Atheists/Agnostics
Options
Comments
-
? is ultimate master but he does not micro manage
Writing a book on how people should live their lives = micro managing 101 -
soul rattler wrote: »What it always comes down to with atheist is that they want ? the sovereign master of reality to do what they want him to do.
But it doesn't work like that people want pain to go away but ? doesn't necessarily want the pain and suffering to go away how and when we want it to.
Wrong. What most atheists understand is that pain and suffering exist as a result of avoidable and unavoidable circumstances. Once you introduce a sovereign master of reality, everything become subject into that being's every whim.
In a world where you have supreme authority over all things, to subject someone to pain for the mere purpose of thanking you for taking the pain away is not empathetic or compassionate. It is morbid and horrifyingly apathy.
And if there's anyone who basis there religious beliefs on what a ? would I would not do, it's the people who believe in a deity. Those are the people who appropriate the concepts of omnipresence, omnipotence, and eternal rewards and consequences to their advantage to get everyone else to live the way that they want them to live.
An atheist says, "? this, I'll live my life based on what I know to be real and what I know to be right. Not what desert dwellers from a couple thousand years ago, or corrupt and perverted Church goers made up."
that's not what the bible teaches it's what you atheist imagine it teaches the atheist war on religion ( which is really a war of the ? of abraham) is run on the of gross ignorance of the actually doctrines of the christian religion.
you atheist are free to live your life as you choose believe whatever you want but when you mischaracterize the tenets and beliefs of a persons religion you need to under stand that the result will often be some kind of conflict.
If I say I don't like the smell of ? matter because it smells bad, you don't get to say "you're just saying that because you don't know what ? matter REALLY smells like".
No ? , ? stank cause ? stank. -
soul rattler wrote: »
But that statement is 100% false and shows how little you have actually read of it.
-
soul rattler wrote: »soul rattler wrote: »What it always comes down to with atheist is that they want ? the sovereign master of reality to do what they want him to do.
But it doesn't work like that people want pain to go away but ? doesn't necessarily want the pain and suffering to go away how and when we want it to.
Wrong. What most atheists understand is that pain and suffering exist as a result of avoidable and unavoidable circumstances. Once you introduce a sovereign master of reality, everything become subject into that being's every whim.
In a world where you have supreme authority over all things, to subject someone to pain for the mere purpose of thanking you for taking the pain away is not empathetic or compassionate. It is morbid and horrifyingly apathy.
And if there's anyone who basis there religious beliefs on what a ? would I would not do, it's the people who believe in a deity. Those are the people who appropriate the concepts of omnipresence, omnipotence, and eternal rewards and consequences to their advantage to get everyone else to live the way that they want them to live.
An atheist says, "? this, I'll live my life based on what I know to be real and what I know to be right. Not what desert dwellers from a couple thousand years ago, or corrupt and perverted Church goers made up."
that's not what the bible teaches it's what you atheist imagine it teaches the atheist war on religion ( which is really a war of the ? of abraham) is run on the of gross ignorance of the actually doctrines of the christian religion.
you atheist are free to live your life as you choose believe whatever you want but when you mischaracterize the tenets and beliefs of a persons religion you need to under stand that the result will often be some kind of conflict.
If I say I don't like the smell of ? matter because it smells bad, you don't get to say "you're just saying that because you don't know what ? matter REALLY smells like".
No ? , ? stank cause ? stank.
my ? don't stink -
The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The first Atheists were the greek philosophers that are known in history.
? the there of the greatest first Greek philosophers believed I'm higher beings.
They were anti the established religion. ATHEOS. It was a brand to show them as traitors to the Greek thought. You guys need to study more. Its a brand against any radical thought or foreign philosophy.
Again the first three GREATEST Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and diogenes believed in Gods. Even aristotle did
Their accusors called them atheos. It was the fact that they were bringing in foreign philosophy to their land and demystifying their understanding of the natural world and giving them a understanding of how these things work in the observable way. They learned science and knowledge in the egyptian temples please read "Stolen Legacy" by George GM James. -
The_Jackal wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The first Atheists were the greek philosophers that are known in history.
Well, yes and no. From a philosophical standpoint yes but humans have roamed the earth for 200-150k years. The humans that existed before the idea of ? were also atheist by definition
that is dumb as ?
Spoken like a true Christian.
I digress, @The_Jackal mentioned Mesopotamia religions. This dates back to 4th century BC. Hinduism and Ancient Egyptian belief is around the same age. Regardless, our species has been around for 200k-150k years. Much older than religion has existed. Maybe my first point wasn't clear enough. At is most general definition, atheism simply refers to those who lack a belief in ? . The humans who existed before the time mentioned, and before the widespread concept of ? , by definition were atheists. Not that it matters. Religion has dominated the last few millenniums.
You have no proof that the humans that existed before civilization did not believe in gods your claim is nonsense.
And it is far better to be a Christian that says ? on a hip-hop website than to be an atheist. Atheist are the most despised people on the planet with good reason
Honestly, what proof could there possibly be for non-belief in an idea not even created yet? It's not absurd to believe the earliest humans had no concept of what refer to as a deity today.
Again, spoken like a true Christian. The most despised on this planet? That's a bold claim. What consensus did you pull this from? Or are you just making stuff up.
Christians have no moral superiority and given it's history, I think you should be far more humbled, especially referring to people as being despised. You would never hear a non-believer say something as disgusting as people from your faith. After all, it was an Archbishop that said the following: "The very worst the (nuclear) Bomb can do is to sweep a vast number of People from this world into the next into which they must all go anyway". What atheist would say that?
Your still assuming that the idea wasn't created. Nobody is mentioning it to be strictly passed on organized religion just the belief in a higher being. The fact that the earliest civilization had writing and drawings of ? 's presents a very strong cases since before written history most stories were passed down ?
The earliest of any deity was a female and then it was male and female then later down the line male became dominant. So was man talking to a feminine essence of existence or was they talking to a male? -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The first Atheists were the greek philosophers that are known in history.
? the there of the greatest first Greek philosophers believed I'm higher beings.
They were anti the established religion. ATHEOS. It was a brand to show them as traitors to the Greek thought. You guys need to study more. Its a brand against any radical thought or foreign philosophy.
Again the first three GREATEST Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and diogenes believed in Gods. Even aristotle did
Their accusors called them atheos. It was the fact that they were bringing in foreign philosophy to their land and demystifying their understanding of the natural world and giving them a understanding of how these things work in the observable way. They learned science and knowledge in the egyptian temples please read "Stolen Legacy" by George GM James.
Bruh nearly every greek philosopher believe in a higher being that's non-negotiable. ATHEOS doesn't even mean they were atheists just that they didn't believe in organizationed religion. All this other ? you talking about doesn't mean anything cause your main point is fundamentally wrong.Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The first Atheists were the greek philosophers that are known in history.
Well, yes and no. From a philosophical standpoint yes but humans have roamed the earth for 200-150k years. The humans that existed before the idea of ? were also atheist by definition
that is dumb as ?
Spoken like a true Christian.
I digress, @The_Jackal mentioned Mesopotamia religions. This dates back to 4th century BC. Hinduism and Ancient Egyptian belief is around the same age. Regardless, our species has been around for 200k-150k years. Much older than religion has existed. Maybe my first point wasn't clear enough. At is most general definition, atheism simply refers to those who lack a belief in ? . The humans who existed before the time mentioned, and before the widespread concept of ? , by definition were atheists. Not that it matters. Religion has dominated the last few millenniums.
You have no proof that the humans that existed before civilization did not believe in gods your claim is nonsense.
And it is far better to be a Christian that says ? on a hip-hop website than to be an atheist. Atheist are the most despised people on the planet with good reason
Honestly, what proof could there possibly be for non-belief in an idea not even created yet? It's not absurd to believe the earliest humans had no concept of what refer to as a deity today.
Again, spoken like a true Christian. The most despised on this planet? That's a bold claim. What consensus did you pull this from? Or are you just making stuff up.
Christians have no moral superiority and given it's history, I think you should be far more humbled, especially referring to people as being despised. You would never hear a non-believer say something as disgusting as people from your faith. After all, it was an Archbishop that said the following: "The very worst the (nuclear) Bomb can do is to sweep a vast number of People from this world into the next into which they must all go anyway". What atheist would say that?
Your still assuming that the idea wasn't created. Nobody is mentioning it to be strictly passed on organized religion just the belief in a higher being. The fact that the earliest civilization had writing and drawings of ? 's presents a very strong cases since before written history most stories were passed down ?
The earliest of any deity was a female and then it was male and female then later down the line male became dominant. So was man talking to a feminine essence of existence or was they talking to a male?
Wrong again. As far as written history goes that goes to Anu not that there wasn't female goddess
-
The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The first Atheists were the greek philosophers that are known in history.
? the there of the greatest first Greek philosophers believed I'm higher beings.
They were anti the established religion. ATHEOS. It was a brand to show them as traitors to the Greek thought. You guys need to study more. Its a brand against any radical thought or foreign philosophy.
Again the first three GREATEST Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and diogenes believed in Gods. Even aristotle did
Their accusors called them atheos. It was the fact that they were bringing in foreign philosophy to their land and demystifying their understanding of the natural world and giving them a understanding of how these things work in the observable way. They learned science and knowledge in the egyptian temples please read "Stolen Legacy" by George GM James.
Bruh nearly every greek philosopher believe in a higher being that's non-negotiable. ATHEOS doesn't even mean they were atheists just that they didn't believe in organizationed religion. All this other ? you talking about doesn't mean anything cause your main point is fundamentally wrong.Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »And_So_It_Burns wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The first Atheists were the greek philosophers that are known in history.
Well, yes and no. From a philosophical standpoint yes but humans have roamed the earth for 200-150k years. The humans that existed before the idea of ? were also atheist by definition
that is dumb as ?
Spoken like a true Christian.
I digress, @The_Jackal mentioned Mesopotamia religions. This dates back to 4th century BC. Hinduism and Ancient Egyptian belief is around the same age. Regardless, our species has been around for 200k-150k years. Much older than religion has existed. Maybe my first point wasn't clear enough. At is most general definition, atheism simply refers to those who lack a belief in ? . The humans who existed before the time mentioned, and before the widespread concept of ? , by definition were atheists. Not that it matters. Religion has dominated the last few millenniums.
You have no proof that the humans that existed before civilization did not believe in gods your claim is nonsense.
And it is far better to be a Christian that says ? on a hip-hop website than to be an atheist. Atheist are the most despised people on the planet with good reason
Honestly, what proof could there possibly be for non-belief in an idea not even created yet? It's not absurd to believe the earliest humans had no concept of what refer to as a deity today.
Again, spoken like a true Christian. The most despised on this planet? That's a bold claim. What consensus did you pull this from? Or are you just making stuff up.
Christians have no moral superiority and given it's history, I think you should be far more humbled, especially referring to people as being despised. You would never hear a non-believer say something as disgusting as people from your faith. After all, it was an Archbishop that said the following: "The very worst the (nuclear) Bomb can do is to sweep a vast number of People from this world into the next into which they must all go anyway". What atheist would say that?
Your still assuming that the idea wasn't created. Nobody is mentioning it to be strictly passed on organized religion just the belief in a higher being. The fact that the earliest civilization had writing and drawings of ? 's presents a very strong cases since before written history most stories were passed down ?
The earliest of any deity was a female and then it was male and female then later down the line male became dominant. So was man talking to a feminine essence of existence or was they talking to a male?
Wrong again. As far as written history goes that goes to Anu not that there wasn't female goddess
It's against organized state religion in the first place and it's first meaning.
Anu isn't even the oldest, Bes is older than Anu.
Namma is older than Anu in the pantheon
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/namma/
http://study.com/academy/lesson/mystery-cults-and-the-early-mother-goddess.html
Here are examples of here.
Let's use sources and we'll debate it will be easier.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/AncientGreeceSkepticism.htm -
I don't get what you are trying to say. Even that ? link you posted include people simply because they were critical towards organizatied religion which I've been saying but still were NOT ATHEIST. Go read your own link.
As far as Namma goes you can't say that even for sure since enki taken over most of her duties and there's only a few texts contributed to her. Either way I don't get what any of this has to do with atheism at all. -
Lol at adding Protagoras to that ? list. Just because someone is a skeptic automatically means you can claim them to be athiest. Diogenes believed in a ? .
Epicurus believed in a ?
Wither you want to believe it or not the earliest men believed in a deity -
The_Jackal wrote: »I don't get what you are trying to say. Even that ? link you posted include people simply because they were critical towards organizatied religion which I've been saying but still were NOT ATHEIST. Go read your own link.
As far as Namma goes you can't say that even for sure since enki taken over most of her duties and there's only a few texts contributed to her. Either way I don't get what any of this has to do with atheism at all.
That's what gave them the title of Atheos. That's what I'm trying to tell you and it's really that simple. An atheist is really someone who isn't for the state sponsor and populace religion. It's that simple. You're purely simply thinking of the way it's defined today, the atheist of today isn't like the atheist of old.The_Jackal wrote: »Lol at adding Protagoras to that ? list. Just because someone is a skeptic automatically means you can claim them to be athiest. Diogenes believed in a ? .
Epicurus believed in a ?
Wither you want to believe it or not the earliest men believed in a deity
I never said that earliest of man didn't or did. There is no evidence of either because there is little to no documentation around what they truly believe in back in 250,000 years ago and the earliest of religion ritual is around 65,000 years ago in Botswana. Later we see the mother goddesses statues in 40,000 Bce. -
Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to. -
The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
who cares??? the heart of the issue is that the original people called atheist actually still believed in gods and the assertion that mankind did not believe in gods before organized religion is wrong. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
Stop looking up ? online and actually read Plato Republic or socrates apology. The charge wasn't that he was athiest just that he didn't honor the ? 's ub the correct way and that Athenes felt that proper worship and respect of the ? 's was instrumental to the success of the city. They put firth that he was disrespecting the state and more importantly corrupting people mind especially children mind with his method.
You reaching for something that ain't there my point still stands he and most of our first philosophers believed in a ? . That's undeniably -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
who cares??? the heart of the issue is that the original people called atheist actually still believed in gods and the assertion that mankind did not believe in gods before organized religion is wrong.
Let's see the proper documentation. The original post was for the atheist/agnostic/skeptics not really for the believers.
The last statement we can see correlation, but at the same time we have no evidence how the origin of it really started until much later of organized religions when they are a few hundred thousand years after ? sapian sapian origins. Unless, you have studies of showing that this is to be true from paleolithic era over 100 thousand years. We also see moon and sun rituals when humanity was in the southern part of what is called South Africa. The Blombos Cave. -
The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
Stop looking up ? online and actually read Plato Republic or socrates apology. The charge wasn't that he was athiest just that he didn't honor the ? 's ub the correct way and that Athenes felt that proper worship and respect of the ? 's was instrumental to the success of the city. They put firth that he was disrespecting the state and more importantly corrupting people mind especially children mind with his method.
You reaching for something that ain't there my point still stands he and most of our first philosophers believed in a ? . That's undeniably
I was using socrates as a reason to show that atheism wasn't well received. And look at the reply I gave to zombie. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
Stop looking up ? online and actually read Plato Republic or socrates apology. The charge wasn't that he was athiest just that he didn't honor the ? 's ub the correct way and that Athenes felt that proper worship and respect of the ? 's was instrumental to the success of the city. They put firth that he was disrespecting the state and more importantly corrupting people mind especially children mind with his method.
You reaching for something that ain't there my point still stands he and most of our first philosophers believed in a ? . That's undeniably
I was using socrates as a reason to show that atheism wasn't well received. And look at the reply I gave to zombie.
Been I never said that Athiest weren't well reserved just that the greek philosophers went atheist -
The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
Stop looking up ? online and actually read Plato Republic or socrates apology. The charge wasn't that he was athiest just that he didn't honor the ? 's ub the correct way and that Athenes felt that proper worship and respect of the ? 's was instrumental to the success of the city. They put firth that he was disrespecting the state and more importantly corrupting people mind especially children mind with his method.
You reaching for something that ain't there my point still stands he and most of our first philosophers believed in a ? . That's undeniably
I was using socrates as a reason to show that atheism wasn't well received. And look at the reply I gave to zombie.
Been I never said that Athiest weren't well reserved just that the greek philosophers went atheist
In the modern sense, I never said they were in the modern sense. So we have came to an agreement correct?
Modern atheism was much more later and really came to be around last century. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
who cares??? the heart of the issue is that the original people called atheist actually still believed in gods and the assertion that mankind did not believe in gods before organized religion is wrong.
Let's see the proper documentation. The original post was for the atheist/agnostic/skeptics not really for the believers.
The last statement we can see correlation, but at the same time we have no evidence how the origin of it really started until much later of organized religions when they are a few hundred thousand years after ? sapian sapian origins. Unless, you have studies of showing that this is to be true from paleolithic era over 100 thousand years. We also see moon and sun rituals when humanity was in the southern part of what is called South Africa. The Blombos Cave.
i don't get the point you are trying to make??? -
Nevermind. I'll do a video later on.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
Stop looking up ? online and actually read Plato Republic or socrates apology. The charge wasn't that he was athiest just that he didn't honor the ? 's ub the correct way and that Athenes felt that proper worship and respect of the ? 's was instrumental to the success of the city. They put firth that he was disrespecting the state and more importantly corrupting people mind especially children mind with his method.
You reaching for something that ain't there my point still stands he and most of our first philosophers believed in a ? . That's undeniably
I was using socrates as a reason to show that atheism wasn't well received. And look at the reply I gave to zombie.
Been I never said that Athiest weren't well reserved just that the greek philosophers went atheist
In the modern sense, I never said they were in the modern sense. So we have came to an agreement correct?
Modern atheism was much more later and really came to be around last century.
We're in agreement that they believed in Gods then sure. Everything else u speaking about is irrelevant -
The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Don't call them atheist at all because historically it means lack of belief in ? . They still believed in Greek ? 's just didn't go about worshipping them the same way the everyday person of their time did. Athos also never meant disbelief in ? and never was used as an insult that someone disbelieved in ? . Athiest has always and will always mean lack of belief in ? .
If from the earliest time of written history we see the belief of ? 's and before written history we have oral history then it's not a hard assumption to get to.
Look up The Trial of Socrates. Why would he deny a charged in court against atheism? If it wasn't used to insult someone?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist
https://books.google.com/books?id=JL-cyJ6zdJwC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=atheos+meant+impious&source=bl&ots=YOTa72LruW&sig=M-7PAi6_MWmuoB762guKIJejvWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi28rPImI7KAhXFPCYKHewyBxEQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=atheos meant impious&f=false
Stop looking up ? online and actually read Plato Republic or socrates apology. The charge wasn't that he was athiest just that he didn't honor the ? 's ub the correct way and that Athenes felt that proper worship and respect of the ? 's was instrumental to the success of the city. They put firth that he was disrespecting the state and more importantly corrupting people mind especially children mind with his method.
You reaching for something that ain't there my point still stands he and most of our first philosophers believed in a ? . That's undeniably
I was using socrates as a reason to show that atheism wasn't well received. And look at the reply I gave to zombie.
Been I never said that Athiest weren't well reserved just that the greek philosophers went atheist
In the modern sense, I never said they were in the modern sense. So we have came to an agreement correct?
Modern atheism was much more later and really came to be around last century.
We're in agreement that they believed in Gods then sure. Everything else u speaking about is irrelevant
Somewhat in agreement..... -
So you think it is odd that people are atheist/agnostic?
A study I read showed the part of the brain atheist/agnostic use when they think of "? " or "Gods" is through the prefrontal cortex and match their memories and sensory. Usuallly pastors and well learned people usually use the language part of their brain when they think of ? and most of the believers use the fear part of their brain. Using a series of tests and studies on the actual function of the cognitive brain. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »So you think it is odd that people are atheist/agnostic?
A study I read showed the part of the brain atheist/agnostic use when they think of "? " or "Gods" is through the prefrontal cortex and match their memories and sensory. Usuallly pastors and well learned people usually use the language part of their brain when they think of ? and most of the believers use the fear part of their brain. Using a series of tests and studies on the actual function of the cognitive brain.
You go have to post that study cause that's outlandish. Lol no I don't think it's odd my one and only point I was saying I'd that Greek philosophers although they went against the state believed in a ? .
