Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Atheist Experience
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 13 of 283 (839566)
09-10-2018 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
09-10-2018 1:59 PM


Re: The Discussion is not as simple as Tangle concludes
I'm not asking which is superior. I'm asking how you can even make a comparison. Like an apple and a hammer, are they used for the same purpose? If you don't have one, can you substitute the other?
Yes, isn't that exactly Secular Humanism is? It's a Christianity substitute for ex-Christians who miss Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 09-10-2018 1:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 09-14-2018 11:40 AM caffeine has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 58 of 283 (839778)
09-15-2018 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Diomedes
09-15-2018 11:09 AM


Re: What differences between Christianity and Atheism
quote:
So it is like the Pagan Romans calling Christians "atheists"?
I think they would actually refer to them as 'heretics'. That would be more applicable.
Unlikely - I don't think classical Latin had the word heretic. 'Haeresis' (heresy) meant only a school of thought. The word heresy attained it's modern meaning only in Christian writings; and even this modern meaning isn't really one which makes sense from the point of view of pagan Romans looking at Christians. Heretics tend to be people doing your religion wrong - it's used for heterodox interpretations of Christian dogma. A Catholic might have called a Protestant a heretic, but not a Buddhist. The Buddhist would be an unbeliever, or a pagan, or an infidel.
Atheist, on the other hand, was used in classical Latin, but it did not have the modern sense of not believing in a god or gods. A better translation in modern English might be 'ungodly'. It was used not to refer to a person's belief, but rather their actions - atheists were those who did not participate in the expected religious rites of the community. And LNA is right - early Christians were indeed condemned for atheism due to their refusal to take part in (pagan) religious rites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Diomedes, posted 09-15-2018 11:09 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 100 of 283 (839947)
09-19-2018 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Phat
09-19-2018 1:33 AM


Re: Holding On To Rationality At All Costs
Why not take Bob Altemeyer's test?
Aside from the fact that the test looks really badly designed, it's also trying to test something different that what Tangle and Faith were arguing about. Not sure what this would resolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 09-19-2018 1:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024