Atheism isn't a belief?

If you haven't got a Bible, Google: 'Bible' 'on-line' then read Romans 7:15-24 inclusive. Forget the spiritual sounding stuff and just see does anything that this man is saying strike a chord with you. If it does a little then no surprise - you're human. If it does alot, if you can really empathise with that man in some way, then your at the sub-destination. The Law has fulfilled it's task. It will bid you adieu... for nowThe purpose is irrelevant to someone who isn't at the sub-destination: the Law still has some work to do - assuming it can be doneBut for the person at the sub-destination it's different. The purpose of the Law in showing that person that they cannot keep the Law, is to let them know, as it did the man in Romans (and anyone who empathises with him) that he is a sinner. And sinners have but one final destination. Hell (if it exists).This might seem like bad news but not if one considers that the person has got to know this while he is still alive, ie: while there is something can be done about it. And that 'something' does not involve, such a person will be relieved to know, following the Law ('cos that would be Catch-22)

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Your bright enough to make a bit of a start yourself on this CP. If you do then we could discuss whether the seek-model is a reasonable one or not. Open a thread maybe. Put up one or two thoughts about aspects of a model which is aimed at finding out evidence. A model that looks at the world around and in at yourself and what you know of other selfs. This is the only material you have to make a model with after all.First a model designed to collect evidence > then apply model > then evaluate evidence if it comes. That is the logical sequence. Discussion of evidence needs evidence to discuss. And to discuss both parties need to be party to the evidence.Now for a pint. Night all

As I understand it, Jews believe that man was created with both a Good Urge (yetzer ha-tov) and an Evil Urge (yetzer ha-ra).Paul personifies sin in Romans 7:7-25 to show the battle between our good and bad urges.Even though man is never totally free of his Yetzer Hara until he physically dies, Paul is trying to show that through the death of Jesus his follwers are supposedly free from the mastery of sin. Which makes sense, since nothing is wrong until a person, community or nation decides something is wrong.IOW, without being in Christ we are supposedly unable to follow the Jewish Laws because we are unable to master our evil urge. If Christ is "in" us then we can master our evil urge.I think that's why theist feel that atheist are unable to just do what is right without a belief in God.Really the only purpose of the Jewish laws (as in most communities) were to tell the community what was right and wrong.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Sorry, I was unclear. I'm asking what you believe the purpose to be. I'm dealing with your beliefs, not some hypothetical actual purpose; and what you believe is most certainly relevant.

Obviously, I do.
An atheist has no gods. Thus, your assertion translates to: "You may come to realise that slings and arrows you fire at (blank) are as effective as trying to sink an ocean liner with a BB gun."
As I have no gods, 'firing at a god' = 'firing at nothing'.Now, what I can do is fire at you. Your thoughts and beliefs are fair game. Now, as I can dismember concepts; if your god is nothing more than one, then it could be said that I'm attacking a god. Of course, I don't consider a thought to be a god, so I'm still an atheist.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-24-2005 10:36 PM

Which makes no sense. What is right and wrong cannot be determined by person, community, nation. Man isn't absolute, thus right and wrong will vary. Thus slavery was right once but not right now - which is cleary ridiculous. What is right and wrong is determined only by something which is absoute, eg: by God (i.h.e.). We, as consumers can chose which product, right or wrong, but the manufacturer of the product isn't the consumer, it's the manufacturer. And the point of Pauls piece was to show that everybody choses wrong sometimes (according to mans standard - a shadow, virtual one) and very many times (according to God standard - the one that actually matters).Mostly we don't see it as this. We will typically get a bit of a tug from conscience (which only says what we ought to do - not must do). But we very often ignore that tug, proceed with the 'ought not' and then justify our actions - making them 'right'. This of course only puts another brick in the wall on front of conscience leading to a "hardening of heart". A child molester won't be a normal person one day then abuse a child in the park the next. It'll be a step-by-step progression: fantasy with guilt, then fantasy without guilt, then accidental touching of a nephew, then 'accidental' touching of a nephew, etc... A downward spiral, with bricks building up to silence the conscience all the way down. And when the wall is complete then anything can happen. Hilter, Pol Pot, Stalin? (who happened to head up rabidly athiestic regiemes - not that I slight athiests by this - most are better than me. I slight athiesm at or around it's logical destination: +infinity)If someone is seeking, ie: if something in them doesn't want to do what they ought not to do even though they can't seem to help doing it - then they are being convicted by conscience and are coming to see their actions for what they actually are (rather than what they can be excused to themselves and others to be). They are the man in Romans 7. They are at or around a sub-destination. Lucky them. An athiest can follow God's laws as well as a thiest whether he believes in him or not. An athiest might be even doing better than the theist. The reason for this is that no one, theist, Christian, Buddisht athiest, whatever - can follow all Gods Law. No one. And the first person who says they do, has just lied - so has broken God's Law A short selection of Gods laws to test yourself with:- love God with all your heart, soul and mind
- never look at a woman/man with any lust in your heart
- don't be unrightfully angry with anyone
- treat everyone as you would like to be treated yourself (anybody who says they do here is going to sound like a right twit)
- if somone slights you, defames you, hurts you you should turn the other cheek - and forgive them - even if they do it again and again..Show of hands time. Who has never broken on of these 'Laws'No hands? I thought not--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

quote:

---

Which makes no sense. What is right and wrong cannot be determined by person, community, nation. Man isn't absolute, thus right and wrong will vary. Thus slavery was right once but not right now - which is cleary ridiculous. What is right and wrong is determined only by something which is absoute, eg: by God (i.h.e.). We, as consumers can chose which product, right or wrong, but the manufacturer of the product isn't the consumer, it's the manufacturer. And the point of Pauls piece was to show that everybody choses wrong sometimes (according to mans standard - a shadow, virtual one) and very many times (according to God standard - the one that actually matters).

---

I don't see how is an absolute at all. You might claim it is, but, if it is an absolute, why does our preception change, why do we have differing opinions on what is right or wrong?Stem cell research. Right or wrong? WHy? People disagree. Therefore, it is not an absolute. What you claim is 'right and moral' is your opinion, and you invoke GOD for it. It's amazing how all these people who invoke god have their god having the exact same morals as they do.

Has it ever occurred to you that what you believe about the existance of God has absolutely no influence on his existance. Given that I know God exists (as opposed to just believe it) then I can talk about you and your bb gun. The proof of my knowing cannot be shown to you because the proof occurs in the supernatural. It's not my fault, nor the supernaturals fault. It's your choice by not choosing to seek the proof.On the other hand you just 'believe' natural is everything. And given that there is no natural evidence of this, your position is based on faith rather than knowledge. Your athiesm is thus - just another religion. You can't show me proof not because it's your fault or my fault but because we can both look at the natural and see no proof exists. Saying there will in the future is just more faith in the religionIf you say you don't believe in all-is-natural AND you don't believe in God then you are not atheist, you are a-anything.This message has been edited by iano, 25-Aug-2005 04:41 PM

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

It makes perfect sense. He just happens to be wrong.
Decision Theory and Game Theory apply.

Only in theory. Theoretically, these theories are only tentive in their theoricity. Thus they in truth have nothing to say as to what is or isn't true. And I mean that truthfully, not theoretically.I'm led to believe that followers of certain Religions have to pray 6 times a day. How often to you have to worship the god of Science there d.s. What are the 10 commandments in your faith?1. Objectivity is the Lord thy god. Thou shalt not consider anything at all before him.2. But if thy must consider some other god make it 'Theory is truth -3. Honour thy Occam and thy Mother (nature)4. When thou faith is tested by lack of evidence - speculate.5. Do not covet thy neighbours logic, argument or good sense. If thou doest thus thy might start making some thyself. Instead forsake not thy god (especially commandment 1 and 2)6. ..Bugger!! Is it that time! Am off the the theatre with my Christian (but a touch name-it-and-claim-it mother, my agnostic dad, weak athiest sisters and my weak-to-middling athiest brother-in-law. An Arthur Miller I think they said it was..

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Duh.
Doesn't change the fact that I can't fire at something that I don't believe exists, as I have no target. I mean, try attacking the real Tooth Fairy. You could call a hypothetical Tooth Fairy fat, dumb, and ugly; but that's just aimed at a concept -- not the real Tooth Fairy. And your 'supernatural' consists of statistical sampling errors. My position is the result of using a method that works. Cherry-picking is not allowed, unlike with yours. Silly Fundie.

Retreating into insanity, iano?

I thought we were past this stage.
a-anything would be a bit of a tricky position would it not?
If you don't have any belief in anything then you can't even believe your own senses or that the universe exists at all.
That is just plain stupid. How the heck can atheism be a religion? It involves NO beliefs, just a complete indiference to god. If you call that a religion then so is a non-belief in Star Wars. Maybe that too really did happen in a distant galaxy, a long long time ago just like it says in the opening credits.
There is absolutely no evidence that everything isn't natural either. I think of the supernatural as just another part of the natural that we haven't really come to grips with yet. In those terms everything is natural. We have a pretty solid track record for uncovering new mysteries and bringing more and more into the natural. Just give me one good reason why there even has to be a dividing line. In Caveman days the line was at fire. Later it became the sun, wind and rain. These have all been brought into the fold so what real reason is there to think that we have to stop where we are now and define the boundary at this instant then say it can never change. That is pure BS IMO. No it isn't. It is simply extrapolating the future achievements of science based on past record. It is a perfectly scientific prediction with solid evidential footing. "Faith (or plumage if you prefer) don't enter into it" (John Clease: Parrot sketch)

As I said earlier, you don't really know what reason is.Oddly enough the laws (all are not laws) you listed are all man made and do change over time. They changed from the OT to the NT.If, as you have been suggesting over and over again, God created the universe, earth, etc., then the actual laws of God are the laws of nature, physics, etc. If I understand them correctly, then those are laws that man cannot change and they don't change with time.As far as I know, I have not broken any laws of nature, physics, etc.
One hand up for me.

quote:

---

if somone slights you, defames you, hurts you you should turn the other cheek - and forgive them - even if they do it again and again..

---

I love it when you mix your lessons. Very entertaining.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Given that I know God exists (as opposed to just believe it) then I can talk about you and your bb gun. The proof of my knowing cannot be shown to you because the proof occurs in the supernatural. It's not my fault, nor the supernaturals fault. It's your choice by not choosing to seek the proof.

---

You may say you have no evidence for his existance etc. But if you can't show, then you don't know. That's agnosticism.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France