The Mark of the Antichrist

[Avi]

In any religion there are atheists in the mix, and you cannot tell who is or isn't. Where is their mark? If there were such a thing it would be an amazing miracle.

Can't you tell by just talking with them ?

 

[Dream]

Can't you tell by just talking with them ?

Well yes often I can -- people can scarcely keep from communicating even when they'd prefer not to -- but especially I could if they were all required to confess all of their sins to me. People aren't required to do that anymore, so there is more privacy now. They don't seem to have a 'mark' or tattoo that defines them as atheists. I am guessing the mark mentioned in The Apocalypse (had to check the dictionary) is not marking atheism, anyway, but marking something normally much less observable. I wasn't going to say it, but atheism has more in common with theism than many common household Abrahamic separatist groups, which tend to warp G!d into a supporter of various special interests, to our detriment, yours, mine, and everyone's.

 

[nativeastral]

One of the philosophers that I would like to learn more about is Spinoza. So even though you do not have heros, perhaps you might be interested in discussing Spinoza. He was a very humble man:





He was very rebellious, a trait that many of us admire



He got into trouble with all the religious folk !!



I think Atheism is much than that, isn't it ? It seems to me that science describes things which we know and understand very well. Religion then fills in an area outside of these boundaries of knowledge, it deals with things that we really do not know or understand.

Atheism seems very consistent to me with a scientific understanding of reality.

As science pushes forward our boundaries of knowledge, religion always needs to re-adjust its position. In this sense, as science develops further, the Atheist position strengthens as well.

Do you agree with this analysis ?

l am interested in learning more on spinoza's spin on god/nature/reality.
science cannot help but be embroiled in metaphysics; in a sense as science develops further the religious position strengthens also [eg the anthropic fine tuning principle]; 50:50 from an agnostic pov!

 

[Avi]

l am interested in learning more on spinoza's spin on god/nature/reality.
science cannot help but be embroiled in metaphysics; in a sense as science develops further the religious position strengthens also [eg the anthropic fine tuning principle]; 50:50 from an agnostic pov!

Hi NA, so you are an agnostic ?

Does agnostic mean someone who is not sure about the existance of G-d ? If so, doesn't that mean we are all agnostics ?

Ok, so lets discuss Spinoza more. There are some good internet resources about him that we can start with. Wiki and SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Lets compare notes and see where it goes ?

 

[nativeastral]

Hi NA, so you are an agnostic ?

Does agnostic mean someone who is not sure about the existance of G-d ? If so, doesn't that mean we are all agnostics ?

Ok, so lets discuss Spinoza more. There are some good internet resources about him that we can start with. Wiki and SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Lets compare notes and see where it goes ?

l thought religious folk believed in the certainty of g#d! as l've said before its just the word and connotations thereof. and as l do not pray or worship to any entity construed as g#d l say agnostic, another label l'd rather not use.
l like the word divine though which l think we all are [why the separation of creator/created?- o yes otherwise why bother to worship?].
l have to do other stuff at the moment but will dip into your musings on spinoza

 

[17th Angel]

Can't you tell by just talking with them ?

Not really, for all we know you are an atheist..... Saying you believe in god and believing in god are way different....

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi NA, so you are an agnostic ?

Does agnostic mean someone who is not sure about the existance of G-d ? If so, doesn't that mean we are all agnostics ?

Ok, so lets discuss Spinoza more. There are some good internet resources about him that we can start with. Wiki and SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Lets compare notes and see where it goes ?

So, Spinoza a 'hero' of yours?

 

[Dream]

I'm interested, although I'm not sure if I can keep up. What specific books do I need to get?

 

[nativeastral]

Philosophy- Squashed Spinoza - The Ethics - Condensed and Abridged

 

[Avi]

l thought religious folk believed in the certainty of g#d! as l've said before its just the word and connotations thereof. and as l do not pray or worship to any entity construed as g#d l say agnostic, another label l'd rather not use.
l like the word divine though which l think we all are [why the separation of creator/created?- o yes otherwise why bother to worship?].
l have to do other stuff at the moment but will dip into your musings on spinoza

I believe you are right. Many religious folk are probably sure of the existence of G-d. But does that mean that all religious people must do so ? I don't think so.

Does praying mean that you believe in G-d ? Prayer connects sounds with thought and can connect to the idea of G-d, but I do not think it is necessary.

Religion also offers a sense of community. It offers interaction with people of similar values and ideas.

If agnosticism means not being sure about the existance of G-d, I still think that most people fall into this category. I have read some logic based proofs and disproofs of G-d's existance. These have seemed to me more like exercises in logic and linguistics. If one believes that G-d's existence is metaphorical, the proof is very simple. It seems to me like an individual belief and decision.

Do you agree ?

 

[shawn]

There are those that pray and believe that there is a higher intelligence which they are somehow connected to which hears them and cares.

Some people will pray, but they think they are just tapping into some higher power of their own which is mysterious and not obvious, but they have seen enough to know there is lots of things going on "behind the veil" which we still do not have any scientific understanding or consensus about.

Doesn't really matter, as long as one is doing some praying of some kind.
Better than no prayer at all.

 

[nativeastral]

I believe you are right. Many religious folk are probably sure of the existence of G-d. But does that mean that all religious people must do so ? I don't think so.

Does praying mean that you believe in G-d ? Prayer connects sounds with thought and can connect to the idea of G-d, but I do not think it is necessary.

Religion also offers a sense of community. It offers interaction with people of similar values and ideas.

If agnosticism means not being sure about the existance of G-d, I still think that most people fall into this category. I have read some logic based proofs and disproofs of G-d's existance. These have seemed to me more like exercises in logic and linguistics. If one believes that G-d's existence is metaphorical, the proof is very simple. It seems to me like an individual belief and decision.

Do you agree ?

in a word - yes!

 

[Avi]

Philosophy- Squashed Spinoza - The Ethics - Condensed and Abridged

Good find, NA !! Lots of interesting points there. I am still reviewing wiki and SEP, I will come to this one next.

 

[Avi]

So, Spinoza a 'hero' of yours?

At this point I would say no, he is not a hero. But his views have caught my interest enough so that I would like to study his ideas further. Once I understand them better, I might feel more akin to his ideas.

I can tell you that I already like his rebellious nature. It took guts to step up against the religious authorities in those days. He probably could have been killed.

Do you have any thoughts about Spinoza ? He was a neighbor of yours, was he not, from Amsterdam ?

 

[Avi]

More Spinoza:

Spinoza provides an equally deflationary account of God's election, or the “vocation”, of the Hebrews. It is “childish”, he insists, for anyone to base their happiness on the uniqueness of their gifts; in the case of the Jews, it would be the uniqueness of their being chosen among all people. The ancient Hebrews, in fact, did not surpass other nations in their wisdom or in their proximity to God. They were neither intellectually nor morally superior to other peoples. They were “chosen” only with respect to their social organization and political good fortune. God (or Nature) gave them a set of laws and they obeyed those laws, with the natural result that their society was well-ordered and their autonomous government persisted for a long time. Their election was thus a temporal and conditional one, and their kingdom is now long gone. Thus, “at the present time there is nothing whatsoever that the Jews can arrogate to themselves above other nations” (TTP, chap. 3, G III.56/S 45). Spinoza thereby rejects the particularism that many—including Amsterdam's Sephardic rabbis—insisted was essential to Judaism. True piety and blessedness are universal in their scope and accesssible to anyone, regardless of their confessional creed.

He was not big on choseness.

Central to Spinoza's analysis of the Jewish religion—although it is applicable to any religion whatsoever—is the distinction between the divine law and the ceremonial law. The law of God commands only the knowledge and love of God and the actions required for attaining that condition. Such love must arise not from fear of possible penalties or hope for any rewards, but solely from the goodness of its object. The divine law does not demand any particular rites or ceremonies such as sacrifices or dietary restrictions or festival observances. The six hundred and thirteen precepts of the Torah have nothing to do with blessedness or virtue. They were directed only at the Hebrews so that they might govern themselves in an autonomous state. The ceremonial laws helped preserve their kingdom and insure its prosperity, but were valid only as long as that political entity lasted. They are not binding on all Jews under all circumstances. They were, in fact, instituted by Moses for a purely practical reason: so that people might do their duty and not go their own way. This is true not just of the rites and practices of Judaism, but of the outer ceremonies of all religions. None of these activities have anything to do with true happiness or piety. They serve only to control people's behavior and preserve a particular society.

He was not a big fan of divine law.

A similar practical function is served by stories of miracles. Scripture speaks in a language suited to affect the imagination of ordinary people and compel their obedience. Rather than appealing to the natural and real causes of all events, its authors sometimes narrate things in a way calculated to move people—particularly uneducated people—to devotion. “If Scripture were to describe the downfall of an empire in the style adopted by political historians, the common people would not be stirred …” Strictly speaking, however, miracles—understood as divinely caused departures from the ordinary course of nature—are impossible. Every event, no matter how extraordinary, has a natural cause and explanation. “Nothing happens in nature that does not follow from her laws” (TTP, chap. 6, G III.83/S 73). This is simply a consequence of Spinoza's metaphysical doctrines. Miracles as traditionally conceived require a distinction between God and nature, something that Spinoza's philosophy rules out in principle. Moreover, nature's order is inviolable in so far as the sequence of events in nature is a necessary consequence of God's attributes. There certainly are “miracles” in the sense of events whose natural causes are unknown to us, and which we therefore attribute to the powers of a supernatural God. But this is, once again, to retreat to superstition, “the bitter enemy of all true knowledge and true morality”.

Not a big believer in miracles.

Spinoza denied that Moses wrote all, or even most of the Torah. The references in the Pentateuch to Moses in the third person; the narration of his death and, particularly, of events following his death; and the fact that some places are called by names that they did not bear in the time of Moses all “make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt” that the writings commonly referred to as “the Five Books of Moses” were, in fact, written by someone who lived many generations after Moses. Moses did, to be sure, compose some books of history and of law; and remnants of those long lost books can be found in the Pentateuch. But the Torah as we have it, as well as as other books of the Hebrew Bible (such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) were written neither by the individuals whose names they bear nor by any person appearing in them. Spinoza believes that these were, in fact, all composed by a single historian living many generations after the events narrated, and that this was most likely Ezra. It was the post-exilic leader who took the many writings that had come down to him and began weaving them into a single (but not seamless) narrative. Ezra's work was later completed and supplemented by the editorial labors of others. What we now possess, then, is nothing but a compilation, and a rather mismanaged, haphazard and “mutilated” one at that.

Who wrote the Torah ?

It follows that the only practical commandments that properly belong to religion are those that are necessary to carry out the moral precept and “confirm in our hearts the love of our neighbor”. “A catholic faith should therefore contain only those dogmas which obedience to God absolutely demands, and without which such obedience is absolutely impossible … these must all be directed to this one end: that there is a Supreme Being who loves justice and charity, whom all must obey in order to be saved, and must worship by practicing justice and charity to their neighbor” (TTP, chap. 14, G III.177/S 161-2). As for other dogmas, “every person should embrace those that he, being the best judge of himself, feels will do most to strengthen in him love of justice”.

How many of the 613 Commandments should we follow ?

I think I like this gentleman.

Ref: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

 

[Bandit]

Who wrote the Torah ?

nobody factually knows. just like no one knows who wrote the NT or the vedas or any of the other stuff like that.

Their election was thus a temporal and conditional one, and their kingdom is now long gone. Thus, “at the present time there is nothing whatsoever that the Jews can arrogate to themselves above other nations” (TTP, chap. 3, G III.56/S 45). Spinoza thereby rejects the particularism that many—including Amsterdam's Sephardic rabbis—insisted was essential to Judaism. True piety and blessedness are universal in their scope and accesssible to anyone, regardless of their confessional creed.

I would also note that modern jewish religions are not the same thing found in the OT text just like christian religions are not the same thing found in the NT text.

that isn't a bad view & not far from the way I see it, because that is one thing that has caused them so many problems. except for they DIDN"T keep the commandments and right in the text itself the god had jews put other jews to death for not listening and the god destroyed the jews for their own evil, even high preists went down, dead, bonk, dead, bye bye, history, no more... and no one from the first generation saw the promised land. something wrong there if they are so chosen above others. I would have to wonder why the god has not been protecting them and their little kingdom in the last 2000 years but we know it is because they aren't chosen or any more special than anyone else, nor are they the only ones who can interpret the text like some of them claim.

I agree with Spongebob except for the part about them keeping the laws because a lot of them did not & they did whatever.

 

[Bandit]

There are those that pray and believe that there is a higher intelligence which they are somehow connected to which hears them and cares.

Some people will pray, but they think they are just tapping into some higher power of their own which is mysterious and not obvious, but they have seen enough to know there is lots of things going on "behind the veil" which we still do not have any scientific understanding or consensus about.

Doesn't really matter, as long as one is doing some praying of some kind.
Better than no prayer at all.

This is where I am more of deist because I dont believe my god is doing any intervening between humans, while people can pray & pray & Pray & pray & it does not change squat. That is why so many people cant figure out why they never get an answer because they are asking for something to change/intervene that isn't going to intervene. There can be a one on one relationship with the god I know but as far as coming between men & their affairs....not. for example -you decide to kill me & I pray for god to stop you, it isn't going to happen & the god will go ahead & let you cause the suffering. I could actually qualify as an atheist in this department

That does not mean I have no prayers, I just have different kinds prayers other than expecting a miraculous intervention between beings, and some very SICK-O beings there are.

 

[shawn]

Real prayer is more like practical magic.
Typical prayer sounds like a formal request to Santa Claus.