Are you an Atheist

Post Reply New Topic

Oh - Bible-vs-Bible; always an entertaining game:

Romans, 13: "1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour."

With the difference that gambling may ruin one's live, but religion easily can ruin a whole continent; in today's world even the whole world.

OMG if ever there were proof that the bible was written to subjugate people, I think I need to read it fully. Which version should I get?

BTW Dussel are you going to put something into the post you inspired ie Favourite strange/ridiculous religious beliefs

It doesn't make much difference which English translation you get, they're all the same in content. Some fundies will only listen to stuff from the King James version, but the NIV, NRSV, or NEB are perfectly fine as well.

As far as the quote from Romans, there has been much debate about it... it has to be taken in context.

?

Which context? The text is quite clear, it not just a few lines, it says that even the Imperial Roman authorities are established by god to do justice and to obey those is a Christian's duty. There is not a lot to interpret or to put "into context".

---

BTW: Reading this lines, it surprises me that the Ceasars needed an other 250 years to understand how convenient such an ideology is for the ruler, whilst the myths of this time often showed the limits of government. As the text book example the famous lines from Sophocles' Antigone:

"CREON And thou didst indeed dare to transgress that law?

ANTIGONE Yes; for it was not Zeus that had published me that edict; not such are the laws set among men by the justice who dwells with the gods below; nor deemed I that thy decrees were of such force, that a mortal could override the unwritten and unfailing statutes of heaven. For their life is not of to-day or yesterday, but from all time, and no man knows when they were first put forth."

This writings are for any government much more dangerous than the words of Paul.

Last edited by Dussel on 22 Feb 2009, 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Even though I do not have a belief in the nonexistence of any God, I voted "yes" on the poll and wear the atheist label almost as proudly as any Christian wears their label.

My take is as such:

1. The claim that gods exist has not met its burden of evidence and therefore does not merit belief.
--1a. The definition of "god" in this context is important. If you say that "god is love" in the literal sense, then I believe in your god because I believe both the concept and reality of love exist.
--1b. Stereotypical gods (supernatural beings of some transcendent nature) are the gods I lack belief in.

2. I feel justified in making the statement that gods in any stereotypically supernatural form most likely do not exist, however I do not claim to have knowledge of or belief in their nonexistence to any serious degree of certainty.
--2a. I believe gods do not exist to the same degree of certainty that I believe fairies do not exist. Obviously it is not justified to say that at nowhere, at no point in time did anything resembling a fairy exist.
--2b. The importance of this comes down to knowledge in the most practical sense. For instance, even though I know next to nothing about you, I am justified in making the positive claim that light blue is not your natural hair color because I have not observed light blue hair color in humans and know of no way in which this could naturally happen. However, I would not make the claim that your having light blue human hair is an impossibility, nor would I make the claim to any serious degree of certainty, because of my lack of knowledge about the possibilities of biology. However, logic and probability dictates that I lean a particular way because of the knowledge I do have.

The short of it: I'll say gods do not exist, but this is not something I believe in the literal sense of the word. It is merely something I have deduced logically after examining the claims, the arguments, and the efficacy thereof. At the point that someone presents me with an adequate argument for a god that does not rely on "belief before belief" or logical fallacy, then I will be extremely open minded and will rejoice in the acquisition of new knowledge about the wondrous universe we live in.

I'm not but I don't follow any religion anymore either. I think it is possible a higher power may exist, I mean why couldn't it? But as far as religion goes, I don't buy it anymore. I don't care what anyone else believes just as long as they respect my position. Atheists and theists both disagree with my viewpoints.

I would recomend you read a few differnt versions, that way you can see what big things seem to be mising from one version compared to another, and what they added later to other versions. It is interesting to see some of the big things they just happend to remember a thousand years later and add. Then every language is slightly interpreted in a differnt way. I believe there are around 10 differnt popular versions, and where translated from versions from around the 1500's, then there are a hundred differnt newer versions, that all believe something slightly differnt happend. I am sure people will correct my mistakes I made.

One of the standard ploys of religious people in accusing Communist Russia of being an atheist regime and therefore despicable for fighting the local religious hierarchy is related to this subjugation of authority to those in power by God's will. Obviously the totalitarian Communists in Russia (as today in China) were jealous of anyone who acquired political power outside their own regime. The religious hierarchy in Russia under the Czar was closely allied to the Czarist regime and although the Communists were undoubtedly not religious, it was political power, not theist philosophy that was the issue. The Catholic Church in Latin America is much of the same type suppressing priests who are sympathetic to the people rather than to the oligarchs in control.
I general, organized religion has always sided with government control rather than with the powerless and suppressed.

you have to look at the context, this was written during the apostolic era of the church, christianity was not the authority until constenteine. There was also issues whether the eaarly church should pay taxes, speak against pantheism, and give honor to ceaser.

There are a lot of examples what happens if religion becomes in a society the dominant political force: Cromwell's England (by name a republic, by structure a religious military dictatorship) was as-well Swizz city states (Zurich with Zwingly and Geneva with Calvin) as well today's Iran suppressed everything outside the religious dogma.

It was therefore for the most English even a relieve when Charles II came back to the throne, at least theatres and pubs were allow to open again.

And people were allowed to embrace and kiss in public.

Cromwell's regime was surly and joyless. That was its major fault. The English public was not too upset about killing ll those Irish people. They were Catholics anyway.

ruveyn