
Wow. I must have struck a nerve. I post one link to a website and suddenly you go on a rampage about the RRS? I'm not even affiliated with them. I just recently discovered their website and their definition of Atheism was the first one that I thought of because it was still fresh in my mind.
Calm down sparky, it's ok. The mean old RRS isn't out to get you. I promise.
I wrote a peer reviewed masters thesis
Really? Where? I'd love to see it.
and your answer back to me is a website that makes it a point to attack Religion.
I didn't see any master thesis, so I don't know how I answered back to it.
The Rational Responders are what Im referring to, by the way. They have made a Religion out of hating Religion. They are clearly just a militant form of Humanism and dont really want you thinking for yourself and arriving at your own conclusions, they want you to arrive at the ready made conclusions they tell you are Rational.
They may have been like that in the past, but they aren't anymore. The original group broke up. The only one left is Brian Sapient and he barely posts on the website anymore. The website is comprised of a motley crew of Atheists and Theists and they all disagree on just about everything. The RRS forums actually prove my point that Atheism is unorganized and every Atheist has different beliefs.
No, it doesnt. In fact, if you actually read the article ( as opposed to skim it) it mentioned non-theistic Religions like Theravada Buddhism.
How is Buddhism non-theistic? Care to elaborate?
1: it is stupid to see Deism as an alternative to Theism, as Theism mean you believe in a god. Deism is a type of Theism.
Tell that to Deists.
The reason I even mentioned it, and it's especially fitting given your apparent hatred for the RRS, is that Thomas Verenna, aka Rook Hawkins, formerly of the RRS, left the group a few years ago and proclaimed himself a "deist". He says that he's no longer an atheist, but he's still not a theist either. He's trying to take some sort of middle ground whilst still preaching his atheistic beliefs and non-historicity of Jesus Christ. I had a long chat with Brian on RRS one day about how saying "I'm not an Atheist or a Theist, I'm a Deist" is BS. He agreed with you and me 100%.
2: No, Buddhism is not a the of Deism. In fact, Buddhism comes in many varieties and some are Atheistic.
I know there are many different groups of Buddhism, but my understanding of the general principles of Buddhism is that, in a sense, the Universe is "God". That is to say, the Universe (or existence) controls everything. There is no singular God that controls everything, but the universe itself controls and balances everything. You know, Karma and all that. The universe isn't a God per se, but it serves the purpose of a "God" figure in the Buddhist religion. It's not Atheistic at all, that's for sure.
1: Allah and God are the same thing. Allah is just Arabic for the God. Allah is not a proper name for God.
Since when? Even English speaking Muslims refer to him as Allah, just like Jews refer to God as Yahweh. Only Christians simply call him "God".
Im also certain that like most Neo-Atheists you wont listen to anything that contradicts your view and wont even Ive me the benefit of a doubt.
I'm always willing to learn new things and am open to new interpretations. Thanks for being judgmental and throwing out a nice ad-hominem attack while you were at it.
You need to nto be Religious.
I don't
need
to be anything. I am what I am. Who are you to define what I am or am not?
Pity that in reality there is no distinction.
Yes, there is. You just choose not to accept it. I seem to recall somebody talking about not listening to anything that contradicts their view-points..
Actually Britannica doesnt say that religion requires Practice of beliefs or Dogma or Ritual.
Ahem
" Believers and worshipers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life."
I rest my case.
Not that it matters, as your own Rational Responders are very much Dogmatic. Oh sure, they will say they have no Dogma, but just try to contradict one of their own Sacred Cows. Calling Dogma something other than Dogma doesnt make it not Dogma. Atheists can be, and often are, very Dogmatic.
For somebody who hates the RRS so much, you sure know next to nothing about them. Sure, back when it was just Brian, Rook, and Kelly, they all mentally masturbated each other and acting like their word was the final one regarding Atheism and religion, but that changed shortly after they became famous. Their "dogma" was thrown out with the trash, because true Atheists could see the hypocrisy and called them on it.
Note: It does not say Ritual or Dogma are essential requirements of Religion.
Actually, it does say ritual. You are right that it doesn't say -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 09:48 AM)
Wow. I must have struck a nerve. I post one link to a website and suddenly you go on a rampage about the RRS? I'm not even affiliated with them. I just recently discovered their website and their definition of Atheism was the first one that I thought of because it was still fresh in my mind.
Calm down sparky, it's ok. The mean old RRS isn't out to get you. I promise.
Just because I post long posts doesnt mean Im not calm. This is another reason I find neo-Atheists such as you boring
I wrote a peer reviewed masters thesis
Really? Where? I'd love to see it.
You wouldnt understand it.
and your answer back to me is a website that makes it a point to attack Religion.
I didn't see any master thesis, so I don't know how I answered back to it.
This is why I call you an idiot.
Im obviously not publishing my Masters Thesis on IMDb.
That said, even if I didnt have one, youd surly know better than to rely on the RRS as a credible source for information.
The Rational Responders are what Im referring to, by the way. They have made a Religion out of hating Religion. They are clearly just a militant form of Humanism and dont really want you thinking for yourself and arriving at your own conclusions, they want you to arrive at the ready made conclusions they tell you are Rational.
They may have been like that in the past, but they aren't anymore. The original group broke up. The only one left is Brian Sapient and he barely posts on the website anymore. The website is comprised of a motley crew of Atheists and Theists and they all disagree on just about everything. The RRS forums actually prove my point that Atheism is unorganized and every Atheist has different beliefs.
And yet you call Jesus a magical half god half man who came back as a Zombie.
Im sorry but, Im not buying claims or originality from someone who cant even come up with an original insult.
No, it doesnt. In fact, if you actually read the article ( as opposed to skim it) it mentioned non-theistic Religions like Theravada Buddhism.
How is Buddhism non-theistic? Care to elaborate?
Certain
forms
of Buddhism. You do seem to have a problem with specific details.
And Theravada Buddhism does not accept gods. Its self explanatory.
1: it is stupid to see Deism as an alternative to Theism, as Theism mean you believe in a god. Deism is a type of Theism.
Tell that to Deists.
Most I know personally agree that its a form of Theism. Its more of an internet phenomenon to make a distinction.
The reason I even mentioned it, and it's especially fitting given your apparent hatred for the RRS, is that Thomas Verenna, aka Rook Hawkins, formerly of the RRS, left the group a few years ago and proclaimed himself a "deist". He says that he's no longer an atheist, but he's still not a theist either.
Had it ever occurred to you that hes the one who doesnt know what the terms mean?
He spent years bashing Theism, so doesnt want ot admit beign one. The distinction between Desim and Theism suits him.
But look at what Theism is defined as. Its just belief in a god. Its not specifically beleif in an actively involved one. Deism is a type of Theism, because it is belief in a god.
Its not that complicated.
He's trying to take some sort of middle ground whilst still preaching his atheistic beliefs and non-historicity of Jesus Christ. I had a long chat with Brian on RRS one day about how saying "I'm not an Atheist or a Theist, I'm a Deist" is BS. He agreed with you and me 100%.
If we agree then its pretty well a nonissue.
2: No, Buddhism is not a the of Deism. In fact, Buddhism comes in many varieties and some are Atheistic.
I know there are many different groups of Buddhism, but my understanding of the general principles of Buddhism is that, in a sense, the Universe is "God". That is to say, the Universe (or existence) controls everything. There is no singular God that controls everything, but the universe itself controls and balances everything. You know, Karma and all that. The universe isn't a God per se, but it serves the purpose of a "God" figure in the Buddhist religion. It's not Atheistic at all, that's for sure.
Pantheism is a form of theism and what your generally describing, an not all Buddhists ae Pantheists either.
1: Allah and God are the same thing. Allah is just Arabic for the God. Allah is not a proper name for God.
Since when? Even English speaking Muslims refer to him as Allah, just like Jews refer to God as Yahweh. Only Christians simply call him "God".
Actually Jews dont tend to refer to God as Yahweh. Yahweh itself may not even be the name of God as its a reconstruction. Jews typically refer to Go as god, and many spell it G-d to avid any profaning of the name.
That said, look uo the word Allah in a site that gives word meanings and origins. Muslism do nto refer to the god Allah, at all. It is true that many (though nto all) Muslism in the west call Gid Allah, but its never The god Allah.
Allah means The God in Arabic.
Its like some Greek Orthodox who refer to God as Theos, o -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 09:49 AM)
Continued From Above.
I don't agree with or condone their behavior, and a few small groups of idiots does not comprise the face of Atheism. You do realize that all of maybe 100 people actually participated in the blasphemy challenge, right? That is hardly representative of all Atheists. Your examples only prove my point - Atheism is disorganized and most atheists can't even agree with one another. A few idiotic extremists do you represent the group as a whole.
Theism is disorganised and not connected, and Theists dont all agree with each other.
Therefore, Theism is not Religion and is the opposite of Religion.
This depends on how you define Atheists. One can say the same thing about Theists. Theists dont all have shared beleifs either.
But there are basic prerequisites. To be an Atheist, you have to lack belief in a "God". To be a Theist, you have to have a belief in some sort of "God".
Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god, it is the belief that there is no God. You cant lack belief in something you have a concept of.
And if thats the only connection, Theism is not a Religion because Theism is not organised. Its the same logic.
However, given that you linked to the Rational Responce Squad, its disingenuous go claim that you lack shared beliefs with a community of fellow believers.
Actually, you're wrong. I don't share the beliefs of the RRS community. I actually loathe the place for the most part. I do, however, share their trust in things like dictionaries and encyclopedias, so their definition of Atheism was the one I chose to link to for that reason.
But Atheism is not defined as a lack of belief.
atheism (th-zm) KEY
NOUN:
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheism
Heres another.
atheist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
The lack of belief definition is bogus.
Just how much variance is thereon the RRS? Or for that matter how much disagreement exists between the RRS and the FFrF or Richard Dawkins?
A whole hell of a lot more than you seem to be aware of, that's for sure. For somebody chastising another for being ignorant of religion and theism, you seem to be equally, if not more so, ignorant of atheism.
Ive read Dawkins The God Delusion and I read Hitches god Is Not great the differences are less in degree than Ive seen amongst Christian writers, whom you seem to think have a lot more in common.
The idea that you lot dont have shared beliefs is laughable. You all say the same things and always use the same arguments, and generally even hold to the same political views.
There isnt a hairs worth of difference between you and yet you want people to buy that somehow you dont have shared beliefs?
Generalizing and stereotyping will get you nowhere. Your ignorance, hatred, and bias are bleeding through terribly at this point. Did some atheist kid bully you when you were a child? You may need to consider seeking therapy..
You called Jesus a half man half god who came back as a Zombie. Its not hatred or bias on my part to nor that this is a cheap caricature, nor is it hatred or bias to note that its nor original to you. None of your arguments are original. None of them are rational either.
Again, you cant lack belief in something you have a concept of. The idea that Atheism is a lack of belief in a god is just a popular definition bandied about, but tis an actual impossibility.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but it makes zero sense. I have a concept of Bigfoot and UFOs, but just because I'm aware of the concept that means that I can't lack a belief in them?
basically yes, it means this. You either accept that they are real, or reject them.
You cant lack belief in them though.
By your definition, nobody can be an Atheist because as long as you are aware of the concept of "God", you can't disbelieve in it.
Actually I said you cant lack belief in, I didnt say you couldnt reject. The whole point is that Atheism is a rejection of Theism, not a lack of belief.
Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, it is not the lack of belief in gods.
So you disbelieve in Gravity? How about Evolution? What about your own existence?
Everything is a very broad term.
Now you're just being a dick. You know damned well what I meant.
be specific.
But not in Humanism.
And Humanism is what Im calling your Religion.
I don't subscribe to Humanism, and even if I did, I would hardly call it a religion.
What you call it is immaterial to what it is
Atheism is the rejection of Theism.
It is not a rejection of anything! You're describing anti-theism. That is not the same thing as Atheism. You really need to borrow a dictionary from somebody.
Anti-Theism is a Neologism based on the silly idea of Atheism as lack of belief. Its a multiplication of entities beyond what is needed.
I showed you the dictionary defini -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 07:56 PM)
I'll just leave this here.. since you chose not to reply to it the first time..
What part of I AM NOT AN ATHEIST do you not understand?
Yes, I find the zombie Jesus joke to be funny. In fact, I find it friggin' hilarious.
I actually know a lot more about the Bible than you give me credit for. I'm just making light of this entire situation because you obviously have problems comprehending even your own nonsense.
For the record, Moses did receive stone tablets, everything about classical mythologies is supernatural, and so was Jesus.
You're really starting to come off like a lunatic.
Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time! Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Everything Jesus did can be logically explained! Sounds legit to me.
A talking bush that is on fire, but does not burn and gives a man named Moses 10 commandments to take back to his people - nothing odd about that.
Virgin births? Completely normal.
Faith isn't about belief in something even when there is no evidence to prove the existence of the thing that you believe in? Sure buddy, if you say so.
Come talk to this nice lady in the white lab coat. Don't pay any attention to the big guys in security uniforms. They're your friends! That straight-jacket? Don't worry about it. It's cold out and they thought that you could use a coat..
I could respond to your post point by point again, but I've grown tired of your circular logic and backpedaling.
You claimed that Atheism was a religion, then you said it's not a religion, but it is religious. Now you're saying that Atheism isn't a religion and isn't religious, but certain religious groups incorporate Atheism into their beliefs, even though Atheism, by your own definitions, is a rejection of religion.
You made a few good points and I learned some new things, but overall you come across as a lunatic. You state things that make zero sense, you use circular logic and backpedal constantly, you're biased, judgmental, and a semantical prick.
Oh, for the record, once again, I haven't copied and pasted anything. The zombie Jesus joke is very old. It's not some secret in joke that is circulated by Atheists at the club meetings. Hell, the majority of the times that I've seen it have been on Facebook for crying out loud! I would hardly call Facebook an Atheist organization.
It's amazing to me how you ignore almost every point I make and choose to instead continue ranting about one stupid joke that I made for the lulz and an Atheist organization that I'm not even affiliated with. It may offend you, but the sad truth is that I have read the Bible many times. I'm actually an ordained minister. The "zombie Jesus" summary may be over simplified, but it's actually pretty accurate and true the Bible. If you're offended by it, please take it up with the authors of the the Bible. They wrote that nonsense, not me.
By the way, I found an interesting article. It talks about how non-Theistic religions are almost non existent, and also makes a point to say that Atheism does not count because
it is not a religion
.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_theorem/god_theorem/node22 .html
I guess the point is that yes, technically, one can have a religion without theism, but it is very rare and usually doesn't work out very well. The vast majority of religions are theistic, so the few exceptions only help to prove the rule.
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 07, 2012 04:54 AM)
Wer-
I'll just leave this here.. since you chose not to reply to it the first time..
Look at hatidid reply to.
What part of I AM NOT AN ATHEIST do you not understand?
Yes, I find the zombie Jesus joke to be funny. In fact, I find it friggin' hilarious.
No its not. Its also an inaccurate caricature. Further, If you use it, align with the magical half god half man claim to prove Christianity is irrational, then you have utterly failed to meet your objective. Tory statements about Zombie Jesus dont reflect what Christians belief. None of your claims did.
I actually know a lot more about the Bible than you give me credit for.
I doubt this. Especially given your presentations here.
You wont get rid of my doubts by posting stupidity.
I'm just making light of this entire situation because you obviously have problems comprehending even your own nonsense.
Saying that Christianity worships a magical half god half man who cam back as a zombie is not evidence that I dont comprehend my own nonsense, tis proof that you can cut and paste a bad caricature, and evidence that you dont know anything about the topic of Christianity. Instead of you coming off as superior, you come off as stupid.
By the ay, my nonsense has thusfar made sense, just because you dont understand it doesnt man Im he one with the problem in understanding.
For the record, Moses did receive stone tablets,
But not magical ones. Are your really this stupid to try to correct me on the point that I didnt contest? Are your really trying to depict me as ignorant based on something other than what I said again?
everything about classical mythologies is supernatural,
No, nothing in classical Mythology was supernatural. Maybe thats how modern minds understand them, but the term Supernatural want used and, superficially, the idea is not there. Supernatural means above nature. The gods were not above nature. How can they be Supernatural if they were not above the laws of nature?
The fact that you cant understand this means you arent very bright.
and so was Jesus.
Not nessisarily, and yoru declaration that he was doesnt make the matter settled.
You're really starting to come off like a lunatic.
Because I dont play by your rules. Gods are supernatural, period. Greek mythology is supernatural too. Religion is beleif in gods.
Well, why should I accept these idiot terms from you? Im not being a lunatic, Im just educated, which his something you arent.
Just because you dont understand what terms like Supernatural or Religion or Faith mean doesnt mean Im a lunatic for using them correctly.
Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time! Yeah, makes perfect sense.
It actually does if you read Christian Theology. Simply mocking the idea based on a desire for it to not make sense isnt very sensible.
Everything Jesus did can be logically explained! Sounds legit to me.
As opposed to your declaratory statements? Can you demonstrate that everything in classical Mythology was Supernatural with something other than decree?
A talking bush that is on fire, but does not burn and gives a man named Moses 10 commandments to take back to his people - nothing odd about that.
Youve just proven that you dont know the Bible as well as you claimed. Moses did not receive the Ten Commandments from the Burning Bush, and did not take them back to his people. Moses received the ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, after the Exodus from Egypt. By the way the burning Bush was a manifestation of God, and was there to grab his attention. That was when he was told to go back and free the Hebrew people from bondage, it was not when he received the Ten Commandments.
Virgin births? Completely normal.
The entire point was that it wasnt Normal, thats what makes people know that something special is afoot.
Faith isn't about belief in something even when there is no evidence to prove the existence of the thing that you believe in? Sure buddy, if you say so.
You know, Sarcasm doesnt win arguments. Just saying that Faith is really belief without evidence and Im stupid doesnt mean faith is belief without Evidence and that Im stupid. Here are a few links so you can see what I mean.
http://josiahconcept.org/2011/07/21/atheist-faith-is-not-belief-withou t-evidence/
Another.
His time the Thomistic definition of Faith as used by actual Churches. This is new Advent, the catholic Encyclopedia.
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Faith
Here is another.
http://ratio-et-fide.blogspot.com/2012/06/faith-belief-without-evidenc e.html
Simply saying that UI sound like a lunatic, and insisting that Faith is belief 3eithout evidence and that Im clearly wrong, doesnt prove your right.
In the topic of Religious studies, Faith has never meant belief without evidence.
Come talk to this nice lady in the white lab coat. Don't pay any attention to the big guys in security uniforms. They're your friends! That straight-jacket? Don't worry about it. It's cold out and they thought that you could use a coat..
Am I supposed to take this -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 08:13 PM)
One more thing - Your argument about lack of belief vs. disbelief is flawed.
There is a difference.
One is passive, the other is aggressive.
If I lack a belief in God, that means that I do not believe in the existence of God, but I am open to the possibility. If I were to find evidence or a good enough reason to believe, then I would change my mind.
If I disbelieve in God, or reject the belief of a God, as you put it yourself, then I would be actively rejecting the belief in a God and would not be open to the possibility that one exists.
One is certain, the other is not.
One can lack a belief in something without actively rejecting it.
I disbelieve in Bigfoot, but I don't reject the possibility of it's existence. If somebody came out with proof tomorrow, I'd accept it willingly.
That is the difference. To lack something simply means to not have it. I don't have a belief in God. I'm undecided.
Like I said, you look at it as black and white, but you forget about the grey area.
Your argument that you can't lack a belief in something that you have a concept of makes no sense.
Your basically saying that one cannot lack awareness of a concept that they are aware of, but that's not the argument. I am very aware of the concept of God, so I don't lack an awareness. I lack a belief in it's existence. That means that I don't actively believe in God, but I don't actively reject or disbelieve either. It could go either way in my opinion.
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on. -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 07, 2012 05:06 AM)
Wel-
ne more thing - Your argument about lack of belief vs. disbelief is flawed.
no, its not.
There is a difference.
One is passive, the other is aggressive.
Actually neither is passive or aggressive. The fact is, once an idea is introduced, you can either accept the idea as true or reject it as false, but you cant lack the idea.
Once exposed to something, you must make a determination about it.
That is why Atheism cant be a lack of belief in a god, because the Atheist has some idea of what God is supposed to be, and is actually rejecting this.
If I lack a belief in God, that means that I do not believe in the existence of God, but I am open to the possibility.
No, if you lack beleif in God, it means you have no awareness of even the idea about God. That is what lack means. If I lack water it means I have no water. If I lack beleif in God it means I have no actual idea about what God is.
If I were to find evidence or a good enough reason to believe, then I would change my mind.
I doubt this. You seem emotionally invested in Atheism, and given how you lie about what Ive said and distort my arguments as well a Christianity, youd just perform mental gymnastics to validate your own biases.
If I disbelieve in God, or reject the belief of a God, as you put it yourself, then I would be actively rejecting the belief in a God and would not be open to the possibility that one exists.
Not necessarily. Just because you believe that God doesnt exist doesnt mean you refuse to change your Mind, and what your saying is a false assumption that positive belief makes you closed minded.
Its the same fallacy Atheists make when they say that belief in God makes you incapable of being impartial or considering that God doesnt exist.
Being one minded does not mean not taking a stand somewhere.
One is certain, the other is not.
Being certain sin to the same as refusing to revaluate ones beliefs, and not being certain is not the same as lack of belief.
One can lack a belief in something without actively rejecting it.
But only if you have no idea what that thing is. Since you have some idea of hat God is supposed to be, you do not lack belief in God.
I disbelieve in Bigfoot, but I don't reject the possibility of it's existence. If somebody came out with proof tomorrow, I'd accept it willingly.
But you disbelieve, you dont lack belief
That is the difference. To lack something simply means to not have it. I don't have a belief in God. I'm undecided.
You are clearly not undecided.
Like I said, you look at it as black and white, but you forget about the grey area.[./quote]
No, I just point out the obvious. You cant lack belief something you have a concept of, because you have to do something with that idea.
Your argument that you can't lack a belief in something that you have a concept of makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. If you are introduced to an idea, you have to do something with that idea. It becomes part of your mental landscape. You can either accept it as true or reject it as else, but the idea is there, you do not lack it, and therefore do not lack belief in its claim.
Your basically saying that one cannot lack awareness of a concept that they are aware of, but that's not the argument. I am very aware of the concept of God, so I don't lack an awareness. I lack a belief in it's existence. That means that I don't actively believe in God, but I don't actively reject or disbelieve either. It could go either way in my opinion.
Actually Im saying that you believe that God doesnt exist, and its either that or you believe he does. The lack of belief angle doesnt fly because you have to determine the validity of all idea in your mind. -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 05:29 AM)
Since you chose to drag this out into a lengthy debate, I reread your post and decided to give it a proper response this time.
Your definition for Atheism is wrong. It is not a lack of beleif in a god or gods. Sure, its popular to say it is, but its also impossible to actually lack belief in something you have a cpncept of. Once an idea is introduced, you can either accept it or reject it, but you cant lack it. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, it is not a lack of belief in a god.
Wrong. There is a difference between firmly believing that there is no God and merely doubting the existence of one. You're looking at this as having two sides when it is really has three. You have those that are absolutely sure that there is no God (Strong Atheism), you have those that are absolutely sure that there is a God (Theism), then you have those who are undecided and therefore lack a belief in a God, but are open to the possibility (Weak Atheism). Two of those camps both fall under the banner of Atheism, because much like Theism there are many facets. You have many, many types of theism. They are not all one and the same, and the same goes for Atheism. There is no one specific group of Atheists. They're all different.
I never said it [Atheism] was [a religion].
Yes, you did.
Everyone is Religious, and thuis includes Atheists. Religion is just what you beleive about the world we liv ein, its a Philosophy about who and what we are. Secular Humanism, Objectivism, both billed as Nonreligiosu Philosophies yet both do the same thign as religion in the same way, so whats the difference there?
Then, you turned around and said it AGAIN right after you said that you never said that.
However, being an Atheist doesnt make you Non-Religious. What I said was that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. This is because Religion is a Philosophical understanding about the nature of the world we live in. Religion is not another word for Theism and doesnt require Theism.
If you are a Secular Humanist, you are Religious and Secular Humanism is your Religion. This isnt saying Atheism is a Religion, its saying that Secular Humanism is a Religion. Secular Humanism is Atheistic, but theres more to it than this.
Secular Humanism is not the same thing as Atheism. It is also not a religion. It is a philosophy. Religion doesn't just mean a set of beliefs. If that were the case, then the U.S. Government is a religion because they have a strict set of beliefs that are set forth in the constitution. You seem to be confusing the word "religion" with the words "ritual" and "tradition". Not everything that has rituals and traditions is a religion, but all religions have rituals and traditions. Get it yet?
Everyone has a Religion because everyone has some sort of Paradigm that tells them how the world works and thats all Religion is.
Wow, so now knowledge of anything is a religion? So if I say that I'm pretty darn sure that a toaster works by using electricity to produce heat via heating elements, that is a religion? The fact that I know not to touch a hot stove or I'll get burned as a result is a religion? The fact that I know that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West is a religion? According to your logic, it apparently is.
This is only True is Religion is defined as Theism. Atheism is the opposite of Theism. But Theism is not the same thing as Religion.
Yes it is! Theism is just one type of religion, but it still has to do with spiritual beliefs! Like I said in my other post, you can try to proclaim yourself a "deist" instead of a "theist", but ultimately you still believe in something greater than yourself, so in my book "deism" is interchangeable with "theism" and without either of those you can't have religion. Religion is about the organized, ritualistic belief in
something
. What you choose to call that something is up to you.
You misdefine Atheism, and Religion. Atheism is not a lack of belief in gods, and Religion is not the same thing as belief in gods.
The only person misdefining anything here is you.
And I never said Atheism is a Religion, I just said that being an Atheist doesnt make you Non-Religious and even Atheists have Religious beliefs.
You keep repeating this, but it makes zero sense. Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a religious belief? That's what I meant by contradictory. You can't be both religious and non-religious at the same time, which is exactly what you're saying. Atheism isn't a religion, but Atheistic beliefs are religious? You might want to rethink that logic.
No, they arent. Religion is in fact nothing more than a type of Philosophy dealing with the foundational matters of our existence.
Many religions contain philosophical concepts, but they are not a philosophy in and of themselves. They are two different things. Philosophy tries to explain things rationally and logically. Religion explains things supernaturally. Even your Stanford article pointed that out.
Faith is not belief without -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 07:28 AM)
Now again.
Since you chose to drag this out into a lengthy debate, I reread your post and decided to give it a proper response this time.
Not really. Your still going to just argue blindly for the Atheist talking points. Heaven forbid you give me any credit.
Your definition for Atheism is wrong. It is not a lack of beleif in a god or gods. Sure, its popular to say it is, but its also impossible to actually lack belief in something you have a cpncept of. Once an idea is introduced, you can either accept it or reject it, but you cant lack it. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, it is not a lack of belief in a god.
Wrong. There is a difference between firmly believing that there is no God and merely doubting the existence of one.
Not really. In the end they are just shades of the same thing; Different levels of conviction. In the end, its still belief that there is no God, or belief that there is.
You're looking at this as having two sides when it is really has three. You have those that are absolutely sure that there is no God (Strong Atheism), you have those that are absolutely sure that there is a God (Theism), then you have those who are undecided and therefore lack a belief in a God, but are open to the possibility (Weak Atheism).
Weak and Strgn Atheism are semantics created by the Atheist Community, and proof of a shared language that you deny. The distinction isnt real.
There is no such thing as a Strong or Weak Atheist. Again, the only difference is the level fo conviction in ones belief, but the terms Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism are in the end meaningless twaddle.
Just erecting terms to back up a self referential belief system is not good enough.
Two of those camps both fall under the banner of Atheism, because much like Theism there are many facets. You have many, many types of theism. They are not all one and the same, and the same goes for Atheism. There is no one specific group of Atheists. They're all different.
And, I did mention differing Atheist groups, so your point is meaningless. You act like I lump all Atheists into a single category when, in fact, I didnt.
I never said it [Atheism] was [a religion].
Yes, you did.
No, I didnt. If you want to say I did then quote me.
However, my actual stance is that Atheists have Religious beliefs and that everyone has a Religion. I never once said Atheism is a Religion. Just because you are incapable of following what Ive actually said because your busy following the Atheist apologetics responses to Atheism is a Religion doesnt mean I actually said this.
But its good to see how shallow and unthinking you are.
Everyone is Religious, and thuis includes Atheists. Religion is just what you beleive about the world we liv ein, its a Philosophy about who and what we are. Secular Humanism, Objectivism, both billed as Nonreligiosu Philosophies yet both do the same thign as religion in the same way, so whats the difference there?
Then, you turned around and said it AGAIN right after you said that you never said that.
S what your saying is, you lack reading comprehension.
I still didnt say Atheism is a Religion here. I did say that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. But this is not saying Atheism is itself a Religion.
Just like Theism is not a Religion, Atheism is not a Religion. However, all Atheists have a set of beleifs hat define how they understand the world, and that set of beliefs is their Religion. So rather than saying Atheism is a Religion, what Im actually saying is that Atheistic Non-Religious Philosophy is actually Religion.
However, being an Atheist doesnt make you Non-Religious. What I said was that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. This is because Religion is a Philosophical understanding about the nature of the world we live in. Religion is not another word for Theism and doesnt require Theism.
If you are a Secular Humanist, you are Religious and Secular Humanism is your Religion. This isnt saying Atheism is a Religion, its saying that Secular Humanism is a Religion. Secular Humanism is Atheistic, but theres more to it than this.
Secular Humanism is not the same thing as Atheism.
Christianity is not the same thing as Theism.
However, Christianity is Theistic, and Secular Humanism is Atheistic.
It is also not a religion. It is a philosophy.
Secular Humanism covers all the same ground Religion covers and fills the same role in an individuals life as Religion would. He only distinction between this Philosophy and a Religion is that its Atheistic. But given that Theism is not a prerequisite to Religion, I have to wonder why this Philosophy shouldnt be counted as a Religion in its own Right? Because it fits the definition of Religion.
Thats the point. Secular Humanists insist that their belief is a Philosophy and not a Religion, but there is no discernable distinction you can make between their beliefs and Religion. Their beliefs are, in fact, Religious.
Simply trying to remove Humanism from the Religion -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 07:30 AM)
[Continued From Above.
quote]
Not every single religious person on Earth is illogical and irrational, but many of them are and there is no denying that fact.
But by repeating an Atheistic Caricature about what Christians believe, youve proven that you are illogical and irrational, just like youve proven that Atheists do, in fact, have an organised community with shard beliefs.
but anyone whose bothered to look into Religion realises that Religious thought is actually rooted in observation and logic as much as anything else. The idea that its not is simply daft nonsense.
It was at one point. That was thousands of years ago, however.
Actually I can name contemporary Theologians who would very much disagree with you. Religion wasnt just about Logic and Reason thousands of Years Ago tis about that now, as anyone who has read Rowan Williams or Dallas Ward can tell you.
You know, back when we had just barely discovered fire and the wheel? Back when we had no concept of math and science and no idea of how the world worked, so we made up whatever explanations that we could come up with based on our observations? Back then is was reasonable and logical to assume that "god did it". In this day and age, its absurd.
This is another Time in which you repeat another part of your Faith Communities claims without thinking. The idea that Religion was invented to give us explanations about the world before we have Science.
The whole Science VS Religion Canard has, of course, been disproven ages ago but its a central tenet of your Religious Faith.
You need to pretend that Religion is made up stories we dont need now that we have Science, just like you need to pretend you are Scientific and Rational, and need to pretend you think for yourself and Atheist are all unique and different.
You wont admit of course that your presentation of Christian beliefs came form others, and that you mindlessly repeated it. And even if we buy into this rubbish explanation for origin of Religion, you have just made Science and Religion the same thing.
Not that you can admit that.
Actually plenty of Philosophers have dealt with the Supernatural, and plenty of Religion deals in the Natural. Indeed, the very idea of the Supernatural didnt even exist till about 200-300 years ago, so what your saying is that Religion didnt exist at all till 300 years ago. This is of course silly nonsense.
I don't know where you got your information, but I hope you didn't pay for it. Otherwise, you should demand your money back.
Given your Zombie Jesus crack, youd best be careful whom you disparage.
So what you're telling me is that Greek and Roman mythology isn't supernatural?
Its not. The gods were aspects of Nature and bound to its laws. They did not exist separately from, and superior to nature.
That Egyptian mythology isn't supernatural? That Norse mythology isn't supernatural?
None of the gods in any of those mythologies actually had the power to change the laws fo nature, and in many of them the gods were aspects of nature itself.
That Krishna having an epic battle with space aliens 12,000 years ago isn't supernatural?
Krishna didnt battle space aliens again, learn what your mocking before you speak.
That Moses receiving magical stone tablets from a talking bush isn't supernatural?
Moses didnt receive magical stone tablets, and your a moron if you think he did.
Even in the context of the story, nothing magical exists about the tablets.
That Jesus walking on water and raising the dead isn't supernatural?
Not necessarily. It depends on how you view god and his nature. The term Supernatural once applied only to God. Pagan gods were not supernatural, nor were Angels or Demons or Souls. The idea of a separate Supernatural Realm was unheard of in the Middle Ages.
See, the term Supernatural means you are above nature. Angels, even Satan, were not seen as above nature, but as part of it as they were part of the created order.
This is also why in the Middle Ages it was said that Satan could not perform genuine Miracles, only counterfeits,.
The term Supernatural was applied to God because some theologians believed that God was separate from and superior to nature. Still, others identified God as the source of all natural law and thus not separable from it.
Not that I expect you to understand tis, before you ridicule me for it.
At this point I don't even know if it's worth continuing this debate with you because, quite frankly, you just lost all credibility with that last statement.
As opposed to your vain repetition of the Caricature of Jesus as a Zombie? Or as a Magical half god and half man?
I dont think you have room to talking terms of credibility.
I'm starting to think that you're just talking out of your ass.
Well, your just cutting and pasting arguments from Atheist websites whilst pretending that Atheist all disagree with each other and are wonderfully diverse