It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheist, why are you so offended at anothers display of faith?

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol




This only makes sense if you understand St Augustine's view of Christianity.


Do you understand it?

At this point you should probably be laying it all out for us. You know - so that we can plainly see that he was wrong and you know what you're talking about




posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

No, you are wrong. And to judge by your use of the term mise en abyme (the usual spelling), your French comprehension is not much better than your English.

Three strikes. Out. Bye-bye.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I would certainly try to understand it, and gladly share what I remember:

The way I would sum up what I've been reported from this Berber Aurelius Augustinus on Christianity is that in four centuries, the disciples of INRI had reached the Mediterranean hubs of the ruling classes, convincing polytheistic and secular upperclassmen of the validity of their teacher's metaphysical views.

A.A. seems to have been taught Christianity by a German fellow now remembered as Milanese, who saw fit to add to his own understanding of the spiritual those he was reported as being INRI's.

As a consequence, A.A.'s view of Christianity would have been both crucial to the later conversion of Roman emperors and to the translations of INRI's reported words into Latin, which are the basis for our still popular KJV.
As such, his opinions on Christianity influence modern ones in key angles.

Being quite the accomplished writer, A.A. would insist on distinctions unfortunately lost to English through clever use of Latin prose after much debate with his contemporary fellows.

However, A.A.'s formal Greek-Roman education would make him less sensitive to INRI's local idioms and experiences, which in my opinion is the main reason why his work has been described as vulgarization at the time, a risky proposition for a man of his social extraction.

He is known to write the word Deus approximately once every hundred words, which is a lot more than other scribes, and is the first author to refer to Protagoras as an atheist, which stirred much # at the time.

He is famously responsible for translating the tetragrammaton as "I am He who is" (paraphrased due to linguistic constraint).

Which means his understanding of Aramaic Hebrew was partial at best.

Another singular view of his is that of evil, as being outside of god yet judged by him.
Previous authors seem to express understanding that god is the source of both good and evil, but A.A. works around it by stating (paraphrased) that the fall of sinners is good and beautiful in its own right, and that the sin belongs not to god yet the judgement does.

This could be understood as the seeds for the later Roman church to attribute guilt and absolution to its priesthood.

His translation of BR1SYT by "in principio" gives our modern "in the beginning" from Tyndale and is another key point of divergence.

However it might be noted that he does not anthropomorphically describes god, and sees INRI quite differently than the contemporary church teaches him to be: his view of the trinity is most fascinating, in that it is an attempt at making pagans understand an hypermaterial god through incorporation, so to speak, in their self and own bloodlines: self is the son, father is one's own father, and holy ghost is the concept of the tetragrammaton.

Most theist philosophers of the French enlightenment and English liberalism claim their theism to be heavily influenced by A.A.

He seems to have taken the gospel of John most closely.

Augustine, and Christianity, not being my personal fields of religion, I welcome corrections to this understanding.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

My French requires no pardon from the likes of you, according to l'Académie de Richelieu:


☆5. HÉRALD. En abîme (rare), en abyme ou en abysme, se dit de ce qui est situé au milieu de l'écu. Les armes de sa famille étaient en abîme dans celles de son époux. - LITTÉRATURE. BX-ARTS. Mise en abyme, construction en abyme ou (rare) en abîme, procédé par lequel on intègre dans un récit, dans un tableau, un élément signifiant de ce récit ou de ce tableau, qui entretient avec l'ensemble de l'œuvre une relation de similitude.


cnrtl.fr...

Mine orthography is the proper etymological, feel free to use derivations.

Glad you're out, come back in better disposition



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

You are out, not I. Still, I can’t resist:


Astyanax:
en abyme (the usual spelling)


wisvol:
En abîme (rare)

Your source and my statement are in agreement, leaving you out on the bench again.

Not bad work on Augustine, though rather clotted, as though poorly digested. You forgot, however, to actually tell us what were Augustine’s views on Christianity. I’d ask you to try again, but you’re out of strikes, I’m afdraid.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
hey guys this is not a thread on Christianity.

This is on WHY Atheist are so offended at another's show of faith.

let's keep it on track please



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

originally posted by wisvol:
If I believe you don't exist, which I do, I negate the possibilities that you exist and that I don't know whether you exist.


originally posted by ChesterJohn:
Did you know that Buddhism shares this same almost similar view.

Fiddlesticks. Buddhism says nothing of the kind. Buddhism is not shutting your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and crying 'nyaananananah, you don't exist!' That's American consumer-cult 'Christianity' as dished out by your TV preachers and megachurches. It isn't Buddhism -- and it isn't Christianity either. Some of you wouldn't know Christianity if it was explained to you by St Augustine himself.



This is about as far off track from the OP that one can take it.

please get back on track



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

yea and we have seen who the haters are.

now if we can get back tot he topic



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Astyanax

yea and we have seen who the haters are.

now if we can get back tot he topic


Fine. Back in track. We don't usually hate that. Some atheist might do but most reasonable ones don't. What we DO hate is your religion being shoved in our faces. Kids being taught about creationism at school, references to god on government buildings or money. We really do not care about people saying god bless you or wishing a merry Christmas.

Also. .can I just add that we have had over 2000 years of you guys pushing your filth in our faces, telling gays they are going to hell and can't marry etc.

Now in the last decade or two, you have atheists becoming more vocal and pushing back a bit and all you guys do is whinge about it. Frankly it's ridiculous

I watch The Atheist Experience on youtube and the number of callers who call in to this little online show to ask why the guys have to push their atheism in everyone's faces is ridiculous. A few local, little shows of atheism and the religious are up in arms.

Lastly. When atheists are not brutally slaughtered around the world for not having and invisible BFF then we will shut up some more.

You guys have NO basis to moan about us. You made this bed. Religion is he scourge of mankind. Lets ve rid of it and live infinitely happier.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Prezbo369

No

Because belief in anything is belief, including belief in inexistence.


The rejection of a claim is not itself a claim. Me saying 'I don't buy it' isnt me claiming anything whatsoever



If I believe you don't exist, which I do, I negate the possibilities that you exist and that I don't know whether you exist.


But if you're rejecting a claim from someone that 'poster X' existed you're not then claiming that 'poster X' does not exist. You're just rejecting the claim and nothing more.



Simple: an explosion and soup, plus billions of years, as explained in this book from a school.


Or that a magical alien creature 'created' everything with magic powers? as explained by your vivid imagination due to a lack of evidence?


Believing there is no theo, no tao, no god, no creator, is belief, and anyone who puts their faith in such a proposition, as is their right to do, believes in the inexistence of a creator.


Sure, but if you reject the claims for all of those magical people and creatures, you're not then putting 'faith' into anything....



A response to the claim of the existence of prezbo123 such as "I don't know whether or not there is such a character" is effectively not a belief, but a statement of disinterest in the question.


Precisely, and it's also a lack of belief in such a character, not the belief that the person in question doesn't exist.

This is the same for atheism and atheist agnostics.



The lack of belief I have in your existence is the belief that you don't exist.


WRONG.....again

The lack of belief in the claim that character X exists is not the same has holding the belief that character X does not exist.

I'll repeat it again for clarity, the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim...



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn




hey guys this is not a thread on Christianity.
This is on WHY Atheist are so offended at another's show of faith.


ISIS?
Lord’s Resistance Army?
Boko Haram?
Ku Klux Klan?
Kataib Hezbollah?
Antibalaka?

Nuf said!



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: TzarChasm

Matthew who?

If you are talking about the Bible then chapter and verse will suffice.



5"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 7"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.…"


basically what i said. its not a medal, dont wear it like one.


If it is the bible you are speaking go back and read it it was about prayer and fasting in a way that drew attention to ones self so other would sing your accolades.


thats exactly what "displays of faith" are for, attention seeking.


There is nothing wrong with public prayer and displays of faith the Bible is not against such, Jesus prayed and allowed pubic displays of faith everyday during his earthly ministry.


he also committed suicide by cops. i wouldnt say he was the greatest authority on discretion. there are people who will occasionally offer a sincere prayer in public, and there are people who make a performance out of it because drama is cheaper than actual works. like posting on a conspiracy forum versus volunteering at a food kitchen or visiting with folks in a nursing home. there are many things you can do to make an actual difference, regardless of what its for, but online bluster is proof of the saying "if it was easy, everyone would do it".
edit on 21-3-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




I'll repeat it again for clarity, the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim...


I reject your claim that worlds self-construct, therefore my theism isn't a claim, by your logic.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Prezbo369

I reject your claim that worlds self-construct


Again you seem confused, I've not made any such claim

Claim


therefore my theism isn't a claim, by your logic.


Lol a pretty pathetic attempt at dropping the burden of proof holy moley

The particular flavour of theism that youve conjured up is entirely a claim....and people have the option to accept it or reject it



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Prezbo369




I'll repeat it again for clarity, the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim...


I reject your claim that worlds self-construct, therefore my theism isn't a claim, by your logic.


what exactly is your contention here? what point are you trying to make?
edit on 21-3-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

The point I made, and will be remaking for your reading pleasure, is this:

Expressing an opinion as to something unverified is a statement of belief.

therefore, saying "I don't know how the world came to be" is not a belief

yet "the world was consciously formed" as well as "there was this big explosion" are both beliefs, contrarily to the opinion of my ATS correspondent Prezbo

The quote you reproduce is a way to make this point from the angle of said correspondent, who claims their belief isn't one because it only negates another, yet the reverse is equally false: I hope he or she can see now that claiming the opposite of anything doesn't make the opposing claim a non-claim.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TzarChasm

The point I made, and will be remaking for your reading pleasure, is this:

Expressing an opinion as to something unverified is a statement of belief.

therefore, saying "I don't know how the world came to be" is not a belief


Yep its the lack of belief...


yet "the world was consciously formed" as well as "there was this big explosion" are both beliefs, contrarily to the opinion of my ATS correspondent Prezbo


Ive not said they arnt, I said that the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim, please re-read that sentence so you can disgest and comprehend its meaning......for the 4th or 5th time...



The quote you reproduce is a way to make this point from the angle of said correspondent, who claims their belief isn't one because it only negates another, yet the reverse is equally false: I hope he or she can see now that claiming the opposite of anything doesn't make the opposing claim a non-claim.


It's the rejection of a claim.....not the claim of the opposite......

Is english your first language? are we having a problem with a loss in translation?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

You have expressed many times on these boards your belief in another mythology, of more recent formation, and claimed that since this particular one you happen to believe is based on extrapolation of observation (offspring differing from their progenitors in several ways not including species) other explanations as to the origin of both life and surroundings should be discarded, to paraphrase politely.

Therefore you belong to the subcategory of militant atheists and I keep reminding you that your own belief, while your prerogative to have and propose, is nothing more.

Atheism being the belief in the absence of god, it is a belief.

"Atheism" as you later presented, in the angle of lack of anything beyond material phenomena, isn't atheism but agnosticism: www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Disbelief is to belief what dislexia is to lexia: an other form of lexia.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

How many times does it have to be explained to you?

Atheism isn't a belief. Atheists don't have a belief. Not believing in something doesn't mean you automatically believe in the opposite.

You've been getting into semantics for pages and you've been told numerous times how you're wrong. How about staying even remotely on topic?



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

The source and your statement are not in agreement: your statement is "judging by [my] use of [the etymological orthography of a borrowed idiom], & c".

Your judgement is both uncalled for, off topic, and erroneous.

This is a pattern of thought you've displayed several times in responding to my posts and beyond the approval of some peers of yours which you so sadly pursue, it will never get you anything.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join