Taking Sides: Atheism vs. Christianity

In practice, atheism is simply proceeding in the sure knowledge that all religions are false and daft. No god had any hand in the writing of the Bible or the Koran, or any other work. No god has ever communicated with a human being. An agnostic's position might be: "It cannot be proven either way whether God influenced the writing of the Bible". This seems to be true and reasonable. An agnostic might as well also say: "It cannot be proven either way whether God influences the writing of the Woman's Weekly". Yes, it cannot be proven, but if we are to live, we have to assume no god did. I am an atheist.

"I can't believe in a God"

I don't really understand where these are coming from.

(dan is otm!)

Amen. Particularly annoying on this count is Richard bloody Dawkin, possibly the most unbearably literal-minded goon who has ever lived.

The bit about "living" wasn't literal -- it just meant that we wouldn't get very far randomly believing anything that seemed vaguely possible.

Id say plenty INDICATES that Jesus Christ was more likely to be the son of God than Elvis

despite appearances Im all for not ramming shit down peoples throats, what bugs me is the inability of some to tolerate anything other than their own narrow views being expressed. Fear and insecurity in your own beliefs shouldnt justify the ridicule in others IMHO

This is flippant, I know, but the odd emphasis in this sentence only adds to the atheists' argument.

Yes, and the difference for me is because the Bible states that it is the word of God, and that nothing else is.

No, no, It really doesn't. The Bible claims to quote God maybe, or paraphrase God. Nowhere is it said that God wrote any section.

Anyway, this post by Eyeball Kicks states it is this the word of God. Here's where: this post by Eyeball Kicks is the word of God.

Now I'm as good as the Bible, according to A Nairn. Or at least more authoritative than the Woman's Weekly.

Because what you're suggesting is logically fatuous. If I declare that I'm 50 metres tall, are you obliged to consider the possibility that I might be so merely because you can't prove that I'm not? What if I go on all day, if I go on infintely, making ridiculous claims? And when you stop listening to me, will you be assuming that "the inverse is true" (what is the inverse of my being 50 metres tall? Of the son of God being risen from the dead?)?

It seems to me that in dealing with unprovable and undisprovble assertions, no matter how ridiculous (eg. the women's weekly as the inspired word of an omnipotent being or the existence of purple monsters under my bed), the only rational position is that of the agnostic

From the beginning I've said that, in theory, agnosticism is technically the only purely rational position.

However, as I've also pointed out, no-one can live according to pure rationalism (which would effectively amount to total nihilism). If every random claim (your purple monsters under the bed, for instance, or my Woman's Weekly, or some beardy bloke two thousand years ago being the son of an God [despite the fact that the new testament portrays the character arguably rejecting such a title]) has to be acknowledged as feasible, then we'd spend all our time investigating such nonsense and there would be no time left in the day to get on with fucking etc.

oh.

ohhh.

ohhhhhh.... oh... *shudder* ...my... *twitch* ....OHHHHHHH.... OHHHHHH... *shake*rattle* ...MYYYYYYYYYY... g-g-g-g-g-g-g-Bone-ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

:-)

I think it could work for me.

that said, you can be an idealistic agnostic and practicing atheist (that's what i am); i don't know if there's a god, but i don't behave as if there is.

100% OTM. I've felt this way for a long time.

I like that!

Truly, I don't know. This question of god is a big one, and I think I'd rather wrestle with it than not. So far in my "is there a god vein?" I've decided the personification of deity thing that we've done so far isn't god. Right now, my god concept sort of hovers somewhere around "I am/We are" but that could change.

Also, I'm really not the least bit interested in having my god kick the ass of anybody else's god, or non-god.

last weekend my aunt told me maybe i believe in "a non-theistic conception of god." i'm still confused by that.

Are saying God as a physical being didn't use a hand and write it. That is true, but It says in 2 Timothy "All scripture is God-breathed" and many other places the Bible is called God's word

Using reason and not faith (which wouldn't mean anything) my explination why this isn't true is that the Bible has prophecies that point to later parts in the Bible.

Kiwi, don't you have other friends around who can make your arguments more persuasively?

Look I can happily trundle out a few thousand words of my own thoughts on aspects of religion. Take the question at hand earlier about evidence for son of God, I dont have blind faith alone, but I marvel at those who do.

Some of my faith will be based on philosophy, especially extrasensory truths or transemperical , you know man is not just an object, but also man in himself(man as a person).
Some on Old testament predictions that have been fufilled, and far too accurate to be be flukes for me.
Some on the amazing historical detail and accuracy of the New Testament, especially Luke. Athethist scholars marvel at the accuracy and detail in his writing. Some on physical historical evidence.
None of which by itself proves anything, but pieced all together gives me a solid base to believe in the word of God.

I have said before I acknowledge mysteries as such, you know full well there are things you cannot explain in life.I believe humans are spiritual and I believe in Christ as an explanation for these mysteries. As stupid as you take me for, and Im pretty thick, I dont think you calling my religion "irredeemably awful" gets us anywhere. So I dont engage you in your assertions, I can see drawn out debates on nature and human instinct and alpha males etc relating to organised religion yet alone Peter getting the keys and the rock and more scripture and papl history... we are so far apart I dont see much hope for understanding.

Im rambling I need to go to sleep. God Bless :)

I love the idea of suzy hacking her way through the rainforest to investigate one more religion before being disappointed for the last time.

there seems a fundamental difference in these 2 formulations for me. i think the latter makes more sense, i mean i don't believe in german speaking pigeons, but i'm not a believer in *No german speaking pigeons* if you see what i mean...

2. whether religion is silly or not doesnt seem hugely relevant. as long as it doesnt impinge on other peoples freedoms then fine.

3. why *vs christianity*?. why not christianity vs islam or hinduism? i had an interesting discussion with a religious (non-organized) person earlier this year. i believed christianity should not be taught in schools, and that people should make their own decision outside of school. they said not teaching them it is as prejudicial to their opinion as teaching it would be. quite a good point, but then, why christianity and not islam? why choose one over another (and then, which branch?) unless you're going to teach them all? but then how many? and they all have claims on the *truth*, whatever that is

I have gone to church for most of my life but I have started to question it. along with everything else. and now I am this cynical wreck you see before you very phoneline.

I'd also say that if followers of a specific religion are rendered misguided, it's because of the falseness of their belief, and doesn't have much to do with ANY form of atheism or agnosticism.

I don't see any particular problem with this. Moreover, in my experience, it is always the 'weak' atheists who suffer from the failings that Dan was so OTM about earlier. Not that all 'weak' athesits do, mind you, but I think those who try to justify their atheism via purely rational means are more susceptible to coming off like know-it-all assholes.

"Organised religion" historically has been awful and useful - in a pre-democratic society the opposition of secular and non-secular authority provided the same kind of braking mechanism party systems do now - the church could serve as an 'opposition' to political leaders and vice versa. In a democratic society I can definitely see a place for "religion" on an individual basis but not the organisations that sprung up around it.

Its not a belief system. Hence, B).

>>3. why *vs christianity*?.<<

Eurocentric question. Really, it should be "Atheism vs. Theism". After all, there are religions in which there is no god (IE, Buddhism).

-
Alan

That's just wrong.

I suppose the word Religion can be a bit loaded in some peoples minds. I'd say that as a social entity it clearly does need other people, but as a spiritual one, it clearly doesn't.

If they had hunted Christians down to one guy hiding in the woods, praying daily and subsiding on roots and berries, would it still be religion? I'd say yes. Maybe not A Religion (checkbox in the census form), though.

http://www.lawrence.edu/fac/boardmaw/god_in_quad_berkeley.html

Prayer would seem to me to be something you can do by yourself, apart from god(s), and is fairly crucial to the whole endeavour. But that's a Catholic perspective. Are there other religions where you can't do something holy by yourself, by scripture rather than practice?

This depends on the strength of the agnosticism. "I don't know if God exists" is just a statement, as undeniable as "The sun is shining". Which is not as undeniable as 2+2=4, but that's another ballgame.

But "there is no way of knowing whether god exists" is like "The sun will come up tomorrow, because science says" or "The sun will come up tomorrow, thanks to Ra". You can build consistent world views around it, but it is clearly just a belief. It's a positive statement, and can't be proved right, just wrong.

Hrm. Guess who just read a book on Wittgenstein vs Popper, and thinks he knows the secrets of the ages?

hurhurhur.

Oh, I picked Atheism vs. Christianity because a few previous threads were discussing it, and Christianity has more cultural significants around here. Also, I was interested in others view of Christianity specifically.
And I totally agree that public schools should have a world religion class. I would have loved to have anything other than American history in high school (I hardly had any social studies in school other than American history, it sucked.)

and as for Tom's explination of his atheism,

"I'm with J. Religion shifts the argument into a non-rational sphere with the introduction of the concept of 'faith' and I'm happy to enter that sphere. I have no faith, indeed I have a felt absence of faith, therefore I am an atheist."

I think that is a great explination. For me, who believes in predestination of man, Tom would be an example of someone who is seemingly not predestined.

All very Judy Blume book, I know, but I drew the inevitable conclusion with half the bizarro Christian sects that if parents had followed any, I'd probably not be alive and writing this.

Good things about religion include great literature produced (where do we get the classic narrative structure of genesis, action, climax denoument anyway, from Greeks or subconscious parallel with How Sex Goes?) and that is why I am able to treat most of it like other, older myths and legends, there to provide object lessons to people who need them and to provide apocryphal plotlines to us what don't.

Maria's question is interesting. First awareness I had of the whole God thing was when I got to primary school and people told me they went to Sunday School, that's how agnostic my folks are. Also when my elder grandfather died, when I was seven, by coincidence there were all these weird Life After Death programmes doing the rounds of the cheapo TV stations and I just sat there watching all these weird talkshow people talking about out of body experiences whilst meeting their pal, The Light, getting told 'it's not your time' by a Marcus Welby type voice and getting sucked back down to the hospital bed. Very 'ooh, freaky, better not tell anyone I'm watching this, they'll freak out because of Grandpa but this is *fascinating*' vibe.

When I'm in joke arguments with my Jewish girlfriend (we're both atheists, though I was baptised a catholic - the arguments are more about the coolness of the respective literary traditions), and she's nagging me about the unoriginality of the Jesus myths, how they're all derivitive, if not rip-offs of Torah stories (yeah, yeah, there's midrash and all that crap, but still you can take it too far...) I love to point out the extent of borrowing in Genesis from other sources. But even then I know I'm wrong, cos while the details are stolen, the simplicity of narrative and overall point is (was) blatantly revolutionary. Once upon a time, the idea of monotheism must have been a big deal.

The Gospels contain the greatest alienation in world history, when Jesus is on the cross: 'Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?' that is, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'"

Excuse the cut and paste but Chesterton is often OTM...

"But if [Jesus'] divinity is true it is certainly terribly revolutionary. That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point--and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologise in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. . . He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay, (the matter grows too difficult for human speech,) but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist."

I sympathise strongly with that Kiwi. But maybe faith in anything but the most amorphous of gods is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I remember getting in trouble at school for being cheeky when the chaplain told me Jesus died for our sins and I said, yes, but he came back three days later. I was being cheeky but I was also being proto-serious - the happy-ending part of the central story of Christianity diminishes it (and has I think vast and often negative repercussions for Western culture ever since but that's a different thread), which is why I've always had sympathy with radical clergy who've tried to turn the Resurrection into a metaphor rather than literal truth.

Pah, call that radical? Turning it into a roller disco - now that's radical.

Anyway yes. To clarify what I was saying, the 'you gotta take it on faith thing' is a nonsense to me. Why not take any old story on faith? If your parents brought you up as devil worshippers and told you to take that on faith, what's the difference?

And then they might say 'He has answered my prayers'. And so you ask 'What about kids who die of Leukemia despite people praying for them?'.

And they might reply 'Well God works in mysterious ways'.

And then you give up.

No really, what if you came upon any "larger" being/presence -- how would you know if it was god or not? A sort of variation on Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology" maxim.

Tom I dont agree with your views on the different "risks" on the Trinity as I think that is misinterpreting the concept from the limited understanding I have of it but I will have to discuss later

In what way is the concept of faith (or any ‘concept’) non-rational? Raw experiences, emotions, etc are non-rational (in the sense that they aren’t dependant on our rationalising about them – hit your thumb with a hammer and it hurts like hell, no matter how you may interpret the experience) but as soon as you make a knowledge-claim about an experience, such as ‘I knew I was feeling the presence of the Lord’ then you’re putting forward a rational argument about the world: ‘I intuited the existence of God.’ Such an assertion (similar to those of ‘direct realism’ but with the object supposedly apprehended non-inferentially being a benign superbeing rather than, say, a table) is open to a challenge for justification, as all assertions are: What credibility is there, for instance, in claimed intuitions of divine entities when those entities are noticeably defined in terms which correspond to the context of cultural belief in which the ‘intuitions’ occur?

Faith (insofar as it implies dogmatic conviction, as opposed to mere unprovable belief) in no way transcends rationality by claiming immediate knowledge. Furthermore, in offering no support to its claims of knowledge other than ‘I just know,’ it confines itself to the least credible class of all rational assertions, those which rest on dogmatic assumption.

>That's just wrong. <

Apart from an abscence of God based faith, what then is the "belief system" of atheists?

(hint: there isn't one)

-Alan

Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods. It is the lack of belief in a god. It can be part of a religion or belief system (see: Buddhism), but it is not a system of belief onto its own, because it is A) not a belief and B) not a system of anything (as it is a single property).

Theism also has this problem. It, in and of itself, is not a belief system. Its simply states that one has belief in a god or gods. What they are can range from trees to Jehovah to Ganesh to spacemen.

-
Alan

Alan, if you wouldn't mind not talking smack on this matter, then maybe there's a point of discussion. My mom is an atheist and flat out does not believe in God (or gods), period. That is her BELIEF, not a lack of belief in something else. Do not put words into her mouth or into the mouths of others who think the same way.

Alt, websters vs. philosophers

The point of contention here is whether "belief system" and "religion" are equivalent terms or not. All religions are belief systems, but not all belief systems are religions. I think "belief system" describes something much more general, concepts more on the track of theism and atheism, general topics that deal with the concept of morality rather than specific implementations of it. Alan (it seems) disagrees, which begs the question of what he calls things like theism and atheism.

First, I wasn't "talking smack". I was simply bringing up what atheism means. And, literally, it means "lack of belief in god/gods". Secondly, your mother does not believe in a god, no? Then she lacks belief in them, clearly. She falls under my statement.

"Weak Atheism", as strict observance to the definition of Atheism is called, is the default position. If there were no evidence in either direction for or against the existance of god/gods, it would be the only rational position to take. Your mother is a "strong" atheist; she has moved beyond merely claiming that there is no evidence for a god, but that there is evidence against one or ones existing. This evidence therefore supports her claim that no gods exist.

And, as you've inadvertently proven, my previous statement that atheism is not a system of beliefs is correct. People who are atheists disagree with your mother on this position. =)

-
Alan

http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/atheism.html:

"Theism, which derives in part from the word theology, is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods. Inclusion of the prefix "a" with any noun indicates without, not, or opposite. Thus the word atheist describes an individual who is without theism, theology, or religion."

http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/questions/what_atheist.htm:

"Atheism is often defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no god". Newer and more accurate dictionaries define atheism correctly as "having no belief in god(s)". Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. Atheism may be a part of an individuals religious beliefs, but the atheism, of and by itself, is not a belief or religion."

-now that we've gotten the definition of atheism out of the way...- Alan

-my kingdom for an "edit" function!"-
Alan

-
Alan

Well, there are two "main" kinds of nonreligious atheists. Strong and Weak. She's a strong one. So am I. There has to be some degree os separation because of the disagreement between the two (otherwise there would be no division). But separating her into a different "camp" of atheist does not suddenly make her not athiest, just as separating theistic Satanists and Zorostranians does not suddenly make either non-theistic.

>there's a diversity in opinion you seemed to allow for then immediately ignore. If you want to say 'some people who are athiests' disagree with my mom, great.<

Which is exactly what I stated. Atheists do not agree on everything, or even a basic set of tenets. That's what I've been saying all along. This doesn't discredit your mother or the buddhist or the weak atheist from being an atheist, just as saying that someone is Hindu or Muslim precludes them from being theistic. In and of itself, neither is a belief system. Calling someone a theist tells us only that he believes..not what and why. Calling someone an athiest tells us only that he doesn't have belief in a god/gods...not the reason as to why. However, being a Christian does explain why you are a theist and what you believe. This, therefore, is a "belief system", whereas theism as a whole is not. Hopefully that clarifies that.

-
Alan

Many agnostics are, unwittingly, atheists or theists of a sort, whether or not they want to acknowledge it. Agnosticism, remember, is not dealing with faith, but with knowledge (see root "gnost").

Many Agnostics basically state that because God cannot be quantatively studied/measured due to his state outside human sensory experiences, and therefore, it can never be known for sure as to whether or not god exists. These people are "atheistic agnostics". On the other hand, there are "theistic agnostics" who believe that there is a god, but that we'll never know his true identity. Neither, therefore, is a true middle ground.

Both actually diverge from Thomas Huxley's original position (he created the term) that he had not made a final decision on the existance of god, and therefore had no position on the matter. It was more about the suspension of judgement. This, is, of course, in stark contrast to the "finality" of the previous two types of "agnosticism" as well as to atheism and theism, and does, to some extent, provide a middle ground.

-
Alan

And Dan is still OTM.

What about the people who say "well I don't know about never, but I don't know right now"? What sort are they? I mean that's not really knowledge based all the time.

Second paragraph about Huxley Agnosticism.

-
Alan

is atheism a belief system?

my answer is...it depends (may or may not be semantics, but belief in no god is a belief, i'm unsure how 'lack of belief' can be classified as a belief system though, if i don't believe in pink caribou that doesnt make a 'non pink caribou believer' does it? or does it? in which case, i must have a lot of belief systems!)

diff between agnosticism and weak atheism (defined not as belief system): i would say with agnosticism theres more of an openness about agnosticism, a kind of, well maybeism. i think its a mistake to characterize weak atheism as fence sitting or wishywashy or unsure.

an infinite amount

-unless you meant the other Alan-
Alan

http://www.hypocrites.com/pictures/animals/cat_smoking.jpg

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghhh

I realise this is a breezy low key forum and my style is not really the go(ie not street-savy witty one liners) nevertheless I want to attempt to provide a few reasons for the Trinity concept from a Catholic viewpoint.

The Trinity is one God, who is three divine Persons. In a divine mystery, these Persons are truly different, yet one in being. The Father is the one who begets the Son, the Son is the one who is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Bible, Sacred Tradition, and Church all teach this wonderful truth.

It might be asked in all humility, though, why the nature of God would be so "specific." What is the reason for having three rather than simply one?

Suppose we start with the idea that there is simply one God, who is not three divine Persons. He is simply one. He creates humanity, which has free-will. Humanity turns against Him, through sin. He decides that the best thing to do is for Him to become a human, then. There are many reasons for this, such as His thereby showing solidarity with the humans by going through their own difficult experience, and His being able to teach them in person with a human voice, and His giving them a perfect model of how to live a human life, and His going through an experience on the cross where he can be restored to friendship with humans by truly being one with them despite their sin, and so on. For many powerful reasons, any one of which would suffice, God wants to become a man. But how? If He truly becomes a man, and gives men a model, He has to do something very important and very strange: He has to worship God. That is what Jesus says before he ascends into heaven:
John 20:17 "Jesus said to her, 'Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Jesus says this even though He is God Himself:
John 1: 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father."
John 20: 27 "Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.' 28 Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

Thus we already have a rationale for why there would need to be a Duality, at least, in the divine nature, of two divine persons who are one God. God needs to remain God yet worship God. He has to be two who are one.

But where does the Holy Spirit come from?

When God, as these two divine Persons, loves, that love of His is so unbelieveably wonderful it is actually a divine Person, too. We call Him the Holy Spirit. As Pope John Paul II writes,
"In His intimate life, God 'is love,' [36] the essential love shared by the three divine Persons: personal love is the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Father and the Son. . . It can be said that in the Holy Spirit the intimate life of the Triune God becomes totally gift, an exchange of mutual love between the divine Persons. . . It is the Holy Spirit who is the personal expression of this self-giving, of this being-love" (John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem 10; cf. CCC 850).
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and He is a divine Person to be worshipped just like they are.

Overall, this is why we have a Trinity.

I will add that faith and reason are both very important to Catholics, although the perception is often just faith alone.

It is the nature of the human being to seek
the truth. This search looks not only to the attainment of truths which are partial, empirical or scientific; nor is it only in individual acts of decision-making that people seek the true good. Their search looks towards an ulterior truth which would explain the meaning of life. And it istherefore a search which can reach its end only in reaching the absolute.
... Such a truth is attained not only by way of reason but also through trusting acquiescence to other persons who can guarantee the authenticity and certainty of the truth itself".

For a full copy of the John Paul II encylical "Faith and Reason" below

http://www.cin.org./jp2/fides.html

Your questions on the effectivness of prayer comes from mans continual judgement of God and another (groan) mystery this time suffering. As a mystery there is no *rational* answer to why we suffer. Indeed, when Job asked God why the righteous people suffer, God did not give Job a *rational* answer either. Above all, we understand the meaning of suffering spiritually, by prayer.

I will attempt to provide a few ideas for you to laugh at.

Catholics would argue that God created man as rational and free and thus that all the man made evil in the world can be atrributed to mans free will. The question has to be asked could God have justified himself before mankind, so full of suffering without placing his son to death? Or even why does God feel the need to justify himself to humans. Love is the answer here(as strange as it may seem) it is the proof of a God that is with us when we suffer by God placing himself besides man. Im probably confusing people or sounding completely illogical- try this link for a better answer to why evil exists etc

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/evil_cause_of.htm

I wont bug you any more but would appreciate some good tough questions I can throw at Catholics on other forums. At the end of the day if believing in a God makes someone happier in themselves and towards others... whats the harm :) I promise no more half baked home cooked answers to provide amusement.

So I guess I'm saying, what was the point of your initial post?

I think this is semantic hogwash (and I'm a lawyer, well versed in semantic hogwash!), but there you go.

However, I will admit that I'm a bit prejudiced on this point. I have long suspected that is almost always "weak" atheists who act in the unbearable way that Dan was so OTM about upthread, since they are the ones who feel that everybody else has to prove something to them rather than admitting that this issue is simply not susceptible of proof either way.

"The cosmogonic cycle is now to be carried forward not by the gods, who have become invisible, but by the heroes, more or less human in character, through whom the world destiny is realized. The archetypal heroes become less and less fabulous, until at last, in the final stages of the various local traditions, legend opens into the common daylight of recorded time"
---- Joseph Campbell

According to Joseph Campbell, the Christ Story was simply a re-telling of the archetypical Hero's Journey. More on the heroes journey here: http://www3.cerritos.edu/fquaas/resources/English102/archetypalhero.htm

Carl Jung was of the belief that the True Self was god -- what some religions refer to as the godspark of divintity within each of us. I have to admit, this idea warms my cockles. More here:
Archetypes as defined by Carl Jung: http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~davisct/nt/jung.html

And here's yet another insightful take on the use of archetypes and religion: Examples of the archetype in the Gospel of Mark:
http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~davisct/nt/arch-examples.htm

I'm really not clever enough to discuss these concepts in great depth -- I just know that they resonate for me. I'm going to call that resonation "faith" although I really don't think anyone else should have too. I like to believe (perhaps just because it's a pretty story), that each of us is here to complete some task of spiritual evolution and the further we evolve, (who decides what spiritual evolution is? I don't know.), the more we start to tune into this idea that within each of us is the ability to not just get into some distant place called heaven if our knickers are pure as the driven snow, but to actually become God (and thereby create our own heavens as we would prefer them to be). In my likely biased opinion, there is no one bearded guy in a robe waiting to rain down on us with his wrath. I think that ultimately, "we" (in the most collective sense) are god. So when people say things to me like, "Did you hear about that war in _____? How can people believe in a god when things like this happen?! What kind of god would allow it?" And the answer that tends to cross my mind these days is: The "we" kind of god. We created it out of our own free will. We made it happen. If we wanted to apply ourselves, "we" could probably make it unhappen too, although it would be a big job. Maybe like trying to get everyone in the world to jump up at the exact same time.

Anyway, there's no brimstone in my version of events, but it works for me. Naturally, it doesn't have to work for anyone else. Religion may belong to the masses, but faith is personal.

(It makes sense to me -- after all, we're born and then we grow up to become that which birthed us. Yes -- I know it's a simple concept.)

Apologies for being a bit "blunt". Its the alt.atheism lurker in me. I knew that no matter what, I was gonna have to explain the strong/weak atheism thing. I think I did that.

Christianity is a bit different from Atheism, in that in addition to the fact that you believe in a god, you believe in a particular god (Yahweh) and that Jesus was in some way related to him. You also believe that Jesus was of Jewish descent, you believe that the Old and New Testaments are part of your doctrine (maybe minus a few books here and there), etc. There's lots here...enough to certainly constitute a "belief system". With Atheism, you can be a weak atheist and that's it. You're still an atheist. With Christianity, if you deny that Christ was in any way meaningful (whether he be the son of god, god himself, etc), then you're not a Christian.

And to comment on the mention about how the Bible myths are simply cop offs of the Torah stories, there's a lot of truth in it. But then again, both Jews and Christians borrowed a lot from other regional mythology (stuff like Lazarus and the Great Flood being prime examples).

-
Alan

With Christianity, you can be a weak Christian and that's it. You're still a Christian. With Atheism, if you admit that God is in any way meaningful (whether he be the son of god, god himself, etc), then you're not a Atheist.

I'm not particularly sure what a weak Christian would be (perhaps believes certain tenets of one of the various churches and then prays/worships independently?), but yes, an Atheist who acknowledges the existance of god would no longer be an Atheist, as he would then believe in god.

-
Alan

Alan apologies if you were the Alan I was to rude to on the gun control thread. Do you have any thoughts on extra-sensory truths or even truth itself? Do you believe there any universal truths across the world?

Its been a few days. Its also the internet. I'm pretty toughskinned. No big deal.

>>Do you have any thoughts on extra-sensory truths or even truth itself?<<

You're going to have to define "truths" for me. If you "what happens when we die" or something to that effect, my answer is that our brains cease and we decay. I don't personally believe in ghosts (though I have friends who have sworn to seen them) just as I don't believe in UFOs (friends of mine have claimed to see them as well).

And stuff like "Crossing Over"? Dude...don't even get me started on cold/hot readings.

>>Do you believe there any universal truths across the world?<<

I think what "universal truths" that we see that have been brought through law and various religious code exist in all societies because I believe that there are certain guidelines by which a society must exist otherwise it will collapse (IE, don't steal, don't kill people, etc). People, irregardless of religion, pick up on these, and that's why you see them in basically every civilization around the world from several thousand years BC to the present. I don't think they're "divinely inspired".

-
Alan

"Truth (Anglo-Saxon tréow, tryw, truth, preservation of a compact, from a Teutonic base Trau, to believe) is a relation which holds (1) between the knower and the known -- Logical Truth; (2) between the knower and the outward expression which he gives to his knowledge -- Moral Truth; and (3) between the thing itself, as it exists, and the idea of it, as conceived by God -- Ontological Truth. In each case this relation is, according to the Scholastic theory, one of correspondence, conformity, or agreement (adoequatio) (St. Thomas, Summa I:21:2)." Catholic Encylopedia

When I say "extra sensory truths" I refer to the thought do we know of any other knowledge other than emperical (colours tones forms etc)? Do we not also know objects "globally"- extra sensory?

eg you know all the different parts to your body as an object. These can be measured scientifically mathmatically etc but do you not also know yourself(man as a person). do you deny a spiritual element to yourself? if you know yourself then you must be able to regonise extra sensory stuff like good, evil, beauty, truth. In addition it is not possible to affirm that when something is extra sensory it ceases to be emperical.

Prince, stop hanging around on the Internet and release a knock-your-sox-off album that blows everyone away.

(I admit I'm not in the mood for a serious answer but regrettably it seems you're not looking for a serious one either.)

This, by the way, is nonsense. C.S. Lewis, whom I like, was fond of this "proof," and I do love the way Lewis parses it ("we can either dismiss him as a madman or fall at his feet, but let's have no more of this calling him a great teacher" - paraphrased badly, but something along those lines), but it assumes strictly western, modern values: a man who says God sent him - well! either he's telling the truth, or he's crazy, or he's evil! ummm OR he's a Vaisnava who means what he says in a way you don't hear because you don't live the prayerful life he does! OR he's a teacher in a (very strong & great) Buddhist tradition where illogic is used to smash the unhelpful materialistic workings of Mind! Or, or, or, or a bunch of stuff, all equally interesting, pertinent and possible. Bottom line: Jesus could say ALL THE THINGS HE SAID and still not be God, crazy, or evil. OR a prophet. Of course he could.

A
List of Biblical Contradictions.

I wish U love
I wish U heaven
I wish U heaven

Somewhat hypocritical, methinks.

U are in my prayers. Its fascinating how there is always someone praying for you, its becuz they care for u and want to see u in the heavenly kingdom.

If you really cared for people, should you perhaps not be less condescending and more understanding towards those who don’t believe exactly what you believe (that would be anyone outside the Christian faith)? And prayer is cheap, anyway.

Do u see the wind. No u cant but u can feel the wind

...actually made me think more of Ween interpreting Prince than Prince. Thank you and good night.

In the case of phlogiston, the reason we have no proof is that non-existence is undetectable. I'd say this is equivalent to God, but I know that isn't an easy statement for a lot of people.

Sorry, that one was bugging me.

(boom! boom!)

(serious answer: yeah, me too.)

Lots of people don't seem to get this, though. Cf: creationism.

No, only according to your very narrow understanding of things. Jesus never outright said "I am God"; what he said was, "no man comes to the father except by me," "there are many rooms in my father's house, if it were not so I would have told you," etc. A perfectly sane non-prophet might in total sincerity say "no man comes to the father except by me" and mean any number of things! nor did Jesus say "I am the only son of God" - the authors of the gospels did that one. Every claim Christ made for divinity could be made by a perfectly sound worshipper of God who understood worship in the ecstatic tradition. You understand worship in a tradition that's roughly eighty years old, and Christ's version of worship would probaly give you the creeps real bad, since it doesn't involve "feelings" and whatnot but actual ecstatic dissolution of the self.

Religion glorifies the dogma of despotic, mythical gods. Atheism ennobles the interests of a free and progressive mankind. Religion is superstition. Atheism is sanity. Religion is medieval. Atheism is modern.
~E. Haldeman-Julius

The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice.
~Emma Goldman

What religion a man shall have is a historical accident, quite as much as what language he shall speak.
~George Santayana

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
~Steven Weinberg

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
~Thomas Jefferson

If we assume that there is no God, it follows that morality is even more important than if there is a Deity. If God exists, his unlimited power can certainly redress imbalances in the scale of human justice. But if there is no God, then it is up to man to be as moral as he can.
~Steve Allen

Is God something that exists 'out there', beyond, and independent of us? Or is God merely the product of an inherited human perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation, a coping mechanism that emerged in our species in order to enable us to survive our unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death?
~Matthew Alper

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
~Stephen Roberts

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
~Gene Roddenberry

Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than are lies.
~Nietzsche

The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
~George Bernard Shaw

If God created man in his own image, we have certainly returned the favour.
~Voltaire

When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, 'Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?
~Quentin Crisp

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would neither be created nor destroyed… it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
~Stephen Hawking

This is the silliest proof of Jesus' divinity I've heard. What about other historical religious leaders, like Muhammad? If he was a lunatic, why didn't see it. If he was a liar, how come he was picked amongst other prophets, and how come Islam is the second biggest religion in the world, even though Muslims didn't do missionary work or forced people to convert at the same rate that Christians have done. To claim that you can't start a succesful religious sect without being The Real McCoy is stupid, just look at L. Ron Hubbard, or the guy who founded the Church of Mormon, or...

Besides, it isn't even certain that there was a historical Jesus.

Faith is not enough. I don't have it and I won't pretend to have it in the hope of getting it on someone's word. (I know you think Jesus's word is different, and fair enough, but I believe that the historical Jesus existed without believing in what Jesus believed or what subsequent Christians believe.)

The existence of God has no basis in sense or science, so why should I go for it, except perhaps to save my soul (another 'thing' that I don't believe in).

Asking people to read the Bible before making a judgement on Jesus or Christianity or God is like asking people to read Mein Kampf before judging Hitler. I judge Hitler by what he did. And I'll judge God by the same method. According to that method, I have no proof that He exists, so I don't see any reason at all to read His book.

About religion, I feel very confused these days.

My mother is a committed Christian, and an intellectual - a priest. When I talk to her, I feel like the most raging atheist who has ever lived, because I object to the Christian Church so strongly. My partner is a committed Atheist, a strong Atheist to the point where his insistence on the nonexistence of God is as based on faith and belief and dogma as my mother's belief.

I fall somewhere between the two.

On a large scale, I have many problems with The Church, as many other people have already pointed out, so I won't reiterate. On a small scale, however, I do see how individual churches have been very positive forces in various people's lives, so I cannot throw out the concept entirely.

However, my mother wants her computer right now and I cannot think or formulate ideas or write with her standing in the doorway so this is going to have to remain unfinished.

I appreciate that churches, religion and the belive in God can have positive effects on people's lives. That doesn't make me wonder whether I should believe in God myself. Do you, river fleet?

Insistence on the nonexistence of a god cannot be based "on faith and belief and dogma". If you insist that the Smurfs or elfs don't exist, is that a dogma? It's the same thing with gods. As someone pointed out, the burden of proof is always on the one who wants prove that something exists, because you can never fully prove something doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove that elfs or Smurfs don't exist, just like it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. Therefore, an atheist would be dogmatic only in the case the where god would appear right before his eyes, and he'd still refuse to believe in it. Of course, even that could be merely a delusion caused by LSD or a psychosis...

TS: atheism vs. theism, I'll take theism. but if it's atheism vs. Christianity, give me atheism. Christianity is the worst religion ever.

no offense taken, btw!

I can go along with that. It's not theism, though, is it, because you're not talking about a belief in god or gods or anything of that sort, are you?

Some things I appreciate about the church-
1) the community aspect. It brings people together, they share a common bond, it teaches them responsibility for each other. If this is inclusionary, this is great. Too often it is twisted into being exclusionary.
2) the moral aspect. It (hopefully should) teach a basic ethical code - do unto others, etc. If people follow the spirit of this code, then it's as good as the Categorial Imperative for me. However, too often people get caught up in the letter of the law and use this to justify vastly unethical behaviour.
3) The concept of forgiveness. (goes along with the moral aspect, perhaps.) Human beings make mistakes. It's a good idea to admit that you've made a mistake, forgive that mistake and move on, rather than bear a grudge and carry on into tribal style vengeance.

Do you need a concept of God to have these principles? Probably not. To me, the concept of God is a shortcut to admitting that there is something greater than yourself, greater than the individual and its animal impulses. You can call that Something Greater "god" or you can call it "free will" or you can call it "rational thought and consciousness leading to enlightened self interest".

Some people have literal, rational minds and call it Free Will and are atheists. Some people have intuitive, symbolic minds and call it God and are Christians (or the religion of your choice.)

I don't think it matters; it is the concept not the name.

My mother says again and again "God (religion, etc.) is an experience, you either have it or you don't" or words to that effect (I'm probably misquoting her.) I don't have that experience.

I always say "Music is an experience, either you get it or you don't" because music offers many of those things to me - community, fulfillment, the sense of Something Higher. My mother is not musical and will never understand or experience music the way that I do. I don't think that makes her a lesser person, just different. The religious/atheist principle *should* be like that. Except many relious (and strong atheists) want to make out that they are a better person for their experience. Which I don't think is right.

Anyway, as an aside. It's hysterically funny to me how many strong atheists spend so much time talking about whether or not music has "soul".

It's one thing to say that something cannot be proved, and therefore is meaningless. It's another thing to go on and on about the nonexistence of god until it becomes a kind of bugbear and the utter blind insistence that god does not exist becomes a kind of religion in and of itself.

<>i>Do you agree, then, river fleet, that you have a primarily (or even exclusively) secular interest in religion?

I'm not sure what that means. I am a secular person, so of course the benefits that I see are secular. If you are a religious person, then you will experience religious benefits that I do not see or understand. I am sure that this means a lot to a religious person, and I cannot deny them their meaning.

Christianity, or at least the philosophy of Christ –- tolerance, turn the other cheek, riches don’t bring contentment, etc. -- are cannily apt and enlightened (particularly when you take into account the age Christ existed in), but unfortunately these teachings are, to a great extent, ignored (think the death penalty and going to war for God), and prominence is placed more on “going to mass,” “not being gay,” etc.

This is a thoughtful approach, I think. And it is neither dogmatic nor irrationalist. Atheism doesn't mean being cold and scientific. It doesn't even mean being anti-Christian. It just means not believing.

On the side, though, I don't think when atheists talk about music having 'soul' they are invoking any sort of religious belief system. They just mean that it isn't formulaic, mechanical, drab or something.

Well, isn't that a belief system, even if it's a system of belief about what music should or shouldn't symbolise?

Why can't you call yourself an atheist and allow other people to call themselves something else? Why can't you're lack of belief in God (if that's what you have) be consistent with allowing other people belief in God? In other words, you can be very clear (if you want to be) about being an atheist without denying anybody else their clear (or fuzzy) theism.

You're absolutely right that atheism's lack of belief in God implies that there is no god at all, not for anyone. That doesn't mean that the atheist has to deny other people their faith or their meanings or their beliefs. It means that you disagree. And surely it's possible to disagree with someone and respect their beliefs at the same time?

Latebloomer, Sorry I should have tried to say it more clearly, but I created this thread to specifically focus on Christianity and Atheism (partly because I think when I posted this there was a similar lecture going on at my university, and Christianity is more culturally and socially relevant to most English speakers). I was being biased towards a certain concept of religion. But of course any discussion of religion can and probably will get expanded to many other concepts of religion. Either way it's interesting.

see

you

are

aren't

My major quarrel with christianity is its claim to be a 'revealed religion'. IOW, christianity claims its myths must be accepted as plain historic facts and its sacred writings must be accepted as a narrative of god's historic interactions with particular humans and carry the force of divine law. In this respect it is quite similar to Judaism and Islam.

My difficulty is that all such religions are so inflexibly dogmatic that when experience, feeling and thought come into conflict with dogma, it is experience, feeling and thought that are forced to yield. At best, that requires the faithful to become daily adepts at hypocrisy and at worst that can do serious damage to their sanity. Even the most dogmatic atheism does less violence to one's pysche.

If I correctly gathered the sense of those who objected to atheists, it was not to their beliefs per se, so much as their to attempts to proselytize. That particular shoe fits both sides in this match.

"haha i wasnt paraphrasing CS lewis on that one thats a standard question u must ask urself about Jesus..... he has to be one of those 4 "

I would suggest you don't think any standard questions MUST be asked.

"The trouble with religion is that it’s based on the principle of “don’t ask questions; just have faith” – this is pure intellectual laziness."

Not nessicarly. I'm relgious and I know many other religious people that try to find all these difficult (don't ask) questions. That's the best way to reaffirm one's faith. It's a very taxing intellectual process.
I do agree that many many people don't want to bother with any intellectual difficulties and that kind of sucks for them. They take the approach of "I have faith, that's all I need. I love God, but I'm not going to think about it"

I'm not saying that one should rely on intellectualism to find a faith. That's something man can't do for himself.

x-post

Well...if God exists then He gave me the ability to think logically and rationally. Using this ability, I have come to the conclusion that God in the Christian sense does not exist. (I'm not saying this is the ONLY rational conclusion one can come to, just the one I have come to). So, how can he damn me to hell for using and relying on the abilities He himself has bestowed upon me. Seems like a shitty thing to do.

x-post

I sorry to let you know this, but all godless heathens do go to hell. Think of it from their point of view, there is no god and there is no hell it's just like they expect. Now think of it from you point of view; God chooses some people they aren't godless they don't go to hell.

Having said this, you have no idea who was choosen godless or not. So it is possible that god working through your actions reveals someone as not godless (according to his plans) etc etc if God etc etc is sovereign etc etc.

I'm an evangelical christian and I think Evangelical Christian bollox is far far worse than any kneejerk atheist bollox.

"generally" is a key word there, so Islam is not cult. There are some extremeist Islamic cults though.

put away cs lewis who tells you what you want to hear and read 'the perennial philosophy' by aldous huxley, or some alan watts

i also respect meister eckhart more than st paul

I'm getting at that you are trying to reason out the existance of God and the truths of Christiany. You are human. Your reason is not perfect. Only God can make some one a Christian. They cannot make themselves a Christian.

John 7:17 (I don't think that's the correct listing for that verse) is important because that is the only relevant (on a spiritual level) action a man can take.

faith is a christians best weapon

that cannot be proved rationally

luckily the two are not mutually exclusive otherwise all christians would be monstrous madmen

rather than just some

im afraid to say cs lewis is wrong more times than he is right

No that's not true either. A person who just recently became a Christian can gain a lot from intellectually thinking about Christianity.

And Yes, it is a debate, not an attempt at evangalising. Evangalising is very good, but it should be the type where you say "look at this I can proove God exisits" it should be more along the lines of "look at yourself you may want to become Chrisitan"

Also, I already answered your question about the "you must pick one of these four" but you ignored my refutation. Please point me to the chapter and verse where Jesus says "I am God." I think you'll find the following quotations, attributed to Jesus, are as close as he comes: "You yourself have said it"; "no man comes to the father but by me"; "in my father's house there are many mansions, if it were not so I would have told you"; and a few others along these lines. many great gurus, among whose numbers Jesus can comfortably be counted, say similar things all the time. and plenty of people are willing to die for such gurus. was heaven's gate on-the-money since those people were willing to sacrifice so much? how 'bout Jonestown? jeez man. here you are reppin' the world's most dangerous cult and you won't even bring your a-game.

OTM

*your answer must not include the word 'heaven'

well im sure He could he could spend all his time listening to kylie albums, but still he'd probably feel a bit bad. 'jeez, i didnt know he was gonna win an oscar, look i create, you guys care-take, that's how it works'

x-post to dan

rimshot

so brooks as far as you're concerned there's only one way of reading this, right? Jesus himself came from a tradition of rich, multi-leveled readings of scripture. I can say to you, also, "anyone who has seen me has seen the father" and not be lying: to know God, you must know your fellow man, etc etc etc

look just abandon Christianity, you'll be much happier & God won't mind a bit

we have yet to prove it false

Very important rule to remember: you can't prove a negative. No-one can, ever. The burden is on you to prove that Jesus 1) existed in the first place and 2) was God. The burden is not on others to "prove it false," because you can't ever prove anything false - reason just doesn't work that way. And the "God, lunatic, liar or prophet" thing has already been dismissed, so you'll need a different affirmative defense. The best one I know, and the one that actually works in converting people is this: "I love Jesus, and my love for Him has changed me in ways that have made me very happy." That stuff's contagious. I'll still think you're full of hot air, but somebody else might bite. The God/lunatic/liar thing though - that dog don't hunt.

Many have! Please see that link I offered. You just choose to ignore them, because they'd force you to ask yourself some hard questions about the meaning of your experiences.

Does God tell you to argue dishonestly? You're trying to hang your hat on a semantic point here. You're trying to convince, all right, in the hopes that people will seek conversion. And you know very well that that's exactly what I meant. Honestly. Do you really think God approves of people ducking the crux of an argument in favor of the detrita? I don't.

x-post

BEST POST EVER

then you'd been in the invidious position of wanking in the face of god

take the look your mum would give you and x 1000

It is easy to think we are all born with a distaste for seeing, say, a woman and a dwarf man armed with blades and forced to fight to the death in the Coliseum for the audience's delight in their bloody suffering, but you would find only a few wet blankets -- men or women -- in Rome who saw anything slightly objectionable, and they would be Christians. This is worth reflecting on. The mind which objected to, e.g., the Coliseum, was born fairly suddenly and dramatically into the Western world, and it was the mind of Christ the Jew, in what we often dismissingly refer to as the "Judeo-Christian" tradition.

please cite exactly which "Roman records" you're referring to.

no seriously obviously as i said above there is faith required here as well, ie faith that they were not demented liars, that they believed what they were saying, and were willing to die for it.
i am not a christian. i also think that the actual message they carried to others has been so obscured by history/time/dirty dealings of the church that it's possible they could have said something different, with a crucial detail in there we're unaware of.
they could have been gnostics fercrissakes. but whatever it was, it was about joshua ben joseph/miriam. and they believed it passionately.

How many times have people pointed out the fact that it is philosophically idiotic to ask for a proof of non-existence? And yet you neither stop asking atheists to prove the non-existence of God, nor construct an argument against the position that it is idiotic to ask for a proof of non-existence.

And don't you see, also, that all of your arguments for the existence of God rely on a very limited reading of a TEXT? Imagine if the proof of existence of something relied entirely on textual evidence. In that case, Star Trek was real!! What you say about historians treating four testimonies as proof is pure fantasy. Historians will always want to corroborate textual evidence with other types of evidence before concluding anything from it. You are clearly desperate to close the case before making a proper and complete inquiry. Everyone can sense this and so they simply can't trust what you say.

By the way, why do you avoid the question about your age?

no problems there.

one writer may be bad and another good but they both write in english.

the apostles were human beings same as the gaters. they used similar tools to convert ppl. they didnt try to kill any-one no.
but they probably frothed at the mouth.

life doesnt make things easy to distinguish. which is why simpletons believe what they hear on fox news. but being a discriminating adult means you can that two things might appear the same but one is being transmitted in a spirit of love and trust and another out of ignorance and hatred. course sometimes one cant tell.

I think there has been some sort of collapse of the idea of proof as this thread has developed, so that now fiction seems the only available resource of meaning. When someone says that God is unprovable and that the burden of proof lies with those asserting (without any ground) that He exists, this is not equivalent to Eyeball saying "what if I told you I was 50 foot tall" because the claim about your height is provable one way or the other, by measuring the distance from your feet to the top of your head. That is not unprovable, its measuable. Can you see the difference?

So the atheist who says that God is unprovable is not obliged to say that everything in the universe is unprovable, only that some assertions - such as the existence of God and phlogiston - cannot be proved because we have no evidence of their existence. Agnosticism is not the rational response to unprovable assertions. Agnosticism makes the mistake of concluding that if something is unprovable then it is unknowable (that there must always be doubt about its existence). The unprovable and the unknowable are not the same thing.

The atheist is not simply subject to a rival fiction. The atheist behaves rationally given the lack of evidence, just as it would be rational to cross the road when there's no traffic even when you're child is telling you that a dinosaur is going to come round the corner at any minute.

The main flaw with the theist's argument is that it seems to believe it knows the truth without reason or reasonable proof or good reasons.

I've not really got anything to add, but Thomas Tallis, your posts have been very interesting.

sometimes, maybe that's true. What about the other times?

There was this bloke in my mum's book club who, whenever my mum or I tried to talk about the history of the church, not even anything particularly hardcore theological, would just throw up his hands and declare "Oh no, I don't want to know about theology. Faith for me is a heart thing, not a head thing!"

I kind of wrote him off as an illiterate loony fundie, but then, later on in the conversation, he mentioned that he was an accountant, and started talking about some fairly sophisticated things. I realised that this guy is not a dummy. But the accountant thing tipped me off.

Some people are *so* rational, they live so much in their heads - with figures, with mathematics and logic - that they like to assign anything that *isn't* totally logical and rational to this strange area of "FAITH" and "heart stuff" that they don't understand, and don't *want* to understand. There are people who compartmentalise love into the same place.

To me, the division between heart and head is irrational and arbitrary. I want to understand the things that I love, and I want to love the things that I understand. But some people seem to feel the need to do this.

Best thing said on ILX in at least ten minutes (that's a BIG compliment, btw).

Tell me about these facts that you say I have faith in.

And I haven't made any such arguments about the Bible being altered, so it hardly matters whether its authors got rich or got killed. This is simply not the issue.

So, if you'd be so kind as to look up thread at my actual points, maybe we could have a conversation.

A relevant passage from another site examining this question:

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

but Brooks I get the feeling you're not actually interested in getting to the bottom of things. You would be a Christian even if God Himself came down and told you "Jesus never existed."

Oh, that author?

I'm starting to think Aja is the 40 year old and Brooks is the 12 year old...

Why do you think that?

I need to know this for some of the stuff in the Bible to make sense to me.

Anyone know?

You know, the Hindu scriptures are even older than the Bible - they've been around forever, and there are millions of believers in them worldwide - do you accept them to be true because people still believe in them?

x-post: not to make sweeping generalizations or anything, but the general rule of Christian discourse is "ignore anything you can't answer"

This is the point I made to you:

Faith is not enough. I don't have it and I won't pretend to have it in the hope of getting it on someone's word. (I know you think Jesus's word is different, and fair enough, but I believe that the historical Jesus existed without believing in what Jesus believed or what subsequent Christians believe.)

The existence of God has no basis in sense or science, so why should I go for it, except perhaps to save my soul (another 'thing' that I don't believe in).

Asking people to read the Bible before making a judgement on Jesus or Christianity or God is like asking people to read Mein Kampf before judging Hitler. I judge Hitler by what he did. And I'll judge God by the same method. According to that method, I have no proof that He exists, so I don't see any reason at all to read His book.

And this is your answer:

You have proof its the Gospels written by people who were closest to him.

I edited this out of the paragraph it came in because the rest of the paragraph speculated on my beliefs and were entirely false.

Have you got a better response than this?

did you follow the links upthread? I have read the bible, and lots of Christian apologetics. if your faith is strong, you should really look hard into the argument against an historical Jesus.

Brooks, tell me, please, can you not see what is wrong with your method in the following passage, which I've cut from up thread?

--

Now Jesus existed u cant argue against that history proves it. Therefore hes either of these a lunitic, liar, God,or a prophet. If hes a prophet then he lied making himself not a prophet.
This, by the way, is nonsense. C.S. Lewis, whom I like, was fond of this "proof," and I do love the way Lewis parses it ("we can either dismiss him as a madman or fall at his feet, but let's have no more of this calling him a great teacher" - paraphrased badly, but something along those lines), but it assumes strictly western, modern values: a man who says God sent him - well! either he's telling the truth, or he's crazy, or he's evil! ummm OR he's a Vaisnava who means what he says in a way you don't hear because you don't live the prayerful life he does! OR he's a teacher in a (very strong & great) Buddhist tradition where illogic is used to smash the unhelpful materialistic workings of Mind! Or, or, or, or a bunch of stuff, all equally interesting, pertinent and possible. Bottom line: Jesus could say ALL THE THINGS HE SAID and still not be God, crazy, or evil. OR a prophet. Of course he could.

-- Thomas Tallis (tallis4...) (webmail), January 23rd, 2004 4:00 AM. (Tommy) (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

haha i wasnt paraphrasing CS lewis on that one thats a standard question u must ask urself about Jesus..... he has to be one of those 4
-- B. Robinson (guitar8...) (webmail), January 23rd, 2004 4:01 AM. (later)

x-post I don't think Brooks meant to be aggressive, I think he's just coming off that way because 1) he's a little under fire here and 2) vagaries of posting-on-message-boards - certainly I take no offense at his asking, I mean I'm here arguing religion with him so it's a fair question, if badly timed

Christ's followers, the ones who wrote about him, had read the Old Testament before they wrote the Gospels. There is plenty of literature explaining how they made his story fit those prophesies.

What they had to gain was the sort of religion that mattered to them. The New Testament is littered with criticisms of the dominant religions at the time, so what they had to gain was a religion that was not corrupt, fallen, betrayed, irreligious, etc etc. I'm sure that mattered a great deal to them, and in their view of things, that meant they had a great deal to gain.

I think a more interesting argument is what kate touched on earlier. Whether christianity or atheism is a better, more practical position to hold. Obviously this depends upon where and when you live. For the record, my personal position would tend to be more in favor of atheism than christianity (though i'm not really fond of either), because I think that the mindset and worldview that go along with theism is generally unhealthy.

That's because Christian apologetics is actually a very complicated feild of study. Truth is not something that any man can just think up as nonchalantly or easily as you'd think.

You putting this agenda into the writings of all the people who wrote the new testament seems to be an awfully closedminded approach to looking at it.

I completely misread this statement, but my comment below is still relevant to something.
(and ,many amazingly intellecual people are Christians Jonathan Edwards for example. Stereotyping them as foolish just so you can not feel like your going against something very intellecual by thinking their belief's are foolish is not accurate)

http://www.enlightened.org.uk/ev02-mathematics.html

but, uh yeah, what's the argument? two very opposite beliefs that aren't reconciled. why battle?

personally, mysoginistic fables vs. reality, gee hard choice.

I never understood Ned's personal reaction, though, way upthread. It seemed odd. I mean, we could all bring our mothers into it and get all defensive and shit... but, um, why?

One of the highlights for me was that passage from Chesterton, and I'm so not a Christian (it was powerful and poetic). I think the strong/weak distinction can apply to agnostics as well as atheists. The latter is a kind of "ho hum, who cares, none of it is proveable", etc., but the former is more "definitively, rationality/empiricism will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of a 'creator spirit', so let's live our lives with less emphasis on divinities and suchlike".

Thomas Tallis and runitoff showed great patience and tenacity, as did Brooks in his own way. The latter was just so fucking disingenuous that he did his cause absolutely no good whatsoever.

There, now no-one needs to read the thread at all.

(Kidding, of course).

Plus, how did Nick's wank go, we never had the final update on that?

The smartest Christians never get into this argument.

-- David A. (damagedintransi...), March 3rd, 2004.

I had the giving-myself-a-blowjob dream again the other week. Plus I think on Sunday I awoke in the middle of the night and had a wank and then went back to sleep again, but I'm not sure.
-- Sick Nouthall (auspiciousfis...), March 2nd, 2004.

I didn't say "the Christians who don't get into this argument are the smartest."

I'm struggling to see what difference you're after here. Can you help me out, please?

"Smart Christians who don't get into this argument" is a subset of "Christians who don't get into this argument." Not getting into the argument isn't evidence of their intelligence -- it's an effect of it, but an effect which in other subsets may have different causes. (There's nothing stopping stupid Christians, even galactically stupid Christians, from staying out of the argument.)

xpost; what Dan said, too (and Dan, I don't think you're stupid)

and this is why, I take it, you said that the smart est Christians never get into the argument? So, sure dumb Christians can stay out of the argument, but you overstated your case by implying that taking part in this argument disqualified you from being among the smartest of Christians. So while the Christians who don't get into this argument are not always the smartest (some dumb ones join them), the Christians who don't get into this argument are the smartest by virtue of the fact that it would be dumb to do it.

I couldn't remember what your beliefs, if any, were :) Only that you've made (a couple times, unless I'm misremembering) comments about the self-righteous flavor of atheist, so if you had taken a side, there was a good chance it was the Christian one.

I'm not sure that this is the nub of the issue here... sorry.

Dan I. said the smartest Christians were all approaching the argument in a certain way; I corrected him and said the smartest Christians don't bother with the argument. You said "not having the argument doesn't mean they're smart." I agreed, because I'd never said otherwise. I'm really not sure what you're not getting.

Do u see the wind. No u cant but u can feel the wind
Prince, stop hanging around on the Internet and release a knock-your-sox-off album that blows everyone away.

-- Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 23 January 2004 01:34 (3 years ago)

atheists are asserting a definite negative, which is a logical impossibility.

yay london!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

lol stephen green

"People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it."

Says Stephen Green. The man whose website is this...http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/

I have donated. Anything connected to Dawkins is worth contributing to just to wind Dom up.

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see."

So you may wanna throw some coin up to Combat 18 or Haider's mob in Austria.

It worked quicker than I thought.

Dawkins is arguably something of a cock but a) that's a different thread and b) this is the BHA's vehicle; it's them I'm rooting for.

Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side.

I can't think of any and don't remember seeing any, so he's right!

I imagine Richard Dawkins hasn't travelled by bus very often

i've seen 'em... here we go:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2565961868_f06825d9c1.jpg

Woh, the old 271 behind the Godbus

wow that's obnoxious. That shit is banned from public buses in the US and rightly so.

is that for real? oh well just shows how much i pay attention to bus ads (stilll surprised by how little advertising there is on bendies tho)

If it's legal and okay to be in a church and they paid for those adverts then I don't see a problem.

I kind of like the religious one (and seeing things like "JESUS" or "Christ is the Answer" on billboards) - completely ineffective at converting heathens, but well-meaning just the same, which makes me smile. I don't know whether to read the atheist one as merely reactionary, and therefore annoying, or intentionally funny.

Well. no one is saying they should be banned, just that there should be some balance hence the BHA's campaign (not Dawkins, that a little piece of Stephen Green propaganda - in fact the biggest contributor to the fund so far is A C Grayling).

I imagine Richard Dawkins hasn't travelled by bus very often

No, but I bet he's seen a few buses, which is more to the point.

xp

And I see them all over the place - tons of Alpha Course ones for instance.

i've seen loads of religious adverts on buses. i don't find them, or these new humanist ones, any more obnoxious than advertising generally (which is to say: i find them ALL obnoxious and would rather they weren't there, but they're easy to tune out so who cares really)

No, but I bet he's seen a few buses, which is more to the point.

I bet he averts his eyes

That shit is banned from public buses in the US and rightly so.

It is? By whom? I'm almost certain I've seen ads for churches on Cleveland RTA buses.

there was an article in the paper last week about an Islamic group putting ads on Chicago buses.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/red-talk-busoct15,0,7075479.story

You know what we need?

We need ads like those big, red Stonewall ads that say on some busses

SOME PEOPLE ARE RELIGIOUS. GET OVER IT.

and on others...

SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT. GET OVER IT.