As an atheist, do you still “acknowledge” Jesus Christ?

The amount of data that references Ahsoka is minuscule compared to the data available for Constantine. We have many sources for the edicts and results of what Constantine did independent of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Thanks for clarifying that.
I'm not blaming individuals per se, for promoting Christianity through violent (and other) means. I'm saying it was an orchestrated policy of the church et al.

Okay non-theists. They aren't opposed to theism, they just don't believe in it?

Sorry I don't follow this line: "Denying a n unproven fact isn't the same as denying or not believing in God: Why not? Are you saying that the existence of God is a proven fact? If not how is denying an unproven fact different from denying an unproven God?

I also don't follow your claim that I'm setting up a straw man argument. A straw man argument attempts to refute an argument by setting up a completely different proposition. You seem to be saying I'm over simplifying your argument (reductio absurdum) that a "hard" atheists must be able to prove the non existence of God. I seem to be doing this by comparing those who deny the existence of Bigfoot to those who deny the existence God. Thus setting up a straw man.
So I'll restate my argument.
Now, suppose I'm walking along, minding my own business, and I come upon a meeting of God believers. They see me coming and invite me to participate in their expression of their belief in God. They're looking at religious texts, singing religious songs, relating stories of revelations, etc.
If I fail to stop and participate with them, and claim I don't believe in God, I would then be called by them a soft non-theist.

But if I did stop and assert, "Well you know guys, there is no scientific proof that God exists," by asserting my disbelief I become a hard non-theist, and now I have to prove that there is no God in the entire universe.

This would be a demand to prove a negative.
There are two ways to prove a negative, one is by claiming that the proof is impossible. Certainly it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist as I would have to search every inch of the entire universe and beyond and someone could always claim that I missed that spot over there.
The other is by claiming that there is lack of evidence to support the initial claim that God exists.
Science takes the stand that there is a lack of evidence.
However, someone may claim that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," to which no reply can be made except that that aphorism can be applied to any concept at all, and if we accept it in the light of God, we must accept a belief in any creature or concept that can be devised by the human mind. They all must be true as we can always claim that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Now if that is still a straw man argument please explain to me how it is.

So in Alice's wonderland the theist, who makes an extraordinary claim that there is a God is not making an assertion that must be proven, the guy that doesn't believe him is?

Okay I'm going to make an assertion: There is no...geez what can I say that isn't a straw man? Can I say there aren't any Reptilians or would that be a straw man? Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove that there are Reptilians.

So now that I've asserted that there are no Reptilians I'm expected to review and disprove all the evidence for Reptilians that every idiot in the world ever thought up?
Sounds like the Republican tactic known as Swift Boating. Claim Kerry was a coward by throwing out all kinds of bullshit then after he asserts that it's untrue they expect him to waste his time to "prove" he wasn't a coward.

Oh, I see. I can't make a definite claim. I have to say no convincing evidence of God existing has ever been found. Implying that sometime, somewhere, somehow convincing evidence of God existing may be found by someone. Therefore I can't say God doesn't exist.
Same with bigfoot, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and reptillians, there is no convincing evidence that they exist so I can't say they don't otherwise I have to prove it.

If my wife asks me if her car can reach 300 mph, I can't say no, because then I'd have to blow up the engine proving it can't. I have to say there is no convincing evidence that it can reach 300 mph but it may be able to if it falls off a very high cliff.

Gotcha. I had thought that was what I said when I said:
"There are two ways to prove a negative, one is by claiming that the proof is impossible. Certainly it is impossible to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist as I would have to search every inch of the entire world and someone could always claim that I missed that spot over there.
The other is by claiming that there is lack of evidence to support the initial claim that Bigfoot exists.
Science takes the stand that there is a lack of evidence."

I should have said there is there is no convincing evidence to support the initial claim that Bigfoot exists.

 

I'm familiar with Christopher Hitchens. He has his views.

 

I never said Christians were inherently violent, I said Christianity is based on the Old Testament, which has very violent parts, and Christianity has a very violent history and parts of Christian theology does harm to the psyche. I never said anything about individual Christians, except Constantine.

The validity of historical figures has little to do with philosophical concepts. No inconsistency, you're comparing apples to oranges.

I have no idea where this quote comes from or what the context is. It's obvious that the speaker of this quote is not considering the abolition of craving for its own sake. Not considering wanting to better one's present life, the lives of others around them, and future generations regardless of what happens after death. I hope you are not trying to tell me that this particular quote somehow destroys all Buddhist concepts.

Buddhism is not cut and dried like Christianity, it is in constant flow, concepts are constantly being debated and the questioning of those concepts is actively encouraged bringing about many interpretations. Each individual is expected to find the true meaning on their own.

In addition, as I stated before, it has many levels. The quote you posted may have been in the context of local beliefs (as Buddhism is entangled with Vedic thought), or may be a lower level of understanding. It's hard to know taken out of context.

And as I said Buddhism has many interpretations and ideas but little to no dogma, other than the concept of change, impermanence, and emptiness which actually negate dogma.
Buddhism is designed as a method for discovering truth on your own.

For example Karma could be true, or if we consult Nargajuna in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, we find he refutes it.

 

Yes, but little else is known. See Questions of authorship in your first link.

 

I don't really follow Christopher Hitchens. I've seen a few Youtube videos and maybe rad one of his books. I don't remember.

As far as the quote you provided, I's like to see the context, otherwise no I don't agree with it, but I'd have to see what he was talking about.

 

Because historical figures are (or were) physical entities, philosophical concepts are mental exercises aimed at understanding the world and our relationship of the world.

Pansychism is one explanation for the nature of reality. That's all. I never said I believe in it, I said Buddhism is a form of panspychism.
But that's at one level at another Buddhism clearly states that reality is beyond all rational thought or conception.

 

I understand the large amount of stiff we're posting. No I don't agree.

I guess you went to different Catholic classes and churches then I did. I read a little of Process Theology. Never heard of it before. It sounds rather confusing from the little I just read:
The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. (The persuasion to be good or go the eternal damnation.)
(All) events have both a physical and mental aspect. (I would like that explained further.)
... God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will. (See above.)
God contains the universe but is not identical with it. (Dualism.)
God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid. (What?)
Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. (See above.)
Dipolar theism is the idea that God has both a changing aspect (God's existence as a Living God) and an unchanging aspect (God's eternal essence). (That's convenient!)

I don't think I said I believe in Pansychism, I really looked and can't find that statement made by me. Could you point out where I said that so I can see what I was talking about?
I agree that concern about karma affecting rebirth after death is a motivating factor for many practicing Buddhists all over the world.

Oh, I agree there are different levels of Christianity.

Any understandings we have, short of ultimate revelation, are based upon explanations based on analogy and metaphor. And some of the things you just posted are methods, moral codes, etc.

Well you are of the opinion that Christianity is not dogmatic and that Buddhism is a religion. If you want to claim that there are forms of Christianity that don't accept "normal" Christian theology, that's fine by me.

 

So the New Covenant is connected to the old Covenant, or it would just be a covenant.

 

Well what do you believe about panpsychism? A mental exercise? or a claim about what happens to us after death?[/QUOTE]But claims of rebirth rely on the concept of mind as reality, a claim for historical figures relies on physical matter.

It has many forms in,Western and Eastern philosophies and some scientific theories such as
Conscious realism, and Integrated information theory.
Some may believe in rebirth, some not.

I believe it has certain merits, but I withhold committing to any system of thought completely.

 

Sorry, I had thought it was common knowledge that our interpretations of reality are all based on metaphors and analogies.

I thought we had just agreed that everything is metaphor and analogy?

Sure, a large large many of scholars share a lot of things. A large number of scholars believed in an Earth centered universe, the four humours, phlogiston, miasma, the luminiferous aether, etc.

Well I hope we, and anyone else reading this, learned something, found some food for thought, or at least were amused for some small time in their life!

​