57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 09:42 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Did not bother to view the video...but anyone who thinks "an agnostic is just an atheist who doesn't know it"...doesn't know what he/she is talking about.



Frank being that you have a good understanding of the Etymology of the word atheist, "do you think that this understanding is how the word was used in its origin by theists in the past and by the majority theists today?

You seem to be obsesses with the narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities and disregard the broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[122][123] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[39]


I think it appropriate for every atheist to describe his/her atheism individually. The word, like the word "agnosticism" seems to have subtle variations...and each person has to identify where on the specturm of variations he/she falls.

I am not obsessed at all.

I have pointed out that the etymology of the word includes an understanding that would not require that new-born babies be considered atheists until such time as they are able to "believe" things that would take them out of that category.

If you or your source wants to think that atheism was first used in the late 18th century...you are free to do so. Some people think the age of the planet is less than 10,000 years.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 01:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,


Quote:
If you or your source wants to think that atheism was first used in the late 18th century...you are free to do so. Some people think the age of the planet is less than 10,000 years.



When I read the 18th century I wondered as well.
Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise?

Quote:
Although the term "atheism" originated in the sixteenth century – based on Ancient Greek ἄθεος "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] – and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 01:12 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
"Rumpy-pumpy issues" is so fruity...it even looks bad on you!


You were found under a gooseberry bush I suppose?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 01:29 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci writes a post at his blog Rationally Speaking regarding the supernatural, and discusses some specifically Catholic ideas in so doing. Now, Pigliucci is also a naturalist (of the philosophical sort; i.e., one who thinks that only the natural exists, not the kind that collects rocks and beetles), and so he also rejects claims of the supernatural. However, he critiques the arguments that some of his fellow naturalists use against belief in the supernatural, citing Richard Dawkins’ arguments against the Virgin Birth of Christ and transubstantiation as specifically poor examples. Pigliucci notes of the so-called “scientific” objection to the doctrine of transubstantiation that it is an argument that would “move no fervent Catholic, nor should it.” Of course, Pigliucci rejects these doctrines as well, and he offers his own objections, which are far more substantial and repectable than the polemical, popular sort of atheistic arguments. This is the sort of intellectual atheism that is respectable in comparison to the sophomoric variety that seems to dominate on the shelves of the science section of the bookstore.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 02:25 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:



Quote:
If you or your source wants to think that atheism was first used in the late 18th century...you are free to do so. Some people think the age of the planet is less than 10,000 years.



When I read the 18th century I wondered as well.
Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise?

Quote:
Although the term "atheism" originated in the sixteenth century – based on Ancient Greek ἄθεος "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] – and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history.



It was used in the 18th century that way. That is what the citation means. The word atheist has been used since gods first came into being. It comes to us from the ancient Greek through the French...and means "without god(s)."

Recently, atheists have used the word in a way that causes the editors of dictionaries to define it differently. Many dictionaries define it (or assign one meaning to it) to be: Lack of belief in a God. This comes from the notion that atheist is "a" = "without" + "theist" = "believer in a God". But that is a misconstruction.

Atheist came into the language BEFORE theist...and did not derive that way at all.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 02:26 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
"Rumpy-pumpy issues" is so fruity...it even looks bad on you!


You were found under a gooseberry bush I suppose?


That also is fruity. But you cannot help but be fruity.

0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 02:37 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The word atheist has been used since gods first came into being.


Are you certain that you want to make this claim? Drunk Drunk Drunk

Quote:
It comes to us from the ancient Greek through the French...and means "without god(s)."


Are you suggesting there were no gods until after there were Greeks? Smile

Quote:

Recently, atheists have used the word in a way that causes the editors of dictionaries to define it differently.


Welcome to reality Frank, this is the case with language. I know we are old and setting our ways but language does evolve regardless if we want it to. What a hoe meant yesterday to the majority may mean something entirely different a few years from now.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 03:11 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
. . . . What a hoe meant yesterday to the majority may mean something entirely different a few years from now.
Who yo callin' hoe?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 03:19 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I can only guess from the knowledge that I currently hold that I would have been a disturbance to the status quo "some what like Socrates was during his time.


Why Socrates? Why not the average street furniture vandal? There are less crude ways of flattering yourself on our account than that.

Quote:
You do realize that within written history that there were many who shared some of "the Jesus's moral philosophy don't you"?


But it would do if the written history was selected to share some (sic) of the philosophy of Jesus. I wouldn't call it a philosophy. It is a blueprint to avoid life being nasty, short and brutish.

Quote:
I think that what may have happened is that the status quo seen this and played on it and invented the Jesus character.


If the status quo invented Jesus its motive must have been to make an example of Him as to what the rebel can expect. And Jesus warned his followers to expect it themselves. And a few of them got it.

Quote:
How is this any different than saying that I have the empirical proof to prove all of what spendius states as being false?


It is different because you cannot demonstrate that all of what I state is false and this thread is fatuous because its author is unsure whether Jesus existed and is also unsure whether, if He did exist, He failed to condemn slavery of the type that existed in his world. Under such circumstances it is fatuous to ask us the question.

It is also fatuous because if there is a Grand Plan, an Intelligent Designer, it is impossible to criticise anything that happens, horrors included, without being critical of the Designer and thus to claim superiority over Her. Which Apisa proves himself to be by claiming there is something amiss in having a fear of Her personified in one of her representatives he has happened to get tangled up with in his immediate environs or even further afield on the occasion of him being privileged to meet a few English Roses.

And if there is no Grand Plan everything is the current state of energy/matter transfers between randomly colliding atoms and molecules, and the fields of force they exert, and history is some exceedingly reductionist picture of such states at other times. In which case it is fatuous to ask the question for the very obvious reason that you look ridiculous having any opinions about **** like that.

When there is equivocation about whether or not there is a Grand Plan or whether Jesus existed or whether He condemned slavery, we are arrived at Grand Central Farce.

So when you do a number like that on the proposition that what I say is false I might consider your claim. Stating it cuts no ice with me and the proof of you being a slow learner is your inability to realise that.

Quote:
OK so its your opinion but you do realize that opinions are not always facts?


It wasn't an opinion. It was stated as a fact in a book I read about the making of the Constitution and I have seen the fact referred to on A2K more than once. I try not to have opinions for the very reason that they mean nothing which is not something I advise you to adopt yourself as the shock would make you jump out of your skin so opinionated are you. Gradual, careful weaning is a possibility but unlikely to work when the addiction has solidified.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the bible should not be followed to the tee?


For sure. Ploughing with oxen is ridiculous. Getting water from wells in pots carried on young ladies's heads moreso. ( Although I daresay it improved posture and increased the number of young ladies looking for somebody to raise their status.) Try walking from Jerusalem to Damascus to send a message.

Do people not look at you funny like when you put such questions to them?

Quote:
Are you suggesting that all atheist support the teaching of the church as you do?


Yes. Intelligent atheists in the west earning above, say, $50 thou. Who cares what unintelligent people say. They only have influence when they coalesce in a mob and start wrecking things.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 03:28 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Yes. Intelligent atheists in the west earning above, say, $50 thou. Who cares what unintelligent people say.


Why do you equate money with intelligence? I earn more than that and I also care about what uninformed people have to say yet I differ from your ideology of intelligence.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 03:35 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Why Socrates? Why not the average street furniture vandal? There are less crude ways of flattering yourself on our account than that.


Because from the time that I was very small I was told that I ask too many questions but I was also told from my grandfather that it is a sign of intelligence. It is not that I am anyone great but rather I question many things?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 04:40 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
The word atheist has been used since gods first came into being.


Are you certain that you want to make this claim? Drunk Drunk Drunk


The notion of "atheist" has been in existence since ancient Greek times…and there is little reason to suppose it did not predate that period. People were accused of “atheism” (which often was referred to as “impiety” since those days. If my wording bothers you…make the case you want to make and I will deal with it.

Quote:
Quote:
It comes to us from the ancient Greek through the French...and means "without god(s)."


Are you suggesting there were no gods until after there were Greeks? Smile


No. I am suggesting that the word comes to us from the ancient Greek through French...which is what I said.

Quote:
Quote:

Recently, atheists have used the word in a way that causes the editors of dictionaries to define it differently.


Welcome to reality Frank, this is the case with language. I know we are old and setting our ways but language does evolve regardless if we want it to. What a hoe meant yesterday to the majority may mean something entirely different a few years from now.


I do not have to be welcomed to reality by you, RL.

In any case, your point is???
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 04:42 pm
Spendius spewed:

Quote:
It is different because you cannot demonstrate that all of what I state is false and this thread is fatuous because its author is unsure whether Jesus existed and is also unsure whether, if He did exist, He failed to condemn slavery of the type that existed in his world. Under such circumstances it is fatuous to ask us the question.



The thread is not fatuous other than in the head of someone who has problems with the issue.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 04:56 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The word atheist has been used since gods first came into being.



Are you certain that you want to make this claim? Drunk Drunk Drunk



The notion of "atheist" has been in existence since ancient Greek times…and there is little reason to suppose it did not predate that period. People were accused of “atheism” (which often was referred to as “impiety” since those days. If my wording bothers you…make the case you want to make and I will deal with it.


I am surprised that you are not able to see the problem with your quote below.

Quote:
The word atheist has been used since gods first came into being.


When did God or gods first come into being and when do you think the word atheist came into being?

I wonder if neologist or spendius could have any helpful info for you?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 05:01 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Because from the time that I was very small I was told that I ask too many questions but I was also told from my grandfather that it is a sign of intelligence.


Not a good example to follow if your posts are anything to go by. People should beware of those who use their descendents to talk up the excellence of their own genetic material. But people who are very small can hardly be expected to know about such things.

I have you pegged in the 85--95 IQ range rl. If you're above average we are fucked.

Did you never question why ladies are required to lock themselves away in a cubicle to have a pee-pee?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 05:08 pm
Modern, western philosophical thought considers atheism to mean non-belief in the Christian God.

I assume the reason to be that any other definition opens the door to all sorts of insignificant wittering which can only be explained from a materialist point of view by the idea that the witterer receives sensual pleasure from the sound, or other manifestations, of his or her own expressions.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 05:10 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I have you pegged in the 85--95 IQ range rl.


Well thank you for the complement because I have been told by others who claimed to have been abducted by aliens that it is much lower.

Quote:
Did you never question why ladies are required to lock themselves away in a cubicle to have a pee-pee?


No but I had a dream that intellectual such as yourself would reveal the answer to me.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 05:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The thread is not fatuous other than in the head of someone who has problems with the issue.


Crude forms of patting oneself on the back, such as that play-pen nonsense, do nothing, I repeat--nothing--as in **** all- to prove that the question we have been asked is not only not fatuous but doesn't inhabit the region where asymptotic fatuity thrives and breeds.

Answer the argument eh? Man up. Blurting is for schoolgirls.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 05:23 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Well thank you for the complement because I have been told by others who claimed to have been abducted by aliens that it is much lower.


Well--I was trying to be polite.

Quote:
No but I had a dream that intellectual such as yourself would reveal the answer to me.


No chance. It is one of those matters that we all have to work out for ourselves using the best scientific evidence at our disposal.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Aug, 2013 05:27 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Well--I was trying to be polite.


Well I do have to admit that it is not often that alien abducties are polite.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 10:51:15