Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
117. In hopes of satisfying your curiosity,
Sun Sep 3, 2017, 08:07 PM
Sep 2017
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Dealing with your response:
1) So the definition of belief is consistent with the position that an atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity. The atheist has no evidence, and no proof. But the atheist believes that there is no deity.
2) Is there an official atheist position? Is there an official atheist source?

Ignore the awful crap! Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #1
You have an interesting viewpoint. eom guillaumeb Aug 2017 #2
Take a look at where Christianity was at before Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #4
Where was Christianity in 30CE? guillaumeb Aug 2017 #8
If you are claiming no one else teached peace edhopper Aug 2017 #14
Not what I claimed. Not what I said either. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #15
Then I have no idea what you were saying edhopper Aug 2017 #16
I said that I found the opinion interesting. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #49
I mean about where Christianity was 30 CE? edhopper Aug 2017 #62
I explained to another poster in #53 guillaumeb Aug 2017 #64
Nowhere. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2017 #20
It existed in the message of Jesus. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #53
Composition fallacy. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2017 #54
The message of Jesus is the message of Christianity. eom guillaumeb Aug 2017 #55
Well the point is that for the next 1600 years Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #65
Violence has occurred in all of recorded history. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #67
I blame humans. Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #78
The evidence for the message of Jesus? guillaumeb Aug 2017 #80
Well there is ample disagreement on even what those alleged words might be. Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #83
Well, as you know, the post represents one person's opinion. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #87
So we are down to "that's just your opinion,man"? Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #90
Again, a composition fallacy. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2017 #92
Nowhere and all over the planet. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #37
Talking about an actual year with Christianity is not very useful muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #100
I am accepting the narrative of 30CE as the beginning of the public ministry. eom guillaumeb Sep 2017 #102
That isn't so, for centuries Christianity was largely persecuted and hidden away, and very braddy Sep 2017 #127
Not historically accurate. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #134
You seem to be mostly in agreement with what I posted, people ignore the first centuries of braddy Sep 2017 #137
Er no I think we disagree. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #138
I'm not aware of any Christian wars or Christian nations from the early centuries that you keep braddy Sep 2017 #142
You're looking for the wrong things in the wrong places. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2017 #143
There weren't Christian nations until Rome. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #144
You seem to have your very own history. braddy Sep 2017 #145
That's what it pretty much boils down to Bradical79 Sep 2017 #108
Command it? Committed it. MineralMan Aug 2017 #3
I find your quote interesting Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #5
It's a very well-known verse. MineralMan Aug 2017 #22
The god of the bible created satan, and allows it to continue to exist. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #36
Well, it's all mythology, as far as I'm concerned, MineralMan Aug 2017 #39
Agreed AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #40
Choice zipplewrath Aug 2017 #41
That we have the ability to chose is not in question. MineralMan Aug 2017 #42
Well, now you're talking in circles zipplewrath Aug 2017 #45
It is one verse I missed ........... plan to use it often Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #47
There are apologetics for that verse, of course. MineralMan Aug 2017 #48
+1 HubbleSN Aug 2017 #6
If one is a Biblical literalist, one will insist on a literal interpretation. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #7
I'm not such a literalist, but MineralMan Aug 2017 #23
I do not read it literally. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #51
OK. Whatever you say. MineralMan Aug 2017 #52
There's a middle ground between 'this is true word for word' and 'hey the first half of this entire AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #57
A Biblical literalist generally accepts that each word of the Bible is the inspired guillaumeb Aug 2017 #59
I get allegory. What I don't get is classifying everything one doesn't like AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #68
You provided a quotation: guillaumeb Aug 2017 #71
It is an interesting choice of idea, if that's the case. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #75
To figuratively separate the Christian from the non-Christian. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #79
So he came to divide, not unify. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #82
No, He came with a message that not all would accept. eom guillaumeb Aug 2017 #86
Not required. AtheistCrusader Sep 2017 #93
I don't accept that humans are deeply flawed creatures who must beg for forgiveness from a god, trotsky Sep 2017 #94
Yep. Marketing 101 Pope George Ringo II Sep 2017 #95
So true! trotsky Sep 2017 #96
Nor do I. eom guillaumeb Sep 2017 #97
Without the notion of sin and forgiveness, Christianity has no foundation. trotsky Sep 2017 #135
Your question PJMcK Sep 2017 #105
Like most deities, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one is MineralMan Sep 2017 #107
Millions of Christians are. trotsky Aug 2017 #25
It would be difficult to be a literalist. raven mad Aug 2017 #28
Actually, it's pretty easy. trotsky Aug 2017 #30
LOL!................ I used to argue this stuff with a Jesuit........... raven mad Aug 2017 #31
No you don't Lordquinton Aug 2017 #32
Now, just how many giggles do I have to post? raven mad Aug 2017 #34
Wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle Lordquinton Aug 2017 #43
Feeble deflection. There are whole books in the bible that are nothing but bloodshed on behalf of or AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #38
True, but remember it was NOT worldwide - raven mad Aug 2017 #46
Actually that isn't quite what it means. Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #69
So nothing in the Bible is literally true edhopper Aug 2017 #9
See #7 for my view. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #10
The author is a edhopper Aug 2017 #11
I disagree with your reading. eom guillaumeb Aug 2017 #12
I have no doubt of that edhopper Aug 2017 #13
You are shying away from the main point of the article you posted muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #109
I would say that you missed the point entirely. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #110
You said in #12 that you disagree that Zahnd is a New Testament literalist muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #111
The New Testament contains far more than the Gospels. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #112
I think he's pointing out the arbitrary nature Bradical79 Sep 2017 #121
Belief is the reason. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #124
Well done, you justified every version of Christianity equally. trotsky Sep 2017 #136
In fairness to guillaumeb marylandblue Sep 2017 #139
I of course am not disputing that in any way. trotsky Sep 2017 #140
Yes Martin Luther opened a big can of worms marylandblue Sep 2017 #141
you make nothing clear in your posts Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #17
What clarity do you expect in this group? guillaumeb Aug 2017 #50
Plenty of clarity is to be found in reason, fact-based historical research and an open mind Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #56
"Original intent" is a subject that inspires guillaumeb Aug 2017 #58
Some would be wrong Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #60
And, as I have stated before this, faith demands no proof. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #61
You are certainly entitled to that belief Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #63
I mentioned in the original post that I found this to be an interesting opinion. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #66
Except that it's not up to non-believers to prove anything Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #72
It is not incumbent on anyone to prove any beliefs. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #73
Never said it was - as long as they admit it is just belief and not fact based Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #85
I do spend time here, and interestingly enough, many non-theists devote far more time here. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #89
As you have stated incorrectly in prior conversations Lordquinton Sep 2017 #113
And, as I have pointed out repeatedly, guillaumeb Sep 2017 #114
But I have no belief edhopper Sep 2017 #115
Just out of curiosity, I have to ask: Pope George Ringo II Sep 2017 #116
In hopes of satisfying your curiosity, guillaumeb Sep 2017 #117
You keep using that word. Wikipedia does not think it means what you think it means. Pope George Ringo II Sep 2017 #118
But the definition that you cite as evidence guillaumeb Sep 2017 #119
Technically, that's the definition you cited when you went to Wikipedia. I just used the right word Pope George Ringo II Sep 2017 #120
No one believes as anyone else Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #70
And what's true about Jesus Igel Aug 2017 #19
Except he kinda did. beam me up scottie Aug 2017 #18
Inconvenient, that, isn't it? MineralMan Aug 2017 #24
I suggest a rereading of the entire article. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #76
(Sarcasm On) Sure he didn't...(Sarcasm Off) NeoGreen Aug 2017 #21
No, see, it's simple. trotsky Aug 2017 #26
Nuts... NeoGreen Aug 2017 #29
I'm kind of weird. raven mad Aug 2017 #44
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm - raven mad Aug 2017 #27
Only 2/3 crazy? ;-) trotsky Aug 2017 #33
Well, you have to make allowances. raven mad Aug 2017 #35
Book of Revelations anybody?... uriel1972 Aug 2017 #74
And? guillaumeb Aug 2017 #77
rivers of fire, extermination of mankind... uriel1972 Sep 2017 #98
The use of allegory is an important part of the article. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #99
So what's your position on Jesus himself? marylandblue Sep 2017 #101
It is allegory, and truth at the same time. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #103
fair enough. marylandblue Sep 2017 #104
No he COMMITTED genocide tymorial Aug 2017 #81
If it is believed is the key. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #106
What is it an allegory for? Lordquinton Sep 2017 #122
The meaning is "God's Gonna Getcha for That" MineralMan Sep 2017 #123
This might help: guillaumeb Sep 2017 #126
My interpretation? guillaumeb Sep 2017 #125
That took a lot of words to say not much of anything Lordquinton Sep 2017 #128
If you read the entire article, guillaumeb Sep 2017 #129
I did read the entire article Lordquinton Sep 2017 #130
It is one interpretation. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #131
What would this group be like Lordquinton Sep 2017 #132
A different group. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #133
Symbolic cleansing Lordquinton Sep 2017 #146
It does make allegorical sense. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #147
It's a good allegory Lordquinton Sep 2017 #148
Looks like you found a better forum for this post bobbieinok Aug 2017 #84
Hello. The Religion Group is a very busy place. Many of the responders are non-theists, guillaumeb Aug 2017 #88
Thanks for the reply bobbieinok Sep 2017 #91
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Brian Zahnd: No, God didn...»Reply #117