One thing at a time.

[quatona]

They are the same on the one point, they are both deities.

So what? I can find a couple of terms that apply to both Zeus and my cat.

 

[david_x]

Likewise, Hindu's and Olympians are polytheists and Christians are theists.

Um, facepalm.
Polytheists are theists.

Christians and Muslims are monotheists, while Mormons are polytheists.

That is another difference, we were looking at the similarities.

Atheists and Muslims both believe that God never walked as a man, and Christians do.

Great, same thing.

Any two groups and find something they believe in together that a third does not adhere to, whats your point?

You seem to completely be missing the point here.

I'll post it again just for the heck of it. The original question was concerning what the ancient Greeks and Christians had in common versus Atheism.

The first major religious separation is between those who believe in a god and those who do not; atheists and theists. The second big division is the belief concerning good and evil. One group says that there is no difference between god and evil. The other group says that there is a distinction between good and evil. The ancient Greeks and Christians both agree up to this point. Atheists do not agree with either of those claims because 1. they do not believe in a deity and 2 they therefore do not believe in good and evil being distinct or indistinct as they do not have gods to be good or evil.

 

[yasic]

Um, facepalm.
Polytheists are theists.

That is another difference, we were looking at the similarities.

Great, same thing.

You seem to completely be missing the point here.

I'll post it again just for the heck of it. The original question was concerning what the ancient Greeks and Christians had in common versus Atheism.

The first major religious separation is between those who believe in a god and those who do not; atheists and theists. The second big division is the belief concerning good and evil. One group says that there is no difference between god and evil. The other group says that there is a distinction between good and evil. The ancient Greeks and Christians both agree up to this point. Atheists do not agree with either of those claims because 1. they do not believe in a deity and 2 they therefore do not believe in good and evil being distinct or indistinct as they do not have gods to be good or evil.

First, you were just trying to find arbitrary distinctions between atheists and other theists, and the ones you found are no more or less profound that the distinctions between Christians and non-Christians. Whatever point your trying to make, you didn't.

Secondly, the Greek view of Good and Evil is MUCH closer to the view most modern day atheists have than the Christian one.

The said view is that there is no absolute Good and Evil, and any Good or Evil is subjective to ones point of view. Gods are not good or evil, according to the Greeks, but follow their own morality and code, and there is no standard form of what you have to do... you just live your life as best as you can.

Christians, unlike Atheists and Greeks, believe that there IS a Good and Evil, and that is is written in stone, told by a single authority that decides it. So in this respect, you achieved the exact opposite result of what you intended.

 

[david_x]

First, you were just trying to find arbitrary distinctions between atheists and other theists, and the ones you found are no more or less profound that the distinctions between Christians and non-Christians. Whatever point your trying to make, you didn't.

Secondly, the Greek view of Good and Evil is MUCH closer to the view most modern day atheists have than the Christian one.

The said view is that there is no absolute Good and Evil, and any Good or Evil is subjective to ones point of view. Gods are not good or evil, according to the Greeks, but follow their own morality and code, and there is no standard form of what you have to do... you just live your life as best as you can.

Christians, unlike Atheists and Greeks, believe that there IS a Good and Evil, and that is is written in stone, told by a single authority that decides it. So in this respect, you achieved the exact opposite result of what you intended.

This is not going to work is it... you missed it completely and I have no idea how.

 

[Beanieboy]

Hold on. David X - do you think that all other religions are as valid as Christianity, and receive salvation?

Most Christians don't, most Muslims think only Islam is the right religion, etc.

 

[Jade Margery]

Well, part of it is that your point seems to be shifting around a little. I kind of took the beginning of the thread to mean that you were saying the statement on the list is incorrect and Christians don't deny the existence of other gods.

"...the moral issue here is the Atheist belief that Christians are being hypocrites when they deny the existence of other gods."

Now you've gone into a weird tangent of dualism and good and evil and stating things everyone more or less much agrees on. Nothing you've said has really shown the proposed hypocrisy to be untrue, nor why it may be immoral to point it out.

So, in simple english, what is the point?

 

[david_x]

Hold on. David X - do you think that all other religions are as valid as Christianity, and receive salvation?

Most Christians don't, most Muslims think only Islam is the right religion, etc.

That is not even related to anything said...

 

[david_x]

Well, part of it is that your point seems to be shifting around a little. I kind of took the beginning of the thread to mean that you were saying the statement on the list is incorrect and Christians don't deny the existence of other gods.

"...the moral issue here is the Atheist belief that Christians are being hypocrites when they deny the existence of other gods."

Now you've gone into a weird tangent of dualism and good and evil and stating things everyone more or less much agrees on. Nothing you've said has really shown the proposed hypocrisy to be untrue, nor why it may be immoral to point it out.

So, in simple english, what is the point?

It is quite simple.

1. People accuse Atheists of being close-minded.

2. Atheists respond by saying that x religion does not believe y religion and responding that this is equally close-minded.

3. This is incorrect. Christians, for example, believe that Atheists are farthest from the truth. The reason for this is the following breakdown of religions.

A. Theism vs. Atheism

This is the first division and everything builds on it.​

B. Belief in god being good or evil or the belief that gods are above good and evil.

This devision is the main difference between most polytheists and those that believe in the Judeo-Christian God.​

*Yeah I was wrong about the second one being a similarity between polytheists and Christians. The important thing here is that Christians believe polytheists are closer than Atheists.*

 

[Gwenyfur]

Regardless of what you don't know... their religion was in sharp contrast to dualistic worship, so they are in fact like Christianity in that aspect.

Actually, it's not even remotely close to christian worship. First...we commune, not worship...we don't come before our gods on our knees begging and unworthy...we stand before them as partners in their work...

Well, I knew some pagans at my college, and the gods they described were certainly neither really good or really evil. One of them, for example, they liked a lot, but they said he's a trickster god and does bad things sometimes.

-Lyn

The gods are as we are...knowing good and evil and capable of both...Just as we are capable of both...There are many trickster gods...Loki...in the middle east it was the Jin...be careful what you wish for

Still, they worship this god so how bad can they think it is. Certainly it is not above good and evil.

again...you define pagan worship to equate that of christian worship...not even remotely close...

So what? I can find a couple of terms that apply to both Zeus and my cat.

Well...both Zeus and God begat virgins with child so there are some similarities

It is quite simple.

1. People accuse Atheists of being close-minded.

2. Atheists respond by saying that x religion does not believe y religion and responding that this is equally close-minded.

3. This is incorrect. Christians, for example, believe that Atheists are farthest from the truth. The reason for this is the following breakdown of religions.

A. Theism vs. Atheism

This is the first division and everything builds on it.
​

B. Belief in god being good or evil or the belief that gods are above good and evil.

This devision is the main difference between most polytheists and those that believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
​

*Yeah I was wrong about the second one being a similarity between polytheists and Christians. The important thing here is that Christians believe polytheists are closer than Atheists.*

Last I checked...christians believed all atheists, pagans, polytheists, buddhists, muslims, oh...well we'll shorten this to say christians believe that anyone who doesn't accept their god and their religion on their terms are going to hell...

so ... I'd have to say christianity is a black and white religion...you're either saved or you're not...so...I'm not seeing the gray "closer" area you're claiming exists.

 

[JGG]

It is quite simple.

1. People accuse Atheists of being close-minded.

2. Atheists respond by saying that x religion does not believe y religion and responding that this is equally close-minded.

3. This is incorrect. Christians, for example, believe that Atheists are farthest from the truth. The reason for this is the following breakdown of religions.

A. Theism vs. Atheism

This is the first division and everything builds on it.​

B. Belief in god being good or evil or the belief that gods are above good and evil.

This devision is the main difference between most polytheists and those that believe in the Judeo-Christian God.​

*Yeah I was wrong about the second one being a similarity between polytheists and Christians. The important thing here is that Christians believe polytheists are closer than Atheists.*

But you're still missing the point. You assume that atheists are only allowed to see the world and black and white, while Christians in their ultimate magnificence see shades of grey (not an absolute truth, I assure you).

For instance, I do think that my views of the metaphysical have more in common with Buddhism, Hinduism and other ancient Vedic philosophies and religions than they do with Christianity. These all have certain somewhat original ideas, concepts, and philosophies which I believe have merit, and make it easier to coneptualize, understand, and communicate my own. In essence I think these ideas are "closer to the truth" than Abrahamic traditions.

Beyond that, while most of these traditions (I would also include ancient and even modern Judaism) worship and believe in gods in some respects, they don't assume that these gods are actual beings, or even intelligent. Instead they take these gods to be a personification of elements, forces, or concepts, so that discussion of these things can more easily be discussed.

Also, the view among many ancient, traditionally theist religions (usually Vedic traditions, but again ancient Judaism) that anything which is infinite cannot be named, or described and still be considered possible, comes pretty close to my views.

To name it, assign attributes, personalities, or anything that restrains it, limits it, or makes it smaller, distorts and perverts our concept of it, and cuts us off from it. In the end, the view boils down to: Attempting to imagine or understand "god" in any way destroys our understanding of it, and creates a false view. Therefore, god is either unimaginable, or it's finite (at which point, I would question it's purpose).

This is pretty much the way I would sum it up myself, I just happen to be on the other side of that coin. However, the similarities between this view, or deism, pandeism, etc., and my own, are pretty extensive. In fact, the explanation one of my professors tried to give me is that if we were to make "god" as big, as infinite, and as expansive as we possibly could, then this view and atheism would philosophically be the same thing.

You assume that belief in god(s) is the end-all and be-all of metaphysical philosophy. Belief is actually a pretty small philosophical concept in the grander scheme.

 

[quatona]

It is quite simple.

1. People accuse Atheists of being close-minded.
2. Atheists respond by saying that x religion does not believe y religion and responding that this is equally close-minded.

I really wasn´t aware that this thread was about the question who is justified in which accusations of close-mindedness.

3. This is incorrect. Christians, for example, believe that Atheists are farthest from the truth. The reason for this is the following breakdown of religions.

A. Theism vs. Atheism

This is the first division and everything builds on it.​

Yes, I see how this works from the Christian pov. However, if you want a meaningful discussion with non-Christians I think it´s not a good idea to expect them to see things from within the Christian pov.
​

 

[Jade Margery]

It is quite simple.

1. People accuse Atheists of being close-minded.

Eh, not really. Mostly it is accusations of immorality, pride, and outright evilness.

2. Atheists respond by saying that x religion does not believe y religion and responding that this is equally close-minded.

Well, if we are close-minded for not believing in one specific religion, and all religions have equally fervent followers and lack of physical evidence, then a christian who also does not believe in one other person's religion is being equally close-minded. That's just logical. And to condemn us for it hypocrisy.

3. This is incorrect. Christians, for example, believe that Atheists are farthest from the truth. The reason for this is the following breakdown of religions...

How does that make the above statement incorrect? You are saying that this is an issue of who one considers most wrong? Degrees of wrongness don't matter here. Who one believes is 'farthest from the truth' doesn't make a difference to whether one doesn't believe in other gods. Either you believe in a specific god or you don't. You* could think that a specific god is similar to your god, or that there are some nuggets of truth behind a specific god, but if you don't actually believe in and worship that god how can you condemn an atheist for having the same attitude toward your god? By being a hypocrite.

A. Theism vs. Atheism

This is the first division and everything builds on it.

​

B. Belief in god being good or evil or the belief that gods are above good and evil.

This devision is the main difference between most polytheists and those that believe in the Judeo-Christian God.​

​

The, uh, main difference between most polytheists and those that believe in the Judeo-Christian God is that polytheists believe in lots of gods and Judeo-Christians believe in one god.

And I'm honestly not sure which group you are attaching to which clause. You can make an argument in either case, i.e.:

JCs: God is good, not evil. God does good things.
or
JCs: God is above good and evil, because god makes the rules and decides what good and evil are.

Neither of which have anything to do with whether it is hypocritical to look down on people for disbelief when you are also in a state of disbelief.

*Yeah I was wrong about the second one being a similarity between polytheists and Christians. The important thing here is that Christians believe polytheists are closer than Atheists.*

Do they? Some Christians might. Others are of the opinion that polytheists are worshiping satan directly, which would probably be farther from righteous goodness than not worshiping anything. Heck, wasn't there some commandment about having no god before your god? Well, as an atheist, I worship no god before your god. Polytheists do.

And even if a christian does think that a group of people is 'less wrong', they are still wrong. Their beliefs are still dismissed, often for the same reason that atheists dismiss christian beliefs--they are not convinced that they are true.




*It's a general 'you', not a 'you, specifically', I'm using here, since you have not yet condemned or insulted me.

 

[david_x]

Actually, it's not even remotely close to christian worship. First...we commune, not worship...we don't come before our gods on our knees begging and unworthy...we stand before them as partners in their work...



The gods are as we are...knowing good and evil and capable of both...Just as we are capable of both...There are many trickster gods...Loki...in the middle east it was the Jin...be careful what you wish for



again...you define pagan worship to equate that of christian worship...not even remotely close...



Well...both Zeus and God begat virgins with child so there are some similarities



Last I checked...christians believed all atheists, pagans, polytheists, buddhists, muslims, oh...well we'll shorten this to say christians believe that anyone who doesn't accept their god and their religion on their terms are going to hell...

so ... I'd have to say christianity is a black and white religion...you're either saved or you're not...so...I'm not seeing the gray "closer" area you're claiming exists.

Most of that was a confusion on my point, very sorry.

It is true, either you are saved or you are not. 2+2=4 it is very finite. But like any math problem some answers are closer than others. 2+1=3 that is incorrect, but it is much closer than 22+4=26.

 

[david_x]

But you're still missing the point. You assume that atheists are only allowed to see the world and black and white, while Christians in their ultimate magnificence see shades of grey (not an absolute truth, I assure you).

For instance, I do think that my views of the metaphysical have more in common with Buddhism, Hinduism and other ancient Vedic philosophies and religions than they do with Christianity. These all have certain somewhat original ideas, concepts, and philosophies which I believe have merit, and make it easier to coneptualize, understand, and communicate my own. In essence I think these ideas are "closer to the truth" than Abrahamic traditions.

Beyond that, while most of these traditions (I would also include ancient and even modern Judaism) worship and believe in gods in some respects, they don't assume that these gods are actual beings, or even intelligent. Instead they take these gods to be a personification of elements, forces, or concepts, so that discussion of these things can more easily be discussed.

Also, the view among many ancient, traditionally theist religions (usually Vedic traditions, but again ancient Judaism) that anything which is infinite cannot be named, or described and still be considered possible, comes pretty close to my views.

To name it, assign attributes, personalities, or anything that restrains it, limits it, or makes it smaller, distorts and perverts our concept of it, and cuts us off from it. In the end, the view boils down to: Attempting to imagine or understand "god" in any way destroys our understanding of it, and creates a false view. Therefore, god is either unimaginable, or it's finite (at which point, I would question it's purpose).

This is pretty much the way I would sum it up myself, I just happen to be on the other side of that coin. However, the similarities between this view, or deism, pandeism, etc., and my own, are pretty extensive. In fact, the explanation one of my professors tried to give me is that if we were to make "god" as big, as infinite, and as expansive as we possibly could, then this view and atheism would philosophically be the same thing.

You assume that belief in god(s) is the end-all and be-all of metaphysical philosophy. Belief is actually a pretty small philosophical concept in the grander scheme.

I don't think you are with the larger discussion going on here. The argument was that Christianity is not so close minded as people assume, not that Atheists are close minded.

 

[david_x]

Eh, not really. Mostly it is accusations of immorality, pride, and outright evilness.



Well, if we are close-minded for not believing in one specific religion, and all religions have equally fervent followers and lack of physical evidence, then a christian who also does not believe in one other person's religion is being equally close-minded. That's just logical. And to condemn us for it hypocrisy.



How does that make the above statement incorrect? You are saying that this is an issue of who one considers most wrong? Degrees of wrongness don't matter here. Who one believes is 'farthest from the truth' doesn't make a difference to whether one doesn't believe in other gods. Either you believe in a specific god or you don't. You* could think that a specific god is similar to your god, or that there are some nuggets of truth behind a specific god, but if you don't actually believe in and worship that god how can you condemn an atheist for having the same attitude toward your god? By being a hypocrite.

[/INDENT][/INDENT]The, uh, main difference between most polytheists and those that believe in the Judeo-Christian God is that polytheists believe in lots of gods and Judeo-Christians believe in one god.

And I'm honestly not sure which group you are attaching to which clause. You can make an argument in either case, i.e.:

JCs: God is good, not evil. God does good things.
or
JCs: God is above good and evil, because god makes the rules and decides what good and evil are.

Neither of which have anything to do with whether it is hypocritical to look down on people for disbelief when you are also in a state of disbelief.



Do they? Some Christians might. Others are of the opinion that polytheists are worshiping satan directly, which would probably be farther from righteous goodness than not worshiping anything. Heck, wasn't there some commandment about having no god before your god? Well, as an atheist, I worship no god before your god. Polytheists do.

And even if a christian does think that a group of people is 'less wrong', they are still wrong. Their beliefs are still dismissed, often for the same reason that atheists dismiss christian beliefs--they are not convinced that they are true.




*It's a general 'you', not a 'you, specifically', I'm using here, since you have not yet condemned or insulted me.

I read the first few sentences and realized you were going to nit-pick my argument. If you want to respond to my post please do, but I will not respond to this useless drama.

 

[Jade Margery]

I read the first few sentences and realized you were going to nit-pick my argument. If you want to respond to my post please do, but I will not respond to this useless drama.

I have respected you enough to read all of your posts, try to understand them, ask questions to have them clarified, and respond to the best of my ability. I feel I made several valid points against your argument. Unfortunately, these do occur after the first two or three sentences of my post. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to address or even read them.

 

[JGG]

I don't think you are with the larger discussion going on here. The argument was that Christianity is not so close minded as people assume, not that Atheists are close minded.

Well, you were the one who (incorrectly) told us earlier what two points atheists had to believe in.

You're the one trying to convey that Christians are "more open-minded" than atheists.

You're the one who says that atheists are furthest from the truth.

You're the one who has tried to explain how the first division of belief was between theists and atheists.

You're the one who claimed that the "propagation of this ignorance [of Christianity] is terrible" and yet you repeatedly try to tell atheists that they have to believe there is no god, and that they have to believe theists are misguided despite the number of people who have explained that this is not necessarily -and most often not- true.

Realistically, this has not been a thread about Christianity. Afterall, you're the one who said in post #41, that you weren't talking about Buddhists, but atheists. So, let's talk about them.

You've been working with a pretty shallow concept of atheism, looking only at "two main points," while not considering that concepts, ideas, views, and beliefs may run deeper than those within different people, which it occurs to me is exactly what you accused atheists of at the outset of the conversation. Remember, atheism is not organized. We are not bound to any belief. All we really have in common is that we do not place belief in any particular god concept (my wording of this is very deliberate). That leaves a lot of open ground.

But, here's the thing that really gets me: You and Lewis claim that Christians are free to think that all beliefs have a "hint of truth," except apparently, atheism. Now, you are welcome to think that you have something in common with every possible variation of theism, polytheism, deism, or pantheism there is, no matter how convoluted and absurd it is. And you are free to believe that atheism is necessarily vastly, and completely different from theism. And this, of course, makes you "open minded."

But I basically just explained how one can see extensive common ground between theism and atheism...



...And you ignored it. Instead you claimed that I didn't understand your point.

So I'm sorry, why don't you explain your point about Christians being more open minded again. I don't think I understood it.

 

[david_x]

I have respected you enough to read all of your posts, try to understand them, ask questions to have them clarified, and respond to the best of my ability. I feel I made several valid points against your argument. Unfortunately, these do occur after the first two or three sentences of my post. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to address or even read them.

Then why did you waste my time with the first few sentences!

 

[david_x]

Well, you were the one who (incorrectly) told us earlier what two points atheists had to believe in.

You're the one trying to convey that Christians are "more open-minded" than atheists.

You're the one who says that atheists are furthest from the truth.

You're the one who has tried to explain how the first division of belief was between theists and atheists.

You're the one who claimed that the "propagation of this ignorance [of Christianity] is terrible" and yet you repeatedly try to tell atheists that they have to believe there is no god, and that they have to believe theists are misguided despite the number of people who have explained that this is not necessarily -and most often not- true.

Realistically, this has not been a thread about Christianity. Afterall, you're the one who said in post #41, that you weren't talking about Buddhists, but atheists. So, let's talk about them.

You've been working with a pretty shallow concept of atheism, looking only at "two main points," while not considering that concepts, ideas, views, and beliefs may run deeper than those within different people, which it occurs to me is exactly what you accused atheists of at the outset of the conversation. Remember, atheism is not organized. We are not bound to any belief. All we really have in common is that we do not place belief in any particular god concept (my wording of this is very deliberate). That leaves a lot of open ground.

But, here's the thing that really gets me: You and Lewis claim that Christians are free to think that all beliefs have a "hint of truth," except apparently, atheism. Now, you are welcome to think that you have something in common with every possible variation of theism, polytheism, deism, or pantheism there is, no matter how convoluted and absurd it is. And you are free to believe that atheism is necessarily vastly, and completely different from theism. And this, of course, makes you "open minded."

But I basically just explained how one can see extensive common ground between theism and atheism...



...And you ignored it. Instead you claimed that I didn't understand your point.

So I'm sorry, why don't you explain your point about Christians being more open minded again. I don't think I understood it.

There can be no common ground between atheism and theism, they build off of completely different points. They are on different continents all together.

 

[JGG]

There can be no common ground between atheism and theism, they build off of completely different points. They are on different continents all together.

If you say so. Obviously, I disagree. But, I think now you can stop trying to convince us how open minded Christianity is.