[Closed] I suppose it'll be the atheists next, then...

The thread of humanity needing salvation runs through most of the world's faiths.

It's not difficult to see why. How do you ensure that people do what they're told? You either threaten them or coerce them. Fires of hell, redemption, salvation, eternal life, they're powerful ideas.

psychologists recognise several stages of faith

Interesting. I didn't know that, thanks.

Jesus. I read all this waiting for dinner to cook. If you can't see this:

The absence of belief is not belief. This is basic logic I'm afraid.

Then the rest really is wasted text. Sometimes it's hard being a proper atheist, I need a support group.

But that misses the point.

It's illogical to argue a word has only one definition when obviously that isn't the case with "belief".

Embrace your belief in atheism as you embrace your belief in the existence of a teacup.

FeeFoo - Member

Embrace your belief in atheism as you embrace your belief in the existence of a teacup.

Nah, I shall neither embrace or not embrace my absence of belief. But good on you for telling everyone else what they think.

Whoa, a bit harsh. Not telling anyone what they think.

Jeez, what an uppity bunch tonight.

"Embrace your belief in atheism"- if I am misunderstanding please do correct me

Nah, I'm gonna leave it there.
I believe it's time for bed.

Jeez, what an uppity bunch tonight.

I am, apparently.

kja78 - Member

I wonder what you imagine happens on a Theology Degree course?

I had a temp working for me for a while, who'd just got his first in Theology and was preparing to start a postgrad. And as far as I can tell, what happens on a Theology degree is, they identify every part of the brain that can be used to do anything useful- like, file something alphabetically, or eat a sandwich without biting your own hand so badly you end up in a&e, for example- and remove it with an icecream scoop. Asked him what he intended to do once he had his Masters- he said he'll do his PhD. And then? He'll teach Theology. He was brilliant, more than anything in the world I wanted to lock him in a room and not let him out til he'd assembled an ikea wardrobe.

Only very occasionally now do I bother to read these threads on here. They are boring to the point of predictability.

Same old same old, whereby the clique of faux-socialist middle class with mortgages and other fine trappings of a capatilist society bully and berate all those who dein to disclose that they have a faith and belief in something that the clique demand for there to be scientific proof. Right and wrong, black and white. No uncertainty. Still, I suppose uncertainty can create insecurity and fear, so best have known facts so we know where we stand and are eh? Maybe I missed the Bit in the Forum rules that states 'atheist's need only apply'?

The virtual high five's and mutual backslapping as yet another post asks for 'scientific proof' I find laughable and saddening. It sometimes even borders on cyber bullying with the sanctimonious and patronising way some of those who have spiritual belief's are dealt with.Anyone read Lord of the Flies? Just in context of the gang mentality. And emotional intelligence.

Proof will either be revealed or not when we lose our mortal coil, until then, go your own way and live life, love and treat others as you would wish to be loved yourself and maybe allow others to believe whatever they wish. And yes, huge crimes against humanity and the planet have happened in the name of whoever and whatever, tragic, sad and inexplicably 'human'.

The main line of argument from athiest's on here seems to revolve purely around the New Testament and Christianity in particular. Indeed, for those of literal mind, it is difficult to relate to, especially in the contemporary context. God, on the other hand is open to interpretation and definition. May I suggest that respect is shown to those who have their own definition, as you have yours?

I generally like this forum, there is some great humour, sage advice and vast and varied OT knowledge. Personally, I find the believer baiting and bashing to be like a broken record and for those of you who start such threads, may I suggest you try other playgrounds to play in, unless of course you require constant affirmation from your friends?

I am, apparently.

Yes, Cougar, I said that as I found you unnecessarily condescending and patronising in your responses to my post.
Ironically proving my point about the superiority problem some have on this topic.

It's not surprising to get that kind of thing from the jaded big hitters but odd from a moderator.

That appears to be a bit of a revision of how the thread actually played out slackalice.

Don't bother alice,the smug know alls who usually battle it out on these pathetic threads will never listen,not even to god:).

slackalice - most people here have been much more respectful than you have (not Woppit obviously). Suck it up princess.

grum - I am bemused by your assertion of my disrespect! Especially when reading through some of your previous posts on this forum.

Projection perhaps?

This isn't really respectful or constructive, (or accurate):

Same old same old, whereby the clique of faux-socialist middle class with mortgages and other fine trappings of a capatilist society bully and berate all those who dein to disclose that they have a faith

may I suggest you try other playgrounds to play in, unless of course you require constant affirmation from your friends?

Truth as I perceive it 😀

Have a good day grum, I'm off out to ride my bike and get all spiritual 😯

is it ok for me to not believe in god because it's stupid and dumb?

Yes.

Proof will either be revealed or not when we lose our mortal coil,

And you know this, how? 😆

Has anyone ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Basically, he argues that if you were a rational and logical person you would believe in God.

It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).[1]

Has anyone ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Yes, most people have. Keep reading the wikipedia article and you'll see a number of arguments against it. Even more if you look at a philosophy site like:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#5

Has anyone ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Pascals Wager is an interesting but flawed piece of reasoning (at least when applied in the context of belief). The rational person cannot force themselves to believe if they do not see sufficient evidence. Therefore their belief would be inauthentic and detectable as such by an omniscient deity.

Only very occasionally now do I bother to read these threads on here. They are boring to the point of predictability.

And yet, here you are.

The main line of argument from athiest's on here seems to revolve purely around the New Testament and Christianity in particular.

If I can just stop you there.

The reason for this is twofold. First up, in what is debatably a "christian" country, it's the religion that most of us know something about. I've read the Bible, I haven't read the Quran.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, it's the religion that most theists on here seem to subscribe to. We discuss the New Testament because [i]that's what you tell us you want to discuss.[/i] Previous threads have questioned some of the more dubious biblical teachings and the response we've had back is 'ah, that's Old Testament stuff, no-one really follows that any more.'

When I talk about religion I usually try to generalise, unless someone's brought up specifics. Check how many times I've used the worth "theist" in this thread, and how many times I've said "Christian."

May I suggest that respect is shown to those who have their own definition, as you have yours?

With a notable exception or two, respect is show to other people on the whole these days I think. That doesn't mean we have to respect whatever random belief you happen to lodge in your head though. If you thought you were Lord Admiral Nelson, I'd still respect you as a person, but I'd consider that thought to be somewhat strange.

Yes, Cougar, I said that as I found you unnecessarily condescending and patronising in your responses to my post.

I shall try to keep my condescension to more necessary levels in future. (-:

In seriousness; I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not trying to be; I suppose I tend to talk to people on here like I'd talk to mates in a pub, which means I'm probably sarcastic and over-familiar. Please don't start taking me seriously.

It's not surprising to get that kind of thing from the jaded big hitters but odd from a moderator.

Oh, come on. What's that got to do with anything? I'm a moderator which means I get to delete double-posts and send pithy little passive-aggressive notes to people. Big whoop, that doesn't make me 'special'. 99% of my posts on this forum are as a user, just like everyone else.

Has anyone ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

The flaw with Pascal's Wager is that the initial assumptions are wrong. It assumes "God" and "No God" as binary options. If you buy in to the wager and spend your life worshipping a Christian god, then shuffle off the mortal coil only to find yourself facing Odin in Valhalla, do you reckon you're going to be welcomed with open arms?

The choice therefore isn't god or no god, "god" is one of 30,000,000 options, assuming that we've actually got it right at some point in our history and it's not something we've never thought of.

So here's Cougar's Wager. Given the likelihood of picking the wrong god is monumentally high, and given that a god is more likely to be pissed off if you've chosen someone else than if you just didn't bother, surely atheism is the safest choice?

is it ok for me to not believe in god because it's stupid and dumb

Although unfortunately worded this is in some ways the crux of the matter.

I've really really tried to see belief as springing from something other than a failure of reasoning. I don't want to be converted but I would like to be able to treat religious views with respect on the grounds that there is a tangible reason for holding that view. I'd like to be able to say 'I don't agree but I can understand why you think that way'.

I want to be able to do this because I know that far far smarter people than me have believed in god and I find it hard to brush that aside by assuming I have superior critical faculties.

Unfortunately I've never seen an argument proffered by a believer that isn't (IMO!) based on flawed understanding, circular reasoning, insufficient knowledge or a personal standard of evidence.

What this conflict is largely about is 2 different standards of evidence. Athiests can't accept the standard of evidence proffered by believers and believers know (yes, you do) that belief must crumble when that standard is applied.

Whilst Stephen Jay Gould's Non-overlapping Magisteria doesn't work as the solution he intended it does explain why the discussion is often not meaningful - a fundamental lack of common ground.

Unfortunately I've never seen an argument proffered by a believer that isn't (IMO!) based on flawed understanding, circular reasoning, insufficient knowledge or a personal standard of evidence.

I used with a bloke who was one of the most intelligent, knowledgeable people I'd ever met. He was a polymath, last time I spoke to him he was teaching himself Russian for fun. He was also a Christian. A proper, church-going Christian, not someone who just ticked a box on a form to get their kids into a better school.

I asked him this question once, and we lost an afternoon to it. What it boiled down to was he'd had some sort of epiphany at some point; low point in his life, "Jesus H Christ I have seen the light" sort of thing. He rationalised it by putting it in a box separate from everything else, "this is my faith, normal rules don't apply, and that's ok." I'm paraphrasing, as this was a while ago but that was the basic idea.

I've got a strong suspicion that's how it works for many believers.

Northwind - Sounds to me like you and this guy had a pretty serious personality clash. I'd imagine you are a 'J' whereas he was a 'P'. There are plenty of people in the world who would disagree with your definition of what is 'useful'. Would you be so condemnatory of his values and passions if he had been doing another subject you consider to have no use, perhaps art or philosophy?

Besides which, the point I was making, as you well know, was that many believers of any faith do approach that faith critically and analytically. My knowledge of ancient languages, history, other religions etc enables me to be far more technically critical of Christianity than you are able to be. As I said to Cougar you cannot assume that people of faith hold that faith out of blind ignorance and stupidity.

Spin and Cougar - By nature I am a scientifically minded individual, and I'd imagine you can see from my posts and the essay of mine Cougar read that I apply a critical methodology to my faith. However, that all being said I'd be the first to admit that the basic foundation of Christianity is unreasonable and irrational - I believe in God. I believe that 2000 years ago that God came to earht as the illegitimate son of a Jewish peasant girl. As an adult he was executed by the Roman state, came back to life and that now his spirit lives inside me to guid and assist me. There is nothing rational about that at all. Many older Christians get very upset when I point this out to them!

Whether they realise it or not, Christians generally allow four things to influence their faith - scripture, tradition, reason and experience. I could recount to you several deep spiritual experiences I have had, you would think I am barking mad and I would probably have to agree.

I like you. Can we keep you?

you cannot assume that people of faith hold that faith out of blind ignorance and stupidity.

Rash generalisations are bad. Er, generally.

I don't doubt that people hold beliefs for all manner of reasons. Almost certainly "blind ignorance" plays a part for some, and just as certainly not for others.

I'm not comfortable with "stupid" as it's vague and derogatory. It's not as catchy, but "lacking in critical reasoning ability" is probably more appropriate. Again, it doesn't apply to everyone of course, but I've had plenty of discussions with people that follow this sort of logic:

[i]Why do you believe in god?[/i]

Because it says so in the Bible.

[i]Why do you believe the Bible?[/i]

Because it's the word of God.

And that's where the wheels come off, you can't debate with these people any further because not only do they lack the ability to see the flaw in that logic, but they also lack the self-perception to recognise that they do.

But I digress. I'm sure there are many reasons people turn to faith. Look at Islam; in many cases that's basically peer pressure and mob rule. If you were brought up in a strict Muslim community and found that actually, you didn't believe any of it, would you admit it?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/12/11/the-countries-where-they-kill-you-for-being-an-atheist/

You could theoretically have a community where no-one actually believed any of it, but they all carried on pretending because everyone else was. Bangladesh is not a good place to be right now if you're an atheist.

kja78 - Member

Northwind - Sounds to me like you and this guy had a pretty serious personality clash. I'd imagine you are a 'J' whereas he was a 'P'. There are plenty of people in the world who would disagree with your definition of what is 'useful'.

I don't think there's anyone in the world who doesn't think it's useful to be able to eat your lunch without hospitalising yourself!

But nah, we got on brilliantly, he was an interesting and funny guy. Second worst worker (*) I've ever had around me, which could be difficult, but he was a good person and great company. People who think just like you are dull.

(*the worst was a guy that we had working in a theatre venue, who was so incompetent at everything, we had him work as an automatic door opener)

Sorry NW, managed to miss the humour in your post! He sounds like my wife, complete nightmare in the real world and hugely frustrating at times. But utterly brilliant, intelligent and very spiritual.

kja78 - Member

My knowledge of ancient languages, history, other religions etc enables me to be far more technically critical of Christianity than you are able to be.

Does your knowledge cover religions and belief systems that predate Christianity i wonder. I'd guess not as one couldn't possibly choose the Stallone remake of Get Carter over the Michael Caine original, if you catch my drift.

Kja78 out of genuine curiosity because of your obvious knowledge of the subject what makes you believe in Jesus as a historical figure and why would he be executed by the Roman state?

Euro -

Hi, yes it’s vital to know about other religions in order to have a proper understanding of the Bible. It’s been suggested that the Genesis 1 creation story was written by Jews living in exile in Babylon. If we understand something of the Babylonian religions; their obsession with astrology for example, it give us a deeper understanding of the meaning and purpose of the story.

There’s historical evidence to suggest that whilst the Exodus may not have happened quite the way the Bible has it, there was a group of people who were expelled from Egypt by the Pharaoh at around the timescale of the Exodus in the Bible. It’s important therefore to know something of the Egyptian religions and how that might have influenced Judaism. Some of the Proverbs in the Bible appear to have been copied and pasted directly from texts which predate even Egypt.

Once we get into the New Testament a knowledge of Greco-Roman beliefs is important. For example, as I said in an earlier post, knowing the place that sex played in Greco-Roman cultic ceremonies helps us put the apparent condemnation of homosexual acts in a very different context to that which we live in today.

Being British, it’s important to understand how Christianity interacted with other European religions. As part of a module on Christianity in Europe we spent the day in Glastonbury interacting with leaders from various what you might call ‘pagan’ faiths

I’d also point out that Judaism, from which Christianity sprang, is one of the most ancient religions in the world. Some of the Bible stories, such as Noah’s flood and the story of Job predate Judaism and are probably among the most ancient stories known to humanity.

Crankboy -

Firstly, even if you don’t believe in the Bible you must ascribe it some historical value. Even if some of the stories have been embellished/elaborated they are still a valuable insight into the lifestyles and mindsets of a broad spread of people, from a broad geographic area across abroad time-span. There is archaeological evidence which supports some of the Bible stories. We have Egyptian manuscripts which describe a people group who call themselves the family of David for example.

So whilst from a purely secular perspective the Bible cannot be considered wholly reliable, it must be respected as a valid historical source, and treated the same way as any other historical document.

You may know that shortly after the time of Jesus was a Jewish-Roman historian called Josephus. Some parts of his surviving manuscripts are not considered authentic, but scholars there are authentic passages where he refers to James the brother of Jesus and to the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist. There is a section about the Crucifixion of Jesus, but scholars question its authenticity.

We also have surviving manuscripts from very early Christian leaders, such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius all dating from about the same time as Josephus, 70-100AD ish.

So although as a ‘believer’ I don’t actually feel the need for historical evidence of Jesus outside the Bible, there is some there.

Why would the Romans execute Jesus? Have you read the Gospels? He was a trouble maker, his teaching and activities were hugely subversive. Under the Pax-Romanica, the Romans licensed certain religions throughout the Empire; Judaism was one of these licensed ones. By and large the Jews obeyed Rome and caused no trouble. Yet along comes Jesus, this peasant, and other peasants start following him, they start questioning the Jewish religious leaders, disobeying them. He teaches that money and wealth are nothing, that you are to give everything to God. He admits to being the son of God, God Himself. All four of the Gospels record Jesus entering the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and ransacking the place. The Temple was such a sensitive area that the Roman barracks were next door. At his birth wise men come looking for a king, at his death his charge is that he was the King of the Jews, a charge which he would not deny. Only Caesar is King, and in fact Caesar is god also.

Although the Jews were by and large peaceful, they were a very large group of people there had been a history of rioting and any large uprising by them would be a huge challenge for Rome; better to execute one man then have a full scale rebellion on your hands. Not long after Jesus, the Jews did rebel against Rome; the great revolt lasted from AD66-AD73. It cost the Romans 20,000 dead soldiers, out of a force of 60,000 and Josephus records that 1 million Jews died. According to the Bible, Pilate was reluctant to execute Jesus, yet he was no doubt acutely aware of the volatility of the Jews. If Jesus really was as dangerous as the Gospels portray him, it’s no doubt Pilate would kill him to keep the peace.

I haven’t got a sermon to preach tomorrow, so I’m rather enjoying all this attention, any more questions?

[i]So whilst from a purely secular perspective the Bible cannot be considered wholly reliable, it must be respected as a valid historical source,[/i] Yep, agree with that view

[i]and treated the same way as any other historical document.[/i] Nope, not really.

I like you. Can we keep you?

+1

And yes, I'm here again (after a very splendid bike, rather slow, very muddy but deeply rewarding, ride 🙂 ), because every so often, someone comes along and educates me. Thanks kja78 😀

The main line of argument from athiest's on here seems to revolve purely around the New Testament and Christianity in particular.

Let's face it, mankind has invented new religions regularly for thousands of years. If we no longer think sun worship, Egyptian, Greek or Roman gods to have credence, what is so plausible about the relative new kids on the block - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et al?

"Spiritual". What DOES that mean, exactly?

Temporal lobe epilepsy? Or just - you know - feeling nice, like....

So whilst from a purely secular perspective the Bible cannot be considered wholly reliable, it must be respected as a valid historical source, and treated the same way as any other historical document.

My understanding was that the earliest manuscripts were written some time (decades? centuries?) after the events they purport to describe. Is this correct?

Right and wrong, black and white. No uncertainty.

S****s. You really don't understand science do you. The only people who deal in absolutes are those with a belief in a deity.

The only people who deal in absolutes are those with a belief in a deity.

*cough* lots of atheists too *cough*

Some I'll grant you, after all not all atheists are rational. But science certainly doesn't.

Spin - if you're talking abou the New Testament -the Gospels & Acts, and the Epistles - then they are likley to have been written within the lifetime of those who were about whem Jesus was. There is a hypothetical source known as 'Q' which which would predate the Gospels. Mark was probably written first in the 60s, then Mattew and Luke, with John being written in stages up to about 90ish. A Christian tradition dating right back has it that John was very old, in his 90s when he died. It's very possible that there we subsequent redactions, e.g.some respected female theologians suspect Paul's epistles were tampered with, as they don't seem to reflect Jesus' attitude to women. Personally I thnk it all comes back to context.

If you're talking about the OT then dating is much harder. Probably by the time of Jesus the stories have been redacted and pretty much finalised. About 40% of the Dead Sea scrolls which date from about 400BC to 300AD are recogniseable as being from the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and whilst there are some differences they pretty much match what we have now. As I said, we are talking about ancient ancient stories, passed down by word of mouth out many centuries befoer being written down.

Mr. W - No spiritual element at all to being a human? No ghosts? No unexplicable shivers down the spine? No deeper connection with the universe when out on a bike ride? No unexplained coincedences? Surely even the most avid atheist must admit there's something more to life than physical sensory environment we inhabit?