<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress.com" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ahteism &amp;laquo; WordPress.com Tag Feed</title>
	<link>http://wordpress.com/tag/ahteism/</link>
	<description>Feed of posts on WordPress.com tagged "ahteism"</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:17:29 +0000</pubDate>

	<generator>http://wordpress.com/tags/</generator>
	<language>en</language>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Epicurean, Epidurean...paradoxes everywhere!]]></title>
<link>http://xanthippaschamberpot.wordpress.com/?p=18</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>xanthippa</dc:creator>
<guid>http://xanthippaschamberpot.wordpress.com/?p=18</guid>
<description><![CDATA[
As far as Greek philosophers go, Epicurus was pretty O.K.  
Contrary to the customs of his era, he]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';"></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';"></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';"></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal">As far as Greek philosophers go, <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus" title="Epicurus">Epicurus</a> was pretty O.K.<span>  </span></p>
<p>Contrary to the customs of his era, he allowed women as students in his school.<span>  </span>Though there is absolutely no historical fact to justify this, I would love to think that the legendary <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthippe" title="Xanthippe">Xanthippe</a> (of whom he most certainly knew) and her famous debates versus <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates" title="Socrates">Socrates</a>, may have influenced him in this.<span>  </span>After all, his philosophy was not really all that far removed from hers (at least, the few little bits of her philosophy that have survived).</p>
<p>But, unlike Socrates, who was busy gazing at the navel of his immortal soul, Epicurus saw humans as having physical, intellectual, spiritual and social needs:<span>  </span>the ideal, then, was to strike a harmonious balance in one’s life.<span>  </span>Frankly, this seems almost too reasonable an opinion to be held by a ‘philosopher’!<span>  </span></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal">After all, where is the brooding, the derisive scowl at the cares of the world – isn’t that the image the word ‘philosopher’ is supposed to evoke?<span>  </span>I bet his ‘reasonableness’ cost him a lot of ‘pretentiousness points’ among the lofty circles…</p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal">&#160;</p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal">He would likely have been written off and forgotten, had he not also voiced some very provocative ideas.<span>  </span>Most (though certainly not all) of his contemporaries aspired to the creed of monotheism, describing God in a way modern day Christians would recognize:<span>  </span>omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards mankind, his creation. In the still predominantly polytheistic environment, this idea – coupled with the notion Socrates had taught of the immortality of one’s soul – seemed very deep and mystical.<span>  </span>Yet, Epicurus directed some very pointed questions at this creed…and none of them have been satisfactorily answered as yet!</p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal">&#160;</p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span>            </span><em>Is God willing to prevent evil, and not able?</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span>                        </span>Then he is not omnipotent.</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span>            </span>Is He able, but not willing?</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span>                        </span>Then he is malevolent.</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span>            </span>Is God both able and willing?</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span>                        </span>Then whence cometh evil?</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span>            </span>Is He neither able, nor willing?</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span>                        </span>Then why call him God?</em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span>                                                </span><em>-<span>     </span>Epicurus, 341-271 BCE</em></p>
<p><em></em></p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal">This is perhaps the most famous group of his questions and has been handed down to us under the name the ‘Epicurean riddle’, or the ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox#Epicurus" title="Epicurean paradox">Epicurean paradox’</a>.<span>  </span>It has been much paraphrased over the millennia, but the above is one of my favourite renditions.</p>
<p>People say that pain can, at times, bring ‘things’ into a sharp focus.<span>  </span>This was true for me, as I deeply questioned every single one of my life’s decisions, whiling away the endless hours of late-stage labour.<span>  </span>Truly, I came to question everything!</p>
<p style="margin:0;" class="MsoNormal">And then, it occurred to me:<span>  </span>in order to make people (especially female people) truly comprehend the meaning of the Epicurean paradox, perhaps I could re-phrase it into terms that had more immediate impact on our lives.<span>  </span>It’s almost as if the words came to me of their own volition:</p>
<p><em>Is God is truly omniscient?  Then He must know the pain of childbirth!  </em></p>
<p><em>And if He is also omnipotent, and he did not invent ‘the epidural’ <strong>waaaay</strong> before inventing this whole childbirth thing, then he is most certainly <strong>not</strong> benevolent!</em></p>
<p>I like to think of this as the Epidurean paradox!</p>
<p>I would go on, but I don’t want to belabour the point….</p>
<p></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[I'm Reading The Golden Compass]]></title>
<link>http://billychia.com/2007/12/14/im-reading-the-golden-compass/</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Billy Chia</dc:creator>
<guid>http://billychia.com/2007/12/14/im-reading-the-golden-compass/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Given the amount of discussion that was generated by my last Golden Compass post I decided to read P]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:gSmOlAfUs8m6oM:http://www.judyoz.com/media/ccp0/prodsm/golden-compass.jpg" style="float:left;" height="124" width="76" />Given the amount of discussion that was generated by <a href="http://billychia.com/2007/11/07/the-golden-compass-humility-and-killing-god/">my last Golden Compass post</a> I decided to read Philip Pullman's book. I picked it up from the library earlier this week and I'm about 75% of way through it.</p>
<p style="clear:both;">My first impressions:</p>
<p><strong>This is not even close to being a Children's book.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>At 350 pages of small print it's way longer than any of the Chronicles of Narnia.</li>
<li>The main character in the book is 11, but I'd say the target audience is far closer to 13 -17.</li>
<li>In fact, the library sticker on the side says, "Young adult."</li>
</ul>
<p>I'll write a full review when I'm done.</p>
<p>I doubt I'll see the movie as everyone seems to agree how <a href="http://www.chrisfromcanada.com/?p=232">artistically terrible</a>  it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Golden Compass: Humility and Killing God]]></title>
<link>http://billychia.com/2007/11/07/the-golden-compass-humility-and-killing-god/</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Billy Chia</dc:creator>
<guid>http://billychia.com/2007/11/07/the-golden-compass-humility-and-killing-god/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[A startling amount of buzz and controversy has surrounded the upcoming release of New Line Cinema]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YFU0gg1SDh5WmM:http://www.greekgeek.de/golden-compass-poster-425.jpg" style="float:left;" height="137" width="93" />A startling amount of buzz and controversy has surrounded the upcoming release of New Line Cinema's <em>The Golden Compass</em> starring Nicole Kidman. <a href="http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&#38;sourceid=navclient&#38;ie=UTF-8&#38;q=The+Golden+Compass&#38;btnG=Search+Blogs">Blog posts galore</a> and <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp">email chain letters</a> have succeeded in spreading the word along with a <a href="http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/">very slick flash website</a> and <a href="http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/blog/us/">movie blog</a>.</p>
<p><em>The Golden Compass</em> is the first is book in a trilogy written by author Phillip Pullman. These books were <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341">inspired by <em>The Chronicles of Narina</em></a>, which Pullman hates because their Christian allegory. In his Children's fantasy trilogy Pullman is seeking to promote atheism and attack organized religion.</p>
<p>Naturally many Christians are upset by this.</p>
<p>I am too, but I'm also asking:</p>
<blockquote><p> How can we as followers of Jesus have a humble attitude about this? (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:%205%20-%208;&#38;version=31;">Phil 2:5 -8</a>)</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>How can we exploit this movie and use it for good? (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12:21">Rom 12:21</a>)</p></blockquote>
<h4>The Controlling, Domineering, Murdering Church</h4>
<p>Pullman very overtly rejects religion because it has "<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/1785121.stm">involved persecution, massacre, slaughter on an industrial scale</a>." New Line Cinema has sought to water down the overtly anti-Christian themes in the novels. They don't want to make a movie that offends but instead are seeking to spread a general "<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/14/npullman114.xml">critique of all dogmatic organizations</a>."</p>
<p>Can't we be humble and learn from this? Can't we just admit, "Yes, it's true, the Church has a record of being domineering, controlling and overly dogmatic. Many have murdered in Jesus' name. We as Christians are sorry for our own actions, that actions of of Christian brothers and the lack of action we have taken to correct it."</p>
<p>Admitting that we as people are broken doesn't say that God is broken. On the contrary it affirms our need for God. God is perfect. We are not.</p>
<h4>Boycott Religious Dialogue</h4>
<p>The Catholic League has called for an <a href="http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&#38;month=October&#38;read=2306">official boycott of the movie</a>.</p>
<p>Let me see if I understand this: There is a heavily promoted, high-budget major motion picture being released in December. It contains many references to religion and will most likely spark conversation and national debate on the topics of God, religion and the Church. People who seldom think about God and talk about him even less will now be engaged in a full fledged conversation.</p>
<p>And this is a bad thing?</p>
<p>Anyone who knows me knows I talk about Jesus all the time. I've experienced many people actually leave the room simply because I mention his name. These people hate to talk about religion and it has been very difficult to engage them in spiritual conversation. But when I have talked to them about <em>The DaVinci Code</em> we've been able to have a very engaging conversation about God and faith. This doesn't make <em>The DaVinci Code</em> good. It means its a horribly researched, flagrant lie that I exploited to get to know some of my friends better.</p>
<p>Can't we do the same thing with <em>The Golden Compass</em>?</p>
<h4>Killing God</h4>
<p>In the novels the characters finally find God and then they kill him.</p>
<p>The problem is they were just a bit late with this one.</p>
<p>Others have already killed God.</p>
<p><a href="/?p=456/#respond" title="Leave a comment. ">He rose from the dead</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[God: Leap of Faith?]]></title>
<link>http://mustafaumar.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/god-leap-of-faith/</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:35:03 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>mustafaumar</dc:creator>
<guid>http://mustafaumar.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/god-leap-of-faith/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Down With Superstitions and Myths

Many people think that believing in God requires a “leap of fai]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">Down With Superstitions and Myths</span></em></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">Many people think that believing in God requires a “leap of faith”. This would mean that belief in God is blind and is no different than belief in any other superstition or myth. For example, to believe that breaking a mirror will cause seven years of bad luck requires a leap of faith since there is no good reason to believe in it. This is why many people have abandoned the religion of their parents and ancestors. This is actually a very good thing because people are finally beginning to think clearly and abandon ungrounded beliefs and superstitions.</span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">A Grave Mistake</span></em></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">However, there is a huge mistake here. Just because it requires a leap of faith to believe in a particular religious system does not mean that the same is true for belief in God. If God exists and wants us to believe in Him then we should be pre-programmed with a desire to believe. This means that we must be able to confidently believe in God and have good reasons for doing so. Furthermore, if God wanted everyone to believe then it must make sense to everyone regardless of where they live, when they live, or their level of education. Believing in God should come natural to a nomad in the desert, a scientist in the laboratory, and an average citizen in a city. There must be something embedded in the nature of every human being that would allow them to confidently arrive at this conclusion without any doubt or hesitation.<span>  </span></span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">Check Your Facts</span></em></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">It's true that people don’t always agree with one another.<span>  </span>However, there are a number of agreed upon facts that will not be rejected by any sane individual.</span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"><em>The First Fact: Seeing Is Not Believing</em></span><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">Someone might ask: “if God exists then why can’t we see Him?” The answer is that we don’t need to because we believe in many things that we can’t directly perceive such as gravity, magnetism, infrared rays, etc. <span> </span>For example, you cannot see the waves emitted by a cell phone, but they are there.<span>  </span>You can only see the signs and effects that indicate their existence.<span>  </span>Likewise, it is the signs and effects in the world that indicate God’s existence. </span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"><em>The Second Fact: Something Does Not Come Out of Nothing</em></span><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">If a bucket of water were to fall on your head you would probably look up to find out where it came from.<span>  </span>That is because you know that it didn’t come out of nowhere because something can’t come out of nothing.<span>  </span>Likewise, when you look at the world around you it is natural to wonder where it came from. </span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"><em>The Third Fact: Examining Something Reveals Something about Its Designer</em></span><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">When you look at a calculator you see that it has buttons, a screen, a case, etc.<span>  </span>If you think about how this calculator must have been designed you know, for certain, that its designer must have had knowledge of mathematics because it can perform calculations.<span>  </span>You also know that he must have had knowledge of plastics engineering in order to make the case.<span>  </span>Therefore, you know something about the designer without ever having met him or even seen him.<span>  </span></span><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"> </span><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">Now look at yourself and the world around you. Your body has several complex systems designed to keep you alive such as the circulatory, immune, and digestive systems. The earth and other planets rotate around the sun in what is known as the solar system. Each system in the world has been set up so precisely that if there is even a minor error the entire system begins to breaks down. Whatever designed these systems must have known that each aspect of every system must be calculated precisely in order for it to work properly. This implies that the designer of the world must possess the qualities of both knowledge and wisdom.</span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"><em>The Fourth Principle: Believing in Coincidence Requires a Leap of Faith</em></span><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">Someone might claim that the car he drives wasn’t designed and built in any factory but rather was formed after an earthquake, tornado, and hurricane happened to sweep through a junkyard and assembled the entire vehicle by chance. Only someone mentally deficient would believe that story because the complexity of a motor vehicle cannot coincidentally form.</span><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">Likewise, neither you nor the universe could have been designed and brought into being by coincidence. Therefore, anyone who says that the blind forces of nature created the universe and all that is in it is required to take a huge leap of faith in order to believe this. It’s not much different than believing in any other superstition or myth. Rather, it’s much wiser to attribute your existence and the existence of the world to God.</span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"><em>Conclusion</em></span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';"></span></p>
<p style="line-height:150%;margin:0;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype';">So let us all think clearly, abandon superstitions, and only believe in those things that make sense. If that means throwing the various idols and gods of your ancestors and teachers in the trash bin of history then be it. Don’t forget to dump “mother nature” as well.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
