Science: Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief
Replies
-
<<snipping out the stuff I don't want to address. If I've cut out something you think matters please bring it to my attention>>
Regarding the growth of atheists and agnostics, I think atheism and agnosticism (at least in large measure) are basically protest movements. Admittedly, Christians have failed too often to fully live their faith, giving atheists an excuse to attack it.
When I was a little kid my parents told me that an invisible man in the sky was going to burn me alive forever if I didn't believe that he let a bunch of soldiers slaughter his kid to assuage his own anger. This made and makes no sense to me. I could not believe it.
This is not a choice, it is not a decision, and it is most certainly not a protest. It just didn't make sense. Imagine if I tried to convince you that you have 12 fingers,,,
Edit to add:
I do not attack Christianity. Most of my family are Christian. If it works for them and it makes sense to them, and they leave me out of it and don't attack me or my friends, we have no quarrel.0 -
It's so interesting how *some* atheists will bash, ridicule, and minimalize Christianity for pages and pages here yet as soon as they feel something negative has been said about atheism, I'm a coward. I've taken shot after shot about Christianity and tried to come back with why *many* of us believe, I've tried to address all the issues brought before me, in hopes that someone reading this may understand Christianity a little better. I am not going to attack, ridicule, or question the character of any atheists and that is not what I was intending to do. I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I have friends who are atheist and I would never attack their character, so I would never intentionally do that here, either. I will, however, defend Christianity and answer why I believe what I do. I apologize to anyone who read this and felt I was attacking atheism. I wouldn't do that anymore than I'd attack any other religion that differs from mine.0
-
It's so interesting how *some* atheists will bash, ridicule, and minimalize Christianity for pages and pages here yet as soon as they feel something negative has been said about atheism, I'm a coward. I've taken shot after shot about Christianity and tried to come back with why *many* of us believe, I've tried to address all the issues brought before me, in hopes that someone reading this may understand Christianity a little better. I am not going to attack, ridicule, or question the character of any atheists and that is not what I was intending to do. I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I have friends who are atheist and I would never attack their character, so I would never intentionally do that here, either. I will, however, defend Christianity and answer why I believe what I do. I apologize to anyone who read this and felt I was attacking atheism. I wouldn't do that anymore than I'd attack any other religion that differs from mine.
It is interesting how you are talking about me, but once again, acting as a coward, will not adress me in your greivance. If you reread our conversations, it was all about ancient times. I never once spoke about modern christians until you did when you brought up modern times. Neither did I trivialize peaceful conversions, I mentioned them twice, I just pointed out your glaring omission of the other ways christianity was spread. If you were simply trying to prove a point about christian love being shown at soup kitchens, the part you wrote about atheists wouldn't have been written. It was meant to be an insult and now you are backing away from it.
Next, no insults were leveled at christians by me until your well researched opinion that atheists don't have soup kitchens or what ever you were trying to convey. It was a conversation about the veracity of the historical Jesus, which you have only produced proof from church leaders, gospels written decades after Jesus supposedly died, and a Josephus whose most influential writings about christ were a fraud.0 -
Once again, you seem to be proving the OPs original article to be very true. Anyone who owns a pair of eyes, can read, and can cross reference can compare the Gospels and see the inconsistencies in which you claim make me "cynical". You tout supreme wisdom in all areas of research, but it seems that no matter what book or history you read, you twist things in your favor that are so completely false that anyone with a reasonable amount of critical thinking skills are palm slapping their foreheadYes, you mentioned several philosophers who were ahead of their time.....but you said the ancients, as in, all of the ancients understood that their gods were false and just representations of nature which is utterly and comple garbage. Garbage. I am greek, I have studied a lot of greek history, and people do not sacrifce animals, fight wars, and erect temples to the wind and skies. They absolutely thought their gods were real. It was only towards the end of the classical greek civilization that people faith in their gods began to fade. To think that Mayans or Greeks or Aztecs or Vikings did not believe in their own pantheon of gods is such a revision of history I am beginnng to question everything you have ever written. No rational person who has studied anykind of history could make that argument.Second, once again, you seem completely and utterly incapable of admitting the true nature of the christian rise to a dominant faith. I am more than willing to admit that Romans converted, the numbers who were forced by their emperor is debatable. But you just brushed away the rest of it. Judging from your profile pic, since you do not seem greek, jewish, middle eastern or italian, and seemed to descend from a northern Europe, it is statistically probable that your ancestors converted to christianity by thread of force. That is not the least bit an an exagertaionThird, as before you show your true colors once again by taking a conversation about ancient times and doing what you seem to do best, attack with cowardice the character of modern atheists by claiming that you have never seen an atheist soup kitchen in Houston. As what that has to do with this conversation, I'm not sure, but I suggest using google to find non-religious affiliated charities, their are many, especially when taking into account how few we are in the population compared to the christian population. Oh, and we a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the prison population as wellReally, in large measure atheism and agnosticism are a protest. Yeah, against idiocy. While it is true that many, many non-believers are sickened by christian behavior, over and over again, the standard atheist vs. the standard christian, the atheist wins hands down on knowledge of the bible. We aren't only protesting the actions of the churches, like the modern day catholics, which is deplorable enough. We are protesting that out of the entire universe, filled with stars, black holes, astroids, and planets, that some supreme being decided the best way to introduce himself to the world would be by inseminating some young girl with his holy seed on a tiny planet, in Jerusalem, so his new born demigod son could sacrifice himself to alleivate the curse that all mankind inherited from two people eating a piece of fruit0
-
It is interesting how you are talking about me, but once again0
-
Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science
Analysis of interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at 21 elite U.S. research universities suggests that only a minority of scientists see religion and science as always in conflict. Scientists selectively employ different cultural strategies with regards to the religion-science relationship: redefining categories (the use of institutional resources from religion and from science), integration models (scientists strategically employ the views of major scientific actors to legitimate a more symbiotic relationship between science and religion), and intentional talk (scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion). Such results challenge narrow conceptions of secularization theory and the sociology of science literature by describing ways science intersects with other knowledge categories. Most broadly the ways that institutions and ideologies shape one another through the agency of individual actors within those institutions is explored.0 -
Actually, I wasn't just talking to you. That is why I didn't address it to you or quote you.
Really? Who here do you think believes that?0 -
Show me an obvious inconsistency in the Gospels and I’ll show you a reasonable explanation (reasonable to anyone who is not already looking for a contradiction).
I’ve already questioned most of what you’ve written because when I check your “facts” they are more often errors, misrepresentations, or, apparently, fabrications. Large volumes have been written about ancient Greek conceptions of history, the gods, etc. My primary point throughout these exchanges has been that Christianity has a basis in history that cannot be shown for the ancient mythic religions that you continually want to equate Christianity with.
You seem incapable of admitting that Christianity thrived for several centuries BEFORE it had the power to force anyone to do anything. If Christianity’s survival depended on political power and coercion there would be no Christianity today. I can criticize abuses of power just like you can but still accept Christian faith.
Non-religious affiliated charities is not the same thing as atheist charities. The facts that I’m familiar with say that religious-based charitable giving is by far the largest source of relief in the United States except for the use of federal funds. I still don’t know of any atheist soup kitchens. I made that point only to counter your false suggestion that Christianity is based on brutality rather than love.
In contrast to your foolish caricature of Christian belief, I think the Christian belief in the Incarnation is the most beautiful story ever told and it also happens to be true. When two persons love each other they seek to be as close to each other as possible. God so loved the world that he chose to unite himself with it so that we might know with certainly that God loves us and that our desire for unending love is not in vain. We can really and truly know and love God forever and the “evidence” of that is that God has become one with us. This faith can inspire the greatest artists, architects, poets, scholars, historians, servants, etc., to produce works that inspire awe through the centuries. You think it is ridiculous that God would choose to enter this world through a humble young woman on a tiny planet but Christianity is bold enough to say that what you call ridiculous is the greatest truth ever told. You belittle the significance of humans. Christianity claims that the Incarnation of God in Christ demonstrates that the human soul is worth more than all the physical universe because God placed the highest value on us. If I believe what Christianity proclaims, I would believe (as I do) that human life has enormous significance, even when it is barely conceived in the womb of its mother.
What point could their be of me pointing out the inconsitencies of the gospels, like the diffences at the tomb opening, the differences in miracles and the locations of those miracles and differences in geneology when it is certain that you you have already justified in you mind. These gospels weren't even written near the time of christ, for christs sake.
You say I misrepresented something or fabricated it. Where did I do this with? You are way off on what ancient people thought about their gods, you just won't admit it. It's revisionist history. As far as christian historical accuracy...you keep saying you have all of these materials about Jesus.....all of them were written long after he died. Much of what Josephus wrote was a fraud and there is no known source, roman, jewish or other wise who speaks of the ressurection, the earthquakes at his crusifixtion, or the region wide, or world wide supernatural darkness that covered the world. Oh, and the walking dead. Come to think of it, no one recorded when Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple district, and area larger than 30-40 football fields and guarded by romans. You would thing Jesus over coming that might have garnered attention,
I've already said that I am fully aware as is anyone else that christianity was adopted by many romans in a peaceful way, but most of Europe, South America, and else where were absolutely not. To try and diminish this as just a few bad apples is an abomination of history.
Next, onto charities. Common sense would dictate that since atheists are a small minority in the US, we wouldn't have our own soup kitchens, we have few organizations at all. It doesn't mean we don't volunteer and donate. But yes, their are atheist charities out there. How did that pertain to this conversation other than being an insult?
And finally, for that lovely sermon at the end. It's not the most beaufiful story ever told in my eyes. That is your opinion. I view being told to love someone or face the devil's wrath sort of like cosmic date rape. Not very appealing to me. As far as faith inspiring art and whatever else you came up with. Pyramids, ancient greek and roman architecture, the every ruin in South America....all inspired by other cultures and other gods. This is all lovely, but has nothing to do with what we were talking about. And as far as belittling the signifigance of humans, I don't know. I guess I think it is arrogant to think that this whole universe was created just for us and that we cannot do right or wrong with out a spooky supernatural father figure.0 -
Really? Who here do you think believes that?0
-
Do you even know how many people read this thread that never post in it? I comment many things for other people's benefit, not just yours, Adrian. If I want to point out something that I find interesting, even if it has to do with something you or Casper or anyone else said, that does not make me a coward. If I were to run over to my own wall and say something there, it would. I posted here for everyone to see.
uh huh.0 -
Lauren,
Again, I enjoyed the article. Hopefully people will make comments about your OP or the one you just posted!0 -
Edit to add:
I do not attack Christianity. Most of my family are Christian. If it works for them and it makes sense to them, and they leave me out of it and don't attack me or my friends, we have no quarrel.0 -
What point could their be of me pointing out the inconsitencies of the gospels, like the diffences at the tomb opening, the differences in miracles and the locations of those miracles and differences in geneology when it is certain that you you have already justified in you mind. These gospels weren't even written near the time of christ, for christs sake.You say I misrepresented something or fabricated it. Where did I do this with? You are way off on what ancient people thought about their gods, you just won't admit it. It's revisionist history. As far as christian historical accuracy...you keep saying you have all of these materials about Jesus.....all of them were written long after he died. Much of what Josephus wrote was a fraud and there is no known source, roman, jewish or other wise who speaks of the ressurection, the earthquakes at his crusifixtion, or the region wide, or world wide supernatural darkness that covered the world. Oh, and the walking dead. Come to think of it, no one recorded when Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple district, and area larger than 30-40 football fields and guarded by romans. You would thing Jesus over coming that might have garnered attention,I've already said that I am fully aware as is anyone else that christianity was adopted by many romans in a peaceful way, but most of Europe, South America, and else where were absolutely not. To try and diminish this as just a few bad apples is an abomination of history.Next, onto charities. Common sense would dictate that since atheists are a small minority in the US, we wouldn't have our own soup kitchens, we have few organizations at all. It doesn't mean we don't volunteer and donate. But yes, their are atheist charities out there. How did that pertain to this conversation other than being an insult?And finally, for that lovely sermon at the end. It's not the most beaufiful story ever told in my eyes. That is your opinion. I view being told to love someone or face the devil's wrath sort of like cosmic date rape. Not very appealing to me. As far as faith inspiring art and whatever else you came up with. Pyramids, ancient greek and roman architecture, the every ruin in South America....all inspired by other cultures and other gods. This is all lovely, but has nothing to do with what we were talking about. And as far as belittling the signifigance of humans, I don't know. I guess I think it is arrogant to think that this whole universe was created just for us and that we cannot do right or wrong with out a spooky supernatural father figure.0
-
Differences in description do not equal contradictions. If two people focus on different details that does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. If you read Wenham’s book, “The Easter Enigma,” you will see a plausible explanation of every detail of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection. Concerning the genealogies of Jesus, a simple, plausible explanation of the differences is that Matthew’s account traces Jesus’ ancestry to his legal father, Joseph, while Luke’s traces it through Mary. Concerning the time of their writing, they were certainly written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. By historical standards, the Gospels were written very close to the events they describe.
Yes, there are historical records that record all those events: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul’s writings, John’s letters, etc. You want to eliminate all the relevant records and then ask for more. The rest of what you write here I’ve already addressed. You haven’t disproven what I’ve said you only insist I’m wrong.
I am sad about any inappropriate way of trying to spread the Christian faith in history. These things only damage our cause rather than help it. The real power of Christian faith is found in its contents, not forced conversions.
I mentioned charities only as a response to your generalized insult about Christianity that it uses force to convert people. I think it is fair to mention the widespread examples of charity in the name of the Christian faith to show that, when it is lived properly, it produces countless acts of love.
Atheism will only last as long as people can protest or fight against religion. If atheism were to defeat all religion, it would emerge again because the human family simply does not want to live without a “reason for being”. Once there is nothing left to protest, religion would reemerge. What are your thoughts on that?
I'll have to read this later, my head hurts.0 -
I'll have to read this later, my head hurts.0
-
Atheism will only last as long as people can protest or fight against religion.
While I disagree wholeheartedly with this, I can easily twist this around: Religion will only last as long as people continue to fight for it.
An atheist is simply someone who rejects the belief in a god. There is no code that we have to follow that says: destroy religion. That line of thinking is left to the individual.
Removing religion from the playing field just gives humanity new things to fight for. Money and land would probably be the number one contenders, I suppose. I don't know. But I certainly don't feel as if people would start wars over a debate on the meaning of life. Then again, as a collective unit, humans prove to be pretty stupid, so maybe they might. I do feel that further into the future, religion will be eradicated and looked at as we view mythological stories today. However, that will probably be a very long time from now, so no one can say for sure that those in the future would be arguing over a meaning of life and such. We can only speculate.0 -
Atheism will only last as long as people can protest or fight against religion. If atheism were to defeat all religion, it would emerge again because the human family simply does not want to live without a “reason for being”. Once there is nothing left to protest, religion would reemerge. What are your thoughts on that?
It's not like atheism and religion are two ideologies in a boxing match. Either religious claims are correct or incorrect. We use science to determine whether or not the claims made by religions hold up to what we know and can test about reality. An atheist merely rejects religious claims, usually because they don't mesh with reality. If the number of atheists continue to rise, religion as we know it will continue to die out. Superstitions and mythology will continue to be used in fiction, but less people are going to believe they actually exist. Religious people will remain in parts of the world that have no access to information or for people who have no willingness to access the information, just as people who believe Earth is in the center of the universe remain today. However, just like there's no need to point out in most developed countries that you're an ageocentrist (or whatever), there will probably be no need to point out you're an atheist.
Christianity can just be a moral guide or a work of literature (in the latter sense, it has contributed greatly to the world, even if some of it is plagiarized), but it also makes many claims about the universe; claims that we can verify using the scientific method. In that sense, it's just a collection of claims. We've worked out over the centuries that many of these claims do not hold up to reality. We won't be able to prove with absolute certainty there is no god just like we don't be able to prove with absolute certainty there is no magic salmon responsible for gravity. But, there's no need to disprove something with absolute certainty. The more claims made by religions that turn out to be almost certainly false, the more people will see that it's just hogwash.
In a way, when you say "Atheism will only last as long as people can protest or fight against religion," you are correct. If governments try to protect religion from scrutiny, if science teachers do not teach what is actually scientific, and if the people refuse to open their minds to new and challenging ideas, than religion will remain and atheism will only last so long. Fortunately, atheism is not a fad and even I have more trust in humanity than that. People want the truth more than you believe people want some grandiose cosmic justification for their existence. People might not be lining up to hear the inconvenient truth but they are hearing it regardless and it is sticking.
We do have a "reason for being." Many of them, in fact, and all of them explainable without a single supernatural cause. The rest we get to choose, to a greater or lesser extent, for ourselves. My reasons are hardly consequential in a cosmic sense, but I find my reasons far more fulfilling than a need to satisfy a higher power or purge myself of sins I did not commit.0 -
We do have a "reason for being." Many of them, in fact, and all of them explainable without a single supernatural cause. The rest we get to choose, to a greater or lesser extent, for ourselves. My reasons are hardly consequential in a cosmic sense, but I find my reasons far more fulfilling than a need to satisfy a higher power or purge myself of sins I did not commit.
ooo I like that.0 -
Cheers. Original Sin and Hell are two things I find truly reprehensible about Christian dogma. To gaze up at the night sky and know what I know about the universe and what people might know about the universe long after I'm dead is such a wondrous and inspiring thing. I don't know if that's better than any sort of afterlife, but it's pretty damn close. Life is so fragile that humanity deserves better than to spend its existence on its knees in devotion to a god we're not sure even exists while our planet turns to crap because we won't need it once we're in Heaven. It's like people think this life is a stop on the way to some incredible journey when the incredible journey is already in progress. It's the universe! We're in it and it's in us. We're made of it. Let's try and find out more about it, eh?
That's just one of my reasons for living. I won't claim any superiority in that sense over what religion means to other people, but all I know is that when I was religious, I never felt this captivated by the universe, this passionate about improving our world, and this fortunate to be alive. That's why I want to shake the person when they say non-believers are terribly unhappy and morally corrupt without God. Please.0 -
To endofeternity's comments:
1. First, to say you test religious claims by science is simply a category mistake. All “claims” are not scientific in nature. The scientific method is a deliberately reductive approach to reality. Science, in the modern sense, focuses on a restricted range of questions and a restricted methodology. For instance, you obviously can’t scientifically “test” whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon. You have to use a different set principles that are appropriate to historical inquiry. When it comes to religious claims, it is nonsense to think we can test whether God exists or whether God loves us by looking through a microscope or by running an experiment in a lab (just like it would be silly to “see” if a parent loves a child by looking in a microscope). God is a supreme explanation of all things and therefore is not a result of science but is, if properly understood, an unstated presupposition of science. Science assumes certain foundations that it cannot prove and from those foundations it proceeds to examine the world. I would argue that science presupposes various things like (a) the world is intelligible/it makes sense, (b) our intellect and senses have the ability to understand the world, (c) inductive and deductive logic are sound and give true insight into the nature of reality, etc. None of these are scientifically demonstrable since science assumes they are true in order to proceed or to even begin. I would argue that God is the only reasonable and compelling “ground” of all the assumptions of science.
2. Scientists have made many claims about the world that are now considered false. There is no reason to think this will not continue to be the case. It was once thought that Newtonian physics was the final word on motion while we now know this was far from the truth. Just because Christians have assumed the truth of certain scientific theories and have expressed their beliefs in and through the lens of prevailing scientific ideas does not mean those beliefs are necessarily tied to those theories. For instance, “scientists” once agreed that the earth was stationary at the center of the universe. Christians assumed their views were true and explained the world accordingly. Once those theories were replaced by others, Christians began to search for ways to express their beliefs within the new scientific framework. I would argue that all legitimate scientific frameworks/theories operate off of a set of metaphysical assumptions/convictions that ultimately imply God’s existence. For this reason, the changing models of science (and assuredly more are coming) do not undermine all knowledge and certainty, including that of God. As an example, Aristotle argued for God’s existence within the old Ptolemaic framework for understanding motion in the universe. St. Thomas Aquinas, almost a thousand years later, presented the same argument but excluded all the outmoded science (which, interestingly, was not outmoded in Aquinas’ day but he was able to see far enough ahead to eliminate the specifics of the old physics so that we may read his version of the argument without the clutter of the old science). Scientists continue to use the “assumptions” of their discipline even when the details change.
3. I think some people want the “truth” but apparently not all, at least not enough to pursue it rigorously. That is an interesting subject. What is truth? Is truth equal to matter or is truth a conscious comprehension of matter (and whatever else exists)? You seem to think that it is desirable to pursue the “truth” even though we might discover that life is meaningless, or whatever. What makes the discovery of truth more important or desirable than human happiness? Consider this. As an atheist, I’m guessing that you think that all that exists is matter in motion and that there is no directing cause of matter (at least nothing “spiritual”/immaterial/intelligent). I would think that a necessary consequence of this perspective is that the difference between an atheist and a theist is the arrangement of matter in his/her brain. Is that right? When I say God exists and you deny that, the ultimate reason for the difference is just a material difference. If what we say is determined by material conditions, our conscious awareness of “truth” is nothing but a byproduct of material causality. If you really believe that, I don’t know how you can say there is an “objective” truth about anything that humans can discover since we are only conscious of what the matter of our brains causes us to think. So my question simply is, what, as an atheist, do you say “truth” is?
4. The major problems with your analysis of hell, the afterlife, heaven, etc., are (a) they are a caricature of the Christian teaching and (b) they don’t match human experience. We all know deep within that this life is not all we want. The most mysterious feature of this universe is not the night sky, it is the interior of the human person. We all know that we long for a kind of happiness and fulfillment that all the universe can’t satisfy. We have a “God-sized” hole in the human spirit that cannot be completely filled by anything less than God. Everyone experiences this when we get something we think will give us complete happiness only to feel disappointment or continued longing beyond that experience/thing. Hell simply affirms that, on account of human freedom, we could opt out of the satisfaction and fulfillment of our deepest longings and therefore experience final despair. Heaven is the affirmation that our deepest desires can be fulfilled and that our quest for happiness is not in vain. The Christian belief in the Incarnation is the greatest basis of hope since we believe that by sharing in human nature God assures us that human nature is made for unending union with God himself.
5. I’m sorry that your religious experience deprived you of the true beauties of Christianity. (and I'm not saying that in a snarky way)0 -
Differences in description do not equal contradictions. If two people focus on different details that does not mean one is right and the other is wrong. If you read Wenham’s book, “The Easter Enigma,” you will see a plausible explanation of every detail of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection. Concerning the genealogies of Jesus, a simple, plausible explanation of the differences is that Matthew’s account traces Jesus’ ancestry to his legal father, Joseph, while Luke’s traces it through Mary. Concerning the time of their writing, they were certainly written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. By historical standards, the Gospels were written very close to the events they describe.
Yes, there are historical records that record all those events: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul’s writings, John’s letters, etc. You want to eliminate all the relevant records and then ask for more. The rest of what you write here I’ve already addressed. You haven’t disproven what I’ve said you only insist I’m wrong.
I am sad about any inappropriate way of trying to spread the Christian faith in history. These things only damage our cause rather than help it. The real power of Christian faith is found in its contents, not forced conversions.
I mentioned charities only as a response to your generalized insult about Christianity that it uses force to convert people. I think it is fair to mention the widespread examples of charity in the name of the Christian faith to show that, when it is lived properly, it produces countless acts of love.
Atheism will only last as long as people can protest or fight against religion. If atheism were to defeat all religion, it would emerge again because the human family simply does not want to live without a “reason for being”. Once there is nothing left to protest, religion would reemerge. What are your thoughts on that?
Don't all 4 Gospels differ in the tomb opening? If memory serves me correctly, not only do they differ on who was present, but one of the gospels say lightning strikes and an angel appears, or something like that, and all the other gospels fail to mention it. That isn't focusing on different details, that is a big inconsitency.
There is considerable debate of who even wrote the gospels and to their authenticity. I have made the point, and will keep making the point that I could possibly see how it was feasible that some of the minor miracles could be over looked or omitted for religious or political reasons from other peoples histories. But I find it hard to believe that major occurences like supernatural darkness covering the earth, earthquakes, mass ressurections of the dead, and so on could be so easily looked over by every other historian/philosopher of the time and only recored by early christians....people who just happened to have a motive to spread their faith. The fact that someone was willing to commit fraud in Josephus's name to add authenticity to the history of Jesus speaks volumes.
We are having a historical conversation, I do not hold modern christians accountable for atrocities commited 100s of years ago anymore than I hold any other group accountable for the bull that their ancestors did. The reason we are having this bump in our debate is that you feel like you need to have to defend it...but it's not an attack, it's just a historical fact. If I have ay criticisms of any group, they are modern, not archaic. The only time I attack the history of any group is when I catch a member of that group rewriting it's history with rose colored glasses.
The charity response was not an appropriate response in context to this conversation. It was a historical conversation, the vast majority of which was being discussed being in the 1st-4th century, with a little medieval and aztec conversion thrown in. Soup kitchens my modern people in Houston have little to do with the initial spread of the faith.
I do not think atheism or religion could ever exterminate the other. Even with the rise of atheism, the dominance of christianity and Islam and Hinduism, there are still wiccans out there. Still some pagans, still some Sihk and followers of Zoaster. I bet that if we looked hard enough, still some people who believe in Zues. So it's a bogus argument that either side would ever disappear..both sides have tried by word and by sword, and here we are. As far as the human family needing a reason to live.....I have one. Actually I have many, none of which involve the supernatural.0 -
Don't all 4 Gospels differ in the tomb opening? If memory serves me correctly, not only do they differ on who was present, but one of the gospels say lightning strikes and an angel appears, or something like that, and all the other gospels fail to mention it. That isn't focusing on different details, that is a big inconsitency.There is considerable debate of who even wrote the gospels and to their authenticity. I have made the point, and will keep making the point that I could possibly see how it was feasible that some of the minor miracles could be over looked or omitted for religious or political reasons from other peoples histories. But I find it hard to believe that major occurences like supernatural darkness covering the earth, earthquakes, mass ressurections of the dead, and so on could be so easily looked over by every other historian/philosopher of the time and only recored by early christians....people who just happened to have a motive to spread their faith. The fact that someone was willing to commit fraud in Josephus's name to add authenticity to the history of Jesus speaks volumes.We are having a historical conversation, I do not hold modern christians accountable for atrocities commited 100s of years ago anymore than I hold any other group accountable for the bull that their ancestors did. The reason we are having this bump in our debate is that you feel like you need to have to defend it...but it's not an attack, it's just a historical fact. If I have ay criticisms of any group, they are modern, not archaic. The only time I attack the history of any group is when I catch a member of that group rewriting it's history with rose colored glasses.I do not think atheism or religion could ever exterminate the other. Even with the rise of atheism, the dominance of christianity and Islam and Hinduism, there are still wiccans out there. Still some pagans, still some Sihk and followers of Zoaster. I bet that if we looked hard enough, still some people who believe in Zues. So it's a bogus argument that either side would ever disappear..both sides have tried by word and by sword, and here we are. As far as the human family needing a reason to live.....I have one. Actually I have many, none of which involve the supernatural.0
-
We all know deep within that this life is not all we want. The most mysterious feature of this universe is not the night sky, it is the interior of the human person. We all know that we long for a kind of happiness and fulfillment that all the universe can’t satisfy. We have a “God-sized” hole in the human spirit that cannot be completely filled by anything less than God. Everyone experiences this when we get something we think will give us complete happiness only to feel disappointment or continued longing beyond that experience/thing. Hell simply affirms that, on account of human freedom, we could opt out of the satisfaction and fulfillment of our deepest longings and therefore experience final despair. Heaven is the affirmation that our deepest desires can be fulfilled and that our quest for happiness is not in vain. The Christian belief in the Incarnation is the greatest basis of hope since we believe that by sharing in human nature God assures us that human nature is made for unending union with God himself.
I can't even sugarcoat this, or even form a thought other than: this is utter and complete bull****.0 -
I can't even sugarcoat this, or even form a thought other than: this is utter and complete bull****.0
-
We all know deep within that this life is not all we want. The most mysterious feature of this universe is not the night sky, it is the interior of the human person. We all know that we long for a kind of happiness and fulfillment that all the universe can’t satisfy. We have a “God-sized” hole in the human spirit that cannot be completely filled by anything less than God. Everyone experiences this when we get something we think will give us complete happiness only to feel disappointment or continued longing beyond that experience/thing. Hell simply affirms that, on account of human freedom, we could opt out of the satisfaction and fulfillment of our deepest longings and therefore experience final despair. Heaven is the affirmation that our deepest desires can be fulfilled and that our quest for happiness is not in vain. The Christian belief in the Incarnation is the greatest basis of hope since we believe that by sharing in human nature God assures us that human nature is made for unending union with God himself.
The thing is, while I agree that there are "mysteries" and whatnot of the universe (unanswerable perhaps), I really don't feel that "empty hole" and surely would never think that a god would be able to fill it - the only reason I even *know* about the idea of a "God-sized hole in the human spirit" is because I read it right here.
I know there are matters of subjectivity that can influence in all directions but I really truly feel as if I've let myself be an open, unwritten-in book to the world around me - absolutely no religiousness has come from within or felt natural from the outside..
I am also truly understanding the difficulties of explaining (and understanding) these things - whew!0 -
The thing is, while I agree that there are "mysteries" and whatnot of the universe (unanswerable perhaps), I really don't feel that "empty hole" and surely would never think that a god would be able to fill it - the only reason I even *know* about the idea of a "God-sized hole in the human spirit" is because I read it right here.
I know there are matters of subjectivity that can influence in all directions but I really truly feel as if I've let myself be an open, unwritten-in book to the world around me - absolutely no religiosity has come from within or felt natural from the outside..
I am also truly understanding the difficulties of explaining (and understanding) these things - whew!0 -
Perhaps I worded it wrong. What I'm meaning to say (and not coming across the right way) is that I believe people want "more". Or maybe it's because I personally cannot imagine a life of not thinking there IS more. I just believe that humans want explanations to things such as "good", "bad", "love", "meaning for life", etc.
Well in that case, I kind of agree!0 -
No, your facts are wrong on the resurrection accounts. As I said before, there are differences between the accounts and these may plausibly be explained by reading carefully and reconstructing the layout of the physical locations involved, etc. I again recommend Wenham’s book, “The Easter Enigma.” He deals with all the fine details of these accounts. Actually, the differences between the accounts supports my case more than yours. The differences show they are not copying each other and therefore we have four (or five if you include Paul’s texts, I Cor. 15) independent accounts of the same event. Despite their differences, the primary points are the same (i.e., the tomb was found empty on Sunday morning, Jesus was seen various times afterwards by many people).
“Fraud” has been committed in every conceivable context. I don’t suppose you want to throw out all scientific history/theory since there have been various frauds committed in the name of science (“Piltdown” Man, for instance). There is a huge “black market” for archaeology today, filled with frauds. That doesn’t mean we can’t sort out the true from the false if we work at it. Concerning the Gospels, their authorship, dating, etc., are not as difficult as you make it out to be. People like to make it hard because they want to avoid the strength of the evidence or want to support some ideology that prefers to confuse issues like this.
I’m defending ancient Christianity because the success of Christianity could not have been the result of political power or forced conversions since it existed for centuries with neither of these. That, as I recall, was my primary point.
I’m sure you have reasons to live. What I am arguing is that you have no objective basis for the value of human life. Objectively speaking, you’ve already revealed that you think human beings are trivial and rather insignificant. That was the basis of your mockery of Christian belief in the Incarnation of God in Jesus. As a Christian, I believe human life has immense value and the proof of that is that the God upon whom all things depend for their very being assumes our nature to show us his love for us and to give us confidence that, as trivial as we may seem to be from one perspective, we are incalculable value because we are made for unending union with God. In other words, we have an objective, transcendent basis of human value while the atheist does not. Whatever you value is justified only as a “feeling” or preference you have. You can’t say lying, stealing, murdering, hating, persecuting, etc., are intrinsically “wrong.” You can only say you personally don’t like such things. You have no objective standpoint from which to determine that things are “good” or “bad.” The Christian believes in a supreme “good” that is the ultimate justification of value-judgments and moral judgments. Atheists obviously don’t like this conclusion but I don’t see how you can escape it. I'm not attacking atheists or atheism. I've discussed this with close friends who are atheist, and they agree. Some atheists just refuse to acknowledge this has to be true.
I don't think my facts are wrong, there are differences among the gospels like number of trips to the tomb, how many angels were there and so on and so forth. No doubt that the jist of the story is the same, but there is definately some variances that even people of faith have questioned long before I have. And as I said earlier, it's the big, earth shattering miracles that I have the big questions about since no one in the entire city besides these few early christians saw them.
The primary point about early christianity was recieved, acknowledged, and accepted. I'll do so here again. No doubt that any rational person can accept that christianity spread through out Rome through peaceful conversion. But besides the Itlalian penisula and greece and other civilizations on the mediterranean, Northern Europe, Africa, South America, and others were a forced conversion. There is no debating most of that except for the exact numbers of europeans that converted when Rome fell due their leaders taking on the religion for political reasons.
As to fraud, I agree with you, fraud has been committed in every aspect of life including science. But where your scientific frauds differ from religious ones I have mentioned is that most scientific frauds will yes, damage the credibility of a theory, but does little to shake the foundation of that theory. The fraud of piltdown man did not negate the evolution of man, it just negated that we had found the missing link. If Josephus and the Gospels are fraudulent, it shakes the very foundation of what christianity was built on.
To the last point, this is what really bothers me about the different philosphies between us. How can I not value life. I could easily make the argument since I think that this is the only life I will have or anyone else will have without a mythical after life, that I actually value life more. As a matter of fact, I sort of find it disturbing that christians can find no reason to have morality than "God told me so." And to that point, once again, the bible, both old and new testament offer no moral teachings on things like genocide, slavery, rape, and many others. So how, without the almighty god, did modern christians, or anyone for that matter come to those conclusions? As a matter of fact, a theory of mine that seems to be supported by the fact that atheists commit a very small amount of crime , is that without the thought that we have an invisble friend who will forgive us, we tend not to commit as much crime or lowly behavior. This whole myth that you were flawed from the beginning and will keep messing things up and that your only salvation is asking god forgiveness is almost like permission to behave badly. That is something the religious do not like to acknowledge, but I don't see how you escape it. To tell you the truth, when I see an atheist do a good deed, I can truly call it a good deed since the only selfishness I can attribute to it is the feeling of self-satisfaction. When a christian does a good deed, are they doing it for the sake of goodness, or for that one way ticket to heaven...or to get away from hell? How would I know the difference?0 -
I don't think my facts are wrong, there are differences among the gospels like number of trips to the tomb, how many angels were there and so on and so forth. No doubt that the jist of the story is the same, but there is definately some variances that even people of faith have questioned long before I have. And as I said earlier, it's the big, earth shattering miracles that I have the big questions about since no one in the entire city besides these few early christians saw them.
I'm trying a different approach to see if we can dialogue better.0 -
I understand what you are saying about the baseball game, and that is a perfectly good point. But as far at the tomb opening, how many different accounts can their be whan only a handful of people were there? And correct me if I am wrong (seriously, correct me, because I do not have time to look right now), but don't the gospels have a difference of angels of 0, 1, and 2? That's a big inconsitency.
As far as the huge miracles go, I'm not sure how many other sources it would take to convince me or other skeptics, but I know this. More than none, which is the current total.0
This discussion has been closed.