More to atheism...?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I have no idea why you guys keep saying that (ignorance of history perhaps)

Jesus (sans-deity status) was simply one of dozens of Jewish messiahs around that time.

Dozens? Ok then name one.

Wicknight wrote: »

He didn't say anything particularly profound (even if one assumes the ideas in the Bible attributed to him were actually his ideas) nor did he do anything particularly remarkable.

He never said anything profound? Even if we assume that the things attributed to Him in the Gospel record are actually His sayings? So for instance saying "Before Abraham was I was" is not a profound statement? Abraham lived 400 years before Moses and Moses lived over 2000 years before Jesus yet Jesus says “Before Abraham was I was”. Or saying "All authority in Heaven and Earth is given unto me" that is not a profound statement? Or "I beheld Satan cast down as lightening" nothing profound about that either I suppose? Not only does that one assume the existence of Satan but it also suggests that Jesus was in heaven when this event took place which was long before Adam was created. Or how about "I am the way the truth and the life" sure that's just your average everyday saying that anyone would say. If you don't believe these statements are profound please tell me what you would consider to be a profound statement.

What makes them more remarkable is that the one who is attributed to saying them is the same one who is claimed to have risen from the dead. No other respected founder of religion made such claims about themselves. And Jesus is a respected founder of religion. He is not in the same camp as a Father Divine or David Koresh or any other nut job of religion. He is respected even in other faiths as founder of religion. And respected as good and wise.

Same goes for deeds that are also ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel record. Raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to blind people, casting out demons, making cripples walk, walking on water, rebuking storms, feeding multitudes with miniscule amounts of food and on we can go. Now you don’t have to believe these things happened (and I’m sure you don’t) but to say that they are not remarkable is silly. If they are not remarkable deeds then please tell me what you consider to be a remarkable deed? And can you give me an example of someone who has performed such a deed?

Wicknight wrote: »

There were "messiahs" around those times who managed far more remarkable feats, such as raising large groups of followers.

Like who?

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus simply ended up, probably by fluke, having better PR

Ah yes, one of the beauties of the world we live in. You can believe whatever you want to.

Christianity stands or falls on whether or not the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened as a fact of history. Disprove that that happened and you will have proven Christianity a false religion. Saying you don't believe it happened because it can't happen is not proving it didn't happen. Just like me saying I believe it happened therefore that is proof that it did happen. In NT days they had eye witnesses to these events, we only have the Gospel records and those records must be scrutinised to be sure of their veracity and they have been for 2000 years and they have yet to be proven to be liars. Read Frank Morrison’s “Who move the stone”. He set out to prove that the story of Christ’s Resurrection was only a myth and Sherlock’s “Trial of the witnesses” who put the apostles on trial for faking the resurrection.

Anyway I thought we were supposed to be talking about Atheism? You always go off topic you know that Wicknight??

Soul Winner

humanji wrote: »

I think he was pointing out that Norton, rather than Jesus was the most unusual man in history. Read the first paragraph and you'll likely agree

Ah ha! "I see" said the blind man. Yes he was unusual to be sure but he’s not even in the same solar system as Jesus. Please read my response to Wick above for things that are attributed to Jesus as Him saying and you will agree that Jesus wins hands down in the “Most unusual person in history” competition

Dades

* pulls up chair *

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or saying "All authority in Heaven and Earth is given unto me" that is not a profound statement?

Not at all. Rather megalomaniacal, I'd have said. Most of the rest are poetic renditions of pretty standard sentiments. You'll find most poets able to come up with stuff that's at least as good and the ancient world was not short of excellent poets.

BTW, if you're looking for profundity in the ancient world, I'd recommend anything that Plato wrote. And I challenge you to read the end of the Phaedo, where Plato recounts the death of Socrates, and remain unmoved. It depicts a far more heroic death than the strange account of Jesus' death.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/phaedo.html

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dozens? Ok then name one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

Soul Winner wrote: »

He never said anything profound? Even if we assume that the things attributed to Him in the Gospel record are actually His sayings? So for instance saying "Before Abraham was I was" is not a profound statement?

No

How is that profound?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Abraham lived 400 years before Moses and Moses lived over 2000 years before Jesus yet Jesus says “Before Abraham was I was”. Or saying "All authority in Heaven and Earth is given unto me" that is not a profound statement? Or "I beheld Satan cast down as lightening" nothing profound about that either I suppose?

Again no. Jesus is basically saying he is God. That isn't profound at all. I can find 10 people in Dublin inner city who will claim the exact same thing.

Do you understand what I mean by profound. I mean though provoking, something enlightening. Claiming to be god isn't enlightening. Quite the opposite in fact.

I though at least you were going to pick something like "Love your enemy", which many Christians think was a profound thing Jesus said, largely because they are unaware of the others who said it before him.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not only does that one assume the existence of Satan but it also suggests that Jesus was in heaven when this event took place which was long before Adam was created.

Or it suggests that Jesus was simply nuts.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or how about "I am the way the truth and the life" sure that's just your average everyday saying that anyone would say.

Actually it is, at least your average everyday saying that a cult leader would say.

Claiming to be the only route to salvation or authority is pretty much standard practice for a cult leader, so much so it is part of standard definition of a cult

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis3.html

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you don't believe these statements are profound please tell me what you would consider to be a profound statement.

One I came across recently -

A gun gives you the body, not the bird
Henry David Thoreau

Soul Winner wrote: »

What makes them more remarkable is that the one who is attributed to saying them is the same one who is claimed to have risen from the dead. No other respected founder of religion made such claims about themselves.

Er, again your ignorance in this regard is rather shocking.

Claiming to have leaders or significant figures rise from the dead is something religions do all the time. Followers of a Zambian priest claim he did it a few months ago, and he has many followers who will "verify" the event.

Of more significance in would be someone like the Indian mystic Kabir, who appeared at his own funeral to direct his followers how he wanted to be buried.

Or Rabbi Judah, who used to go home to his wife for dinner, witnessed by his neighbors.

(and before you ask, no I don't believe either of those stories either, just like I don't believe Jesus appeared to his followers)

Soul Winner wrote: »

He is not in the same camp as a Father Divine or David Koresh or any other nut job of religion.

One mans cult leader is another mans messiah. A cult leader is always respected by his followers. And once his followers grow in significant numbers they are "respected" by everyone else. Look at Scientology that has been granted religion tax status in America

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now you don’t have to believe these things happened (and I’m sure you don’t) but to say that they are not remarkable is silly. If they are not remarkable deeds then please tell me what you consider to be a remarkable deed? And can you give me an example of someone who has performed such a deed?

I can give you hundreds of examples of people who have claimed to I don't believe any of them actually did, nor do I believe Jesus did.

Are you being serious or are you simply trolling? Do you seriously believe that what Jesus' followers claimed he did has never been claimed by other cults before or since? Because TBH I find it hard to believe you are that naive.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like who?

Well Simon ben Kosiba for one, who lead a revolt against the Romans and formed an independent Jewish state in Israel that lasted for 3 years, until they were captured once again by the Romans.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Christianity stands or falls on whether or not the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened as a fact of history.

Considering that there is no actual evidence that that happened beyond the contradictory ramblings of the cult members written years after the event was supposed to happen (kinda like how everyone knows someone knows someone who knows an asylum seeker family that have been given a car by the government), that assertion would seem unlikely.

A more accurate assertion would that Christianity stands or falls on whether or not people are prepared to believe that Jesus was resurrected. And it turns out they are. For obvious reasons (again a bit like the asylum seekers and cars/holidays/pocket-money)

Soul Winner wrote: »

Disprove that that happened and you will have proven Christianity a false religion. Saying you don't believe it happened because it can't happen is not proving it didn't happen.

That is brilliant logic there Soul Winner. Kinda falls down when you apply it to every other supernatural claim made by every other cult or religion. :rolleyes:

Since when did claiming something supernatural happened become support that it did actually happen. Did I miss that memo?

Soul Winner wrote: »

In NT days they had eye witnesses to these events, we only have the Gospel records and those records must be scrutinised to be sure of their veracity and they have been for 2000 years and they have yet to be proven to be liars.

Er, those books were NEVER scrutinized in any time period after the events where it actually would be been useful to do so, because they were the sole property and responsibility of the church itself for hundreds of years.

And cults/religions tend not to scrutinize themselves (in the same way that company CEOs tend not to fire themselves).

Soul Winner wrote: »

Anyway I thought we were supposed to be talking about Atheism? You always go off topic you know that Wicknight??

Hey you brought it up by making the rather silly claim that even if someone doesn't believe Jesus was a deity he was the most unusual person in history :rolleyes:

Trust me, if a person doesn't believe Jesus was the messiah he becomes simply one of an almost infinite number of wack jobs who believed crazy things about themselves.

karen3212

I think that once I stopped believing in a loving God and a heaven, then there were a lot of things going on in the world that seem much worse given that I now thought people have only one short life to live. So yeah I think that not believing in justice in the afterlife made me look at a lot of things differently. I think atheism brings with it a different way of thinking about things than believing in a God does.

Scofflaw

karen3212 wrote: »

I think that once I stopped believing in a loving God and a heaven, then there were a lot of things going on in the world that seem much worse given that I now thought people have only one short life to live. So yeah I think that not believing in justice in the afterlife made me look at a lot of things differently. I think atheism brings with it a different way of thinking about things than believing in a God does.

That, I think, is a really excellent point. The world-perspective that atheism implies (?) is very different from that of theism, or that of materialistic ignorance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Not at all. Rather megalomaniacal

Wicknight wrote: »

Or it suggests that Jesus was simply nuts.

Let's just stick with these two positions shall we? You guys are dead right, if He was not who He claimed to be then yes He was a megalomaniac nut. He is either a nut, a crook or who He claimed. CS Lewis calls Him a man that was of the order of a man who thinks He's a pouched egg if He was not supernatural. Why then in western academia is it ok to believe in Jesus as a good and wise man?

If He was good and His miraculous claims are not true then He cannot be wise because He is not wise enough to know that his ridiculous claims are not true. If He is wise then he knows that the claims He is making are not true He is therefore knowingly lying and thus is not good. He can't be both good and wise without being supernatural because of the supernatural claims He makes about Himself. The same source that makes academia call Him good and wise also has Him making these supernatural claims about Himself.

He is either one or the other (good or wise) or He is all three. I can respect anyone who will think He's one or the other, that means they know that the claims He makes about Himself cannot be made by a mortal man. The Jewish leaders of His day recognised this and proclaimed Him a blasphemer. They are only right if He is not in fact a supernatural being. What validates Jesus as being supernatural is the resurrection from the dead. If that happened as a fact of history then it gives validity to His other claims. Once you get to this stage then it all boils down to the Gospel records and whether the reporters who tell the story actually made it up for whatever reason (I can’t imagine why) they all (save one) died horrendous horrific deaths at the hands of their persecutors and all because they would not renege on their testimony. There is no way that if their story were a made up lie that they would give their lives in such a way for it.

I don’t need Christianity if Christ is not risen I don’t care how good or wise He was. I’ve looked at the evidence and I am convinced he was who He claimed to be. I would suggest reading those two books as starting point in establishing a basis for faith in Jesus as a supernatural God. If you don’t want to do that then fine.

Can we get back to atheism now?

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can we get back to atheism now?

Never left it!

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

So to agree with Zillah & Wicknight - there may more to an individual atheist, but not to atheism.

I do concede that there are atheists who would not define themselves by their atheism in any discernible way. I can think of close friends who I think would fit into this category. That said, I personally believe you are splitting hairs when you make a prescriptive statement about atheism in large. Why? Because there are atheists (both individuals and groups) who define themselves by their atheism, just in the same manner as there are theists who define themselves by their theism. I don't think there is any need to highlight this point by providing links to atheists groups who are *cough* vociferously passionate about their beliefs - we've all seen the sites.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think there is any need to highlight this point by providing links to atheists groups who are *cough* vociferously passionate about their lack of beliefs - we've all seen the sites.

fixed

Fanny Cradock

Thanks for that! But it's still a belief in my book. Probably in much in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby in yours, I guess.

lookinforpicnic

Clearly, if you are a rational person it is going to effect many aspects of your life. A whole host of ideas and tendencies of other people will just look completely idiotic to you, like superstitious behaviour, astrology, fortune telling, being a lucky person as if luck is something you can catch, having a soul, fulfilling ones destiny, life after death, reincarnation, cyclic life energy or some other energy force, having a purpose to fulfill, looking for a meaning to your life, organised religion, believe in a god.

Most (all in most cases) of these things will seem meaningless to you and that is undoubtedly going to effect your social behaviour, to different degrees depending on your personality or your political/ideological aspirations etc. given that we live in a world teaming with this nonsense.

Of course if the person from a rationalistic/naturalistic or scientific worldview is an atheist that is just one of the many upshots of his worldview, but given that the idea of god is so prevalent throughout society, this non-belief will become artificially inflated in minds of people that you tell you’re an atheist, and they may mistakenly think that this belief drives other beliefs (as in religion), when in reality it is in fact the opposite.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's for that! But it's still a belief in my book. Probably in much in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby in yours, I guess.

I think "not dancing at a ball" is a better analogy, myself. Not enough people collect stamps.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

I do. Or at least I did when I was 12.

I gave up after I got fleeced when I bought a ream of stamps with inverted bi-planes on them. Burnt the lot.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But it's still a belief in my book. Probably in much in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby in yours, I guess.

Or indeed, being bald is just another hair color.

If you visit the sites you say are "vociferously passionate about their beliefs", you'll usually find that, far from gettting over-excited about something that's not there as you seem to think, they're actually anti-clerical, anti-wishful thinking, anti-dishonesty, anti-(other-unfortunate-human-attributes) etc.

Anyhow, what sites exactly are you referring to?

Dades

Fanny, why don't you pop in here and tell them their real agenda!

Obviously there must be more to it than laying off the gargle!

Zillah

Fanny Cradock is weird. Its like he's deliberately misunderstanding everything. So he's either a little bit crazy or trolling. Quite remarkable if he's genuine.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why? Because there are atheists (both individuals and groups) who define themselves by their atheism, just in the same manner as there are theists who define themselves by their theism.

How does one define oneself by their atheism?

I think you might be confusing atheism with religious freedom (or freedom from religion)

As has been explained before there is a difference in doing something to support atheist and doing something in the cause of atheism. Atheism doesn't have a "cause", you can't do something in the name of atheism, though you can do something in the name of allowing people to right to be atheists (but that is more likely to be secularism than anything else).

Perhaps Fanny you need a new name when describing actions like these, because I think people like yourself have become confused by the fact that it is often atheists calling for these things that it is some how an "atheist belief" or "atheist cause"

I traditionally tend to use secularism, or secularist.

bogwalrus

Zillah wrote: »

Fanny Cradock is weird. Its like he's deliberately misunderstanding everything. So he's either a little bit crazy or trolling. Quite remarkable if he's genuine.

i thought fanny is a girls name?

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

Fanny Cradock is weird. Its like he's deliberately misunderstanding everything. So he's either a little bit crazy or trolling. Quite remarkable if he's genuine.

Yes, clearly I am weird because I disagree with you, Zillah. Why not try and enter into a debate instead of resorting to unnecessary insults? Also, referring to me in the third person is quite grating. Would you mind not doing that?

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, clearly I am weird because I disagree with you, Zillah.

Not because you disagree with me, but because you seem to constantly twist everything in a weird irrational way as if you don't want to understand what people are saying to you. Its like you're not really listening.

Why not try and enter into a debate

I have, several times. Every time you have either entirely failed to understand what I was saying, or you completely ignore/dodge the point I'm making.

instead of resorting to unnecessary insults?

I don't mean to be insulting, its a genuine observation. There is something very strange about how you conduct yourself.

Also, referring to me in the third person is quite grating. Would you mind not doing that?

I suppose I could avoid that, yes.

Fanny Cradock

O.K. - bar one recent thread I don't recall any specific time where we have entered into a meaningful debate with each other - certainly not here. So I'm unsure as to where you get the 'Every time you have either entirely failed to understand what I was saying, or you completely ignore/dodge the point I'm making' bit.

I'll admit that you did insult me when you dismissed my opinions as those of a troll, claimed that I'm weird (twice) and stated that I'm possibly a little bit crazy. Putting 'I didn't mean to be insulting' in front of these accusations doesn't help, btw. I was annoyed after reading your last two replies, and that is something I don't need in my life. But we should let's leave it there, though.

Enjoy your thread.

eoin5

I'm beginning to see your point Fanny. You can say theres more to atheism than just not-believing in god because there obviously is. The definition is something different. Its the same as there is more to shoes than the definition, there are left shoes, shiny ones, leather ones, comfortable ones, all sorts of shoes and this is what shoes really are.

Its the definitions you need to stick to really though in a discussion or things can get pretty arbitary and subjective.

On that line I reckon nearly all atheists that make a really big deal about it are anti-theists at some level. I'm sure an atheist who isnt an anti-theist would most likely not define him or herself in terms of their indifference or approval of religion. These atheist groups and conferences you mention are mainly made up of anti-theists so that makes them a mostly anti-theist groups and conferences that are just named inaccurately. Its a very important distinction and I think the overall view of atheism shouldnt be affected much because of it.

Every line is fuzzy in this debate, theres even the possibility of theists that are anti-theists.

pH

eoin5 wrote: »

On that line I reckon nearly all atheists that make a really big deal about it are anti-theists at some level. I'm sure an atheist who isnt an anti-theist would most likely not define him or herself in terms of their indifference or approval of religion.

I'm not sure what to make of someone who's an atheist but not as you say an 'anti theist'. I can't help feeling it's an incredibly patronising and condescending position to take - I know God doesn't exist, but there's a lot of people for whom believing this lie is a good thing so I'm all in favour of them getting on with it.

Kind of implies that they're less smart or less able to deal with the world than you, somehow you're OK with your atheism, but others just can't handle the truth.

And yes there are degrees of anti theism, but no one here is talking about burning down temples and mosques so can anyone who is an atheist but thinks that religion is a good thing to be encouraged explain their position to me in more detail.

eoin5

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of someone who's an atheist but not as you say an 'anti theist'. I can't help feeling it's an incredibly patronising and condescending position to take - I know God doesn't exist, but there's a lot of people for whom believing this lie is a good thing so I'm all in favour of them getting on with it.

Kind of implies that they're less smart or less able to deal with the world than you, somehow you're OK with your atheism, but others just can't handle the truth

And yes there are degrees of anti theism, but no one here is talking about burning down temples and mosques so can anyone who is an atheist but thinks that religion is a good thing to be encouraged explain their position to me in more detail.

Theres lots of ways to get to that position I'm sure. For the atheists that think believing in god is a good thing the most legitimate I can think of are those who simply cant believe in God no matter how much they try to. For these people they might feel left out or think that theres something wrong with them.

I think the more likely scenario though is that an atheist is indifferent or doesnt have a strong opinion about god.

mcgarnicle

eoin5 wrote: »

Theres lots of ways to get to that position I'm sure. For the atheists that think believing in god is a good thing the most legitimate I can think of are those who simply cant believe in God no matter how much they try to. For these people they might feel left out or think that theres something wrong with them.

I think the more likely scenario though is that an atheist is indifferent or doesnt have a strong opinion about god.

Not really related but your post reminded me of it. I remember watching a debate with Christopher Hitchens, at the end of which they did a Q and A session. Some guy stood up and proclaimed himself to be an atheist, he then said he was writing a book about how religion and atheists should get along (or some such mush) he then asked Hitchens did he not feel bad for giving out about something that made lots of people feel good...

Hitchens' response: "what an utterly stupid question"

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of someone who's an atheist but not as you say an 'anti theist'. I can't help feeling it's an incredibly patronising and condescending position to take - I know God doesn't exist, but there's a lot of people for whom believing this lie is a good thing so I'm all in favour of them getting on with it.

Kind of implies that they're less smart or less able to deal with the world than you, somehow you're OK with your atheism, but others just can't handle the truth.

And yes there are degrees of anti theism, but no one here is talking about burning down temples and mosques so can anyone who is an atheist but thinks that religion is a good thing to be encouraged explain their position to me in more detail.

You've pretty much summarised it, I think. I have absolutely no interest in "converting" people to atheism (although I am very happy to support those who come to it themselves).

Personally, I don't find atheism bleak, but I've certainly met plenty of people who I, in my greater wisdom, have determined as probably being unable to handle the implications of atheism. In general, these would be very moderate in their religion, and I see no reason to take away their candy.

There are also people who appear to require some form of enforced and determinate morality, and since I don't plan on offering them an alternative enforced and determinate morality, I prefer to leave well enough alone there too.

hubristically,
Scofflaw

Dades

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of someone who's an atheist but not as you say an 'anti theist'. I can't help feeling it's an incredibly patronising and condescending position to take - I know God doesn't exist, but there's a lot of people for whom believing this lie is a good thing so I'm all in favour of them getting on with it.

I find this contention really odd. What is patronising and condescending about believing what you believe - and letting others do the same? I'm sure there are many people who don't believe a god exists, who don't feel oppressed or controlled by those that do, and who just get on with their life and not think about much it.

This poll shows how anti-theist people really are.

pH

Dades wrote: »

I find this contention really odd. What is patronising and condescending about believing what you believe - and letting others do the same? I'm sure there are many people who don't believe a god exists, who don't feel oppressed or controlled by those that do, and who just get on with their life and not think about much it.

I suppose it comes down on where you place yourself on the scale "religion is a harmless personal belief" to "Religion is the cynical manipulation of people's hopes and fears by self-interested parties for their own wealth, power and status"

If you're like me and are in the latter part of that scale, and also accept that the term "anti theism" is not so much to do with philosophical concerns on the existence of Gods but more opposition to organised religion then I think you should be at least able to understand where I'm coming from, even if you don't agree with it.

Take a quote from Scofflaw's post above which I think illustrates well the position I'm totally opposed to and find shocking:

There are also people who appear to require some form of enforced and determinate morality, and since I don't plan on offering them an alternative enforced and determinate morality, I prefer to leave well enough alone there too.

I just don't accept that these people exist, I don't feel I'm morally or intellectually superior to my fellow man, and certainly don't feel they're somehow better off in in the hands of Scientologists or the Catholic Church, or in fact whatever God-worshipping cult has god its hand on them.

I feel this position is just a small step away from some fairly sinister ideas about 'some' people needing various forms of mind controls 'for their own good' so to speak because they can't handle the real world like us really smart and well adjusted folks.