Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Speculation turns around the 'pit of bones' in Atapuerca, Spain. Were those bones treated with respect? Was that hand-axe a ritual offering?
Interesting articles, but the evidence seems to be far from clear as to whether these were in fact intentional burials. If they were, though, it opens some intriguing questions. I'll have to see what else I can find on this topic.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Please, Freaky. It was by the use of reason that the first atheists came to hold the views they did!
Diagoras, the 'first atheist', according to Cicero, certainly qualifies by today's standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagoras_of_Melos
It's trite to maintain that ancient Greek atheists were different from modern atheists -- of course they ...[text shortened]... some special significance to modern Western 'anti-monotheistic' atheism. Why is that so?
Duuuude. Are you serious? You get called on one so-called atheist and move to another. Get called on that one, and move to another. Now you introduce poor Diagoras, who--- by even the source you cite--- is but an atheist of the same fabric as the ones before.
NOTHING is known of the specifics of his atheism, and it is assumed that it ran along the same lines as those other accused of the 'crime,' that he simply rejected the gods of the state.
It's trite to maintain that ancient Greek atheists were different from modern atheists -- of course they were -- yet in both cases you have people moving from the 'default position', as you call it, towards, perhaps, enlightenment. The only repetition here is the ones mentioned above. Your fervent hope to find a atheist of today's stripe is fruitless, yet you continue trying. Not that finding one would strengthen your position. And to claim that they were moving from the default position (still not refuted successfully, by the way) toward enlightenment assumes that enlightenment arrives at the door of... no god. It doesn't consider that religiosity mimics something real, i.e., the living God.
Originally posted by twhitehead In other words you cannot. Or are those really civilizations?
But I am sure that by now you realize that your argument that Theism being the default position is not supported by the claim that I cannot list a civilization that I know did not contain a theist.
I think you're missing the point. That, or you're simply playing games.
That civilizations have been completely religious since man's time began should strike some chord of "huh" in your thinking.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I think you're missing the point. That, or you're simply playing games.
That civilizations have been completely religious since man's time began should strike some chord of "huh" in your thinking.
What do you mean by that? Which civilization has been 'completely religious'? You failed to name even one and had to resort to listing heaven and hell as civilizations. So yes, it looks like I am completely missing your point.
That is doesn't strikes the same chord in me. I don't understand that sentence.
Originally posted by twhitehead What do you mean by that? Which civilization has been 'completely religious'? You failed to name even one and had to resort to listing heaven and hell as civilizations. So yes, it looks like I am completely missing your point.
[b]That is doesn't strikes the same chord in me. I don't understand that sentence.[/b]
ALL civilizations have been religious. Two have no atheists whatsoever (thusly named).
I don't understand that sentence. Makes me go 'huh.'
Originally posted by FreakyKBH ALL civilizations have been religious.
But certainly not 'completely religious' as you falsely claimed. I don't even know what it means for a civilization to be described as religious. Must it have over a certain percentage of religious people? Must it have religious people as its leaders? What is the criteria?
Two have no atheists whatsoever (thusly named). Your argument is so weak you had to find imaginary examples to support your case.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Duuuude. Are you serious? You get called on one so-called atheist and move to another. Get called on that one, and move to another. Now you introduce poor Diagoras, who--- by even the source you cite--- is but an atheist of the same fabric as the ones before.
NOTHING is known of the specifics of his atheism, and it is assumed that it ran along the s ...[text shortened]... o god. It doesn't consider that religiosity mimics something real, i.e., the living God.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Duuuude, you're a jackass.
End of conversation.
I don't know if your attempts were disingenuous or simple failures, but whether I am a jackass or not is really not the issue--- not that you have a strong hoof to stand on yourself, really.
The issue is that you gave examples in supposed support of the traceability of atheism to ancient times. Closer examination of the atheistic label for the folks you gave yielded results other than the one you asserted. Does that make you a jackass? No: what makes you a jackass is your inability to admit when you are demonstrably wrong, coupled with your penchant for turning the argument into a personal attack of little or no merit.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH To underscore the pervasiveness of God, the Spirituality forum is chock full of them and their many, many inquiries. Though armed with a belief system specifically based on a rejection of Him, they persist in their efforts to find Him.
In torment, the most-asked question: Where in hell is God?
As hard as it may be to believe, it took nearly eight pages of interruptions, sidebars, if you will, to get to the point of the original post:
As in the afterlife, so in life. Hell is man's futile search for God.
Originally posted by finnegan Is Satan in hell through his futile search for God? That seems a pretty bizarre proposal to me.
Nah...he's just there keeping watch over the coveted "long sword +5" since he's immune to all spells other than "magic missile", and all +4 or lower weapons
Futile Atheism
03 May '10 22:49
Back to Top