Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I Don't Think Jesus Literally Existed


Evolution_beyond

Recommended Posts

I am not closed minded

I'm sure you actually believe that. ;)

Dave, I actually don't understand this. This person you are being antagonistic towards is not expressing anything that I would find any exception with, and frankly I don't get your behavior here. Please take a step back. I certainly would have no problem finding things to take you to task on if I so chose to be adversarial, but I don't see that something desirable to do. Respectfully, please consider this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Dave

    26

  • Ouroboros

    21

  • NotBlinded

    13

  • Evolution_beyond

    10

Dave, I actually don't understand this. This person you are being antagonistic towards is not expressing anything that I would find any exception with, and frankly I don't get your behavior here.

It's not him in particular but just this whole dump the god stuff but worship the bible thing. In the San Francisco Bay Area I was always running into these self proclaimed "spiritual" people. They were all phonies. Their minds are so tightly closed on this spiritual stuff that they can't see anything else. They spew reams of spiritual prattle thinking it makes sense when it actually doesn't. This "collective consciousness" or whatever they call it now a days is nothing more than a god-lite.... but I guess some people need training wheels before they learn to ride on their own.

 

Please take a step back. I certainly would have no problem finding things to take you to task on if I so chose to be adversarial, but I don't see that something desirable to do. Respectfully, please consider this.

Usually I don't get adversarial until they start in with the personal attacks. Then I just give up and start with the one liners. Maybe it was just my disgust at the facades that got in my way. Thanks, I'll chill out on this one. :woopsie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I wonder why some spend so much time debating about why someone should debate something or not...? ;)

I just find it interesting that so many people that don't believe in that book spend so much time on it. If you don't believe in it then why waste so much time arguing about what's in it? Sure, knowledge of what is in there is useful when arguing with christians, but among Atheists why bother?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were never in the grip of religion? For someone that spent a majority of their life in it, it does feel good to talk about it. There is some genetic or built-in reason to why these subjects are interesting to the human mind (for many at least, but not for all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh... I forgot about the trickster that is found in so many myths. That was probably their intent but Q did come off like the OT god.

I think I heard once that Yahweh was originally a trixter god too. But I could be wrong. It does fit though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were never in the grip of religion? For someone that spent a majority of their life in it, it does feel good to talk about it. There is some genetic or built-in reason to why these subjects are interesting to the human mind (for many at least, but not for all).

No, I have never believed the stuff they tried to force me to. It just didn't make any sense. I do understand that many need to believe and they find comfort in it. That's fine, but so many take it beyond that and turn it into a superiority contest. They look down on the non religious, the non spiritual, as if there is something missing. Well.... there is.... the indoctrination, the need to follow, the reliance on ancient texts to figure out today, the need to belong to a magical Universe, the need to be the center of the Universe.... all missing. I'm content to be lucky enough to have been born human on "an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."

 

Of course, as with most things, the religious/spiritual are on a bell curve. Some claim to be "spiritual" but don't spend any time worrying, or thinking, about it. Then you have the others, the "I'm so spiritual that you need to worship every word I say" kind of person. The latter group I have nothing but contempt for.

 

Let me end with a few more Carl Sagan quotes:

 

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.

 

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I heard once that Yahweh was originally a trixter god too. But I could be wrong. It does fit though.

I don't see it..... Yahweh was more of a warrior god. He commanded a lot of armies to do lots of killing. Charles the Hammer and other rulers of note all switched to the warrior god of the bible. Even Hitler, as the legend goes, looked for the Ark of the Covenant (why a god would live in a box is beyond me) so that he could win.

 

Now, the coyote of many Native American tales is a trickster that often ends up doing something good. Coyotes and ravens make good tricksters and both have been given credit for creating the land we live on.

 

For those that don't know what we're talking about, here's some info.

 

But we're going off topic here. :nono::grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I have never believed the stuff they tried to force me to.

You're a lucky bastard. Or maybe GAWD was so kind and gracious that he let you slip, while he had to punish me!!! :HaHa:

 

It just didn't make any sense. I do understand that many need to believe and they find comfort in it.

Belief is mostly a coping mechanism. Most people can't handle the thought of infinity (time, space, knowledge) or death etc, so religion is a way for the mind to settle the questions, thoughts and worries. It's a drug, or more specifically a sleeping pill. It calms the mind from the tough questions, and it won't wake up until the questions within the religion starts to pile up and there's no escape, you have to get out and ask those big questions anyway, and you suddenly can be free. It's only when one can accept there are unanswered questions and it is difficult to understand infinites and it's hard to accept death, but when you do, that's when you really find peace.

 

But then again, it's fun to talk about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it..... Yahweh was more of a warrior god.

True. But then again, the "God" we read about in OT is a compilation of several "gods", like Adonai, El, Elohim, Baal, Yahweh etc.. So which one was what, heck if I know.

 

He commanded a lot of armies to do lots of killing. Charles the Hammer and other rulers of note all switched to the warrior god of the bible. Even Hitler, as the legend goes, looked for the Ark of the Covenant (why a god would live in a box is beyond me) so that he could win.

It's sad. Very sad, how much destruction belief has caused humanity.

 

God in a box? He's name is Jack.

 

But we're going off topic here. :nono::grin:

Shame on you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, as with most things, the religious/spiritual are on a bell curve. Some claim to be "spiritual" but don't spend any time worrying, or thinking, about it. Then you have the others, the "I'm so spiritual that you need to worship every word I say" kind of person. The latter group I have nothing but contempt for.

 

I think you've made some unfair assumptions about me. :(

 

I've probably made some about you for all I know.

 

I actually like atheists. I like their rigorous attention to logic and evidence. I do however think it is possible to have 'spiritual' beliefs based on logic and evidence. I don't think that human consciousness can be properly explained through scientific methods. Why are we not very complex automatons? Why is there subjective experience at all? I have reasoned that consciousness is simply what happens when matter interacts with matter in a certain way. There is no mechanism in the brain that can explain it, it seems to be written into the very process where sensory data is processed by the brain. The conclusions I have reached are that whenever matter interacts with matter so as to alter its form, it undergoes an internal change. The thing that allows consciousness to happen is written into the very code of the universe. At simpler levels it is a correspondingly simple level of consciousness but the thing we call consciousness exists at all levels because it is basically connectedness.

 

It might seem crazy but it made sense to me philosophically. This is a rational belief, based on reasoning. It is no half-baked hippy nonsense. I don't rub crystals or consult tarot cards. I find hindu scriptures like the Upanishads to be very inspiring.

 

But more power to atheists. We need atheists to tell the bloody christians to shut the hell up. I only get annoyed with atheists when they get all dogmatic about there being nothing beyond what we can know from our senses. Some spiritual beliefs can be just as rationally deduced as atheist points of view.

 

Religion is bullshit. Superstitious hippy new age nonsense (ie. magic, divination, crystals) is also bullshit. But material reductionism is not the only valid philosophical view of the universe. The most valid philosophies of mind are functionalism and panpsychism. I am a panpsychist and as such I can see value in a pantheist/monist version of spirituality (which is why I like the Upanishads). No religion - no superstition - just an unusual philosophy of mind. Don't confuse being able to use the language of religion to discuss philosophical concepts with actually being religious or superstitious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't confuse being able to use the language of religion to discuss philosophical concepts with actually being religious or superstitious.

Speak it my brother! :grin::Medal:

 

I think you might find some interest in thoughts along these lines I've been exploring in regard to the philosophy of language: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=15020

 

I have a humorous story to share about the use of the word spirituality. An atheist friend of mine and I were sitting outside at a restaurant along the St. Croix River enjoying some cocktails and discussions of human spirituality. We were talking about the French Philosophers, like Sartre and Camus, discussing the expression of the human spirit in the arts, etc. Sitting next to us were a couple of women, one of which upon hearing the word "spirituality" popping up again and again in our conversation took advantage of it as an "opening" to come over and start talking to us. "I find it fascinating to hear two men discussing spirituality. That's so rare," she said as she sat down with us. "I'm into spirituality too," she continued, then proceeded to go on and on about the power of pyramids, crystals, her trip to Egypt, etc. Needless to say my friend's and my conversation didn't recover. :HaHa:

 

The point of the story is for those who have these knee-jerk reactions to the use of certain common words, unlike that woman who completely misunderstood the context of what we were talking about, we need to pay closer attention and listen to the context of what someone is really saying before assuming what they're talking about because of few words. God and spirituality are words that express far more about abstract concepts, then something concrete like an actual being. Take Einstein's saying "God doesn't play dice with the universe". Was he was using the word metaphorically to describe the processes of the universe, or some actual god-being he believed in?

 

Personally I haven't been able to make the connection between human consciousnesses to a conscious universe, but I respect it as an intriguing idea worth looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I haven't been able to make the connection between human consciousnesses to a conscious universe, but I respect it as an intriguing idea worth looking at.

That's actually a very interesting subject.

 

I don't know (and don't think) that the Universe necessarily is conscious in itself, but one thing that came to me very clearly recently was that the Universe does have the mechanics, components and processes necessarily to "create" (make) consciousness. It must be an integral part of its construct. And what is the proof? Us! We wouldn't exist if it didn't.

 

Thinking in total natural terms, the Universe is a consciousness maker, may it be conscious itself or not. But it does then lend itself to start pondering of how big or small a consciousness can be when the Universe makes it, and can it only be shaped and formed in one specific way only (the way we're made)? If it can be larger, and if it can be made up a different way, no one can claim the impossibility to the existence of a higher level of sentient being, even in the size of a universe. This doesn't mean an infinite being, but just a very large being. To deny the existence of such a being is fair to do, but to deny the possibility of such a being is in essence denying the possibility of us existing. If we then ask if it is probable of such a being to exist, we're asking too much, since we don't even know where to start to get the numbers we need to use in such a calculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I haven't been able to make the connection between human consciousnesses to a conscious universe, but I respect it as an intriguing idea worth looking at.

That's actually a very interesting subject.

 

I don't know (and don't think) that the Universe necessarily is conscious in itself, but one thing that came to me very clearly recently was that the Universe does have the mechanics, components and processes necessarily to "create" (make) consciousness. It must be an integral part of its construct. And what is the proof? Us! We wouldn't exist if it didn't.

I will actually give some real thought to this later, but one quick counter point that comes to mind is to then extrapolate that the nature of the universe is hemoglobin, because all the pieces of the universe came together to create that. In which case then, traditional Christianity with its worship of blood is spot on with the nature of the universe. God is blood. :wicked:

 

I'll come back to this later for some serious discussion about it, since it is a popular theme worth looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do remember, I'm not talking about supernatural things or deities or anything like that, just the natural order of our existence. We are what we are, becase we're part of what we're part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is bullshit. Superstitious hippy new age nonsense (ie. magic, divination, crystals) is also bullshit. But material reductionism is not the only valid philosophical view of the universe. The most valid philosophies of mind are functionalism and panpsychism. I am a panpsychist and as such I can see value in a pantheist/monist version of spirituality (which is why I like the Upanishads). No religion - no superstition - just an unusual philosophy of mind. Don't confuse being able to use the language of religion to discuss philosophical concepts with actually being religious or superstitious.

That was an awesome post EB!

 

As Antlerman said, there is so much luggage attached to certain words that people just assume that they know what is meant when someone mentions God or spirituality. Most people will automatically assume that a certain being or spirits are being mentioned instead of an innate ability to feel the wonder and mystery of the universe and then express that in forms of art.

 

We all have the ability to feel this mystery at certain moments. Mine usually comes when sitting by a calm lake at sunset with the entire landscape being reflected in the calm water. Beauty is something that can't be proved to exist other than in the mind of the beholder. This is the where the wonder is...why do we experience this? There is nothing in our brain's perception of sight that says,"this is beautiful!" It just registers colors, distance, shape, etc. Where is that subjective experience of perception coming from? These are the hard problems associated with trying to understand consciousness. I'm right there with you on your understanding of consciousness as are people like David Chalmers and the quantum physicist David Bohm.

 

Mythologists like Joseph Campbell (I do rave on about him...) understands myth in a psychological aspect but the metaphysical it is pointing to is just as important. This is what all myths have in common...a psychological meaning that comes from the psyche of the person writing it and will point to this metaphysical realm that they experience. It's the same place dreams come from but on a more conscious level. I interpret him to also have believed that everything is one. He even mentioned one time about why it would have to mean anything other than being reality. It just is and we are that. :) But, it is something that is metaphysical because of its lack of form. Dreams are metaphysical, and that word right there is also a word that some people take too far. It is nothing more than something without form. It's doesn't mean supernatural like many people tend to think it does. :)

 

Anyway, I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman and Hans...I can't wait for this to move forward. I love discussing and learning from you guys. EB...I also look forward to learning from more of your posts too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do remember, I'm not talking about supernatural things or deities or anything like that, just the natural order of our existence. We are what we are, becase we're part of what we're part of.

Yes, I understand that, but I guess my off the cuff point was that we're looking at a single result and projecting it as feature of universe, sort of like saying this is the highest achievement of it. Yet is consciousness a feature like an arm? Is an arm a feature of the universe? If we can understand consciousness is a part of the universe, then we can also understand that hang nails are.

 

In other words, how often do we look at what became, as the intended result (whether willfully or by the natural result of the properly combined elements)? In another planetary system, it may be something we can't recognize as consciousness and bares no resemblance or intention towards anything like us, yet that “feature” became that systems crowing achievement in evolution.

 

Is seeing consciousness in the universe another form of our anthropomorphisms of nature? We do have a history of doing that. The world through our eyes makes sense to us, but is the Earth stationary and the sky rotates around it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying the universe is conscious in and of itself, but consciousness is a property of the universe. Consciousness is either part of or a result of the universe or it is external of the universe. If it is external, then we say it is supernatural, if it is internal it is a property of the natural. And I agree, consciousness is not the highest achievement of the universe, because nothing is highest, more supreme or the most glorified achievement. All that is just is. To tell you the truth, I believe our intelligence and consciousness will be our own destruction, so maybe it isn't so good after all. And then again, human consciousness doesn't have to be the most advanced consciousness in the universe.

 

Today there are speculations (amongst philosophers and scientists) that the "free will" exists because of quantum mechanics. QM is an important (but maybe not the only) part of the Universe. So Quantum Mechanics exists, therefore I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a lucky bastard. Or maybe GAWD was so kind and gracious that he let you slip, while he had to punish me!!! :HaHa:

Don't worry, life has punished me in many other ways. :grin:

 

within[/b] the religion starts to pile up and there's no escape, you have to get out and ask those big questions anyway, and you suddenly can be free. It's only when one can accept there are unanswered questions and it is difficult to understand infinites and it's hard to accept death, but when you do, that's when you really find peace.

 

But then again, it's fun to talk about it.

It may not seem that way, but I have found that peace. Reality, in all it's unfairness, I find is more comforting than beliefs. Maybe it is the lack of the cognitive dissonance that many beliefs cause. Maybe it's the realization that this is all there is and one had better make it count and not waste any time on beliefs that take away from what precious little time we do have.

 

Also, I find fascinating the reasons people believe in things. That's why conspiracy theorists and their ilk fascinate me. These groups do share some major thinking processes and personality traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But then again, the "God" we read about in OT is a compilation of several "gods", like Adonai, El, Elohim, Baal, Yahweh etc.. So which one was what, heck if I know.

That's true. And isn't Elohim plural?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do remember, I'm not talking about supernatural things or deities or anything like that, just the natural order of our existence. We are what we are, becase we're part of what we're part of.

Yes, I understand that, but I guess my off the cuff point was that we're looking at a single result and projecting it as feature of universe, sort of like saying this is the highest achievement of it. Yet is consciousness a feature like an arm? Is an arm a feature of the universe? If we can understand consciousness is a part of the universe, then we can also understand that hang nails are.

 

In other words, how often do we look at what became, as the intended result (whether willfully or by the natural result of the properly combined elements)? In another planetary system, it may be something we can't recognize as consciousness and bares no resemblance or intention towards anything like us, yet that “feature” became that systems crowing achievement in evolution.

 

Is seeing consciousness in the universe another form of our anthropomorphisms of nature? We do have a history of doing that. The world through our eyes makes sense to us, but is the Earth stationary and the sky rotates around it?

Antlerman,

 

I would say that yes, an arm is a feature of the universe or it wouldn't be. ;) I don't see any intended result though. I understand it as everything having consciousness rather it is developed or rudimentary. Those words do designate a progression, but it's just because I'm a human trying to discuss something that may not represent that progression. So, it doesn't matter what the form is.

 

I don't know if you have looked into David Chalmers (addresses human consciousness) but I'll post a little of him here and little of Bohm also. Chalmers lists the three materialists arguments and the shows how they fail.

 

I put this in another thread yesterday here:

 

There are two possibilities here. First, it could be that consciousness is itself a

fundamental feature of the world, like spacetime and mass. In this case, we can say that

phenomenal properties are fundamental. Second, it could be that consciousness is not itself

fundamental, but is necessitated by some more primitive fundamental feature X that is not

itself necessitated by physics. In this case, we might call X a protophenomenal property, and

we can say that protophenomenal properties are fundamental. I will typically put things in

terms of the first possibility for ease of discussion, but the discussion that follows applies

equally to the second. Either way, consciousness involves something novel and fundamental

in the world.

Consciousness and its Place in Nature

 

And this from David Bohm:

 

"Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it."

Bohm and Peat 1987, 185-186 and Weber 1986, 215

 

"One may indeed say that our memory is a special case of the process described above, for all that is recorded is held enfolded within the brain cells and these are part of matter in general. The recurrence and stability of our own memory as a relatively independent sub-totality is thus brought about as part of the very same process that sustains the recurrence and stability in the manifest order of matter in general. It follows, then, that the explicate and manifest order of consciousness is not ultimately distinct from that of matter in general"
(Bohm, 1980, p. 208).

 

Bohm views have been called an "extended version of materialism", buy yet, it seems to reach the same conclusion as David Chalmers' nonreductivist view...that consciouness and matter are one.

 

I ordered one of David Bohm's books yesterday and am looking forward to reading it. He puts forth that there is an implicate order that exists in the quantum field that is subject to the organizing influence of a superquantum potential (not dependent on a measurement being made).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not seem that way, but I have found that peace. Reality, in all it's unfairness, I find is more comforting than beliefs.

...

 

I have too found the peace, but I love to talk about these things. Just like there are people that love to talk about LoTR or Harry Potter or such. Mythology isn't dead because it is unreal, it's just a different mind game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've made some unfair assumptions about me. :(

 

I've probably made some about you for all I know.

Yes, you've made quite a few.

 

I actually like atheists. I like their rigorous attention to logic and evidence. I do however think it is possible to have 'spiritual' beliefs based on logic and evidence. I don't think that human consciousness can be properly explained through scientific methods.....

It can, and has. I disagree with much of what you had to say, but I'll just leave it at that. There is no sense in arguing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true. And isn't Elohim plural?

That's what I've heard too. (Christian apologists refuse to accept that of course) But it makes a lot of sense. El-ohim, the council of gods. The Bible uses the phrase "council" in some places, I think it's in Job or such, that God is with his council. What council? God has a council of senators or angels or what? From this group of gods, a few stands out, and over time a cult of believers that picked one of the others is winning out and eventually it becomes the only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you NBBTB. That's exactly it.

 

I think that either life as such is a fundamental part of the Universe and existence or it is not. Either the Universe is "alive" or it is "dead". As far as I'm concerned, in this point in time, I'm alive, and I'm a part of the Universe, so the Universe is in a sense alive.

 

Another thing I've been thinking about is that thought, consciousness, will etc, is all based on process. Now with the ideas of braided space/time, or super strings, it seems like the time/space is a process too and not anything "tangible". The process is the essence. It exists, because it moves. I think because my mind process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true. And isn't Elohim plural?

That's what I've heard too. (Christian apologists refuse to accept that of course) But it makes a lot of sense. El-ohim, the council of gods. The Bible uses the phrase "council" in some places, I think it's in Job or such, that God is with his council. What council? God has a council of senators or angels or what? From this group of gods, a few stands out, and over time a cult of believers that picked one of the others is winning out and eventually it becomes the only one.

It also explains the other people that existed outside the Garden of Eden in their creation myth. And it explains the dictum that you shall place no other gods before him. They believed that other gods existed and this particular one, Yahoo, was the one that created the Adam and Eve people. Other gods created other people. That's why I way it was a war god because it helped them kill the people of other gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.