A question for atheists

[Onceuponatime]

Yes I certainly understand that. But it would be really difficult to determine where to draw that line. I mean there are certainly multiple accounts about Jesus' life/resurrection, so are all of those false? If historically we know he really did exist, and there are multiple accounts in the Bible, what things do we choose to believe or not?

-There are zero extrabiblical accounts or corroboration of Jesus's life and resurrection.

-Biblical accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection in the gospels are written by unknown persons in the literary omnicient voice. They don't claim to be divinely inspired.

-The authors were unlikely to have been present at all the events, if any. So, a majority of the stories must be at least second hand, or more, removed.

-Paul claims to have recieved his knowledge of Jesus and the resurrection solely by special revelation, not from humans or personal experience of the events.

-We actually don't "know" Jesus existed. Scholars assume he did because of precedent, and are extremely reluctant to consider the possibility that he didn't.

-Jesus left no writings or physical evidence of his existence.

-None of the prolific writers that lived during Jesus's actual lifetime, and in that area of the world, mention anything at all about him.

-There are many books and reams of papers written about the hundreds of contradictions in the biblical accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection.

 

There is much more that can be said on this topic. What do we choose to believe? That is up to our personal philosophy of what constitutes knowledge and evidence. Do we accept revelation? Do we accept hearsay from unknown persons? Do we accept personal anecdotes? What about emotional certainty? Do we accept visions and dreams? Are we willing to look at multiple points of view? Are we willing to entertain the possibility that we could be wrong?

 

Personally, I like what atheist Matt Dillahunty says about believing as many true things and as few false things as possible. I would like to think that if reliable evidence for God/Jesus appeared that I would accept it. But the more I learn, that seems less likely to happen.

[mamaraby]

As for the proof discussion, a lot of what comes out of discussions of "proof" finds its roots in apologetics.  After being exposed to apologetics in high school youth group, reading a few writings from folks whose thing is apologetics, and finally having taken a required course on apologetics in Bible college, I have to say I cringe a little when people start bringing out the usual tricks and book recommendations.  Most of the stuff I've seen from apologetics won't really convince anyone but those who already have a foundation of belief in the Christian religion and only want the barest of nudges back into belief.  I guess in that way it serves its purpose - helping those who want to remain Christian do so.  Not so helpful once you step outside of that mindset, however.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think some of the ideals that Jesus (supposedly) stands for are good ones.  The problem is no religious person I've ever met really lives up to them any better than any non religious person I've met.  So then for me it doesn't matter if I'm religious or not.  I see no advantage.  I guess the advantage is some religious people would accept me more easily (but maybe not because I'm sure I'd choose the wrong religious flavor).  But then that circles back to the ideals that Jesus stands for.  And they aren't really representing are they? So again, what is the point?  Some people have told me I should be afraid of not being religious.  What will happen to me?  My argument is if there is this supposed creator then it created the aberration that I supposedly am.  How is this my fault?  How did I have control over that?  How is that setting me up for any sort of success?  It's just not and it makes no sense at all.  So either I'm fine the way that I am in the eyes of this creator or the creator is cruel.  Either way I feel at peace with my thoughts on the matter. 

 

And if you look at some of the biggest problems in the world right now (and which have been problems in all of recorded human history) a lot of it surrounds fighting over who is right in this realm.  Humans also use religion to control people and keep them down (especially in too many cases, women). 

 

I am SO SO SO thankful I can live peacefully as an atheist.  Not all people can or do.  So that some atheists become vocal over the fact that some aren't free to live peacefully as atheists is understandable to me.

[foxbridgeacademy]

Do you really believe there is zero proof? Do you believe that every bit of evidence people have produced pointing to God/Jesus is totally false/made-up? Not being snarky - legitimate questions.

 

I'm asking because obviously there are millions and millions of people who believe there is proof.

I'm not the one you asked but thought I might answer anyway, but yes I really believe there is zero proof.  As for the evidence.... I chalk it up to wishful thinking, I prefer to not think of people as liars but more as being gullible to their own wants, needs, fears.....

[Guest]

Zero. Here's the thing Christians fall back on - you can't prove that he DOESN'T exist, which is true , but you also can't prove that fairies don't exist. I read a few of your other posts, and you remind me a lot of how I used to think. I wasn't very outspoken about my faith, but it was a very deep and significant part of who I was. I never questioned it, never felt the need to look for evidence; I was happy being a Christian!

 

All that changed when my husband became an atheist. It turned my world upside down, and I became very determined to prove to him that Jesus really was the son of God who died for our sins so we could spend eternity with him. I started reading every apologetic book I could get my hands on, but he reminded me that I wasn't being intellectually honest if I only read the books written by Christians. So, I started reading books by atheists and learned things I never knew about the Bible that shattered everything I thought was true.

 

A few things to consider:

 

I'm sure I can't keep up with this thread, but I just wanted to say, this is very similar to my story, except for the catalyst that made me seek answers.

[Guest]

-There are zero extrabiblical accounts or corroboration of Jesus's life and resurrection.

-Biblical accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection in the gospels are written by unknown persons in the literary omnicient voice. They don't claim to be divinely inspired.

-The authors were unlikely to have been present at all the events, if any. So, a majority of the stories must be at least second hand, or more, removed.

-Paul claims to have recieved his knowledge of Jesus and the resurrection solely by special revelation, not from humans or personal experience of the events.

-We actually don't "know" Jesus existed. Scholars assume he did because of precedent, and are extremely reluctant to consider the possibility that he didn't.

-Jesus left no writings or physical evidence of his existence.

-None of the prolific writers that lived during Jesus's actual lifetime, and in that area of the world, mention anything at all about him.

-There are many books and reams of papers written about the hundreds of contradictions in the biblical accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection.

 

There is much more that can be said on this topic. What do we choose to believe? That is up to our personal philosophy of what constitutes knowledge and evidence. Do we accept revelation? Do we accept hearsay from unknown persons? Do we accept personal anecdotes? What about emotional certainty? Do we accept visions and dreams? Are we willing to look at multiple points of view? Are we willing to entertain the possibility that we could be wrong?

 

Personally, I like what atheist Matt Dillahunty says about believing as many true things and as few false things as possible. I would like to think that if reliable evidence for God/Jesus appeared that I would accept it. But the more I learn, that seems less likely to happen.

One of the things I wondered about a lot when I was trying to understand what I believe/don't believe was based on the bolded. In the first place, it didn't make much sense to me that if God wanted to communicate directly with mankind, He would choose a compilation of writings; a book. A book has many obvious problems if it is meant to be the Word of God. Secondly, if He was planning to come take on human form, that would have been a handy way to get his Word written - while He/His Son was walking around on earth. It did give me pause that Jesus did not write any part of the Bible. If he was God in Flesh, that would have been a good place to start on clearing up doctrine.

[creekmom]

One of the things I wondered about a lot when I was trying to understand what I believe/don't believe was based on the bolded. In the first place, it didn't make much sense to me that if God wanted to communicate directly with mankind, He would choose a compilation of writings; a book. A book has many obvious problems if it is meant to be the Word of God. Secondly, if He was planning to come take on human form, that would have been a handy way to get his Word written - while He/His Son was walking around on earth. It did give me pause that Jesus did not write any part of the Bible. If he was God in Flesh, that would have been a good place to start on clearing up doctrine.

 

Exactly!!  Why didn't God make his holy book stand out from all the other holy books so we would know it was the one true book??  

 

 Sam Harris once said, "Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book."

 

 Quill - I seem to remember some of your posts during your journey.  I didn't know where you ended up.  Is it safe to assume you are an atheist now?

[fraidycat]

Do you really believe there is zero proof? Do you believe that every bit of evidence people have produced pointing to God/Jesus is totally false/made-up? Not being snarky - legitimate questions.

 

I'm asking because obviously there are millions and millions of people who believe there is proof.

Not snarky, totally legitimate question:

 

What is this evidence that has been produced? Actual, extra-biblical evidence. I've asked this of others, but have still never received anything beyond "the bible says" or "this book written by this guy who totally believes the bible says".

Edited January 2, 2017 by fraidycat

[Audrey]

Well *I* wouldn't want to know anyone that attended Westboro Baptist church.

 

I think the saddest thing out of this entire thread is seeing how the extreme behavior of some Christians drives people away, and makes them think terribly of Christianity. I'm pretty sure that is exactly the opposite of what Jesus would've wanted.

 

 

I can honestly say that other Christians had/have nothing to do with my disbelief in the Christian god (or any other gods).   But.... some Christians (and some of other faiths) are the reason why I have a very, very low opinion of organized religion.

[Guest]

Exactly!! Why didn't God make his holy book stand out from all the other holy books so we would know it was the one true book??

 

Sam Harris once said, "Let’s just grant the possibility that there is a Creator God, who’s omniscient, who occasionally authors books. And he’s gonna give us a book – the most useful book. He’s a loving God, he’s a compassionate God, and he’s gonna give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe, the scribe’s gonna write it down. What’s gonna be in that book? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity. I mean, there is not a single line in the Bible or the Koran that could not have been authored by a first century person. There is not one reference to anything – there are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, and who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease. There’s nothing particularly useful, and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there, and superstition. This is not a candidate book."

 

Quill - I seem to remember some of your posts during your journey. I didn't know where you ended up. Is it safe to assume you are an atheist now?

I am not an atheist. I don't think there is a name for what I am, LOL. A good description would be a Deist, with some remaining tender-hearted reverence for Jesus and the Christian faith. After about seven tumultuous years in which I struggled to parse out what I believed/didn't believe, I kind of just gave up. I raise my children in a Christian construct and I live my life as a Christian, though I am well aware that most Christians would not be so generous to call me that if we really had a hash-out about my beliefs/unbeliefs. I like the moral ideals represented by Jesus, so I stick with that as a goal. I wish to keep things consistent and not confusing for my kids, so I have a sort of Don't Ask Don't Tell policy on my actual beliefs.

 

I do think there is Something beyond the natural, but I am open to whatever that may be. I do not believe in hell, but I haven't for probably a decade or more.

[regentrude]

Exactly!!  Why didn't God make his holy book stand out from all the other holy books so we would know it was the one true book??  

 

One question that always puzzled me was: why would God choose to reveal himself only to a tiny minority of people and charge them with the task of spreading the word and convincing the others of his existence?

Why would he choose to leave billions with other beliefs and damned to hell?

Only a deity that hated humans would do that.

 

And then there is, of course, the whole benevolent/omnipotent problem and the question why God allows suffering if he has the power to prevent it. I had many long discussions with my minister about this, and have never received a satisfactory answer.

 

These issues contributed heavily to me turning away from Christianity. Encountering insufferably zealous evangelicals after my move to the US was the final straw.

Edited January 2, 2017 by regentrude

[Tanaqui]

So I want to join in where I left off, but so much has been said. This is going to be a bit of a quotespam. Edit: Apparently there is a limit to how much you can quote. Converting some quotes to bold.

 

Do you really believe there is zero proof? Do you believe that every bit of evidence people have produced pointing to God/Jesus is totally false/made-up? Not being snarky - legitimate questions.

I'm asking because obviously there are millions and millions of people who believe there is proof.

 

I really believe there is zero proof for any deity.

 

I accept the possibility of a historical Jesus, but utterly reject that any supernatural events occurred when he was alive or can be attributed to him. So there may have been a wedding at Cana, but he certainly didn't turn water into wine. He didn't bring people back to life. He didn't die and then resurrect. (And, going back further, there was no virgin birth, the Red Sea wasn't parted, there was certainly no worldwide flood....)

 

We do not evaluate the truth value of statements by counting up the number of people who believe them. There are millions and millions of people who believe there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet, but you're not going to convert just on their say-so, are you? There are millions of people who believe that humans reincarnate after death, but you're probably not going to convert to either Hinduism or Buddhism either.

 

(There are also a great many people who believe, really believe, that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and that everybody thought the world was flat until Columbus. And don't ask me about the lizard people who secretly run the world via the Illuminati.)

 

I guess I just don't believe that every Christian who believes is a desperate person living in a desperate time.

 

That's not exactly what Laura said. Laura said that desperate people will come up with great stories to comfort themselves - and it is true, times of war and poverty and illness are times when you see people suddenly coming up with new beliefs. However, then when things get better, those people don't suddenly stop believing their new beliefs, and they pass them on to their children and grandchildren, at which point they are no longer "new". People who are happy are also unlikely to ditch their "old-time religion". Why should they?

 

There are people who become Christian every day (and I'm sure people who realize they are atheist as well).

 

There are people who become Muslim every single day, or Mormon, or atheist, or Wiccan, or any of a number of things.

 

I just find it hard to believe that there isn't a shred of evidence or truth to support something that millions of people believe in. I mean every Christian isn't an idiot; there are a lot of scholars that have studied for years.

 

No, but to my knowledge every Christian is human. Humans are naturally prone to any number of cognitive biases and simple human error.

 

I have met Christians who were very intelligent and well-educated, and easily recognized circular reasoning of the form "I know Muhammad is Allah's prophet because it says so in the Koran, and I know the Koran is true because it was written by Allah's prophet", but if you subbed in the words "Jesus" and "God" and "Bible" they suddenly thought it was perfectly valid. And no amount of arguing or demonstration or interpretive dance could convince them. They weren't stupid, or ignorant, or crazy - this was just how they handled cognitive dissonance. I've met Christians who thought that the mere fact that Bethlehem and Jerusalem existed is proof of the Bible's veracity, even though they were all clever enough to realize that the fact that New Orleans exists doesn't mean it is true that people steal kidneys from vacationers there.

 

I've met other Christians who easily recognized that reasoning as fallacious, and who accepted that their belief could not be proven rationally, and some of them were not half as bright as the first group. (They were all a lot easier to talk to, though. Hoo-boy, were they ever easier to talk to.)

 

There are atheists that have become Christian trying to prove there was no God.

 

Undoubtedly. And there are many, many Christians who became atheists because in an attempt to argue better with atheists or handle their own spontaneous crisis of faith, they decided to sit down and read the Bible cover to cover, and when that didn't work they reached for Christian apologetics, and when that didn't work they prayed.

 

There are also Christians and atheists who have become Muslims or pagans or Buddhists.

 

There are any number of reasons people change their religious beliefs. Sometimes they're unhappy with their current set of beliefs and think a new one will help. (And if that works, so much the better!) Sometimes, they happen to find out that the first group of people they meet who love and accept them all share a certain belief. Sometimes the new belief just speaks to them. And sometimes they're convinced by logic.

The trouble is, nearly everybody thinks they're in that last group, and unfortunately, that's the group you're always least likely to be in. Humans think we make choices by reasoning things out, but actually we tend to make choices first and then rationalize them later. I can cite this, just give me a few hours to try to find the link.

 

As somebody upthread said, the best thing you can do to minimize this is always try to back up your ideas with outside evidence. Feelings are not outside evidence. "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" is not outside evidence. The Bible is certainly not outside evidence.

 

Well if you accept that the Bible is legitimate, do you/others not believe it contains some evidence of God? Certainly it contains multiple accounts of Jesus' life/death/resurrection. How do you choose what in the Bible is factual and what is fiction?

 

The Bible is a complex set of works written by multiple authors over a long period of time. Some things in the Bible are backed up by other sources or archaeological evidence. Some things really are not. The things which are backed up by outside evidence is most likely to be true. The things which are not are less likely to be true. Those things which are not only not backed up, but are contrary to common sense (like any miracles) are certainly untrue.

 

As far as the New Testament goes, none of the gospels were written by anybody alive during Jesus' lifetime. So I really expect some transmission error there. I would be absolutely shocked to find out that they were accurate.

 

I mean there are certainly multiple accounts about Jesus' life/resurrection, so are all of those false?

 

Isn't it the case that most of the gospels ultimately draw from the same source, which has been lost? So there aren't really "multiple accounts" of his life and resurrection - there's only one or two, both written by people who weren't born until after he died. And then other people came along and copied them and added their own details and embellishments.

 

(This doesn't mean those people were lying as we think of it, no more than they were lying when they attributed their own writings to more famous people.)

 

The simple truth is that in Christian circles, you only hear about the ones who convert from atheism to Christianity.  You would be amazed at how many pastors (people who've studied and studied and devoted their whole lives to God) become atheists.

 

Indeed. And some of them actually stay as pastors for a long time because they believe their job has value and helps people, even though they personally no longer believe in God.

 

Out of curiosity, what is the conversion rate to Judaism like? I don't mean hard numbers, but do people regularly convert to Judaism? And if so, which form is most popular (I don't know what you call the difference between Reform and Orthodox, sorry!)? What are some of the reasons given for conversion?

 

Pretty low. Conversion is not pushed in Judaism, and some percentage of converts are actually (or anyway believe themselves to be) descendants of Jews who were pushed into hiding their religion. Those converts often don't seem to consider themselves converts, from what I've read.

 

The people I know who have converted generally say that Judaism is just the religion that most speaks to them spiritually. One of them is actually an atheist - she's just an atheist who now is Jewish and practices the Jewish religion.

 

ETA: I forgot to ask, is there any essence of proselytizing in Judaism? I've never heard of an outreach for conversion, certainly not door to door, but I've never ever heard a Jewish friend share their faith in such a way as to present it as an invitation for others to find out more like I do with Christians.

 

Well, there's Chabad, but their goal is mostly to get Jews to act more religious (as Chabad sees it). They also want to convince the rest of us to follow the Noahide laws, but honestly... I mean... Chabad. Ugh. Some days you can hardly get on the SI Ferry without having to dodge them. "No, I'm not Jewish, go away!" (But at least they don't preach.)

 

The problem is no religious person I've ever met really lives up to them any better than any non religious person I've met.

 

You know, I read an article once about career criminals who became Christian in prison. The thing is, converting didn't change their behavior! They just glommed onto the concept of "forgiveness".

 

There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, the principles of infectious disease.

 

If the eleventh commandment had only been "Thou shalt not place the midden by the well", life would've been so much better for so many people.

 

[eternalsummer]

 

 

If the eleventh commandment had only been "Thou shalt not place the midden by the well", life would've been so much better for so many people.

 

just wanted to say this is the bit I liked

[Bluegoat]

:iagree: The difference between believers and atheists is that atheists don't make an exception for just one particular deity out of thousands. 

 

I wouldn't really say that's true - monotheism generally speaking doesn't work that way.  That's why in the ancient world you could have Jewish, pagan, Christian, and later Muslim philosophers all reading each others books and seeing themselves as talking about the same thing.

 

Even a lot of what looks like polytheism on the surface is in the same boat - Hindu philosophy is also not talking about something totally different at that level.  None of them are talking about there being these contingent extra beings around, they are trying to get at the nature of the primary, non-contingent reality - its why sometimes its called The Perennial Philosophy.

[Bluegoat]

Looks can be deceiving. According to Pew Research (ten facts about atheists):

 

In the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, self-identified atheists were asked how often they share their views on God and religion with religious people. Only about one-in-ten atheists (9%) say they do at least weekly, while roughly two-thirds (65%) say they seldom or never discuss their views on religion with religious people. By comparison, 26% of those who have a religious affiliation share their views at least once a week with those who have other beliefs; 43% say they seldom or never do.

(bolding theirs)

 

That's a pretty general set of statements - I wouldn't really consider sharing views the same as prostelytizing.  And as I said earlier, I don't think that its useful for this kind of comparison to compare general catagories like "religious" and "atheist" - which aren't even really opposites of each other.

[eternalsummer]

I wouldn't really say that's true - monotheism generally speaking doesn't work that way.  That's why in the ancient world you could have Jewish, pagan, Christian, and later Muslim philosophers all reading each others books and seeing themselves as talking about the same thing.

 

Even a lot of what looks like polytheism on the surface is in the same boat - Hindu philosophy is also not talking about something totally different at that level.  None of them are talking about there being these contingent extra beings around, they are trying to get at the nature of the primary, non-contingent reality - its why sometimes its called The Perennial Philosophy.

 

Do you mean that Christians think, generally speaking, that Zeus and Hera and Thor and all of that is just a different name for God and that people are always/always have been worshipping the same essential deity but by different names?

[Mergath]

What gets me as I read all this is if Christianity could just adapt and lose the insistence on being the One True Only Path, there would be many, many more Christians in the world. And most of them would probably be happier about it.

 

With Buddhism, for example, (and I use it only for the sake of comparison, not as an attempt to convert anyone) Buddha never claimed to be the only way to anything. He basically said, "I tried this and it worked for me, so give it a whirl. Or find your own way to happiness. Whatever works." (Obviously I'm paraphrasing.)  Some Buddhists believe in deities. Some, like me, don't. No one really cares either way. No one thinks any of the Buddhist texts are inerrant- we all realize they're probably full of mistakes, but they're a place to start. We understand that Buddha was just a man. He wasn't perfect, and we don't need to emulate his every single action. Speaking less-than-reverently of him isn't blasphemy. ("If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.")

 

Can you imagine how much healthier Christianity would be if its followers were like, "So there's this book, and it's really old and you definitely have to read it through that filter, but the guy in it said a lot of good things and I think I might try putting some of those things into practice"? If they left out all the crazy stuff from a totally different culture and accepted that people might interpret it differently, and that's okay? The world would be so much better off. Just once I'd like to ask a Christian about all the contradictions in the Bible and have them say, "Eh, I just ignore all that stuff and only use the parts that work for me."

[Mergath]

That's a pretty general set of statements - I wouldn't really consider sharing views the same as prostelytizing.  And as I said earlier, I don't think that its useful for this kind of comparison to compare general catagories like "religious" and "atheist" - which aren't even really opposites of each other.

 

It depends on whether you're on the giving or the receiving end.

[eternalsummer]

What gets me as I read all this is if Christianity could just adapt and lose the insistence on being the One True Only Path, there would be many, many more Christians in the world. And most of them would probably be happier about it.

 

With Buddhism, for example, (and I use it only for the sake of comparison, not as an attempt to convert anyone) Buddha never claimed to be the only way to anything. He basically said, "I tried this and it worked for me, so give it a whirl. Or find your own way to happiness. Whatever works." (Obviously I'm paraphrasing.)  Some Buddhists believe in deities. Some, like me, don't. No one really cares either way. No one thinks any of the Buddhist texts are inerrant- we all realize they're probably full of mistakes, but they're a place to start. We understand that Buddha was just a man. He wasn't perfect, and we don't need to emulate his every single action. Speaking less-than-reverently of him isn't blasphemy. ("If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.")

 

Can you imagine how much healthier Christianity would be if its followers were like, "So there's this book, and it's really old and you definitely have to read it through that filter, but the guy in it said a lot of good things and I think I might try putting some of those things into practice"? If they left out all the crazy stuff from a totally different culture and accepted that people might interpret it differently, and that's okay? The world would be so much better off. Just once I'd like to ask a Christian about all the contradictions in the Bible and have them say, "Eh, I just ignore all that stuff and only use the parts that work for me."

 

I've met many Christians who take Christianity more or less this way; they're just quieter about it than the more literal-minded ones.

[Bluegoat]

Faith doesn't require proof.

 

Personally I feel that interpreting and insisting that the Bible is all literally true strips away the deeper meaning that many people find in their religion. It doesn't have to work as "proof" to be immensely valuable to many people.

 

I find that a weird, though commonly heard, set of ideas.

 

I think its a little odd to talk about proofs with the kinds of things we are talking about here - either metaphysical concepts, or historical events. We have evidence of historical events, I guess some might call that proof.  No one I have ever met has proof of anything like a sophisticated metaphysical idea.  Ask a materialist to prove that the world of matter is real, and you get a guy bashing his toe on a stone.  Not proof.

 

But if we are talking about faith, why would it not require evidence of some kind of historical validity (if applicable) and a well thought out and logical metaphysical explanation?  I surely would not be a Christian without that kind of support and I would tend to think it might be foolish if I did.

 

ETA - I agree with you about the literal truth idea, but I don't think that's an appropriate way to read the Bible anyway for orthodox Christianity.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Seeking Squirrels]

I think the saddest thing out of this entire thread is seeing how the extreme behavior of some Christians drives people away, and makes them think terribly of Christianity. I'm pretty sure that is exactly the opposite of what Jesus would've wanted.

 

While it is true that some extreme behaviors can give a bad name to christianity, I don't think the majority of atheists are atheists *because* of this. I am able to recognize the difference between an individual's actions and those of the majority that follow that religion. I don't attribute the actions of westboro to all of christianity. However, if you really break down the scriptures of these major religions, the people with extreme actions and views are often following them more closely. 

 

For myself, some of those extremes and even not-so-extreme behaviors from friends were the catalyst, but not the reason, for my move to atheism. 

[Bluegoat]

-There are zero extrabiblical accounts or corroboration of Jesus's life and resurrection.

-Biblical accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection in the gospels are written by unknown persons in the literary omnicient voice. They don't claim to be divinely inspired.

-The authors were unlikely to have been present at all the events, if any. So, a majority of the stories must be at least second hand, or more, removed.

-Paul claims to have recieved his knowledge of Jesus and the resurrection solely by special revelation, not from humans or personal experience of the events.

-We actually don't "know" Jesus existed. Scholars assume he did because of precedent, and are extremely reluctant to consider the possibility that he didn't.

-Jesus left no writings or physical evidence of his existence.

-None of the prolific writers that lived during Jesus's actual lifetime, and in that area of the world, mention anything at all about him.

-There are many books and reams of papers written about the hundreds of contradictions in the biblical accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection.

 

There is much more that can be said on this topic. What do we choose to believe? That is up to our personal philosophy of what constitutes knowledge and evidence. Do we accept revelation? Do we accept hearsay from unknown persons? Do we accept personal anecdotes? What about emotional certainty? Do we accept visions and dreams? Are we willing to look at multiple points of view? Are we willing to entertain the possibility that we could be wrong?

 

Personally, I like what atheist Matt Dillahunty says about believing as many true things and as few false things as possible. I would like to think that if reliable evidence for God/Jesus appeared that I would accept it. But the more I learn, that seems less likely to happen.

 

Are you saying that you think that scholars of ancient history are essentially saying that Jesus existed historically because they are somehow lazy, rather than because it meets the criteria for their discipline?  Because a lot of the things you have listed here would not be considered a good way of sifting historical evidence, and are in true of most of the historical evidence we have from that period.

[Tanaqui]

It depends on whether you're on the giving or the receiving end.

 

True, a lot of people (especially but not only Christians) get really whiny if told that their transparent attempts to convert others are not welcome. "Can't I share my views?" Only if it's a legit give and take!

 

But it is possible for Christians, atheists, and others to mutually share views without one side pushing their views on the other(s).

[Bluegoat]

It depends on whether you're on the giving or the receiving end.

 

I can't see that as the issue.  Most obviously, if someone asks you, and you share your views, it would be a little rich to call it proselytizing.  And people have discussions about their religion all the time that have nothing to do with trying to convert people.

 

In a survey worded like that, I would find it very difficult to draw any conclusions.  It would depend far to much on how people interpreted the question, on the basic assumptions and most common worldview among the people being surveyed, how many people tended to be luckwarm in each group....    too much that is totally extrinsic to religion or lack thereof to draw any very interesting conclusions.

[fraidycat]

I find that a weird, though commonly heard, set of ideas.

 

I think its a little odd to talk about proofs with the kinds of things we are talking about here - either metaphysical concepts, or historical events. We have evidence of historical events, I guess some might call that proof. No one I have ever met has proof of anything like a sophisticated metaphysical idea. Ask a materialist to prove that the world of matter is real, and you get a guy bashing his toe on a stone. Not proof.

 

But if we are talking about faith, why would it not require evidence of some kind of historical validity (if applicable) and a well thought out and logical metaphysical explanation? I surely would not be a Christian without that kind of support and I would tend to think it might be foolish if I did.

 

ETA - I agree with you about the literal truth idea, but I don't think that's an appropriate way to read the Bible anyway for orthodox Christianity.

I'll ask you too - what is this historically valid evidence?

 

And the logical explanation?

 

As mentioned above - we do not even have Primary evidence that Jesus existed. Neither physical, nor written in the form of primary documents written during the time he supposedly was alive.

Edited January 3, 2017 by fraidycat

[Bluegoat]

Do you mean that Christians think, generally speaking, that Zeus and Hera and Thor and all of that is just a different name for God and that people are always/always have been worshipping the same essential deity but by different names?

 

Partly.

 

Historically they've all been understood to be talking about the same idea in terms of the basic concept of deity - a kind of foundation of being, a First Principle or Prime Mover.  The public religion of ancient Greece was polytheistic, but that was considered poetic expression, not theology as we understand it. The philosophic expression was monotheistic from early on. 

 

For the monotheistic religions and many of the polytheistic ones, in terms of arguments for the existence of god, you can use pretty much precisely the same arguments. 

 

If you look at the mythological stories of the Greeks or Norse, with Odin and Zeus and the lot, its important to consider them as poetic expression, not as if they were necessarily meant to be understood as historical.

 

On the philosophical side, beyond the more basic ideas, there were important differences between various groups positions on the nature of god.  So you have dualists or pantheists, or the neoplatonists who saw god as very abstract and without knowledge of what was outside of it or a will, or Christians have a different take on gods operations in terms of the Trinity and Incarnation, and so on.

[Onceuponatime]

Are you saying that you think that scholars of ancient history are essentially saying that Jesus existed historically because they are somehow lazy, rather than because it meets the criteria for their discipline?

 

 

Because a lot of the things you have listed here would not be considered a good way of sifting historical evidence, and are in true of most of the historical evidence we have from that period.

 

 

 

**Not lazy. Unwilling to rock the boat. Having a vested interest or bias. Any number of human reasons.

 

**I disagree with your statement that the things I have listed would not be a good way of sifting historical evidence. Modern critical historians do ask such questions of the material they are evaluating to determine its validity.

 

**There is a fundamental difference between evaluating historical claims from a secular standpoint and a religious one. Noone's salvation or standing in a community of believers is riding on the truth of a claim that is outside of modern religious thought. No one really cares if I don't believe Socrates existed. They will not fear for my eternal soul. It won't make any significant difference to my social life.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Onceuponatime

[regentrude]

I think the discussion about whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not is not even that important, because the actual existence of Jesus does not mean that he was the son of a deity and that his death had any consequence for the rest of humankind. Proof that he lived is not an argument that would sway an atheist to Christianity. One can fully believe that Jesus was real, and think he was probably a pretty cool and progressive guy, without believing in God and salvation and all that.

Edited January 3, 2017 by regentrude

[foxbridgeacademy]

I think the discussion about whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not is not even that important, because the actual existence of Jesus does not mean that he was the son of a deity and that his death had any consequence for the rest of humankind. Proof that he lived is not an argument that would sway an atheist to Christianity. One can fully believe that Jesus was real, and think he was probably a pretty cool and progressive guy, without believing in God and salvation and all that.

:iagree:   I never fully believed in a god even when I was a child but man I loved that Jesus guy.  DH has been doing some study on this exact thing, existence/not and tried telling me that most likely there was no actual Jesus.... I'm firmly non-deist but I almost started to argue with him just based on nostalgia.  Thinking/knowing there was a man named Jesus who did many of the things in the bible (the actual possible things, I'd never believe the supernatural stuff) would not move me in any way toward a belief in a deity.  My disbelief is based on logic, Science and natural law.

[Bluegoat]

I'll ask you too - what is this historically valid evidence?

 

And the logical explanation?

 

As mentioned above - we do not even have Primary evidence that Jesus existed. Neither physical, nor written in the form of primary documents written during the time he supposedly was alive.

 

I consider the historical evidence of Jesus existence very strong.  But, while I have some training in history at the university level, I'm not a historian.  So, more than that, the disapline of ancient history considers it very strong, so much so that the Jesus never existed idea is looked at in a very similar way that climate change denial is in climate science.  A great deal of what we know about ancient history has less compelling evidence, from a historian's perspective, than the existence of Jesus does. 

 

As far as logical explanation - do you mean about the existence of god?  Or something more specifically Christian?  It's hard to give bullet points out of something as complex as a complete philosophical system.  And all of them, ultimately, are axiomatic. I personally became a Christian, largely, by reading Plato and Aristotle.  My reasons for believing in a First Cause are very much the same reasons someone in the sciences would think there must necessarily be some kind of a first cause, be it physical or merely logical (in an eternal universe, say.) In fact this is something I really came to from a scientific perspective rather than a theological one -  I always find it odd that people don't question a physicist who thinks of finding an equation that would describe the whole of reality, and wants to understand what makes it potent, but criticize it when theology talks about the same idea in terms of other, non-scientific questions.

 

As far as why Christianity - I suppose part of the answer is that I see it as essentially Platonism, and that aspect that is really shared by many of the worlds philosophies on the nature of Being.  I think that's a very coherent worldview, more so than materialism, for all the reasons that the ancient philosophers did.  As far as why not those other religions, the answers are different - in some cases they made what I thought were less plausible historical claims, or they had what I considered a more significant problem explaining some theological point (especially this applies to non-Trinitarian perspectives which to my mind have the same problem as Platonism in explaining how God can know anything outside of himself.) I think it affirms the physical world in a way that is really important to me, and while I can't of course prove the physical world is real it does provide a logically consistent way of thinking about that reality.  As far as the historical claims of Christianity - I consider the essential evidence pretty good, in terms of what one would expect if, in fact, it was true.  Many things, like miracles, would by their nature be unprovable, but they are logically coherent within the system.  The Incarnation, IMO, solves a fairly significant problem that exists within the basic platonic philosophy, around what makes matter real, rather than opposed to god.  I also consider that any historical claims, no matter what my belief system, are unprovable, so I can't ask for more as a Christian than I would as a non-believer. 

 

It's a little difficult for me to be succinct about these things, and I'm not even sure if that's what you are thinking of, so I'll stop there.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Paige]

I think the discussion about whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not is not even that important, because the actual existence of Jesus does not mean that he was the son of a deity and that his death had any consequence for the rest of humankind. Proof that he lived is not an argument that would sway an atheist to Christianity. One can fully believe that Jesus was real, and think he was probably a pretty cool and progressive guy, without believing in God and salvation and all that.

 

It may not make a difference to an atheist, but it would certainly make a difference to a Christian. It's the foundation of their belief. If there was no historical Jesus, there was no God/Man Jesus, and everything collapses. It's necessary to the Christian, but not sufficient for the non-Christian. 

[Guest]

What gets me as I read all this is if Christianity could just adapt and lose the insistence on being the One True Only Path, there would be many, many more Christians in the world. And most of them would probably be happier about it.

 

With Buddhism, for example, (and I use it only for the sake of comparison, not as an attempt to convert anyone) Buddha never claimed to be the only way to anything. He basically said, "I tried this and it worked for me, so give it a whirl. Or find your own way to happiness. Whatever works." (Obviously I'm paraphrasing.) Some Buddhists believe in deities. Some, like me, don't. No one really cares either way. No one thinks any of the Buddhist texts are inerrant- we all realize they're probably full of mistakes, but they're a place to start. We understand that Buddha was just a man. He wasn't perfect, and we don't need to emulate his every single action. Speaking less-than-reverently of him isn't blasphemy. ("If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.")

 

Can you imagine how much healthier Christianity would be if its followers were like, "So there's this book, and it's really old and you definitely have to read it through that filter, but the guy in it said a lot of good things and I think I might try putting some of those things into practice"? If they left out all the crazy stuff from a totally different culture and accepted that people might interpret it differently, and that's okay? The world would be so much better off. Just once I'd like to ask a Christian about all the contradictions in the Bible and have them say, "Eh, I just ignore all that stuff and only use the parts that work for me."

Heh. This is pretty much how I view it, but the funny thing about it is, that makes me heretical by pretty much every Christian's standards. So I don't go around saying I'm a Christian or speaking Christian-ese. People assume I'm a Christian because my life is filled with Christian constructs.

[eternalsummer]

I don't think anyone doubts the existence of Muhammed, for instance, or Joseph Smith, but that doesn't have particular implications for how connected they might have been to God, or how divinely inspired their works were.

[katilac]

As far as attempting to convince others, I've never in my fifty years of life had an atheist knock on my door, hand me a tract in the grocery store, or bring a casual conversation around to changing my beliefs. I have had this experience many, many times with Christians. 

 

Internet, magazines, and books - there are sites on both sides. I will say that I have observed both Christians and atheists insert their beliefs online when it wasn't really relevant. Never an atheist or agnostic in person. Never a religion other than Christian online or in person. 

 

 

But what does "legitimate" mean? It's quite a leap to go from "some of the people in the Bible really existed" to "every story in there is 100% factual."

 

If you want to understand it from an atheistic point of view, look at the Quran as an example. I'm sure you won't argue with the fact that Muhammad really existed, right? Yes, there was a guy named Muhammad and he was the founder of Islam. But does that necessarily translate into every story in the Quran being completely true?

 

Likewise, there is absolute proof that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard existed, and that they said and wrote certain things, but it doesn't follow that one automatically believes in the Book of Mormon or the scripture of Scientology. 

 

Partly.

 

Historically they've all been understood to be talking about the same idea in terms of the basic concept of deity - a kind of foundation of being, a First Principle or Prime Mover.  The public religion of ancient Greece was polytheistic, but that was considered poetic expression, not theology as we understand it. The philosophic expression was monotheistic from early on. 

 

<snip>

 

If you look at the mythological stories of the Greeks or Norse, with Odin and Zeus and the lot, its important to consider them as poetic expression, not as if they were necessarily meant to be understood as historical.

 

<snip>

 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I've never heard that the Greeks stories were considered strictly poetic expression. Why would they build temples dedicated to specific gods and goddesses if that were the case? Wasn't denying the ancient gods one of the main reasons Socrates was sentenced to death? 

 

If you're saying they didn't necessarily believe all of the stories told about their gods and origins, well, that is true of many Christians also. Many religious stories are regarded as allegory by numerous believers, but they still believe in their God or Gods. 

[MercyA]

Do you mean that Christians think, generally speaking, that Zeus and Hera and Thor and all of that is just a different name for God and that people are always/always have been worshipping the same essential deity but by different names?

 

Partly.

 

Historically they've all been understood to be talking about the same idea in terms of the basic concept of deity - a kind of foundation of being, a First Principle or Prime Mover.  The public religion of ancient Greece was polytheistic, but that was considered poetic expression, not theology as we understand it. The philosophic expression was monotheistic from early on. 

 

While I think I understand the point Bluegoat is trying to make here, I would say that in my experience most Christians do not believe Zeus to be just another name for the one true God.

 

ETA: I agree with katilac (argh, keeps autocorrecting to "chattily"  :) ) who said above: "I've never heard that the Greeks stories were considered strictly poetic expression. Why would they build temples dedicated to specific gods and goddesses if that were the case? Wasn't denying the ancient gods one of the main reasons Socrates was sentenced to death?"

Edited January 3, 2017 by MercyA

[eternalsummer]

Partly.

 

Historically they've all been understood to be talking about the same idea in terms of the basic concept of deity - a kind of foundation of being, a First Principle or Prime Mover.  The public religion of ancient Greece was polytheistic, but that was considered poetic expression, not theology as we understand it. The philosophic expression was monotheistic from early on. 

 

For the monotheistic religions and many of the polytheistic ones, in terms of arguments for the existence of god, you can use pretty much precisely the same arguments. 

 

If you look at the mythological stories of the Greeks or Norse, with Odin and Zeus and the lot, its important to consider them as poetic expression, not as if they were necessarily meant to be understood as historical.

 

On the philosophical side, beyond the more basic ideas, there were important differences between various groups positions on the nature of god.  So you have dualists or pantheists, or the neoplatonists who saw god as very abstract and without knowledge of what was outside of it or a will, or Christians have a different take on gods operations in terms of the Trinity and Incarnation, and so on.

 

 

This makes sense to me and is how I think of religious people and religion.   I don't know that it is how religious people think about their own and other religions, though, on the whole.  Don't Muslims really abhor the idea of a Muslim changing faiths, even to another religion?  Don't many Christians say that unless you believe specifically in Jesus you will burn in hell for eternity?  If those things are true, doesn't it follow that they don't think all gods are valid expressions of the same thing?

[fraidycat]

I think the discussion about whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not is not even that important, because the actual existence of Jesus does not mean that he was the son of a deity and that his death had any consequence for the rest of humankind. Proof that he lived is not an argument that would sway an atheist to Christianity. One can fully believe that Jesus was real, and think he was probably a pretty cool and progressive guy, without believing in God and salvation and all that.

True, but it'd at least be a someplace to start. This whole story of Christianity is based on ...Christ - so to claim plausibility at all - even if just in a WWJD kind of way, it'd be nice to know he existed to "do" anything. KWIM?

 

Although What Would Dumbledore Do is a good thought exercise in times of need, so fictional "existence" works too.

[regentrude]

 My reasons for believing in a First Cause are very much the same reasons someone in the sciences would think there must necessarily be some kind of a first cause, be it physical or merely logical (in an eternal universe, say.) In fact this is something I really came to from a scientific perspective rather than a theological one -  I always find it odd that people don't question a physicist who thinks of finding an equation that would describe the whole of reality, and wants to understand what makes it potent, but criticize it when theology talks about the same idea in terms of other, non-scientific questions.

 

I find it very compelling to believe in a source of creation. The existence of a possible creator does not, however, translate automatically into this creator being something that gives moral laws, punishes disobedience, rewards followers, observes the minutiae of humans lives to catch their digressions.

I find it quite possible to believe in a First Cause without relating it to any kind of moral value system, let alone an elaborate construction of salvation and damnation. My idea of a creation agent is one that was content with giving us the laws of causality and gravity and did not dictate how humans should behave, let alone disseminate these instructions via ambiguous scripture.

 

ETA: The idea that the source of creation creates humans with traits and instincts against which they have to fight to earn the creation source's approval seems bizarre to me. Kind of sadistic, even.

Edited January 3, 2017 by regentrude

[fraidycat]

I consider the historical evidence of Jesus existence very strong. But, while I have some training in history at the university level, I'm not a historian. So, more than that, the disapline of ancient history considers it very strong, so much so that the Jesus never existed idea is looked at in a very similar way that climate change denial is in climate science. A great deal of what we know about ancient history has less compelling evidence, from a historian's perspective, than the existence of Jesus does.

 

As far as logical explanation - do you mean about the existence of god? Or something more specifically Christian? It's hard to give bullet points out of something as complex as a complete philosophical system. And all of them, ultimately, are axiomatic. I personally became a Christian, largely, by reading Plato and Aristotle. My reasons for believing in a First Cause are very much the same reasons someone in the sciences would think there must necessarily be some kind of a first cause, be it physical or merely logical (in an eternal universe, say.) In fact this is something I really came to from a scientific perspective rather than a theological one - I always find it odd that people don't question a physicist who thinks of finding an equation that would describe the whole of reality, and wants to understand what makes it potent, but criticize it when theology talks about the same idea in terms of other, non-scientific questions.

 

As far as why Christianity - I suppose part of the answer is that I see it as essentially Platonism, and that aspect that is really shared by many of the worlds philosophies on the nature of Being. I think that's a very coherent worldview, more so than materialism, for all the reasons that the ancient philosophers did. As far as why not those other religions, the answers are different - in some cases they made what I thought were less plausible historical claims, or they had what I considered a more significant problem explaining some theological point (especially this applies to non-Trinitarian perspectives which to my mind have the same problem as Platonism in explaining how God can know anything outside of himself.) I think it affirms the physical world in a way that is really important to me, and while I can't of course prove the physical world is real it does provide a logically consistent way of thinking about that reality. As far as the historical claims of Christianity - I consider the essential evidence pretty good, in terms of what one would expect if, in fact, it was true. Many things, like miracles, would by their nature be unprovable, but they are logically coherent within the system. The Incarnation, IMO, solves a fairly significant problem that exists within the basic platonic philosophy, around what makes matter real, rather than opposed to god. I also consider that any historical claims, no matter what my belief system, are unprovable, so I can't ask for more as a Christian than I would as a non-believer.

 

It's a little difficult for me to be succinct about these things, and I'm not even sure if that's what you are thinking of, so I'll stop there.

I didn't ask if you considered the "evidence" strong. Obviously you do - or you'd be (in your words) foolish.

 

I also didn't ask how many others believe in it.

 

I asked what is this evidence? Where is it? How can I see it?

[Bluegoat]

As far as attempting to convince others, I've never in my fifty years of life had an atheist knock on my door, hand me a tract in the grocery store, or bring a casual conversation around to changing my beliefs. I have had this experience many, many times with Christians. 

 

Internet, magazines, and books - there are sites on both sides. I will say that I have observed both Christians and atheists insert their beliefs online when it wasn't really relevant. Never an atheist or agnostic in person. Never a religion other than Christian online or in person. 

 

 

 

Likewise, there is absolute proof that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard existed, and that they said and wrote certain things, but it doesn't follow that one automatically believes in the Book of Mormon or the scripture of Scientology. 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I've never heard that the Greeks stories were considered strictly poetic expression. Why would they build temples dedicated to specific gods and goddesses if that were the case? Wasn't denying the ancient gods one of the main reasons Socrates was sentenced to death? 

 

If you're saying they didn't necessarily believe all of the stories told about their gods and origins, well, that is true of many Christians also. Many religious stories are regarded as allegory by numerous believers, but they still believe in their God or Gods. 

 

Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety and corrupting the youth.  More of a values problem.

 

As far as other ancient philosophers go, the fact that they thought of god differently wasn't a problem, it was understood to be compatible, and they sometimes used the poetic language of religion to explain their ideas.  (Though, Plato had a problem with some of the stories about the gods that the poets told and considered them impious lies.)

 

I do think that in general, when you are looking at populations where there are big differences in education, you will often see significant differences in how different classes perceive their religion, even when it is the same religion - its not uncommon for folk religion to contain elements that are strictly speaking not compatible with whatever the more official or developed belief is.  And poetic religion in most cultures exists before complex theology and philosophy come on the scene.

 

But also, the people of the ancient world really seem to have been starting from a different place than we are in terms of thinking about history, or what is  "true" story.  Stories of the poets were inspired by the gods, for them. The ancient Greeks, and the Romans, both felt quite free to adapt and adopt new religions that they encountered into their own practice and sets of stories, and sometimes there were different versions, which suggests they didn't see them in quite the same way we might see what are supposed to be historical events.

 

You could also consider that a later poet like Virgil was telling stories that we think of as mythology and the Romans treated as mythology, but he was absolutely a self-conscious  literary writer.

 

It's true than many religions have stories seen as allegorical but also aspects that aren't seen as allegorical, and some may even have aspects that are historical.  In this case, though, we can see what Greek philosophy said about religion, and even an ongoing history of texts that talk about the two aspects at once, and that they were not understood as being contradictory because philosophy was monotheistic. 

[Bluegoat]

I didn't ask if you considered the "evidence" strong. Obviously you do - or you'd be (in your words) foolish.

 

I also didn't ask how many others believe in it.

 

I asked what is this evidence? Where is it? How can I see it?

 

Evidence of what? Evidence that Jesus was a real person?  For most people that is almost entirely a problem of understanding how historians evaluate evidence. 

 

That there is a First Cause?  That's a philosophical argument, and you could read different versions of it in many books.  I said what I read that was useful to me.  But that might not be useful to you - I don't really even know what your worldview is. 

 

I'm not sure what it is you are really looking for.  It really depends on te sort of questions you are asking, which is why I described the ones that I found important.

 

I think if you asked most people to provide a really complete sort of evidence for their worldview, right down to an axiomatic and epistemological level, it would be hard going.

[Bluegoat]

I find it very compelling to believe in a source of creation. The existence of a possible creator does not, however, translate automatically into this creator being something that gives moral laws, punishes disobedience, rewards followers, observes the minutiae of humans lives to catch their digressions.

I find it quite possible to believe in a First Cause without relating it to any kind of moral value system, let alone an elaborate construction of salvation and damnation. My idea of a creation agent is one that was content with giving us the laws of causality and gravity and did not dictate how humans should behave, let alone disseminate these instructions via ambiguous scripture.

 

ETA: The idea that the source of creation creates humans with traits and instincts against which they have to fight to earn the creation source's approval seems bizarre to me. Kind of sadistic, even.

 

Yes, those arguments the various religions tend to hold in common about a First Cause only go so far.  And not all go farther - the ancient pagans certainly didn't see god as anything like a person, as having a will - it was just a thing that, by way of its potency, created through its emanations.  And lots of pantheists think that way.  As far as what you highlighted, I just find it interesting that what is essentially the same way of thinking is accepted by non-scientists almost without question when it is used in the sciences, but is seen as ridiculous when used in philosophy. 

 

The moral question is interesting - historically some groups, like the Romans, gave quite a lot of moral freedom, though it was by no means absolute.  But philosophers it seems to me pretty generally were much more likely to tie morality closely to the nature of god.  To me, that makes sense, unless we think there is no such thing as morality or meaningful ethics.  If there are things we do think are objectively right and wrong in some sense - and few people when pushed don't - what would they derive their reality from other than the nature of the universe?    How should we behave, other than according to the laws of the universe, whatever they are?  Why would we want or need to add constructed and imaginary realities, and where would we possibly get the capacity to do so if not from our own nature which is determined by the nature of the universe? 

 

When you look at most of the fundamental moral rules in religion, even most of the odd or unappealing ones are conceived within their framework as being a violation of the law of non-contradiction through action of the will.  You tell a lie, which is saying something you know to be untrue.  You steal, you say something is yours which you know isn't.  It's the basic rules of reason being applied to the will.

 

It's a major question in a lot of religious systems how it is that humans could be able to do that at all - how we can know something is wrong (murder, say) and yet apparently ignore the nature of reality and murder?  How can we choose to work against the Tao, a dog or daisy can't - this is a reason human beings are often seen as having a kind of separation from other parts of nature.   I think this is where this idea of damnation comes in - if someone is working against the nature of reality, they are becoming a contradiction - they become less real.  It's not a personal vendetta of God's, its a sort of natural consequence.  You become what you do.

 

I think living in a universe where morality wasn't part of its nature would be pretty horrible, and there is good reason almost no one actually tries to live as if it were true.

[Charlie]

It may not make a difference to an atheist, but it would certainly make a difference to a Christian. It's the foundation of their belief. If there was no historical Jesus, there was no God/Man Jesus, and everything collapses. It's necessary to the Christian, but not sufficient for the non-Christian. 

 

I know Christians who don't believe the story of Adam and Eve as being literal. That would mean there was no "first sin," that would change the nature of humanity, and yet the idea of Jesus saving them from the consequence of sin is still accepted. I imagine if it turned out that historical Jesus was no more likely than historical E.T., the idea of forgiveness, reconciliation, and a kind of fantastic, eternal homecoming would not be lost.

 

[Bluegoat]

I know Christians who don't believe the story of Adam and Eve as being literal. That would mean there was no "first sin," that would change the nature of humanity, and yet the idea of Jesus saving them from the consequence of sin is still accepted. I imagine if it turned out that historical Jesus was no more likely than historical E.T., the idea of forgiveness, reconciliation, and a kind of fantastic, eternal homecoming would not be lost.

 

 

It could, but not necessarily.  I can tell a story I made up about people falling in love, but people still really have fallen in love, that's why I can tell my story.  Some people think that story is a metaphor or allegory or just a literary telling of something that really happened.  St Augustine (I think, I am mistrusting my memory) said that the Fall happened before God's act of creation, but he thought it was a real act of will.

 

ETA: some people also see Jesus that way, as a literary type, but many would agree that it would totally change the character of the theological system if he wasn't a historical person - that's the orthodox position, in any case.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Bluegoat

[fraidycat]

Evidence of what? Evidence that Jesus was a real person? For most people that is almost entirely a problem of understanding how historians evaluate evidence.

 

 

Is it really so hard to understand, though? A quick glance through TWTM and "how to evaluate historical documents" from our esteemed leader here gives those of us "laypersons" enough background to TEACH how to evaluate historical evidence through the high school level.

 

She tells us that PRIMARY documents are quite important to understanding "valid" history.

 

So once again, I'm asking - specifically about the existence of Jesus - what do we, as humans ACTUALLY have for hard evidence that he existed.

 

Because we DO, in fact, HAVE primary documents from that time and place in history, and None of them mention him. No, our record is not complete, but we have not one shred of evidence.

 

Since historians are human, we are also dealing with confirmation bias. Starting from the belief, faith, or worldview of Christianity results in making the pieces fit.

 

So, I'll ask a new question: Are you aware of any historians from non-Christian or Abrahamic faith centric countries - so, neither European or North American, but perhaps Japanese, Chinese, Indian, etc. who corroborate or find the same evidence to be compelling enough that Jesus , of the bible, did actually live in the place and time he is said to have lived?

 

A simple yes or no answer will suffice. Although names would be nice in the case of a yes.

[katilac]

While I think I understand the point Bluegoat is trying to make here, I would say that in my experience most Christians do not believe Zeus to be just another name for the one true God.

 

ETA: I agree with katilac (argh, keeps autocorrecting to "chattily"  :) ) who said above: "I've never heard that the Greeks stories were considered strictly poetic expression. Why would they build temples dedicated to specific gods and goddesses if that were the case? Wasn't denying the ancient gods one of the main reasons Socrates was sentenced to death?"

 

"Chattily" would also work as my nickname  :laugh:

 

Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety and corrupting the youth.  More of a values problem.

 

 

Impiety is a lack of piety, and piety is the act of being religious or reverent, so I don't see how that relates? One of the things he was convicted of was definitely related to religion and god/gods.

[Lady Florida.]

I wouldn't really say that's true - monotheism generally speaking doesn't work that way.  That's why in the ancient world you could have Jewish, pagan, Christian, and later Muslim philosophers all reading each others books and seeing themselves as talking about the same thing.

 

Even a lot of what looks like polytheism on the surface is in the same boat - Hindu philosophy is also not talking about something totally different at that level.  None of them are talking about there being these contingent extra beings around, they are trying to get at the nature of the primary, non-contingent reality - its why sometimes its called The Perennial Philosophy.

 

I'm aware of how monotheistic religions work. I'm not sure if you missed my point or chose to ignore it.

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

When you look at most of the fundamental moral rules in religion, even most of the odd or unappealing ones are conceived within their framework as being a violation of the law of non-contradiction through action of the will.  You tell a lie, which is saying something you know to be untrue.  You steal, you say something is yours which you know isn't.  It's the basic rules of reason being applied to the will.

 

 

 

I think living in a universe where morality wasn't part of its nature would be pretty horrible, and there is good reason almost no one actually tries to live as if it were true.

 

All of these "where did morality come from?" questions can be answered by evolution. Murder? Bad for the tribe. The murderer is punished or removed from the group. Stealing? Not as bad but still bad for group cohesiveness and therefore punished within the group. There is an entire discipline of secular scholars who study this very thing. A deity isn't (and was never) necessary to "teach" people right from wrong. Societies worked it out themselves. We're still working it out (evolving) in many of these areas.

 

I think a god that doesn't condemn slavery or rape would be pretty horrible. That god is the one in the bible.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[Tanaqui]

All of these "where did morality come from?" questions can be answered by evolution. Murder? Bad for the tribe. The murderer is punished or removed from the group. Stealing? Not as bad but still bad for group cohesiveness and therefore punished within the group.

 

Or, if evolution fails as a motive, logical thinking can suffice. There is a reason that multiple thinkers (not just Jesus, and he wasn't the first) have ultimately settled upon "Do unto others" as a basic moral principle from which most or all others can be derived. Why shouldn't we murder? Because if we have a society in which murder is okay, somebody might ultimately murder me for being a jerk. Why should we share what we have with others? Because if you're in a situation where you have nothing, you'd probably like others to share with you. The social contract is like banking good behavior against future need.

 

Whereas to many atheists, the idea that good is only good because God says so is bizarre and inherently immoral. What if God said tomorrow that murder is good? Would we all suddenly have to kill people? (Actually, we've seen many times in history that people will often justify abhorrent behavior by claiming it is the will of their deity. Atheists do bad things too, but we can't blame supernatural entities for our bad deeds.)

[Audrey]

:iagree:   I never fully believed in a god even when I was a child but man I loved that Jesus guy.  DH has been doing some study on this exact thing, existence/not and tried telling me that most likely there was no actual Jesus.... I'm firmly non-deist but I almost started to argue with him just based on nostalgia.  Thinking/knowing there was a man named Jesus who did many of the things in the bible (the actual possible things, I'd never believe the supernatural stuff) would not move me in any way toward a belief in a deity.  My disbelief is based on logic, Science and natural law.

The stories surrounding Jesus are kind of cool and have some appeal in bits and pieces, that's for sure. Personally, I don't think you need to believe in Jesus as demigod to be able to take away some of the good stuff in his stories. All I ever felt was pertinent of the Jesus stories were two things, and I try to live by these two "commandments":

 

#1 Feed people (their bodies, minds and spirits)

#2 Don't be an asshole.

 

I'm really good at #1. I fail frequently at #2. But, I keep trying at it anyway. :)