Religion
Related: About this forumGeocentrism? Really? Galileo not yet forgiven by *all* Catholics.
May I introduce Robert Sungenis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis
I'd like to say that 99% or more of Catholics would consider this guy nuts, but over the years I've discovered that it's very difficult to come up with an idea so crazy, odious, or both that you can't find at least 5-10% support for it. Lacking real statistics, I'll still give at least 90% of Catholics credit that they'd probably disavow Sungenis' craziness if and when they ever might hear about it.
More disturbing than geocentrism is Sungenis' antisemitism, but with antisemitism being, sadly, a fairly common vice, geocentrism stands out as a more jaw-dropping eccentricity. These two extreme views are perhaps not unrelated, however, as both rely on a very conspiratorial world view.
Oddly enough, I find one thing to like about this bizarre man: "Sungenis is known for his apologetic works critiquing the Protestant doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura." Not that I believe in religious salvation at all, but I've always particularly disliked the idea, now common among many Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, that "faith, not deeds" is what's important.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)do you really have the faith??
rug
(82,333 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If not, then I see no problem with the compatibility. Do you?
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Therefore, it would be a surprising thing for an Atheist to believe.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)feed upon a corpse.
One could say that many of us come back many times over as blow-flies, worms, and as many forms of bacteria, which feed entirely upon no-longer-alive organic matter, including human bodies.
Those life forms are in turn eaten by other insects, by birds, and later those birds and insects are consumed by other mammals, consumed by larger birds and by larger mammals, eventually eaten by humans.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That is not the same as transfer of organic matter.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)to "re in carnate", I see nothing in the root or derivation of that word that requires "soul", "spirit" or other requirement.
"incarnate [adj. in-kahr-nit, -neyt; v. in-kahr-neyt]  
in·car·nate   [adj. in-kahr-nit, -neyt; v. in-kahr-neyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
adjective
1.
embodied in flesh; given a bodily, especially a human, form: a devil incarnate.
2.
personified or typified, as a quality or idea: chivalry incarnate.
3.
flesh-colored or crimson.
verb (used with object)
4.
to put into or represent in a concrete form, as an idea: ..........."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incarnate
No reference to requirements of spirits or soul in that word.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)does not include a reference to the soul or spirit of something.
Simply breaking down the word into it's parts and defining those parts does not equal defining the whole word. It only gives some sense of how it was derived.
edited for typo and clarity
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)"re·in·car·nate   [v. ree-in-kahr-neyt; adj. ree-in-kahr-nit, -neyt] Show IPA verb, -nat·ed, -nat·ing, adjective
verb (used with object)
1.
to give another body to; incarnate again.
adjective
2.
incarnate anew."
SOURCE:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reincarnate
Not a single mention of spirit or soul.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)reincarnation
noun
1.
the belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2.
rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3.
a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reincarnation
I think, though I could be wrong, the the person originally using the term in this thread was referring to reincarnation in this sense.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But all of that is irrelevant to what started this...
One can be an atheist (lacks belief in a deity) and still believe in reincarnation.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I'm inclined to say that the definition is contextual, but that a deity is not a requirement for reincarnation. No deity, no belief in a deity, ergo one can be an atheist and still believe in reincarnation.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you think a soul or spirit is involved in reincarnation.
And, if you do, I am interested in what you think that might be. I understand that you are saying no deity is required for a belief in reincarnation.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I was merely responding to the assumption that one can not be an atheist and still believe in reincarnation.
On second thought, we ARE reincarnated, in some sense, as we are comprised of molecules that originated here on earth, and as we die we decompose and become part of the earth again, so its plausible that our molecules are reused to create something else. That would be the only form of reincarnation that I would say is real.
But Spirit? Soul? Nah. No proof for any such thing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)of someone who describes themselves as atheist and believes in reincarnation (using the definition as it applies to souls or spirits).
tama
(9,137 posts)Silent3
(15,909 posts)...could be considered a type of "reincarnation", I think you know that's hardly what mostly people think of when they think of reincarnation.
One could be an atheist without fully applying one's skepticism about deities to all things "spiritual", and thus believe in reincarnation of a spiritual or mental "self". I wouldn't think there are many atheists out there who think like that, but on a planet with around seven billion people, I can feel fairly confident that there are a few.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The song tells of a lover courting the object of his affections, Mary Jane, on Ilkley Moor without a hat (baht 'at). The singer chides the lover for his lack of headwear – for in the cold winds of Ilkley Moor this will mean his death from exposure. This will in turn result in his burial, the eating of his corpse by worms, the eating of the worms by ducks and finally the eating of the ducks by the singers.
1. Wheear 'as tha been since ah saw thee, I saw thee,
On Ilkla Moor baht 'at?
|: Wheear 'as tha bin since ah saw thee? :|
On Ilkla Moor baht hat, baht 'at,
|: On Ilkla Moor baht 'at? :|
2. I were a coortin' Mary Jane, Mary Jane,
On Ilkla Moor baht 'at.
|: I were a coortin' Mary Jane, :|
On Ilkla Moor baht hat, baht 'at,
|: On Ilkla Moor baht 'at. :|
3. Tha's bahn to get thi death o' cold . . .
4. Then we shall ha' to bury thee, bury thee . . .
5. Then t' worms 'll come an' ate thee up, ate thee up . . .
6. Then t' ducks 'll come an' ate up t' worms, ate up t' worms . . .
7. Then we shall come an' ate them ducks, ate them ducks...
8. Then we shall all 'av etten thee, etten thee . . .
9. That's how we get our oahn back, our oahn back . . .
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity.
An atheist can believe in ghosts, bigfoot, the chupacabra...but not a deity, and still be an atheist.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)It's possible to be an atheist and still believe in any other irrational nonsense.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)There are some atheists out there who believe in a "spirit world" of sorts which does not necessarily contain a primary (all-)powerful Spirit.
rug
(82,333 posts)Given the narrow definition of atheism, i.e., a simple lack of belief in god(s) (which necessarily is independent of a reference to science), reincarnation is not incompatible with atheism, provided the belief in reincarnation is not predicated on a belief in god(s).
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't see any reason to believe in a deity. A creating force contradicts the concept of infinity. I consider infinity to be fact. So it could be said I believe in infinity. I do so because it seems so obvious. Infinity allows for an infinite number of possibilities, including dimensions of existence beyond the present context.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Atheism, per se, has nothing to do with proof or lack of proof.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)What am I missing?
rug
(82,333 posts)And from that tumbles the burden of proof along with many other of the rhetorical devices.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...a response to a lack of evidence for deities. Saying "no essential relevance" for proof is going too far. There's a strong correlation between atheism and a general desire for proof of ideas before belief in ideas.
In all matters involving the concept of "proof", whether the subject is gods, criminal convictions, or the floor wax with the best shine, it is useful to keep in mind the "preponderance of evidence" sense of the word proof, and not get sidetracked by the mathematical sense of absolute proof -- which, when brought up in nearly any other context than mathematics, is generally a straw man.
rug
(82,333 posts)Take Epicurus' famous quote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Not a suggestion of proof or evidence there. It is a rejection of the concept of god.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Or just a logical conclusion based upon any available evidence?
Which begs the question: where are the logical arguments for unquestioned proof and acceptance of a god?
rug
(82,333 posts)Silent3
(15,909 posts)...not all god concepts. The Epicurean argument is a (not completely bulletproof) argument against a benevolent God.
Most atheists I know only consider the Epicurean argument an interesting additional argument on top of the fact that there simply isn't any good evidence for the existence of God of any sort, benevolent or not.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is ever "proven" to a 100% certainty in the way that it is in mathematics. You do get that, don't you? And that the use of the word "proof" or "proven" by scientists is more a matter of convenience and not intended to convey certainty as a goal or an achievement in any way. In the same way, "burden of proof" does not mean "burden to demonstrate something to an absolute certainty". You get that too, right?
rug
(82,333 posts)Let me slice it thinner.
Science and rational inquiry are separate, though often overlapping, things.
Epicurus' conclusion is the result of rational inquiry, not science. It's a perfectly apt response to the idea of god.
Science is by its nature concerned with physics, the matter and energy of things. But its method and proofs do not - and cannot - promote or demote the notion of god. If you try to conflate science and atheism, you're changing the definition and nature of atheism.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)if you've morphed your concept of "god" into something that you hope will render it immune to rational examination and inquiry, as some "liberal" and "progressive" religionists and apologists have tried desperately to do, in an attempt to cling to some semblance of "faith" but not appear irrational. The problem being that such versions of "god" bear little or no resemblance to what most religious people worship. But any "god" that is claimed to influence, and be influenced by, events in the physical world, the "matter and energy of things", IS amenable to scientific and rational inquiry, and most people's god concept falls under that umbrella.
In fact, it is people who try to justify the things they have "faith" in by trumpeting empirical evidence for "god" who are perverting the definition and nature of "faith"
rug
(82,333 posts)I have no idea what old arguments, not in this thread, you're addressing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Rational inquiry demands evidence before accepting the objective existence of something, and bases the strength of convictions about that existence on the strength of that evidence. Atheism is simply one facet of rational, skeptical inquiry that is focused on the objective, physical existence (i.e. existence independent of the minds of believers) of gods.
rug
(82,333 posts)As to your new post, what evidence was Epicurus demanding?
And this: "Atheism is simply one facet of rational, skeptical inquiry that is focused on the objective, physical existence (i.e. existence independent of the minds of believers) of gods." Do you recall the subthread concerned the compatability of reincarnation with atheism?
You are fusing science to atheism. You are making it something else.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)"We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves." - Galileo Galilei