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.

People have to act, and have to base their actions on something. Even a strict atheist has to make assumptions about what is more self-evident and what is less self-evident

like they're fine casting off the spectre of divine agency, but have trouble accepting that their own agency is an illusion, a construct

Probably because they feel it's more self-evident that they exist than that God does. Also, that it's more reasonable to assign agency to a being that is biologically defined than to one that is not

tbh i think there's a broad question about the extent to which people "take decisions" in a conscious, reflective way during the course of an average day

because as much as i have a feeling of having free will, i also experience feelings of being inattentive, impulsive, asleep at the wheel, stuck etc etc

at least you can say that the cumulative effect of the conscious decisions you have made has put you in a better place than where total impulsiveness would have landed you..?

also could be argued that many of our "impulsive" decisions derive from previously thought-out decisions

i'm not a determinist so if i'm getting this wrong i apologize but i would think all your 'conscious' processes + thinking are also determined.

alternatively consciousness is a contingent process constantly justifying the actions you are already determined to take (and there is some science that suggests this is the case). in which case maybe free will occurs in the creative explanation for why you did what you were already going to do. that would be funny if the only thing we freely controlled were interpretations of our bodies.

The Labatt Experiment

Libet?

The by now unstoppable flood of editions of works by Paracelsus on medicine and natural philosophy issuing from the Basel, Cologne and Strassburg presses began to experience increasing opposition from the celebrities of orthodox medicine, although they used not so much the weapons of their own discipline, but rather arguments drawn from theology. They were the first to recognize the explosive theological force of these works and were furthermore convinced (as Rotondò has formulated it) that the most effective defence of a pattern of thought which the academic world then considered to be scientifically orthodox should have to begin with the defence of its theological framework.15 Almost without exception they were men from the medical world, such as Gasser, Stenglin, Weyer, Solenander, Marstaller or Reussner, who in the first years of the so-called ‘Paracelsan Revival’ loudly proclaimed the charge of heresy with respect to Paracelsus and his followers.16 This campaign reached a climax in 1571-1572 with the outpouring of malice and defamation in the first part of Thomas Erastus’ Disputationes de medicina nova Paracelsi . Erastus did not hesitate to demand capital punishment for the adherents of the magus Paracelsus, and he also tried to influence one of the most authoritative theologians of the reformed party, the Zürich leader Heinrich Bullinger, in this respect: ‘I swear to you by everything that is holy to me: neither Arius, Photin, nor Mohammed, nor any Turk or heretic were ever so heretical as this unholy magus’.17

Neither Erastus nor any of his fellow defamers had for that matter read a single word of the theological works of Paracelsus. Apparently they did not really consider this necessary, because, after all, they had all read Oporinus’s notorious letter of 1565 with the anecdote relating to Paracelsus’ religious way of life.18 But even Oporinus’ nephew, the cautious Theodor Zwinger, who a few years later came to acknowledge the greatness of Paracelsus as a result of his thorough study of Hippocrates, and publicized his views to the horror of his academic colleagues, appears at first to have hardly occupied himself with the theological writings of Paracelsus. In 1564 he wrote in a letter often copied at the time:

‘I do not wish to comment on the morals of Paracelsus, as I find this unnecessary; because whether good or bad, they have no impact on his scientific approach. On the other hand, I can only testify concerning Paracelsus’ piety and godliness, that he has written many works on religion, which are even today treasured by his followers as priceless jewels. But it is common knowledge, that Paracelsus was a declared atheist.’19

http://www.ritmanlibrary.com/collection/comparative-religion/theophrastia-sancta-paracelsianism-as-a-religion-in-conflict-with-the-established-churches/

alternatively consciousness is a contingent process constantly justifying the actions you are already determined to take (and there is some science that suggests this is the case). in which case maybe free will occurs in the creative explanation for why you did what you were already going to do. that would be funny if the only thing we freely controlled were interpretations of our bodies.

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 8, 2015 7:33 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this possibility has always been frightening to me

Been reading about tax codes, charity, parsonage exemptions, etc. I wish public atheists would make a bigger stink about this stuff rather than arguing metaphysics. Churches do not have a monopoly on charity, yet they are so plugged in via tax loopholes and laws like "Charitable Choice" that I think it does a lot of harm overall. I think for a lot of people (politicians and evangelicals mostly) it de-legitimizes charity that takes place outside of the church.

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

If you are a minister, your personal rent and utilities are also tax-free. No other charitable organization can say the same, it would be nice if for instance you got free rent and utilities if you ran a food bank.

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes-Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501(c)(3)

Emphasis mine.

seems to me that only someone who views the practice of religion as inimical to society would object to including it on that list. just be happy that "advancement of education or science" is included, too.

Some jumping to conclusions there did anyone say practicing religion was harmful?

Education benefits all, not just those who go to school. Science benefits all, not just scientists. Advancing a particular religion benefits the members of that particular religion.

You may want to put some foundation under those assertions. They are not self-evident.

As far as I can see, any mechanism by which my education benefits a gas station attendant in Georgia, or by which a scientist studying tropical beetles benefits a nurse's aide in Wisconsin is bound to be vague enough and indirect enough that a similar mechanism can be postulated for a Buddhist meditating in Tennessee benefiting you or me.

if you're in favour of charities receiving govt funding it seems dubious to discriminate against those with a religious focus, & it's unclear how you would define it. in lots of places the church is one of the only things going on, there aren't necessarily always alternatives getting overlooked

If the religious groups are giving to charity what is stopping them from doing so using the same mechanism available to all secular charities?

Religious groups typically provide the charity - meal services, food banks, shelters etc.

Idk this seems like a p minor issue to get angry about imo

Well, I'm not sure it's so minor. I think I recall with Mitt Romney, he defended his low tax-payments because he payed tither and gave to mormon charities, who for instance used that money to fight against gay marriage. With the way 'religious freedom' is used in the US at this moment, I think it's ok to stop and wonder whether it's really ipso facto charitable to support.

I'm christian, btw, and most atheists I know seem to think they are twice as intelligent as they really are. But still.

I am not angry about it, just think in the context of "Atheism vs. Christianity" thread, perhaps atheists would be better off debating how US law continually benefits religious charities rather than debating philosophy or metaphysics. I have given to a church charity this year, I think it is awesome that churches do charity, and think it makes the world a better place.

But in the context of this thread, which is about the public debate between atheism and Christianity, I wish the very real laws and effects of those laws were debated over things that happened centuries or millenia ago.

It is also not a minor issue. 100% of US presidents have been Christian, a vast majority of the congressional lawmaking body have been Christian, and most authority figures in general have been in the US. They are creating public policy that effects everyone, not just Christians. Those policies are often biased in their favor. Look at the recent attacks on birth control, women's reproductive rights, gay marriage, etc. Look at US military policy, which is heavily fixated on a very particular religious group.

When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/

They estimate (in 2013) that churches get $85 billion a year in these subsidies. Churches own $600 billion worth of real estate they do not pay taxes on.

The church is the largest single charitable organisation in the country. Catholic Charities USA, its main charity, and its subsidiaries employ over 65,000 paid staff and serve over 10m people. These organisations distributed $4.7 billion to the poor in 2010, of which 62% came from local, state and federal government agencies.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

That means $1.7 billion of the church's own money was given to charity. Roughly 2 percent of the national subsidy they receive from taxpayers was given to the poor. Churches do not have to report their income so there is no real way of knowing how much they take in in addition to government subsidies. The amount is likely much lower than that.

just think in the context of "Atheism vs. Christianity" thread, perhaps atheists would be better off debating how US law continually benefits religious charities rather than debating philosophy or metaphysics

They do. You're welcome.

it would be nice if for instance you got free rent and utilities if you ran a food bank

Yea, verily, hath not our toll been paid back tenfold when the Lord commandeth we make food, not bombes?

I thought this was a q of charities/ventures run by religious groups rather than religious institutions donating money, which seems less complicated

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/number-of-muslims-worldwide-expected-to-nearly-equal-number-of-christians-by-2050-religiously-unaffiliated-will-make-up-declining-share-of-worlds-population/

With the exception of Buddhists, all of the world’s major religious groups are poised for at least some growth in absolute numbers in the coming decades. Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though also increasing in absolute numbers – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population.

sorry atheists :(

ffffffuck.

time for richard dawkins to launch a quiverfull campaign and get duggar-size broods of atheist families firing out kids at every opportunity

Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins 1h1 hour ago

The #fuckforscience campaign begins here! #barebackin'

really? I"d heard religious affiliations were shrinking worldwide. hmm.

we know that high quality of modern living standards correlate to lowered birth rates and vice-versa so it's not really surprising

pewforum

for years I fell into the predictable trap of wondering how even the least hateful members of the religious right, who actually participated in real Bible study, could square their hateful beliefs with what Jesus said/did but in recent years it feels more like they fit Jesus into this alpha male role by simply recontextualizing events.

one recurring theme I read from some of these assholes = "Jesus does not apologize, he is firm and not afraid of hurting feelings", and then the key example they always bring up is the Temple, where he made a whip of cords and drove the moneychangers and merchants out. Their read on things is very different, like he drove out "undesirable" people like prostitutes, people who sold drugs. they more or less willfully miss that it was the commercialization of the temple that was the problem, that it didn't matter what was being sold, it was that there was selling going on at all - and that Jesus would probably go into one of their Megachurches ready to break stuff.

the Passion Play, meanwhile, is liked because it has been turned into an 80s Golan-Globus action film. the right fetishizes pain and enduring it, specifically. go to a party with one of these fuckers, they'll talk endlessly about the injuries they suffered in their tour of Iraq and how all of the other people in their platoon were kids who whined at a papercut, but they gave their right leg to fight the insurgents. how they did what the 'weak' could not do and endured pain so that other people didn't have to (which they endlessly rub in the face of those they supposedly fought for).

the reviews I constantly heard from people who loved Passion of the Christ was always "it shows you what he went through for us", but with mostly emphasis on the physical, and very little about the spiritual and emotional torment he went through. it's more or less "humans were weak and wicked, so one man singlehandedly went into battle and defeated evil - for good". it's seen as badass rather than tragic. these folks will watch this and Black Hawk Down in the same sitting.

even "thou shalt not covet" is bastardized. they take this to mean "the have nots should not be envious of those much better than them that have attained riches", as opposed to "you should not measure your worth by comparing yourself to those around you, desiring other people's lives as opposed to being happy with your own". not 'lol poor people are jelly'.

i don't exactly have patience for engaging these folk but it makes a little more sense after I see it through their 80s action film lens

It always does seem to come down to tedious macho bullshit, doesn't it?

Jesus Take the Door Mount M-60

i think it sort of goes this way with religions: spiritual figures like christ or the buddha have this aura of truth around them. so people who want to be right or feel like they're right try to take it, own it, and provide exclusive access to it in order to control, generation after generation. that sort of thing is friendly to any other supremacy, but of course that phenomenon is so directly commented on in words attributed to jesus it's really wild to witness from the outside.

From reading the so-called gnostic texts and a bit of early Christian history, I believe that Jesus’s core message was essentially anti-imperialist and anti-authoritarian and also that it really cannot be understood outside the context of the fact that he was a subject of the Roman empire.

He was preaching to other oppressed subjects of the empire. And his point was “they might have all the power, but they are worse off than us, because they are cruel and their wealth was gained at the price of their souls.” “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

This message was popular among the oppressed people of the empire. They didn’t resist outwardly, politically—they couldn’t—but their new faith changed their attitude toward the power structure. They didn’t respect wealth and strength.

This all was co-opted by the empire when they made Christianity their official religion. The fact that the gospels let Pilate off relatively easy and scapegoat the Jews probably reflects this shift of Christianity becoming the imperial religion. I have read that it would not have made sense for the Jewish authorities of the time to call for Jesus’s crucifixion and he was probably put down by the Romans because they saw him as a subversive preacher.

The fact that Jesus’s rebellion was not political — and probably could not have been at the time — was taken advantage of by subsequent Church authorities who used it to criticize popular and radical movements.

The Christians today who support Trump are basically the inversion of what Jesus originally, probably said. He is a violent, greedy sadist who respects only wealth and power. But the perversion of Jesus’s message probably started way earlier.

Who knows but this is my sense of why there is this the apparent paradox between things like the sermon on the mount and what christianity stands for in america today. This is an old story.

“He” in the last paragraph two posts ago obv means Trump

it's interesting because after having thought about it i don't think i actually have a problem with christianity. anything i dislike about christianity, on further examination, seems really to be more about patriarchy.

i do recognize that christianity is a pretty fundamentally patriarchal religion, but it's not like they invented patriarchy or anything. and there's some people who are inspired by christianity to do really awesome things. and christianity has some pretty cool ideas, too... like the idea of "found family", i know that from one of the gospels. i think that's cool. it's just the patriarchy that gets in the way.

xp to treeship

yes all of that is my impression too.

The fact that Jesus’s rebellion was not political — and probably could not have been at the time — was taken advantage of by subsequent Church authorities who used it to criticize popular and radical movements.

yeah. ironically the sort of internal journey of shedding ego and finding wealth and power in a more authentic space that jesus pointed to is a particularly easy one to pay lip service to. but "by their fruits ye shall know them" right? i'm of the opinion that the apolitical nature of what jesus preached is both core to its power and what makes it easy to fabricate, that those two aspects of it are intertwined. but real heads know the real stuff. and it looks nothing like an evangelical church service lol. in fact it's not in any organized religion at all, which as you illustrate with the early history of the christian church, tend to ossify fairly soon after forming.

like the idea of "found family", i know that from one of the gospels. i think that's cool

absolutely. and jesus's actual relationships with women as described in the gospels do not seem patriarchal at all to me.

Almost all of the core tenets of Christianity that most sects agreed on come from the Johannine community

Religions are about more than tenets though. When the early Christians took the cross as their symbol, it was very radical. They were basically saying that no amount of violence and terror was going to stop them from respecting themselves. Many of these people were slaves.

I think there is something very powerful at the root of this religion but again because it was so powerful everyone, for twenty centuries, has wanted a piece of it.

haha yeah. i think that there's a lineage to that power over time. it tends to evade recorded history for obvious reasons (history is written by the socially powerful, not the spiritually powerful) but it appears in cast-offs and singular mystics, women who were executed for being too independent, etc. the same sort of thing is all over the world's other religious traditions too. jesus had a pretty heady mix of a lot of elements you can find in other places at other moments in time. i was just reading about ayamanda ma, a hindu mystic who became recognized in the early 20th century. some christlike things going on there. also just a really cool story.

Oh totally.

The fact that Jesus’s rebellion was not political — and probably could not have been at the time — was taken advantage of by subsequent Church authorities who used it to criticize popular and radical movements.

I'm finally getting around to reading The Name of the Rose (which has been on my bookshelf for about 30 years) and it's full of accounts of that, all the fights over "heresies" in the church in the 13th and 14th centuries, coming from radical orders who believed that to be like Jesus you had to both be poor — vows of poverty — and care for the poor. And what a threat that idea was to the church hierarchy and the emperor, they had them tortured and killed.