THOTH

quote:Originally posted by Sasun: quote: Is it not just as possible that your "God" is just the Devil in disguise...yes who is really to know... It is not possible. By definition God is good. You may believe that as such it exists or not. If you are talking about devil you are talking about something else.No i don't believe in either. Though I would believe it just as likely - if not more so - that the "God" that is commonly worshipped by Christians is in fact the great trickster. Empirical evidence points strongly to this conclusion (if first one accepts the fact of this outside anthropomorphic being influencing our actions, fate and natural disasters and such...

Did any bothwer to read this? Do you understand your paradox? quote:Originally posted by THOTH: Case closed.

quote:Originally posted by Sasun: quote: Is it not just as possible that your "God" is just the Devil in disguise...yes who is really to know... It is not possible. By definition God is good. You may believe that as such it exists or not. If you are talking about devil you are talking about something else.No I don't believe in him either. Though I would believe it just as likely - if not more so - that the "God" that is commonly worshipped by Christians is in fact the great trickster. Empirical evidence points strongly to this conclusion (if first one accepts the fact of this outside anthropomorphic being influencing our actions, fate and natural disasters and such... [ January 24, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

quote:Originally posted by axel:THOTH, I allow the possibility of your being an imbecile. Well effectively you have conceeded. Now please be so kind to show me how/where name calling is a Christian virtue. Again I will remind everyone that you began this thread with a challenge to Atheists questionsing our belief/lack therof. Additionally you demeaned non-believers and proposed that we are somehow deficient. Yet when prevented with logical argument countering your spurious claims all you can resort to is name calling. I see no evidence in you - nor in most so-called believers (particualry the noisy ones) - of any greater morality, civility or any other particualr virtue or redeeming quality. While I know many who do sincerely follow Christian, Muslim and/or Buddist based life/beliefs who are kind, giving and understanding - equally they would show me respect as you have not. I can only conclude your so-called Christianity (your belief and practice of such) is a sham. The more that you claim that I do not understand Christianity (knowing nothing about what I have studied and read in my life and failing to know that my advisor at University was head of the religious studies department and a Yale Divinity School graduate [and was interested in me possibly pursueing a similar path] - yet still you make empty claims. I understand Christian belief and its historical underpinnings much more then you might relize. (Additionally at various times I have spent considerable time with Christian youth groups and [through a Christian relative] I particiapte in a Christian based care center for homeless families). So I understand various aspects of the religion and its believers. And I still believe as I do(n't!). If you are not up to the challenge of my words/thoughts then I would ask that at least you refrain from name calling and refrain from prostelithizing. Show some respect to those who are or believe differently then you do. Tolerance is a virtue equal to any on any particualr religions list. Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:Atheism is saying that there is no God. Is this not saying something without any proof? If the burden of proof what shifted to the person who said this, then the person would come up empty handed. This empty of proof posture is the same as the posture that the Atheist would say that religions have. So in the Atheist own logic, Atheism must be a sort-of religion, and by their own ideas, as valid as any other. No - sorry - not good enough. Bertrand Russell, "What Is an Agnostic?" 1953: 'If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.' So must I disprove all of these as well as all other possible gods in order to not believe in any one particular god or believe in any? Must there be a god or gods? Why? Here is another excerpt that perhaps you should read: Do Atheists Bear a Burden of Proof? A Reply to Prof. Ralph McInerny (1997) Keith M. Parsons "The "evidentialist challenge" is the gauntlet thrown down by atheist writers such as Antony Flew, Norwood Russell Hanson, and Michael Scriven. They argue that in debates over the existence of God, the burden of proof should fall on the theist. They contend that if theists are unable to provide cogent arguments for theism, i.e. arguments showing that it is at least more probable than not that God exists, then atheism wins by default. It follows that atheists are under no obligation to argue for the nonexistence of God; their only task is to show that theistic arguments fail. Some theistic philosophers gladly accept the challenge, eager to display what they think are powerful arguments for theism. Others, such as Alvin Plantinga, reject evidentialism and deny that theists must bear any special epistemic burden in their debates with atheists. Prof. Ralph McInerny goes a step further to argue that the burden of proof should fall on the unbeliever. Here I shall rebut Prof. McInerny's claim and argue that, in the context of public debate over the truth of theism, theists cannot shirk a heavy burden of proof. (skipped a bit) Let's cut to the chase and concede that the vast majority, say 99% of all humans who have ever lived, have had some concept of the divine. Given the enormous diversity of these concepts -- from animism and shamanism to fetishism to manifold polytheisms to the diverse monotheisms -- what kind of burden of proof does this "common consent" impose on the skeptic? The skeptic would appear to dissent from the common consent of the divine or the sacred. That is, if anything is sacred to skeptics, perhaps they should be counted within the common consensus. Is anything sacred for the atheist or agnostic? The answer is often "yes." Though he was not a believer in the God of theism (he endorsed the God of Spinoza -- Deus sive Natura), Einstein expressed a reverential awe for the subtlety of "The Old One," his personification of nature. Edward O Wilson's book Biophilia expresses an almost mystical sense of affinity with all living things. One cannot read the beautiful, powerful closing sentences of The Origin of Species without sharing Darwin's awed sense of the grandeur of the evolutionary view of life. The Soviet astrophysicist Yakov Zeldovich was fond of quoting Proust's remark that "The highest praise of God is the unbelief of a scholar who is sure that the perfection of the world makes the existence of gods unnecessary." Many atheists would add "amen" to that. Suppose, though, that an unbeliever has no sense of the divine. Literally nothing is sacred for that person. Should this person feel epistemic embarassment when confronted with the overwhelming common consent of humankind? Well, it all depends on how that common consent is explained. Numbers alone mean nothing; otherwise ad populum would not be a fallacy. What accounts for the near universality of some sense of the divine among human beings? Is it only reasonable to explain such near-unanimity in terms of the (however misconstrued) human awareness of God? The Common Consent Argument implies that this is the only reasonable explanation. Is it? Stewart Guthrie's recent book Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion proposes the challenging thesis that the psychological basis of religious belief is the nearly universal human tendency to anthropomorphize. He argues that humans have a nearly universal and overwhelming tendency to attribute human characteristics to nonhuman things and events. He suggests that this tendency is hardwired -- an evolutionary adaptation. Thus, we see faces in clouds and Jesus in a picture of spaghetti on a billboard. (This really happened!) More seriously, we tend to see random events as orchestrated by unseen benevolent or malignant intelligences. When I curse the traffic light that always stops me or the photocopier that breaks down whenever the job is urgent, I'm anthropomorphizing. The upshot is that the unbeliever can appeal to Guthrie, Freud, or other psychological, sociological, or biological theories to account for the near universality of some form of religious belief. In other words, the common consent phenomenon can be explained naturalistically without appeal to any awareness of God. The Common Consent Argument therefore reduces to a version of the ad populum fallacy. Hence, the unbeliever need feel no epistemic embarassment at the fact that he or she is in the 1% for whom nothing is sacred. Charles de Gaulle was wily but illogical to reply to a critic "Monsieur, forty million Frenchmen cannot be wrong!" They can be wrong; so can 99% of the human race! I conclude that McInerny has given no good reason for placing a special burden of proof on the skeptic. Further, he has said nothing to obviate the burden of proof that the theist must bear in debates over the truth of theism. The evidentialist challenge stands: Is there good reason to think theism true? If not, the skeptic is fully justified in taking the same attitude towards theism that he or she takes towards claims about UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lost Continent of Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, poltergeists, etc. These are interesting claims, but their proponents are perennially unable to offer persuasive evidence on their behalf. In such cases skepticism is an eminently rational position, and its rarity among human beings is not an indictment of it, but of the gullibility of the majority." And here is another argument made by Jeffry James Lauder: "The god of Islam (Allah) and the god of Christianity (Jehovah), despite their common origin in the god of Judaism (Yahweh), are mutually exclusive. Jehovah and Allah, at least as traditionally understood, cannot both exist at the same time. Both claim to be the Creator of the universe, but they have contradictory attributes (e.g., Christianity claims that there are three "persons" known as God but Islam claims that there is only one). Thus, the Christian theist who makes the positive existential claim that the Christian god exists, is implicitly making the negative existential claim that all gods contradictory to the Christian god do not exist. Similarly, the Islamic theist who makes the positive existential claim that the Islamic god exists is implicitly claiming that all gods contradictory to Allah do not exist. And both the Christian and the Islamic theist presuppose the non-existence of the god of Deism, an impersonal Creator of the universe." quote:Originally posted by QRISTINE:If I had to try to construct a defensible structure, I would choose Agnostic – one who doubts, and says we can not know. But to doubt is to allow the possibility of the other side being right. What of this possiblity? Is it not just as possible that Odin resides in Valhala? Is it not just as possible that your "God" is just the Devil in disguise...yes who is really to know...

quote:Originally posted by Sasun:THOTH, you have no idea of Christianity. No true Christian will share your understanding of it. Based on what you have said on this forum, your knowledge of Christianity is superficial and partial. You have no idea of what I know and what I do not know. Obviously no "true" Christian would share my understanding of Christianity...unless of course they are some kind of masochist...then again... quote:Originally posted by Sasun:This is the problem with the atheists - they don't know much about what God is meant and religions but they can claim anything based on superficial things like "Hitler was this and that". Oh here we go again with "This is the problem with the atheists..." etc I've also had similar converstations with Muslims (who say to me - "This is the problem with Christians...etc" [meaning me BTW - LOL. All the while saying - no that terrorist isn't a "true" Muslim etc etc - now what do you think? quote:Originally posted by Sasun:If you don't know then you should admit that you don't know. Talking about something you don't know and don't want to know is pointless. If you don't believe then it is your problem, but negating and badmouthing what others believe in can't be right. Again its my problem. NO! That you feel the need to believe in fairy tales is YOUR PROBLEM! Don't forget Axel started this thread (like you) badmouthing Atheists - assuming that we are wrong and have problems etc etc. Well I totally reject this. I never claim to have the answers - but what I do claim is that your answers don't do it for me. And the more that you and those such as you push the fact that your belief is the one and only true one - etc etc - the more I will say - NO F-----g Way! Your claims have no more basis then mine or anyone elses. Its you who need to understand and admit this. Then we can talk. quote:Originally posted by Sasun:Not to believe is much easier than to believe. Not to believe constitutes inner weakness. Is it? I think its the opposite. As Western society is based around this belief it is all pervasive. Its easier to go with the flow and accept what we have been taught then to question and think for one's self. Its easier to just accept the platitudes - "Oh the universe was created by "God" all powerful - he made us, if we follow we will live eternal etc etc...." To me - it is inner weakness (your words) to accept all of this on FAITH - rather then to think for oneself - outside of the prescribed little box... quote:Originally posted by Sasun:I don't blame atheists as much as fake believers, hypocrits, ignorant self-righteous "Christians", bloodthirsty fanatics - all products of organized religion. Blame? No we are just weak minded looking for the easy way out - etc etc Isn't it funny how there always apear to be more "false" believers etc etc - how everyone is wrong but your particualr belief. Don't (truly thinking) people see a problem with this?

axel - History and current times are filled with many who calim tobe christian (and who are sometiems recognized as great people in their time for their culture/nation etc) - but who are not - who do terrible things. If Christianity is indeed a religion of freedom (this I highly dispute) - then it must be freedom to commit any atrocity on the unbeliever - this must be the meaning. Hitler was only following in a well established tradition.

quote:Originally posted by nairi:That's really cool Thoth, but what exactly are you trying to say with it? That adoption, thus growing up away from one's biological parents can work, or something else? I'm curious... Yes - this is the point. (and even more - but along the same lines - that it can work wonderfully and such) And I just thought that this situation might be interesting to other forumites.

quote:Originally posted by hyebruin:...most men claim they love their wife/girlfriend/fiancee...but then totally separate that from having a fling on the side..."who told you YOU can have fries with that main dish?"...I guess for some men...especially from 'macho' cultures such as with armenians...a full course meal just isn't enough! they gotta have the cheap buck 99 drive through!!! Wellllll...sometimes dinner just gets a bit cold and a hot (even if quick/basic) meal can taste real real good! LOL All kidding aside (though certain truth I think...) - I don't necissarily see any condratiction in loving ones SO and also loving or having a relationship "on the side" - I do think it is a problem if this is done dishonestly (as is ussually the case). Open communication is always best. And who is to say that this sort of situation may not be workable and beneficial and such (and I'm not just saying for the man...)

Just an aside on step families. We have relatives (removed once over on my mothers side or such) - fully Armenian - very Armenian - involved in the Church, speak it at home etc - who adopted a girl (baby) nearly 20 years ago. She is not Armenian ethnically - but has been raised as one - she speaks Armenian, dances Armenian, is involved in Armenian youth groups, and will likely mary an Armenian. etc her and her parants have a great deal of love and attachment towards one another. And she has totally adopted the cuture - she has been raised 100% Armenian. Just thought this might be an interesting tidbit & such...Another (perhaps) interestng aside is that they have lived in Turkey for a period (he was an Air Force officer)...

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you were assured not to suffer the consequences of your evil deeds, would you still do good? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wouldn't do evil, that's for sure. It is something foreign to me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- why? (what I am trying to argue is that there is no rational basis for such an attitude) And belief in some external force to enforce such is a rational explanation? So a question for you - If we cannot love (each other - singly or as a whole etc) independently of "God" - how is it that we can love "God" - as he demands? Sees to me a great paradox - no? How is love rational BTW? Explain that...

Axel - you begun this thread essentially by putting down Atheism and Atheists - go back and read post 1 please. I find this insulting. I find it funny that you cry foul when folks post to contradict your narrow views. BTW - you have not in any way countered my (referenced) claims that Hitler saw himself/was a Catholic/Christian. Your claim that man would not do good with fear of punishment from "God" is both false - and it undermines the pitfalls of your beliefs - again placing man as "bad" and with only the fear of punishment from some outside source foe doing good. I find this a disgusting self-hating concept. I have no need to fear punishment or to rely on some ficticious entity for the source of love & compassion. I find these concepts to be very primative and demeaning to me and to all humanity.

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark:

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark:

All you ever wanted to know about Agnosticism (and more). Not sure I know anything now (LOL)...(but I'm cerytain that I don't believe any of it!) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm also - http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

My how times have changed... INGERSOLL'S VOW Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) was a famous attorney and orator whose brilliant lectures drew thousands. As a political figure, he came close to achieving the Republican party's nomination for governor of Illinois, but prejudice and intolerance denied him the opportunity because he was an atheist. "When I became convinced that the universe is natural—that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world—not even in infinite space. I was free—free to think, to express my thoughts—free to live to my own ideal—free to use all my faculties, all my senses—free to spread imagination's wings—free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope—free to judge and determine for myself—free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past—free from popes and priests—free from all the "called" and "set apart"—free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies—free from the fear of eternal pain—free from the winged monsters of the night—free from devils, ghosts, and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought—no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings—no chains for my limbs—no lashes for my back—no fires for my flesh—no master's frown or threat—no following another's steps—no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain—for the freedom of labor and thought—to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs—to those whose flesh was scarred and torn—to those by fire consumed—to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still."

And perhaps this will answer some questons: On Freethinking http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.html

Just something I came accross - worth a look Religion is the Cause of Violence (1999) by William Edelen I have often wondered if the lunatics of the Republican 'God Squad' know how much Hitler would have loved them. That idiot from Idaho, Republican Helen Chenoweth wanted us to have a national day of "fasting and humiliation before God." This was a follow up to her extended period of adultery. George W. Bush said a few years ago that "people who do not accept Jesus Christ will not go to heaven." So much for the Jews and Buddhists and all U.S. citizens not Christian. And he wants to be the President. It is religion that, historically, has always produced violence. From Moses to the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Hitler, Kosovo. Today, in our own time, it is those countries without religion that are the LEAST vilolent. America is the most 'religious' of the world's industrialized nations, and yet is the most violent nation in the world. Pat Robertson recently said this: "take the Holy Bible from people and they will run amok." The monumental stupidity of this man is scary. Japan, without the bible, but with Buddhism has less violent crimes than any other nation in the world. It seems that we should be hanging Buddhist teachings in our public schools. The murder rate here in America is six times higher than Britain, seven times higher than France, five times more than Sweden and Australia. Louisiana has the highest church attendance rate in America. It also has twice the national average for murders. The same with God Squad Tom DeLay's bible toting state of Texas. Violence and biblical religion go hand in hand and yet, our Republican leaders want more of it. Their language would make Hitler smile. Hitler would love their social agenda. Hitler had religion and wanted more of it for Germany. He was a Roman Catholic and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. He was steeped in its liturgy. Hatred of the Jews was promoted in Germany by Catholics and Lutherans. In his book MEIN KAMPF Hitler wrote: "I am completely convinced that I am acting as the agent of God. I am now a Catholic and will always remain so." Hitler never left the church and the church never left him. Great books were banned by the church but MEIN KAMPF was never banned. Hitler was never excommunicated. Under Hitler, 'Jesus' prayers became mandatory in all schools. Abortion was a crime. Homosexuality was criminalized. Hitler put into practice everything our Republican leaders are now pushing for America. Biblical religion and violence go hand in hand. They always have, from Moses to Kosovo to America's bible belt. If you want an education, read THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, the pulitzer prize winning book by William Shirer. And then: Wake Up! The time is short...... The hour is late......

I think it all comes down to having an attentive and (more or less) open relationship with your children. If you talk to them and they understand your decisions (somewhat) then I don't necessarily see any problem. I understand the insecurity issue - but this is very dependent on the child I think.

Sasun - Obviously some (likely Christian) ***o has no understanding of the Dao and is passing himself off as some venerable master. Nowhere have I ever seen any reference to "God" in any accepted Daoist work (but whoi is to say with these translations - I don't buy it though - it doesn't fit - not at all). This "God" concept is antithises to Dao. It cannot be. It is Christianity that preaches seperation between man and "God" - there is no such thing in the Dao - nor is there any "God" to be defined - there is no concept of "creator". However there are many neo-daoist offshoots (human nature...)that try to complicate what really is pretty basic - I don't buy any of it (well - the hedonstic schools have some things going for them certainly). But in general there is no need for complications - for bringing in personalites & such. And no - Daoism is not some bridge to Christianity - and even such things as the 10 comandments go against the Daoist approach. It would be like saying that Martin Luther King wanted the Black man to be free so that he could own his own slaves - - it is not possible for Christianity to "fit" into a proper Daoist belief - it is much to rules oriented to begin with and much to contrived. And again - in no way can the Daoist thinking be (accuratly) used to support "God" belief...

564312 - agreed - very good post...

sorry - double post...somehow.... [ January 21, 2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

MJ - great post - much to think on. TB - also many good points (particualry concerning the points of Armenians emerging from long/total conquest/subjugation...as Armenians - and that ALL Armenians have been affected by Ottoman legacy - not just Western Armenians...) I agree with Boghos. I don't think his point was at all to create/perpetuate some/any divide among Armenians by recognizing/surfacing/examining the Ottoman legacy. Frankly - I think most Armenians reject this Ottoman legacy - conciously or otherwise - in part perhaps because in some ways it makes it more difficult to see the Turk as "other"... And TB - not sure how we move beyond...certainly we can in terms of (many) attitude(s) (the negative - many attitudes/behaviors I think - centering around distrust/persecution complex/lowered self-image ...and much more...). But much is ingrained (to the pont where we might/do not even recognize)..and then there is the question - do we need to reject? Is not some "good"/worth keeping - even being proud of - etc? I think so....perhaps... Cousin/brother issue - LOL. Not all brothers get along well you know...sometimes they even come to blows & worse...common mother or not... And like Armenians who have emerged from the Ottoman legacy - I too cannot help/control my origin nor my assimilation (to a degree)...nor the fact that I am not "just" Armenian...(some might say "even" - LOL) And MJ - I do appreciate - very much so - (your view on) the importance (etc/on many levels) of Armenia to (all) Armenians... ...why are "we" failing so? (context - "your"/our Armenia...) (I'm sure we have seen this as a thread title with all of the usual comentary - (lack of) unity/vision/leadership etc etc - but still no real solution (even improvement?) in sight... Does it all come back to this "brother" thing? Or is it not this at all? Or is it this & more....

The times they are a 'changin...and who knows what will be/pass for the "norm" one day soon. (Though admittedly this seems a little strange - though I've heard of worse, heck [in the past - prior to being married - LOL] I think I've been involved in "worse" - LOL). Face it - our society has changed incredibly in the last few decades - more then humanity has ever changed before - socially. Its not likely that the clock will turn back. Relationhips & the concept of family have changed (perhaps not for al but for most). We no longer necessarily mate for life...just a fact...with women working - with so much mixing of people - contact with folks outside family or known small little community where everyone knows each other - etc. And women are seeing how (many) men have traditionally operated (fooling around0 - and are saying - heh - maybe thats good for me too. Maybe he can't perform well in bed - or maybe he is just not loving - or maybe they just don't click for whatever reason (and in the case of hyebruions example maybe they just feel like some dating/sexual whatever adventure....). They have made some rules - cqan it work - perhaps - will it? Don't know - hard to brake from certain mental/emotional bounds that have been drummed into us (some through our evolutionary history)...buyt yes - i think some people can see there way out of this - and if it works - well good for them! I have know people in open relationships before. A college friend of mine once was dating this gal (a few years older certainly) who happened to be married. Well she loved her husband - but he wasn't interested in sex (she was pretty hot too - so he did have a problem IMO). Anyway they stayed married and she "dated" other guys (he was very much a stay at home type). He even would call my friend to talk to her sometime - and she would tell him where we were going/what we were doing - etc (we used to double date...)...anyway seemed to woek OK - so who know...

TB - very good points - but I think that you are barking up the wrong tree. Obviously we are not "Turks" - we are Armenian - and this is certainly identifiable. And understood that the "Turks" of Anatolia are a "crafted" people - of recent origin in this sense and Armenians are as you have said - an ancient lineage (of blood & culture). Nothing (said) changes this. However, it is clear that the Ottotman period has colored Armenians - I don't think that this can be denied. It doesn't make us any less Armenian - as this phenomenon is not new (with us). But it is recent and it has changed those of us whose families came out of this environment. I don't think it makes us not Armenians - but perhaps we are now different branches - though as was pointed out - even (a great many of) those of Armenia proper were refugees from Ottoman Empire. And while Armenians (of the diaspora) from different nations all absorb many unique characteristics and customs etc from these lands - they also have always maintained their Armenianess... I think Boghos is not proposing what you claim - but is only saying that we need to acknowledge and understand that much of who (many/most? of us) are is also bound up with the Ottoman/Turkish past. This is perhaps nearly as much a part of us as our being Armenian. We are tied to Anatolia and to the Ottoman legacy - because this was the reality of our forefathers for generations. It colored their world view - their exposure - likes/dislikes - patterns of thought and action. And living there had a profound effect on Anatolian Armenians individualy and of course as a group...a very clear effect...So what does this mean (in practice)? Not sure...I am interested in hearing Boghos's views as he proposed this discussion.