Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 10:06 am

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Daystar
#1
Daystar
Hello Daystar,

Your profile says you were a skeptic growing up, and an atheist until you began to read the bible in your mid 20s. I was just wondering if you could share come points from the bible that changed your point of view? That is, if this hasn't been asked already.
Reply
#2
RE: Daystar
Well, I am glad you asked. Actually I am confused that you ask. No, I am confused about your own profile which I had to check since you checked mine. Your bio says that you are an Atheist trapped in a theist body. That must be ... is torture the word I am looking for? On second thought I was looking for my glasses [squints at Religious views] Atheist fo' life!

The word is masochist.

Actually the points of the Bible that changed my view was Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:20. The overall harmony of the Bible. I don't like the idea of snipping pieces here and there to justify ones religious position. I don't like memorizing it. I did have one favorite verse, though, that stuck out in my mind. Micah 6:8 - He has told you, O earthling man, what is good. And what is Jehovah asking back from you but to exercise justice and to love kindness and to be modest in walking with your God?

The Hebrew word used there actually means to be aware of ones own limitations. Though modesty is something that I have to always try and keep in check, I like the Hebrew sense of the word more in that it keeps you focused and aware of the possibility of your own error. In this way you are more free to learn and grow.

I should point out though, that when I was an atheist it was different to be an atheist. Being an atheist then simply meant that you didn’t believe in God. Didn’t go to church or subscribe to the notion of that sort of control and cultural and social position. Now being an atheist means that you just strictly adhere to another cultural and social position. It was a great deal more simple back then. At least that is the way I see it.
Reply
#3
RE: Daystar
Quote:Now being an atheist means that you just strictly adhere to another cultural and social position.
Since when? I agree with your original definition of atheism: "Being an atheist then simply meant that you didn’t believe in God. Didn’t go to church or subscribe to the notion of that sort of control and cultural and social position."
Reply
#4
RE: Daystar
Yes, my profile is not exactly what I would call serious.

Anyway, it's very interesting to me that you bring up "the overall harmony of the bible." To me, I've never thought that the bible was all that harmonious- however, I'm still working on my first read-through, and haven't reached the New Testament yet. But so far, I have not run into all that much that really... I dunno, seems to be in agreement? I will say though that other than the geneologies, there are some good stories in there. And, although I go to school so I have more pressing reading to do, I do try to read as much as I can of the Bible. And I do like your quote- it is to me just a fundamental rule of life, being kind, and just, and humble.

As for your definition of Atheism, I (other than what my profile would have you believe, whoopsie) am an atheist in that I do not believe in god. This is probably because I am myself a skeptic, and I have difficulty believing in anything at all if there is no evidence- and I speak here of scientific evidence, of provable/disprovable things. I don't feel that I necessarily stick to a cultual or social position. I just try to be a good person, based on my own morals and ethics, which I assume are ingrained in me by society, and my parents. But I don't think there are any rules to being an "Atheist" with a capital A.

Back to you, though, I'm still wondering exactly what you do believe- your beliefs are bible based; do you believe in the story of Genesis? In Adam and Eve? The Noachian flood? Did Jesus exist, did really perform miracles, and was he the reincarnation of God on Earth? Basically, is the bible an actual account of historical events, or is it a metaphorical collection of stories. I'd like to know what you think.
Reply
#5
RE: Daystar
Thanks for your input daystar, this is very interesting.
[Image: Title1.gif]
Reply
#6
RE: Daystar
(November 16, 2008 at 11:34 pm)Daystar Wrote: I should point out though, that when I was an atheist it was different to be an atheist. Being an atheist then simply meant that you didn’t believe in God. Didn’t go to church or subscribe to the notion of that sort of control and cultural and social position. Now being an atheist means that you just strictly adhere to another cultural and social position. It was a great deal more simple back then. At least that is the way I see it.

You say you were an atheist ... at the risk of invoking the NTS fallacy, why were you one? What kind of atheist were you ... I mean me? I'm pretty much a militant atheist, very much a strong atheist using more conventional definitions.

I have to disagree that being an atheist, beyond an observation that we lack a sense of community that often centres around churches and so on, has any cultural connotations at all.

Kyu
Reply
#7
RE: Daystar
Yo, you're back Daystar! Wink.

Hi Lukec- you made an interesting point:

'I have difficulty believing in anything at all if there is no evidence- and I speak here of scientific evidence, of provable/disprovable things. I don't feel that I necessarily stick to a cultual or social position. I just try to be a good person, based on my own morals and ethics, which I assume are ingrained in me by society, and my parents.'

I agree with a lot of your above statement. I struggle to believe in things I can't see and interestingly, as you are reading the Bible I will mention a verse (which I can't remember where it is but I can find it if needed) where someone says word to the effect that if you are true to what you believe, then this will be your measuring stick (with God). If you don't know something you can hardly be blamed for not knowing. If you can't see 'proof' because you think in a scientific way etc, then again, the onus is on 'God' to give you proof that you would understand and accept. That's what I think anyway.

Daystar- hope you don't mind me throwing in my two pennoth worth.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"

Albert Einstein
Reply
#8
RE: Daystar
(November 17, 2008 at 12:04 am)Tiberius Wrote:
Quote:Now being an atheist means that you just strictly adhere to another cultural and social position.
Since when? I agree with your original definition of atheism: "Being an atheist then simply meant that you didn’t believe in God. Didn’t go to church or subscribe to the notion of that sort of control and cultural and social position."

If we had had the internet back in the 70s and 80s when I was an 'atheist' there wouldn't be message boards to discuss being an atheist and atheist subjects to discuss, the sort of atheist social gatherings in places like this, the common love of science and the political uprising against teaching creation in scool vs. evolution, and homosexual rights and abortion - the political struggle against Xianity. None of that stuff.

Almost everyone I knew growing up as a kid was atheist. At that time, of course none of that suff mattered, but as we matured that didn't change much. Most of the people I know from that time are still atheist but none of them are concerned with any of those things.

Kyu uses a term that I often use; militant atheist. I don't often like to apply labels to things but for me it describes the difference between the outspoken atheist that post on message boards like this vs. the kind of people I grew up with. My family and friends in a small town in the middle USA Bible belt.

So maybe it isn't that different but I am seeing a different side of it through the militant atheist on message boards like this.
(November 17, 2008 at 12:20 am)lukec Wrote: Anyway, it's very interesting to me that you bring up "the overall harmony of the bible." To me, I've never thought that the bible was all that harmonious- however, I'm still working on my first read-through, and haven't reached the New Testament yet. But so far, I have not run into all that much that really... I dunno, seems to be in agreement?

When I started my study of the Bible I approached it as an intense study. I was in a state of transition and had some time off and so for six months I devoted 15 - 20 hours a day 7 days a week to that intense study. Comparing translations, taking notes highlighting and researching Biblical resources with a real good reference Bible.

Most people wouldn't pick up on the fact that Genesis 3:15 was the first prophecy of Jesus Christ or that in the KJV the word shamble meant meat market, or that in the KJV words translated as unicorn were translated more accurately as animals that are real. Most people who start out reading the Bible - even if they are atheists and do so out of some secular obligation i.e. so they can criticize it from firsthand knowledge (which is a good thing) approach it from a perspective of Xianity. The immortal soul, hell, trinity etc. and that transmogrifies to some degree what they take out of it. Makes it seem less harmonious.

The majority of Christian influence I had was from the Jehovah's Witnesses who removed all of that pagan / Xian nonsense.

(November 17, 2008 at 12:20 am)lukec Wrote: As for your definition of Atheism, I (other than what my profile would have you believe, whoopsie) am an atheist in that I do not believe in god. This is probably because I am myself a skeptic, and I have difficulty believing in anything at all if there is no evidence- and I speak here of scientific evidence, of provable/disprovable things. I don't feel that I necessarily stick to a cultual or social position. I just try to be a good person, based on my own morals and ethics, which I assume are ingrained in me by society, and my parents. But I don't think there are any rules to being an "Atheist" with a capital A.

I consider myself a skeptic still. In the sense that I don't want to believe if there is no scriptural support. I sometimes wonder at all of the militant atheists who wear scientific evidence as a sort of badge like Xians do morality. Here is the way that I look at science, and keep in mind I have nothing against science in general. The majority (about 98%) of it is not a conflict with the Bible, but rather religion. Science doesn't know everything or there would be no need of science, the Bible says that all religion and all governments will be destroyed because they are the threat to mankind and God's creation, not science, and science doesn't even attempt to investigate God so why do people of science feel compelled to discuss God? It is a political motivation, it vehicle for atheism.

If you sit around and listen to science minded people - and there is a difference between people who are scientists off doing science things and science minded people posting on message boards - they talk about a utopian future where everyone believes in 'science' and hardly no one believes in religion.

If you pay attention to them they are so much like religious people talking about heaven. Science is the hope for the future, some day we will fix all the worlds problems and live forever! Science explains to us how everything exists, the purpose of life. We must spread our knowledge of science and we must get rid of religion.

They don't see this as religious in nature, which scares the hell out of me because if you think about it science today is a far greater potential danger than religion ever was. Blind to its destructive potential and hungry for its day in the sun. Which, I believe it will and should have, but warn against its blind obedience.

(November 17, 2008 at 12:20 am)lukec Wrote: Back to you, though, I'm still wondering exactly what you do believe- your beliefs are bible based; do you believe in the story of Genesis? In Adam and Eve? The Noachian flood? Did Jesus exist, did really perform miracles, and was he the reincarnation of God on Earth? Basically, is the bible an actual account of historical events, or is it a metaphorical collection of stories. I'd like to know what you think.

It isn't a collection of metaphorical stories, though it does sometimes use parables to teach. Genesis, especially the creation account, is misrepresented and misunderstood by most. Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah's day and Jesus and his miracles were real, Jesus wasn't the reincarnation of God on earth, he was Michael, God's son. The name Michael means 'Who is like God?'
(November 17, 2008 at 9:14 am)Gregori Wrote: Thanks for your input daystar, this is very interesting.

Well, thanks, Gregori, and welcome to the board.
(November 17, 2008 at 10:14 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: You say you were an atheist ... at the risk of invoking the NTS fallacy, why were you one? What kind of atheist were you ... I mean me? I'm pretty much a militant atheist, very much a strong atheist using more conventional definitions.

What is the NTS fallacy? I was an atheist because that is the way I was raised. My folks didn't go to church and thought religion and God was a crock of shit. Religious people were nuts who wanted to control small minded people. A view that I think is somewhat shortsighted.

Using the term militant atheist is important because there are atheist who are not militant. Everyone I know are non-militant atheists. I only know 1 theist other than myself. I don't really like to use the term theist. I was a non-militant atheist.

(November 17, 2008 at 10:14 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I have to disagree that being an atheist, beyond an observation that we lack a sense of community that often centres around churches and so on, has any cultural connotations at all.

Why not? Or perhaps; do you see that ever changing in the future?
(November 17, 2008 at 10:20 am)CoxRox Wrote: Yo, you're back Daystar! Wink.

I was here every day, I just thought you guys were done with me so I moved on where I was banned from EvilBible.com. 2 days is a record for me, boy them guys are narrow minded but it was fun.

(November 17, 2008 at 10:20 am)CoxRox Wrote: I agree with a lot of your above statement. I struggle to believe in things I can't see and interestingly, as you are reading the Bible I will mention a verse (which I can't remember where it is but I can find it if needed) where someone says word to the effect that if you are true to what you believe, then this will be your measuring stick (with God). If you don't know something you can hardly be blamed for not knowing. If you can't see 'proof' because you think in a scientific way etc, then again, the onus is on 'God' to give you proof that you would understand and accept. That's what I think anyway.

Daystar- hope you don't mind me throwing in my two pennoth worth.

It isn't up to me. This is a public forum and I always want to hear what everyone has to say. Anyway - you made an excellent point. Jesus said that those who seek knowledge will inherit everlasting life on paradise earth, not just those who found it. Or think that they know it. No religion or individual person has ever or will ever (until paradise earth) know. The meek shall inherit the earth not the overconfident.

The Bible does say that the measuring stick is not what you know, or what you know measured by onyone elses stick is the point. Rather what you yourself are trying. You can believe in the wrong thing but if you are doing that in the true spirit of gaining that knowledge is the measuring stick. That you try.
Reply
#9
RE: Daystar
Hi Daystar,

NTS is "No True Scotsman", you will probably have heard that one before. I don't think it would apply in this case.

Interesting view on science being religion, and I can't say I totally disagree. some points though, you say:

Daystar Wrote:Science explains to us how everything exists, the purpose of life.

How everything exists, sure scientists would like to find out. Why (or purpose), that is more up to philosophers than for instance biological scientists or physicists.

Daystar Wrote:We must spread our knowledge of science and we must get rid of religion.

Actually, that has been demonstrated before, religion fades away when knowledge is gained. It is not so much the intention of science but definitely a side effect. But usually its get substituted by some other religion or redefining their gods.

Daystar Wrote:They don't see this as religious in nature, which scares the hell out of me because if you think about it science today is a far greater potential danger than religion ever was. Blind to its destructive potential and hungry for its day in the sun. Which, I believe it will and should have, but warn against its blind obedience.

Obeying who or what? Science? Science doesn't dictate.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply
#10
RE: Daystar
(November 17, 2008 at 12:29 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Actually, that has been demonstrated before, religion fades away when knowledge is gained. It is not so much the intention of science but definitely a side effect. But usually its get substituted by some other religion or redefining their gods.

Perhaps it isn't that way at all. Perhaps there is only a replacement. They just trade places. I know that in the past the greatest minds in science have been the greatest minds in theology. Of course at that time there wasn't a supposed conflict and the tradition was religion.

Now, though, 'science' is the alternative. Knowledge gained? I don't think so. The modern science minded critic of the Bible will assume that primitive people had a superstitious attachment to their idols while at the same time having a more similar attachment to their own automobile. You can't look at things like science and religion as being anything but what they are, but you can look how people use and abuse these abstract attachments to those things. I call it religious thought. Science can't be religious in nature, the modern atheist would say, because it has no deity. Forget that they don't bother to grasp even the in the most basis sense, what that means and concentrate on how, in the past the abuse of God, the Bible and religion was brought about through man's knowledge of how to abuse these things in order to get what they wanted - which is nothing more than power - and had nothing to do with God, the Bible and religion in any real sense.

People. They think their music is the best and will fight for it, their freedom is more important than their life and will kill and die for it. Art, music, sports, science, fashion can all be used in the same sort of way.

Quote:Daystar - They don't see this as religious in nature, which scares the hell out of me because if you think about it science today is a far greater potential danger than religion ever was. Blind to its destructive potential and hungry for its day in the sun. Which, I believe it will and should have, but warn against its blind obedience.

leo-rcc - Obeying who or what? Science? Science doesn't dictate.

Obeying that blind human attachment. Religious thought.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)