| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2007 05:04:27 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Just an observation: Wouldn't also make no sense to waste time arguing against it? I bring this up because from my observations of these threads, you are typically at the forefront of championing the atheist cause and clearly spending a lot of time doing it. I am curious as to why. |
I like the debate. I like to understand the opposite view and prod a bit. (Europe is substantially secularist - this is the only forum that I have encountered the depth of religiosity witnessed here). I find the increasing level of religious fundamentalism in the world quite scary - I hope to make people think about their beliefs.
Originally posted by ArtRoflmao:
Well, how do Christians' positive contributions to the world stack up against their perceived negative contributions? and how does that compare to atheist contributions? |
While Christianity might promote some positive contributions, I don't think that the fact that good happens has much to do with Christianity (I have experienced great kindness in Muslim states) nor with religion (there is an enormous human capacity for generosity - there are many many thousands of charities with no religious aspect). I believe that good people are just that, and the fact that they might do something in the name of one or other religion is fairly irrelevant.
Originally posted by ArtRoflmao:
Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist. |
I might be quite quiet, if I did not see decisions being made around irrational, superstitious and illogical beliefs that damage and destroy the lives of many people, including people I know and care about.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:07:33 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Atheism does not require belief.
The odds on something so powerful as a god existing, yet being intangible and unidentifiable, are so long that it makes no sense to waste time on it. The same with fairies, trolls and goblins. We cannot *prove* that they don't exist, but why bother believing in something just because we cannot easily prove the negative?
Atheism is not so much an active belief in there being no god, but rather a realistic reassessment of its likelihood.
I would therefore argue that there is more likelihood of there being a force, or a extra-universal force, than there is of a personal god, and these are both more likely than any specific god (as represented by major religion). But the odds on each are so vanishingly small, that I choose not to bother.
The ardent support garnered by atheism for some does not represent a desire to convert, or replace an existing belief, but a desire to disabuse people of a potentially dangerous and certainly time wasting superstition. |
The foundations for the premises of reality require some amount of belief, since there is no truly knowing of anything. Atheism based on the lack of proof and evidence must have some amount of belief in the validity of proof and evidence as a solid methodology. Science has been disproven and revised time and time again based on new findings - there is no reason to believe that proof and logic can be completely infallible or is the only method for divining the truth. Though I do think it's a pretty good system, myself. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:10:09 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Maybe it's really only the crucifixion that matters? For the first 800 years of art and sculpture, Christianity was symbolized by a LAMB on the cross, not a man. It wasn't until Pope Hadrian I that we see the crucifixion of a human figure. That's all well and good if the Lamb of God is symbolism of an imaginary concept, but as a historical portrayal of the single most important sacrifice in human history, I kinda' expect to see the hero. ;-) |
The whole argument is ridiculous Shannon. You are not an expert just because you can cruise Wikipedia.
Maybe only the crucifixion does matter. But why do you now shift to 800 years of art rather than the 13 epistles of Paul where the cross is mentioned dozens if not many dozens of time? Weak argument Shannon. VERY weak argument.
BTW, even a quick google revealed The doors of Santa Sabina as an example of a depiction of the crucifixion done in the 5th century. So we're down to about 400 years instead of 800. Not that it matters, but you always come across like you actually have some expertise in this stuff.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:15:19 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
The foundations for the premises of reality require some amount of belief, since there is no truly knowing of anything. |
This appears to be a reference to sollipsism - of course one may question *everything*, but it is rarely helpful to do so.
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
Science has been disproven and revised time and time again based on new findings - there is no reason to believe that proof and logic can be completely infallible or is the only method for divining the truth. Though I do think it's a pretty good system, myself. |
Science is a methodology, and it results in findings. Part of the philosophy of science is that its findings are subject to revision. The scientific method itself is not at question; only its application.
As an aside, my point here is that truth by revelation is a very bad way of determining the truth. I do happen to think that science is the best system we have - but I am not trying to argue its infallibility, only the fallibility of revelation as a method of determining truth.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 17:31:28.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:15:23 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I mean, wasn't the crux of Jesus' position (pun intended -- sorry!) that the Jews were becoming slackers in their practice, and that they should again follow God's instructions a little more religiously, as it were?
|
That is about as far as Jesus' position as possible. Many times he rebuked the religious because they had become so religious that they forgot what they were religious about.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:36:35 PM · #156 |
All I really care about Shannon, in case you wondered, was that Jesus was the Son of God and died an atoning death for me and was resurrected from the dead. Everything else is extraneous. Paul's letters would reflect that these ideas were around at the very least within 30 years of his death (if not 15 years).
EDITED to add the resurrection part. I sorta had a brain fart to leave that "little" detail out...
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 17:51:45.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:47:47 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All I really care about Shannon, in case you wondered, was that Jesus was the Son of God and died an atoning death for me. Everything else is extraneous. Paul's letters would reflect that these two ideas were around at the very least within 30 years of his death (if not 15 years). |
That's the important part, Jason, but don't let these guys convince you (or make it appear that you have acquiesced) that the virgin birth or the Biblical account of creation don't matter. If there was no virgin birth, He wasn't the Son of God. If He wasn't the Son of God, there is no "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Nothing the prophet Isaiah said about Him is true, and nothing that His followers preached in the book of Acts means anything. If He didn't die and rise from the dead, since He prophesied He would, He must be a liar. Thus, since he's a liar, He wasn't sinless, which means He couldn't be the Son of God, since God is pure.
If you think it through, either Jesus was RIGHT and we should trust Him for salvation, or else He was the greatest liar of all time and we should throw the whole thing in the garbage. It really can't be both. He really couldn't die an atoning death if he were a liar, now could He? :)
THAT is why the atheists attack EVERYTHING regarding Christianity. If they can destroy our belief in any one part of it, they effectively destroy at least one person's belief in their own salvation, once that person follows that mental path. As well, everybody just NEEDS to be right, don't they? It makes us feel good... |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:50:43 PM · #158 |
Sorry Nards, I would certainly include the resurrection in my above statement. In fact, I'll go edit it.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:50:54 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All I really care about Shannon, in case you wondered, was that Jesus was the Son of God and died an atoning death for me. |
I wish someone would explain that part to me (I'm being serious here!) - In what way did he 'die for us', or 'die for our sins'. I don't get it.
If Jesus had instead died of old age, would it have made any difference? - Or is it something to do with fulfilling the prophesy? |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:55:05 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Science is a methodology, and it results in findings. Part of the philosophy of science is that its findings are subject to revision. The scientific method itself is not at question; only its application.
As an aside, my point here is that truth by revelation is a very bad way of determining the truth. I do happen to think that science is the best system we have - but I am not trying to argue its infallibility, only the fallibility of revelation as a method of determining truth. |
Quite so. I think you and I agree in this, that science is a method. As a method, it results in things that 'seem to be' or 'likely are', but, by it's nature, is not definitive. When you take that step from 'seems to be' to 'is' you're taking a step founded in belief.
As far as I can tell, despite my own preferred methods of logic and reason, revelation may prove to be as good or better a system... or it really could turn out to be rubbish.
My point was simply (and inelegantly put) that when you decide to move from 'gods are unlikely' to 'there are no gods', that is also founded in belief instead of logic. To push the envelope a little, one could also say that the choice to rely on the methodology of logic/science and the choice to follow one's 'heart' or whatever is based on the same thing - it just seems right.
I hope that made sense. I know better than to post anything other than nonsense while I'm at work.
-- C, ES |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 05:56:40 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All I really care about Shannon, in case you wondered, was that Jesus was the Son of God and died an atoning death for me. |
I wish someone would explain that part to me (I'm being serious here!) - In what way did he 'die for us', or 'die for our sins'. I don't get it.
If Jesus had instead died of old age, would it have made any difference? - Or is it something to do with fulfilling the prophesy? |
There are many ways to look at it John, none probably paint a totally accurate picture, but each reveals part of it. (sorta like our imagining that electrons are tiny marbles that spin around larger marbles).
The "legal" point of view says that man was guilty of a crime (sin) and that justice demanded a penalty be paid. This penalty was atoned (another legal term) for by Jesus' death since he lived a perfect life and could offer up the price.
The "business" point of view says that man had incurred a debt (through sin) and could not pay it back. Jesus' death paid the price and thus the debt was satisfied.
The important thing to remember is these are only analogies. The truth is it is mysterious.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 06:00:32 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are not an expert just because you can cruise Wikipedia. |
No, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night...
I didn't look up the bit about the lamb on Wikipedia. I remembered it from art history class in college (and also noted the abundant lamb imagery at the Vatican museum when I visited Rome last year). The mention of crosses in the Epistles misses the point. The Egyptians and other ancient civilizations also practiced (and depicted) human crucifixion. The issue isn't the cross itself, but what's ON it. Early Christian art commonly shows a lamb on a cross and, since you pointed it out, that 5th century door panel is one of the earliest depictions of the crucifixion of Christ. I find it astounding that such an important HUMAN sacrifice isn't shown in artwork until hundreds of years after the proposed event. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 06:11:30 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
My point was simply (and inelegantly put) that when you decide to move from 'gods are unlikely' to 'there are no gods', that is also founded in belief instead of logic. To push the envelope a little, one could also say that the choice to rely on the methodology of logic/science and the choice to follow one's 'heart' or whatever is based on the same thing - it just seems right.
I hope that made sense. I know better than to post anything other than nonsense while I'm at work.
-- C, ES |
As I have said a couple of times, the point is very much that god is unlikely - so vanishingly unlikely that we need not bother ourselves with the concept any more than fairies, trolls or goblins [edit: or, indeed, Zeus, Thor, Baal or any historic god - each of which is just as unlikely as the concept of a Christian god]. I am not saying that god is disproved, or that I hold a personal belief that the universe is godless. I am merely applying a rational level of probability to the existence of such a thing as a god (ie almost infinitely improbable).
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 18:14:11.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 06:15:03 PM · #164 |
I still don't quite see what your point is with that.
I won't type these out but...
Paul mentions "the cross" eleven times.
Here's the pertinent one. This is Paul to the Phillipians (dated somewhere in 57-62 AD).
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Paul, in only one passage, sums up exactly what I need to know about Jesus. So enough of this poppycock that all these ideas were glomed onto the message over the centuries...
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 18:15:37.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 06:24:30 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. |
I think so -- I meant that it should be more about living out the precepts than the ostentatious practice of rituals. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 06:39:30 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "legal" point of view says that man was guilty of a crime (sin) and that justice demanded a penalty be paid. This penalty was atoned (another legal term) for by Jesus' death since he lived a perfect life and could offer up the price.
The "business" point of view says that man had incurred a debt (through sin) and could not pay it back. Jesus' death paid the price and thus the debt was satisfied.
The important thing to remember is these are only analogies. The truth is it is mysterious. |
Thanks for trying to explain it, but I'm afraid I still just don't get it. I suppose if 15 years of Catholic schools and going to Mass didn't get the concept into my head it's a waste of time.
I recall one idea we were taught is that Jesus descended into Hell and freed all the souls. So does that mean that everyone that died before Jesus went straight to Hell?
There's just a bit too much mysteriousness there for my analytical mind to cope with! :) |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 06:43:18 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The Jonestown followers committed mass suicide because their leader told them to.
Even if the Branch Davidians had wanted to "get out" of the burning buildings, from what I understand of the accouts, they were not able to -- either by Koresh or the US gov't, nor were they able to "deny their faith". Not exactly voluntary death for reward or to show their loyalty.
|
In both cases, the flock of followers, believed not only that their leader was their leader, but that he was also a divine being, the product of the second coming.
Regardless of any last minute hesitation, the death of the followers is largely attributable to their "faith". Had they not believed in the first place, they never would have died.
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 18:45:53. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:13:02 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist. |
Ah, Bravo! I've thought this many times as i read these threads, but never articulated it. I can understand the stake a Christian has in defending/proselytizing his faith, but why on earth are there so many proselytizing atheists? What's their stake? Why do they care what we believe?
R. |
It's not about what anyone else believes.. it's about what others believe is their right to force on anyone else ;) |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:26:59 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist. |
Ah, Bravo! I've thought this many times as i read these threads, but never articulated it. I can understand the stake a Christian has in defending/proselytizing his faith, but why on earth are there so many proselytizing atheists? What's their stake? Why do they care what we believe?
R. |
It's not about what anyone else believes.. it's about what others believe is their right to force on anyone else ;) |
Crap! How did you escape your shackles?? I thought we had you chained up securely in front of the large print, self-page-turning Bible. Guards! Guards! ;-) |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:46:45 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Crap! How did you escape your shackles?? I thought we had you chained up securely in front of the large print, self-page-turning Bible. Guards! Guards! ;-) |
ROFLMAO!!! |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:51:42 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul, in only one passage, sums up exactly what I need to know about Jesus. So enough of this poppycock that all these ideas were glomed onto the message over the centuries... |
Peachy... except for a few teensy, tiny details.
â€Â¢ Paul never actually knew Jesus, so his writings are no more proof of existence than the writings of Stephen King or Dr. Suess
â€Â¢ You've quoted the only part of Philippians that scholars don't agree Paul actually wrote anyway
â€Â¢ The passage, if true, reinforces my dismay that such a sacrifice wasn't worthy of literal depiction in artwork for a few hundred years (the point you didn't seem to understand)
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 19:52:54. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 07:52:24 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
As I have said a couple of times, the point is very much that god is unlikely - so vanishingly unlikely that we need not bother ourselves with the concept any more than fairies, trolls or goblins [edit: or, indeed, Zeus, Thor, Baal or any historic god - each of which is just as unlikely as the concept of a Christian god]. I am not saying that god is disproved, or that I hold a personal belief that the universe is godless. I am merely applying a rational level of probability to the existence of such a thing as a god (ie almost infinitely improbable). |
Ah, I had mistaken the point. I was discussing the necessity of belief in the formation of world views (including religions and philosophies) in reference to making decisions regarding the existance or non-existance in gods.
To address your point previously mentioned, assuming your assumptions are correct, one might well conclude that gods are poor odds and shouldn't be bothered with.
Assuming your assumptions are correct, I might conclude that all of this being here (reality in general) is pretty poor odds and, as such, there might be an outside and currently immeasurable variable causing the poor odds to come through.
-- C, ES
Edit: Typo
Message edited by author 2007-01-03 19:53:47. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 08:00:07 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
Assuming your assumptions are correct, I might conclude that all of this being here (reality in general) is pretty poor odds and, as such, there might be an outside and currently immeasurable variable causing the poor odds to come through. |
An excellent point, although the readily observable fact that our reality DOES exist may mean the odds are actually quite good. The difference, of course, is that we have a reason other than imagination to question the odds themselves. |
|
|
|
01/03/2007 08:02:39 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
Assuming your assumptions are correct, I might conclude that all of this being here (reality in general) is pretty poor odds and, as such, there might be an outside and currently immeasurable variable causing the poor odds to come through. |
An excellent point, although the readily observable fact that our reality DOES exist may mean the odds are actually quite good. The difference, of course, is that we have a reason other than imagination to question the odds themselves. |
Just because the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 came up on the Big Spin and won the lottery, despite that it would be a demonstrable fact, doesn't change the extremely low odds of it ever happening.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2007 08:04:05 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Nothing is more baffling to me than a zealous atheist. |
Ah, Bravo! I've thought this many times as i read these threads, but never articulated it. I can understand the stake a Christian has in defending/proselytizing his faith, but why on earth are there so many proselytizing atheists? What's their stake? Why do they care what we believe?
R. |
Atheists care what you believe because:
a) There is so much violence in this world committed in the name of religion, and many atheists feel the world would be better off without religion. They feel that the amount of good done in the name of religion is outweighed by the amount of evil done in the name of religion.
b) The notion that my soul is damned to eternal hell just because I do not believe in Jesus, regardless of whether I am a good person, is so perverse, so fundamentally repulsive to me, that I just have to speak up about it.
c) Healthy discussion about religion is good. After all, if it turns out that Christians are right and I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. It makes sense, then, to talk/argue with Christians about matters of faith. Who knows, maybe I'll be convinced by a Christian's arguments, and I'll convert to Christianity and my eternal soul will be saved.
|
|
