Active Users:499 Time:05/03/2026 08:54:25 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
I think he's saying that most arguments used on behalf of Atheism actually come from the Bible. Dan Send a noteboard - 10/03/2012 06:58:50 PM
The arguments are used in the Bible against gods, rather than God. That is, everyone having their own little polytheistic pantheon that looks just like them and have arms and legs and shit. I guess this approach decrying gods that can be represented and have determinate form is called Iconoclasm. So: most atheist arguments are iconoclastic arguments lifted from the bible and adapted.
This message last edited by Dan on 10/03/2012 at 07:00:51 PM
Reply to message
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West? Joel - 10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM 1532 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM* Urza - 10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM 463 Views
I would chide you on that basis for having a love/hate relationship with God, but who does not? Joel - 10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM 741 Views
If the divine made men... Urza - 10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM 733 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine. Joel - 10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM 755 Views
I was actually just saying in Skype this is the first post you've made in a long time I've enjoyed. Urza - 10/03/2012 07:02:56 AM 778 Views
Thanks? It is all Dans fault, really. Joel - 10/03/2012 07:21:19 AM 1032 Views
But you do comparable things all the time! jh - 10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM 969 Views
You've made this analogy before and it's still a bad one, those aren't comparable Isaac - 10/03/2012 03:43:08 PM 865 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have. Joel - 11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM 813 Views
... and apparently it was a waste of time Isaac - 11/03/2012 03:27:04 AM 753 Views
Perhaps he just missed it in all my spam? Joel - 11/03/2012 04:59:31 AM 809 Views
Basically what Isaac said. *NM* Urza - 10/03/2012 07:22:07 PM 399 Views
who? *NM* jh - 11/03/2012 12:00:13 AM 383 Views
Me Caasi - 11/03/2012 03:31:51 AM 805 Views
You're right and wrong. Dan - 10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM 1213 Views
Re: You're right and wrong. Joel - 11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM 1104 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged Dan - 11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM 1093 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world. Tom - 11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM 905 Views
Yeah, that's very true. Dan - 11/03/2012 03:27:09 PM 1001 Views
My Buddhist readings are definitely Tibet-focused. Tom - 11/03/2012 04:00:17 PM 1043 Views
Duplicate post *NM* Dan - 11/03/2012 03:28:58 PM 480 Views
I guess it is that old impersonalism that seems the great disappointment in most Eastern religions. Joel - 11/03/2012 04:48:54 AM 987 Views
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? *NM* nossy - 10/03/2012 06:29:35 PM 372 Views
I think he's saying that most arguments used on behalf of Atheism actually come from the Bible. Dan - 10/03/2012 06:58:50 PM 875 Views
Pretty much, though I fudged iconoclasms precise definition. Joel - 11/03/2012 12:43:29 AM 788 Views
Basically what Dan said; atheism as iconoclasm sans icons (unless we count religion as symbolism.) Joel - 11/03/2012 12:46:52 AM 866 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"? Tom - 10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM 923 Views
That Byzantiums iconoclasm was one of the many wedges between it and Rome that led to the Schism. Joel - 11/03/2012 12:27:05 AM 848 Views
Bull. Shit. Tom - 11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM 948 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship. Joel - 11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM 956 Views
Bull. Shit. Tom - 11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM 822 Views
It is not like I just pulled it out of my rear, any more than my HS history text or Wikipedia did. Joel - 11/03/2012 04:57:31 AM 887 Views
Bull. Shit. Tom - 11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM 952 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal. Joel - 11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM 1021 Views
Mierda.del.Toro Larry - 11/03/2012 12:36:59 PM 919 Views
1969 may be "sometime back" in Roman Catholic history,but is ~a millenium after the time in question Joel - 12/03/2012 05:47:11 PM 1258 Views
You really must get steamed by anyone calling you out on your hyberbolic comments Larry - 12/03/2012 06:55:06 PM 1028 Views
On the contrary, I am not the one screaming "bullshit" in as many languages as possible. Joel - 13/03/2012 12:07:54 AM 1095 Views
No, you're just the one spewing the bullshit. *NM* Tom - 13/03/2012 12:37:15 AM 349 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου. Tom - 11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM 1002 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next? Joel - 12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM 896 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp. Tom - 12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM 815 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself. Joel - 13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM 959 Views
I'm not telling you to; God is. Tom - 13/03/2012 12:35:45 AM 713 Views
Or can only you use that sort of specious logic? *NM* Tom - 13/03/2012 03:50:20 PM 356 Views
And re: particular bullshit Tom - 11/03/2012 02:33:15 PM 917 Views
Re: And re: particular bullshit Joel - 13/03/2012 12:07:42 AM 828 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong. everynametaken - 12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM 1106 Views
I will do the former at least; pretty sure this "discussion" has reached rock bottom. Joel - 13/03/2012 12:12:46 AM 781 Views
More or less your last line Cannoli - 11/03/2012 01:37:42 AM 833 Views
That is a broader argument, but more consistent with iconoclasms established meaning. Joel - 11/03/2012 05:12:12 AM 986 Views
Would you include the iconoclasm that Joel cites in the canonical Judeo-Christian tradition as well? Dan - 11/03/2012 12:44:49 PM 822 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes