The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
I didn't read through all replies (got to page 2-ish) so this may have been answered.
But I'm just really curious what the proof of Jesus is? I have heard people say that there is historic evidence that Jesus lived, and I am really curious what it is.
Not doubting it, just curious as an agnostic-ish Pagan with Buddhist tendencies and a ridiculously open mind.0 -
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
― Penn Jillette,0 -
Please find post the scripture from the Tanach that says that.If everything Chis Angel has done was prophesied 1500 years ago, I'd believe it.....It's not that someone just came along and did a bunch of magic tricks. Jesus fulfilled prophesy from hundred of years prior
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not in the Tanach, but the book of Isaiah is full of prophesies and Isaiah is found in the dead sea scrolls which dates back a couple hundred years bc0 -
If God didn't covet Mary, then why did he choose here specifically? Of course he coveted her. And it's hilarious that he needed her at all. Why not just make a man like he did Adam. Or one out of thin air. Why did he have to make him a baby So yes, I guess I am a skeptic, but I think that is a good thing other than falling for the oldest con job in the world.
Next, I stand by that Jesus, if he was in fact God, did commit suicide because he could escape his predicament with a thought. All this talk about human soldiers and policeman is a non factor because they do not possess super powers.
Everything else you wrote was drivel you read somewhere else and as poetic as it sounds, doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But I am glad you realize I don't respect the faith. But at least I'm honest about it. And I don't want lectures from anyone about being disrepectful or not knowledgeable, especially when you, a catholic, posted a thread raging about how bystanders to pedophila should be punished, but defended the current Pope and the Church's cover up of child rape as a vendetta perpetrated by the secular press.
It just goes to show, whether it's the insane stuff in your bible or the criminal activity of the pedos in your church, you are an apologist who thinks that her fancy words smiles makes her respectful. It doesn't.
1.Your first paragraph is so contrary to Christian theology that anyone familiar with Christian belief would find it totally unconvincing. Of course God could do anything and everything he wants without human involvement but that is apparently not how God has chosen to operate. Apparently God invites humans to participate in producing the world he wants to produce. The cosmic story is a work in progress and God allows us to share in that work (which, I think, is much more beautiful than God doing everything himself and not allowing us to share in that work). Regarding coveting, this is pure nonsense. There is nothing in the biblical text that suggests in any way that coveting is the appropriate term for God’s choice of Mary. God works a miracle within Mary for God’s holy purposes, not some kind of perverse desire. God also chose to enter into human experience and desired to share that experience from beginning to end (including birth, growth, and eventual death). Your suggestions that God could accomplished his goals in other ways strike me as so intellectually and spiritually “boring” that it is hard to muster up a reply. I mean really. What is more “interesting”: (a) A full-grown man is created by God out of thin air or (b) God appears in the form of a baby, sharing in all the fragility and weakness of the human form in its most vulnerable condition. Why don’t you “create” a religion that matches (a) and see how that goes. If you count how many songs and poems have been written about (b) I think you will have to agree that it is a far more fascinating, intriguing and intellectually and spiritually stimulating story.
2.Your second paragraph is a non-answer. You don’t even take the time to think about my analogy. The soldier doesn’t have superhuman power but he does have the power to escape death but doesn’t. Why does the possession of superhuman power change the analysis? Why isn’t the soldier guilty of suicide? No, when one lays down his life with others in mind, we don’t call it suicide, we call it heroic self-sacrifice. The death of Jesus does not in any way correspond to an act of suicide. In fact, if Jesus had access to superhuman power and didn’t use it because he was doing something for the good of others, that is an even greater act of courage. Further, I would argue that the power of self-giving love is far superior to the power of brute force. A child that respects his parents out of love and respect is more pleasing to a parent than a child that obeys out of sheer fear of the parent’s power or threat of force. Your conception of God is almost exclusively one of “power as force.” The Christian conception sees Christ as the revelation of God’s greatest expression of power: Love.
3.Everything I wrote yesterday was written out of my own understanding of Christian faith and not borrowed from anyone else. It doesn’t answer my arguments to call them “drivel.” I will take that as an admission that you can’t answer them. I directly responded to your argument based on quantifying the value of the death of Jesus in terms of time and you did not bother to consider that reply.
4.Concerning pedophiles, etc., I began my reply by saying such acts are deplorable. I hold they are evil, in fact. As a skeptic or atheist (not sure how you want to be identified) I am curious how you ground or justify your moral outrage. In my experience, militant atheists like to act all “moral” when they can criticize religious people but otherwise argue that all morality is just opinion and feelings. I’m curious how you justify your moral outrage. In any case, I feel as strongly as anyone about the evils of pedophilia but at the same time I don’t think we should believe something just because someone in the media makes a claim. Did you read the link I sent? Do you have factual evidence to prove the article is wrong? Why should I jump to conclude someone is guilty without a fair hearing of the evidence? Why are you so quick to judge the pope? What facts do you have that are not addressed in the article I sent? Have you carefully studied the details?
5.Your last line is nothing but an ad hominem argument. I’m not interested in “fancy” words at all. I’m just speaking up on behalf of the beautiful Christian faith that brings great joy and happiness to me and many others.
Ok, I don't have a lot of time here, but I'll just go straight to your arrogance once again inquestioning how I can justify being moraly outraged at pedophilia. Because I have decided that it's wrong based on my own intelligence, life experiences and would never want to have it done to me or my children. it's called empathy. Now, you think I can have no moral foundation because I don't believe in your line of BS, how exactly do you know pedophilia is wrong since there in no laws in the bible against it? But, I really don't expect an answer that makes sense, I guess it's because you don't understand the beauties of atheism. Dogmatic sheep like most religious people are just a more sophisitcated cave man who fears the strike of lightning as the supernatural. I wake up in the morning, I exist, I know my own heart and mind, and I do good or I do evil, all without the weak minded reliance on ancient bronze age scripture.
Do I know how the universe started? No. Do I know what happens when I die? No. But I have the courage to except that there are just things out there we haven't figured out yet, and in doing so I have freed myself from the owner/slave mentality that I owe my existance to a fairytale simply because I fear the after life. So that is my moral foundation. Empathy, treating others as I wish to be treated, not being good for some cosmic space party with my dead relatives. And please don't embarass yourself by calling me ignorant just because you read a few books and can spout of nonsense about trancedence and the origins of logic when you can't even understand the simplicity of every human having there own unique moral foundation.0 -
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
― Penn Jillette,
I'm at work and can't complete my latest response, but can I just say: I
this so much. 0 -
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
― Penn Jillette, sooo true. Why do you think the fundamentals of calculus were created in much the same manner from opposite sides of the world without prior knowledge of either scientist. Some things are fact, and we'll be discovered regardless.
And simply out of time, does anyone know the longest lasting religion?(I'm too lazy to google it) and i'm not asking for the OLDEST (because lord knows oldest doesn't = most accurate)0 -
Hinduism.0
-
So back to the OPs original topic of Jesus' story being pretty unoriginal. I found these two sources which I think warrant a read. Both are based on just one aspect of Jesus' tale- the miraculous birth and immaculate conception issue. This is not at all uncommon for people to claim someone who was great and wonderful to be conceived/born in such a way.
http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_virgin_birth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births
For example, the Buddha was said to have walked right out of his mothers womb via her stomach so that he might not soil himself by passting through her birth canal. Interestingly, many Buddhists believe that Jesus was a bodhisattva- one on the path to enlightenment. They (not all) feel he will eventually be born as the next Buddha. So there's another fun tidbit.0 -
In the interest of saving space, I won't quote the whole back and forth
I have no idea if Jesus existed or not, but I agree it is quite possible. You are right that most historians say he existed, but that does not make him a divine man. It's the resurrection part I have serious doubt of. And since that is the (many Christians argue) most important aspect of Christianity (Easter was always seen as more important from a religious standpoint than Christmas), I find it suspiciously dubious that this is the only claim that cannot be supported. I've read much on religion, and I honestly think it's not worth my time to immerse myself in something I will never believe. I'm just not interested enough in religion to read any more books on it, so I'll take your word that it is a fascinating and worthwhile read.I know Jesus actually existed, was crucified and rose again using the standard criteria of historical investigation. If you ask how we know any event of the past really happened we would go through the normal ways that a valid memory of the past survives into the present. Very few serious historians that I know of find it credible to question the fact of Jesus and his death. Some argue that the resurrection is a “trans-historical” event since, if it happened, it could not be investigated using the normal criteria of historical research. On the other hand, I think the historical sources argue solidly for the conclusion that the “footprints” of the resurrection are deeply imprinted on history. Christianity is a historical effect of the claim of the resurrection. I recommend N. T. Wright’s book, “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” It is a very thorough discussion of the resurrection from a critical-historical perspective.
And therein lies the problem. It's not properly testable by modern scientific practices.It is largely of a different sort that the empirical/hard sciences since we are dealing with a world-view/framework choice. The better analogy for religious faith is interpersonal human experience since we are dealing with a kind of life-commitment, something science does not require of those who experiment. We may be able to draw general conclusions about the structures of human experience with respect to religious experience by cross-cultural and cross-historical analysis but we certainly can’t treat religious faith like we can the behavior of a molecule.
You're right. It's actually the lack of evidence which suggests to me that there is no god. There is really no evidence in either direction, but for something to exist, you would expect to see measurable traces. Of god, I see no such traces. All things attributed to god are easily explainable by science.I do disagree with your claim that the evidence supports the conclusion there is no God.
I'm fine with qualitative data, but you cannot draw conclusions as readily from such data as you can from quantitative data. Therefore, I prefer testable and measurable results.For instance, if you will only accept a “quantitative” solution to a problem, you will obviously dismiss qualitative features of reality (as in the current mind-body debate in respect to “qualia”). If one begins to explore the question of God with an openness to a positive answer, I think there are profound reasons to believe in God.
Absolutely. I, in now way, intend to suggest that my experience is universal.Regarding your autobiographical description of your experience, there are plenty of others who went a very different path.
Obvious? I think you are reaching here. I absolutely hate it when people assume they know my reasons for not believing in god. I hate it almost as much as TV's go-to story for why someone is an atheist. "Something bad must have happened to make them not believe." Well in my case, it was something good that happened, not something bad- I began thinking for myself.I’ve made it a habit to read after people on different sides of this question and I find it increasingly obvious that it is not the scientific “evidence” that ultimately directs a person to a conclusion on God but a more fundamental, more metaphysical (in the classical philosophical sense) set of considerations.Concerning the “testability” of religious claims and those of science, I do think religious claims are testable.
Not going to quote your whole argument here. Here's my problem with what you wrote. True science (i.e. following the scientific method) requires removing oneself from that which is being tested. You're entire argument here is philosophical. I have no patience for philosophy. It suffers the same fatal error of religion- it is a thought experiment, that is all. You go around using the word prove. That irks me more than you can know. To try to prove anything shows a fundamental misunderstanding of science and logic. Science does not ignore those issues of what is real and what is not. Quantum physics, for example, focuses on that issue a great deal. You are right, though, that in the end we must make an existential choice. You can have your Kierkegaard, and I'll take my Nietzsche. I'll choose what can be tested, what can be understood.
Ultimately, I like to believe that if there is a god, he's not so vain as to care whether or not I believe; that how I act and treat other people matters more. If there is a god, I hope we all have him wrong. Because if we don't, he sure sounds like a jerk that I'd really rather not spend all of eternity with.0 -
So what is the prophecy from Isiah that states that jesus would be the messiah?Not in the Tanach, but the book of Isaiah is full of prophesies and Isaiah is found in the dead sea scrolls which dates back a couple hundred years bc
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Interesting: "I am the LORD [Yahweh], and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11)0
-
Other stories similar to jesus' story preceded the new testament. Heracles was born half human half god, did "labors" of good, was killed, and resurrected to be a god. Horus is another man god story. Many of the births centered around the winter solstice.
So jesus story isn't original, it's just another rendition of a man-god story that was carried down through the ages.
Discuss.....
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My biggest problem with this is the same one that I have with the Jesus seminar. The currently accepted scholastic view of the origins of Christianity are that they are oriental, near east. It was a culture that loathed syncretism, and was stictly monotheist. The idea (especially as espoused by Erhman) that a group of Jews from that area would create a mythology based on a Greek worldview is a touch misinformed. It is an easy thing to say from this vast time distance, very tough to picture from the contemporary picture. A bit of chronological snobbery, really.
You are assuming that those elements of mythology and "Greek worldview" originated with the "group of Jews from that area" who formed the core of the "Jesus movement" (not my favorite phrase, but the most apt I can think of after such little sleep).
The core of "Jesusism" IMO consists of the sayings and teachings attributed to him. That's it. Everything else from then until now is an add-on, and thus, again IMO, subject to very human influences. So, no, the "group of Jews" did not create the mythology. The different "layers" were added on later--by Jewish followers who needed to defend themselves against other Jews by placing Jesus' life within Jewish scriptural context, anti-Semitic Greeks who needed to both remove Jesus from that Jewish context and reconcile Jesus with the tenets of Platonism, etc, etc, etc. Maybe I am misreading your comment, but it seems that saying the original "group of Jews" created "the mythology" ignores the several centuries of theological (and sometimes political) debate that initially defined Catholic/Christian doctrine, and the subsequent centuries of debate that have refined it.
Obviously, it is my interest to assume that their survives a core of beliefs/accurate writings that are from the actual apostolic age. By all accounts, Acts in the earliest surviving work, and we just look to that we see the notion of a resurrected savior who had the authority to send a "Holy Spirit." My words, really, are just in reference to what the very earliest apostles can be said to believe, especially those for whom some work seems to survive (Peter), and those that had the most to lose by ascribing to such a set of notions (Paul). What creeds and confessions of later councils came to, or how doctrine is formed out of this, I am less interested in. Frankly, whether or not there is a resurrected Messiah is all that interests me.0 -
So what is the prophecy from Isiah that states that jesus would be the messiah?Not in the Tanach, but the book of Isaiah is full of prophesies and Isaiah is found in the dead sea scrolls which dates back a couple hundred years bc
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You are likely to struggle with that notion. The idea of an annointed one is mostly cobbled together from a variety of clues placed throught the OT. The frequent references to a redeemer and later king in Isaiah are a huge part of that idea, though Raffi later pretty much scrubbed it all clean (and has since changed to the notion to those verses talking about Israel as a whole). And, certainly, the name Yeshua does not come up, in there the only name is "God with us", and partly in reference to:
Isaiah 9:6-7 [6] For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. [7] Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. ...
However, the description of this person, as later made during the suffering servant verses, is compelling.0 -
Ok, I don't have a lot of time here, but I'll just go straight to your arrogance once again inquestioning how I can justify being moraly outraged at pedophilia. Because I have decided that it's wrong based on my own intelligence, life experiences and would never want to have it done to me or my children. it's called empathy. Now, you think I can have no moral foundation because I don't believe in your line of BS, how exactly do you know pedophilia is wrong since there in no laws in the bible against it? But, I really don't expect an answer that makes sense, I guess it's because you don't understand the beauties of atheism. Dogmatic sheep like most religious people are just a more sophisitcated cave man who fears the strike of lightning as the supernatural. I wake up in the morning, I exist, I know my own heart and mind, and I do good or I do evil, all without the weak minded reliance on ancient bronze age scripture.
Do I know how the universe started? No. Do I know what happens when I die? No. But I have the courage to except that there are just things out there we haven't figured out yet, and in doing so I have freed myself from the owner/slave mentality that I owe my existance to a fairytale simply because I fear the after life. So that is my moral foundation. Empathy, treating others as I wish to be treated, not being good for some cosmic space party with my dead relatives. And please don't embarass yourself by calling me ignorant just because you read a few books and can spout of nonsense about trancedence and the origins of logic when you can't even understand the simplicity of every human having there own unique moral foundation.
I find it curious that certain atheists become very upset when I ask them to provide a basis for objective moral judgments. No one has ever been able to provide a solid answer from an atheist perspective and so I keep asking. Your comments continue to show that this is a very sensitive subject. I wonder why? I suspect, if you do what you usually tend to do, you will reply to this with more smokescreens and insults but certainly not provide a rational basis for a morality that applies to all but that excludes a supreme ground or source of that morality.
Concerning the "beauties of atheism," I have no idea what those would be. A godless world to which you have no answers to ultimate questions (which you admit in your email)? A universe in which there is no objective meaning or value to anything except what you arbitrarily decide is valuable?
You say that empathy is your moral foundation but you seem to miss the real issue. You may choose to make empathy the basis of your own decision-making but you cannot provide a basis for saying that everyone OUGHT to do this. That is what morality is. Morality has to do with what kinds of actions SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be done. You conclude your email saying that I can't even understand the simplicity of "every human being having their own unique moral foundation." I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. Do you want to let Hitler's moral foundation have equal grounds as your own? What about Stalin's? If everyone can have their own unique morality then morality becomes meaningless and devoid of content.
You have no idea how many books I've read or how many years I've been studying these things. You can dismiss with a few words my arguments from transcendence and logic but that, as everyone can see, is not an answer. Just because you are not familiar with my arguments doesn't mean they don't have thousands of years of history and reflection that precede them. If you are going to make the accusation that my belief in God has no foundations and trivialize my positions, honesty and intellectual integrity demand that you first figure out what you are up against and be able to show why it is wrong. You simply haven't done that.
Furthermore, if you are such a follower of the principle of empathy, why don't you apply "empathy" in this case? Do you like people calling your views "BS"? Why don't you apply the same standards to others that you would want to have applied to yourself? Why is it a moral duty for people to follow the path of empathy?
Concerning the Bible and pedophilia, you should know that the Bible limits sexual activiity to the context of a marital relationship between a man and a woman. That excludes by implication every other sexual act, including pedophilia. Doesn't that make sense?0 -
Not going to quote your whole argument here. Here's my problem with what you wrote. True science (i.e. following the scientific method) requires removing oneself from that which is being tested. You're entire argument here is philosophical. I have no patience for philosophy. It suffers the same fatal error of religion- it is a thought experiment, that is all. You go around using the word prove. That irks me more than you can know. To try to prove anything shows a fundamental misunderstanding of science and logic. Science does not ignore those issues of what is real and what is not. Quantum physics, for example, focuses on that issue a great deal. You are right, though, that in the end we must make an existential choice. You can have your Kierkegaard, and I'll take my Nietzsche. I'll choose what can be tested, what can be understood.
Ultimately, I like to believe that if there is a god, he's not so vain as to care whether or not I believe; that how I act and treat other people matters more. If there is a god, I hope we all have him wrong. Because if we don't, he sure sounds like a jerk that I'd really rather not spend all of eternity with.
1. I didn't say the resurrection cannot be supported. I said that there is a philosophical debate about how historians should categorize miracles. I said there is plenty of reason to believe the resurrection actually happened and that is why I mentioned the book by Wright.
2. There is no "problem" with religious faith that is not testable by modern scientific practices if you do not make the arbitrary assumption that the scientific method is the only way to arrive at a truth.
3. Science cannot "easily" explain everything attributed to God. Do you really think science can explain the origin of energy? Morality? Consciousness? Logic? Love? I just read a series of articles in the most recent Scientific American journal devoted to the subject of "Time." After reading 20 or so contributions the one thing that stands out most clearly is that theorists (scientific and otherwise) hardly have a clue what "time" is, why it has the attributes it has, etc. Much of the discussion centered around the fact that current theories of space and time seem to require conclusions that are fundamentally at odds with our experience. There is almost complete confusion about how to reconcile these two. Are you familiar with the vast literature currently on shelves on the mind-body problem? There are tons of mysteries that science obviously cannot "easily" explain since there is nothing even close to a consensus on the deepest problems. With respect to there being no positive evidence for the existence of God, I think the positive evidence is present in everything that exists. The universe is an ocean of forms of energy. All of these forms of energy are dependent on causal factors beyond themselves for their present state of being. In other words, every being in this universe is a mystery that can only be explained with reference to causes beyond themselves. This leads inevitably to the problem: What do all these dependent things depend on? There must be an independent, self-existent source of being to which everything owes its existence. We call that reality God.
4. If being agnostic is the result of thinking for yourself then you should continue to be fully open to the possibility that you have erred in your conclusions. You should be willing, as soon as you see evidence to the contrary, to dismiss your agnoticism (or whatever you believe) and embrace belief in God. Is that how you see yourself? I still think my generalization is true. I don't think you are agnostic purely because you were forced to that conclusion by an exhaustive consideration of the data. I think you find atheism (or whatever) attractive, probably for a variety of reasons, and your mind inclines towards accepting it. Have you really done a thorough study of reasons to believe in God? I simply don't think that is true based on your hasty dismissmal of belief in God as a baseless claim. You don't seem to show a desire to actually explore major contributions to this discussion. Why not? Is your lack of interest or desire not rooted in more basic orientations, interests, and choices? Neither of us are just intellects floating around in bodies. We are human beings with a history of choices, experiences, concerns, hopes, dreams, etc. The fundamental choices you make about many things shape how you respond to ultimate questions and answers.
5. You say that you have no patience for philosophy but, in fact, everything you have written is an exercise in philosophy. When you say that nothing can be "proved" and you judge me as having made fundamental mistakes of reasoning, etc., all of this is a logical analysis in which you are seeking to show (prove?) that I have failed in logical consistency and demonstration. If you really think that the use of thought experiments are not worth our time, I'm afraid you are undermining the history of science since science is preceded by a host of philosophers seeking to understand the world. These efforts eventually gave rise to a systematic method for learning about the world in science. Every history of science textbook I've seen begins with ancient philosophers (e.g., Thales, Anaximines, Anaximander, Democritus, Aristotle...) and then works towards the emergence of modern science. It was because people had the desire to understand the world and its ultimate foundations/causes that science could arise. I'm not sure there is much scarier than the thought of someone gaining the power to control nature but lacking a solid grounds for how to morally respond to nature. The scientific method might enable us to understand, to a degree, how the world works but it certainly can't tell us how we "ought" to treat nature. Furthermore, it used to be recognized that humans can do science because we have a divine capacity to reason, think and understand nature. It is because we transcend nature that we are able to make of it an object of study. If atheism is right, however, humans do not transcend nature but are merely a part of nature. If we have used science to manipulate nature to serve our purposes, whose to say that we will not reduce ourselves to mere objects of nature to be manipulated, too? However you reply to these problems you will certainly not use the scientific method to provide your answer. You well know that the empirical methods of science can tell about what IS but not what OUGHT to be.
6. Concerning your notion of God, I simply can't relate to your argument. I don't think we both mean the same thing by "God" given the way you describe God. You say that you hope God is not so "vain" as to care whether we believe in him. But what if God is infinite goodness and we are made for union with that goodness? What if the fulfillment of our deepest desires can only be found by embracing the God who made us and placed a desire for him within ourselves? How could God be indifferent to our coming to him if our failure to do so means that we cannot find true happiness? "Vanity" exists when someone thinks more of one's self than is warranted. This is impossible for God since as infinite perfect being cannot possibly overestimate himself. I think your understanding of God is far too small to do justice to this subject.0 -
I found this to be an interesting read. http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/A_Silence_That_Screams
I'm also in the midst of reading The God Delusion by Dawkins, which is proving to be quite interesting as well.0 -
If being agnostic is the result of thinking for yourself then you should continue to be fully open to the possibility that you have erred in your conclusions. You should be willing, as soon as you see evidence to the contrary, to dismiss your agnoticism (or whatever you believe) and embrace belief in God. Is that how you see yourself?
Every ounce of my being argued towards writing a simple tl:dr. Seriously... it's like a novel. But, I digress. I only quoted the above because it's clear you have your beliefs and I have mine. I have made my point and will move along. It's the above that you are not yet getting.
I am absolutely open to the possibility of there being a god. Should I find evidence that there is, then I will not hesitate to believe. I exhausted myself trying to find the truth. I read, and theorized, and prayed. And then I found science, and realized that I was wasting my effort on something that could never be proven or disproven. So yes, that is exactly how I see myself.
Throughout your letter you call me an atheist (or whatever) and call my understanding of your god "far to small." Both of these are false. I am not an atheist, and your insistence that atheism and agnosticism are the same is really quite frustrating. One is a stance of absolutism, the other of enduring doubt. They are diametrically opposed in their treatment of "facts." One expresses the belief that there is a truth that can be known about this issue: that there is no god. The other, my belief, is that it cannot be known. And there is no suitable argument against that. Unless god comes down, and sits on my shoulder and says "hey, I'm real," then there can never be any legitimate proof. And even so, if that were to occur, chances are likely that I would actually be insane.
As for my understanding of your god, I think you are wrong. I have done a great deal of research. I have exhausted myself with it, and after years of searching, feel like it is a pointless and fruitless path for me. The last to words there are vital. For me. Religion is simply not for me. I just don't want or need your crutch. Your ifs and thens are your own, not mine. "what if god is infinite goodness." OK, what if he is? And so I don't believe and I can't find true happiness? Well, I feel quite happy, quite often. I don't want your true happiness if it means I have to throw away my rational thought. I know you are a preacher's wife. And I'm a research psychologist. We will never, ever agree on this. Your training prepares you for your belief, and mine for mine. Since foregoing religion (which I actually did with the blessing of my pastor), I have been happier and felt more fulfilled than I ever did as a Christian. Because, for me, knowing that I have to rely on myself for my own actions leads me to being a better person. I make better decisions when I think (because remember, I'm agnostic, not an atheist) that no one is pulling the strings, no one is guiding me- it's all me, so I better make my decisions count.0 -
If god is infinite goodness, then if I'm wrong about him, I won't be sent to hell by him after I die.0
-
And technically, atheist simply means "Not a theist." So agnostics can be atheist as well. Most atheists are also agnostic in that we agree that there is no way to know for sure.0
-
I do know there is a difference in the belief/non-belief of someone who is atheist and someone who is agnostic. I didn't mean any disrespect by that. I apologize for screwing that up.0
-
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-- Richard Dawkins0 -
I've already said that morals more than likely came from leaders of clans, groups, kingdoms, dictatorships, etc. When rules are set by leaders, it's basically the morals that others follow. If you went to an African tribe who has had no exposure to any religion (with the exception of their own) they would have their own set of morals. Same with any tribe anywhere in the world.I find it curious that certain atheists become very upset when I ask them to provide a basis for objective moral judgments. No one has ever been able to provide a solid answer from an atheist perspective and so I keep asking. Your comments continue to show that this is a very sensitive subject. I wonder why? I suspect, if you do what you usually tend to do, you will reply to this with more smokescreens and insults but certainly not provide a rational basis for a morality that applies to all but that excludes a supreme ground or source of that morality.
I am godless. I have no issues with religion with the exception of what they think as moral trying to be shoved down my throat (abortion for instance). With no religion, I'm not under any obligation except for: obeying laws, providing for my family, keeping them safe, teaching my child, and having good relations with my fellow man. That all can be done without religious morals. And I enjoy it. It's pretty petty of you to think that people without god can't live meaningful lives. My main objective is to live a happy and sharing life with my family and friends. Oh and to pass on my genes.:happy:Concerning the "beauties of atheism," I have no idea what those would be. A godless world to which you have no answers to ultimate questions (which you admit in your email)? A universe in which there is no objective meaning or value to anything except what you arbitrarily decide is valuable?
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
And to quote the late Christopher Hitchens: The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.
- Christopher Hitchens0 -
Ok, I don't have a lot of time here, but I'll just go straight to your arrogance once again inquestioning how I can justify being moraly outraged at pedophilia. Because I have decided that it's wrong based on my own intelligence, life experiences and would never want to have it done to me or my children. it's called empathy. Now, you think I can have no moral foundation because I don't believe in your line of BS, how exactly do you know pedophilia is wrong since there in no laws in the bible against it? But, I really don't expect an answer that makes sense, I guess it's because you don't understand the beauties of atheism. Dogmatic sheep like most religious people are just a more sophisitcated cave man who fears the strike of lightning as the supernatural. I wake up in the morning, I exist, I know my own heart and mind, and I do good or I do evil, all without the weak minded reliance on ancient bronze age scripture.
Do I know how the universe started? No. Do I know what happens when I die? No. But I have the courage to except that there are just things out there we haven't figured out yet, and in doing so I have freed myself from the owner/slave mentality that I owe my existance to a fairytale simply because I fear the after life. So that is my moral foundation. Empathy, treating others as I wish to be treated, not being good for some cosmic space party with my dead relatives. And please don't embarass yourself by calling me ignorant just because you read a few books and can spout of nonsense about trancedence and the origins of logic when you can't even understand the simplicity of every human having there own unique moral foundation.
I find it curious that certain atheists become very upset when I ask them to provide a basis for objective moral judgments. No one has ever been able to provide a solid answer from an atheist perspective and so I keep asking. Your comments continue to show that this is a very sensitive subject. I wonder why? I suspect, if you do what you usually tend to do, you will reply to this with more smokescreens and insults but certainly not provide a rational basis for a morality that applies to all but that excludes a supreme ground or source of that morality.
Concerning the "beauties of atheism," I have no idea what those would be. A godless world to which you have no answers to ultimate questions (which you admit in your email)? A universe in which there is no objective meaning or value to anything except what you arbitrarily decide is valuable?
You say that empathy is your moral foundation but you seem to miss the real issue. You may choose to make empathy the basis of your own decision-making but you cannot provide a basis for saying that everyone OUGHT to do this. That is what morality is. Morality has to do with what kinds of actions SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be done. You conclude your email saying that I can't even understand the simplicity of "every human being having their own unique moral foundation." I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. Do you want to let Hitler's moral foundation have equal grounds as your own? What about Stalin's? If everyone can have their own unique morality then morality becomes meaningless and devoid of content.
You have no idea how many books I've read or how many years I've been studying these things. You can dismiss with a few words my arguments from transcendence and logic but that, as everyone can see, is not an answer. Just because you are not familiar with my arguments doesn't mean they don't have thousands of years of history and reflection that precede them. If you are going to make the accusation that my belief in God has no foundations and trivialize my positions, honesty and intellectual integrity demand that you first figure out what you are up against and be able to show why it is wrong. You simply haven't done that.
Furthermore, if you are such a follower of the principle of empathy, why don't you apply "empathy" in this case? Do you like people calling your views "BS"? Why don't you apply the same standards to others that you would want to have applied to yourself? Why is it a moral duty for people to follow the path of empathy?
Concerning the Bible and pedophilia, you should know that the Bible limits sexual activiity to the context of a marital relationship between a man and a woman. That excludes by implication every other sexual act, including pedophilia. Doesn't that make sense?
Once again, I told you exactly what my moral foundation is...empathy. You seem to think that I can give you a one sentence answer and I can't but neither can you, so it's a bogus question. I'm not over senstive about it, it just bothers me that that you don't see the idiocy of the question. And no, the answer you gave about pedophilia doesn't make a lick of sense, because by your defintion it would be ok for a 35 year old man to marry a 10 year old and have sex with her.
As far as the beauty of atheism, that's easy. Everything I do is on my own. I have no one to absolve me of my sins, they are my responsiblity. I am independent, I don't rely on the superstition to help me out of situations. But most importantly, I know that when I do something for someone else, I do it for the benefit of mankind, not for a magic carpet ride into heaven...and defiantely not because I'm afraid of hell. So isn't that beautiful. No pageantry, no pomp. And the great thing about atheism is my ability to pick morality OVER religion. For instance, when the Catholic church covered up all of those child rapes, I decided screw them and told my wife I'm never setting foot in that church again. If she wants me to go to church with her occasionally, fine, but pick a different church.
It's beautiful, my allegiance is to justice, not some archaic institution, not some guy in a funny hat and robes. But as it has been said before, left to their own devices good people will do good, evil people will do evil, but it takes religion to make a good person do evil things......like try to justify the barbarism of the bible or condemn journalists as having a secular agenda when exposing the catholic churches cover up of child rape.
And once again, it is hilarious that you still refuse to see the common morality of most intelligent people, predating christianity and the jews. But what is really scary to me is when people like you can't fathom morality without a god figure. It makes me really question the sickness of your own mind if the only reason you are behaving is some invisible ghost dude. I mean, what if some archeologist found Jesus's body. They way you talk, sounds to me like christians would be out in the streets within minutes killing, raping and pillaging. It's really sad.
And why do I care how many books you've read? How do you know how many books I've read? Besides, there is only one bible, and I'm pretty sure I've read it often enough and have a mind of my own that I don't have to read hundreds of books and hear other peoples opinion on the matter. But hey, that's just me thinking for myself instead of letting other people do it for me.0 -
I think the much better question is: what happens when a Christians moral foundation is dis proven (because it is a VERY likely possibility, and one I believe every Christian should consider at some point)
Will you be immoral because you have no one telling you to do good? If anything, atheists should be considered MORE morally sound than christians, we do things we know are right physically and emotionally and we admit to it. If you are a normal person (no psychological diseases) you will follow these "morals" naturally. Why? Because religion did not create morals. Religion took how we all feel naturally (thanks to some phenomenal chemicals working in our brains) and decided to write it down on a piece of paper. You cannot tell me cheating exhibits a response in only Christians. If it was because of their "foundation" an atheist shouldn't be unable to respond in a very similar way( after all, if our foundation is guiding us but we have no foundation... we should thus have no response?)0 -
I am godless. I have no issues with religion with the exception of what they think as moral trying to be shoved down my throat (abortion for instance). With no religion, I'm not under any obligation except for: obeying laws, providing for my family, keeping them safe, teaching my child, and having good relations with my fellow man. That all can be done without religious morals.
Two things - not all people who subscribe to a religion have the same views about things such as abortion. I'm a pro-choice, humanist Christian, for example, and not all ultra-conservative campaigners are religious, or campaigning on religious grounds.
Secondly, the majority of the laws and social mores of the western world are based, loosely or otherwise, on a set of values codified (please note I did not say originated!) by the Judaeo-Christian religions. As citizens of the 21st century, we have the freedom to decide for ourselves whether or not to believe in a Deity and/or to follow a prescribed religious code. What we cannot evade, however, is the fact that the civil codes and social expectations we are inclined to follow and conform to are primarily the product of a more religious time - rules that have been handed down for generations since they were first written down, in a time when religious belief was more-or-less universal, and essentially the glue that held very diverse societies together as a common bond.
I'm sure you teach your children to respect their fellow man - while this is an essentially humanist attitude, and one that I would certainly hope predates the Bible and other religious texts, the codification of this principle in our society has its' roots in a religious document. In that respect, your moral code and social attitudes, as well as the obligations you take upon yourself, are inherently religious, whether your own life is based around a faith or not. We have the freedom to choose for ourselves, but we cannot choose, or change, the historical attitudes that have shaped our society.0 -
I think the much better question is: what happens when a Christians moral foundation is dis proven (because it is a VERY likely possibility, and one I believe every Christian should consider at some point)
I don't know that it can be disproven, so much as that a plausible materialist source for morals might be provided. At the very best, it might be that evolutionary psychologists are able to describe a species advantage to altruism to strangers, though I struggle to see what that might have been 15,000 years ago.
I actually think this requires as much substantiation as any religious explanational of moral grounding. It is a materialist assumption that anything that occurs much have come about through material causes, but that is just a presupposition. As well, I do not see the advantage of having genes telling me what to do, versus having God do it? The current trend within cognitive science is that free will is an illusion, are actions are determined in our brain prior to our conscious awareness, and that all notions of moral accountability are mere convention. In fact, even if this is not true, we still have to deal with the inevitable hard determinism of material causes.Will you be immoral because you have no one telling you to do good? If anything, atheists should be considered MORE morally sound than christians, we do things we know are right physically and emotionally and we admit to it. If you are a normal person (no psychological diseases) you will follow these "morals" naturally. Why? Because religion did not create morals. Religion took how we all feel naturally (thanks to some phenomenal chemicals working in our brains) and decided to write it down on a piece of paper.
As well, we should all be careful when discussing the word "natural." In the last 30 years, darwinian researchers have speculated that everything from infantacide to rape came about "naturally" within the human species. To equate this, though, to the idea that the actions had merit, or virtue, because they came about naturally commits the obvious naturalistic fallacy. The notion was that they came about organically, and may have had a survival use. It does mean the behavious are then currently valuable. The same can be said about, though, your above morals. Having them come about naturally does not mean they have value. Grounding them in material causes just means they have an explanation, but it does not given them grace, nobility, or any transcendence.
You should also note, to be consistent in a naturalist or materialist position, the concepts of "physically and emotionally" should be treated as identical concepts. That is, emotions are physical, there is no "soul" or "mind", we monist, not dualist.
The position of Christian's is that all persons were made in the image of God (have the ability to see right and wrong), not just Christians. It is our position, however, that right and wrong have objective truth grounded in the perfect character of God, and is best discovered through Him.You cannot tell me cheating exhibits a response in only Christians. If it was because of their "foundation" an atheist shouldn't be unable to respond in a very similar way( after all, if our foundation is guiding us but we have no foundation... we should thus have no response?)0 -
If you are a normal person (no psychological diseases) you will follow these "morals" naturally. Why? Because religion did not create morals. Religion took how we all feel naturally (thanks to some phenomenal chemicals working in our brains) and decided to write it down on a piece of paper.
I think most biologists and neuroscientists would agree that humans are essentially selfish, and that our natural instincts are to ensure our own survival at all costs. I think I remember that you have kids? Presumably you have had to teach them, as all small children have to be taught, to think of others, rather than only themselves, and to behave considerately and unselfishly, which rather argues that these behaviours are learned rather than inherent. Instead of 'moral' behaviour being instinctive, I would suggest that societal pressure exists to make sure we conform to a certain moral code and standards of considerate behaviour. Religion codified these behaviours, and in doing so, continues to exert an almost-insurmountable influence on Western values and mores.0 -
If you are a normal person (no psychological diseases) you will follow these "morals" naturally. Why? Because religion did not create morals. Religion took how we all feel naturally (thanks to some phenomenal chemicals working in our brains) and decided to write it down on a piece of paper.
I think most biologists and neuroscientists would agree that humans are essentially selfish, and that our natural instincts are to ensure our own survival at all costs. I think I remember that you have kids? Presumably you have had to teach them, as all small children have to be taught, to think of others, rather than only themselves, and to behave considerately and unselfishly, which rather argues that these behaviours are learned rather than inherent. Instead of 'moral' behaviour being instinctive, I would suggest that societal pressure exists to make sure we conform to a certain moral code and standards of considerate behaviour. Religion codified these behaviours, and in doing so, continues to exert an almost-insurmountable influence on Western values and mores.
Even Peter Singer has gotten to the point where he agrees that Darwinian logic implies a rather awful ingrained code of conduct in humans, and has come to advocate an intentional, methodical form of altruism as a means of overcoming that flaw. Altruism just seems to have no real purpose (at least, when applied past our own immediate familial pool) in survival. How it is, though, that we can overcome our genetic influences (when free will appears illusory) to practice such a thing, I don't know. I don't think he knows, either.0 -
If you are a normal person (no psychological diseases) you will follow these "morals" naturally. Why? Because religion did not create morals. Religion took how we all feel naturally (thanks to some phenomenal chemicals working in our brains) and decided to write it down on a piece of paper.
I think most biologists and neuroscientists would agree that humans are essentially selfish, and that our natural instincts are to ensure our own survival at all costs. I think I remember that you have kids? Presumably you have had to teach them, as all small children have to be taught, to think of others, rather than only themselves, and to behave considerately and unselfishly, which rather argues that these behaviours are learned rather than inherent. Instead of 'moral' behaviour being instinctive, I would suggest that societal pressure exists to make sure we conform to a certain moral code and standards of considerate behaviour. Religion codified these behaviours, and in doing so, continues to exert an almost-insurmountable influence on Western values and mores.
Even Peter Singer has gotten to the point where he agrees that Darwinian logic implies a rather awful ingrained code of conduct in humans, and has come to advocate an intentional, methodical form of altruism as a means of overcoming that flaw. Altruism just seems to have no real purpose (at least, when applied past our own immediate familial pool) in survival. How it is, though, that we can overcome our genetic influences (when free will appears illusory) to practice such a thing, I don't know. I don't think he knows, either.
Sorry, not sure I understand what you are saying in the first part of your post (I missed out on my coffee this morning, so forgive me!) - are you agreeing that the ingrained 'natural' code of conduct for a human is selfish and egocentric or disputing that? I don't think anyone knows exactly how we overcome genetic/primeval impulses - we wouldn't be on this site if we had perfected that! - but learned behaviour and the imposition of logical thought over instinct presumably has something to do with it.
I wonder if that's why men typically find it easier to lose weight - their instinctive response is often 'fight' rather than 'flight', which suggests a more powerful over-ride of logic over emotion. Could apply to other things as well. (Just for clarity's sake, in case anyone takes offence at my musings, I am not suggesting that this makes men any more 'strong' or valuable than women - Equal but different is my mantra!)0
This discussion has been closed.