Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

[agnosticator]

Wow, I didn't know that so many people attempted mind-reading as a hobby on this site. I wouldn't suggest it as a profession for you as you are not very good at it.

 

Wow, I didn't know you could read the Mind of God. Oh, the Bible told you so...that's where you get your "knowledge". However, you could get a job fleecing the sheep! You would be good at it!

[dB-Paradox]

I've never actually looked into the Jesus Seminar. Heard about it and some of the things it teaches, but that's it.

[agnosticator]

Which human's makeup is the right one and why (on what do you base that assessment)? How do we know what unnecessary harm is? Who is to say that one person's assessment is right and another's is wrong?

 

Do no murder.

Do not steal.

Two standards you claim originate from your version of God. Fairness and reciprocity have no meaning based upon an incoherent version of God such as the Christian one. But they become meaningful and relevant based upon human characteristics. These apply to all humans. Rational and mature humans have made assessments that, support these principles.

[Ouroboros]

That is not what is meant by objective truth. You are redefining terms to suit your worldview. Objective truth means that something is true independent of whether anyone believes it to be true.

Ad hominem. Perhaps he is redefining a term, but who are you to argue his purpose?

 

Objective truth means that it exists regardless of a human's opinion. I agree. However, the word "objective," by itself, has more than just one definition, which complicates the discussion.

 

What you call collective subjectivity is merely subjectivity writ large.

A contract between multiple parties will bring about an objective fact. The agreement will stand and exist regardless of people's opinions about it.

 

Here is the problem of the different definitions of "objective": You are specifically talking about "objective TRUTH," while Antlerman is talking about objective things.

 

Morals are not necessarily truths. Morals are values, opinions, and judgments. Some judgments hold better than other. Some values are better than others. But is one specific judgment also a specific truth?

 

How do you handle moral dilemmas? If lying is absolutely and objectively wrong in all situations, then how do you solve a dilemma where lying is required to save someone's life? I guess you are very much a Kantian and would still tell the truth to the Nazis about the refugees in your basement. Am I right?

 

Just because most people agree that something is true doesn't mean that it is necessarily true.

However, it is true that they agree to it. And it is an objective truth that they agreed to it. The agreement exists objectively too. If it is the best agreement is something completely different.

 

The words "objective" and "truth" are not interchangeable.

 

Suppose that we were conquered by an evil dictator who convinced everyone in the world that killing certain minorities was true (as I have illustrated earlier), would it make it morally right and true?

You're mixing up "right" and "true." They're not the same thing.

 

Would the dictator use that language? "It is true to kill this minority!" That's how he would say it? He probably would say, "It is right to kill this minority!" And of course it wouldn't be right, but I'm not sure how that can be said to be "true" or "false."

 

"I think bananas taste good!" Is that true or false? It's true that I said it. It's true that it's my opinion. But can we really ask: Is it true that bananas taste good?

 

I hope your answer would be no. Yet, that seems to fit your definition of collective subjectivity, which you say is now "objective reality."

You have to look at it from a much more complex view than just the kind you exposed above. The collective agreement does objectively exist, so it is true that it exists.

 

The question you are asking is really: is it absolutely true, for all situations, conditions, and circumstances, that killing this minority is right?

 

An agreement between individuals about objective rights does exist. (The law is an example of how that works, or a business contract. The books, texts, agreements, etc exists--objectively.)

 

Is it objectively true that they agree to it, can also be true.

 

Is it absolutely right, and objectively right from a standpoint outside of humanity and history? That is a tougher question to answer. That question can only be answered if we can define the worth and value of humanity's existence. And perhaps now we have reached a point in this discussion where only religion can presuppose some conditions for this worth.

[Mriana]

Collective subjectivity is a good way to put it. What is 'objectively true' is what we can mostly agree on using whatever means is appropriate to the task. Is there a fully independent objective reality beyond our perceptions? Yes, but to know it is literally to know the mind of God. It would only be objectively true freed from our means of perception, beyond reason. Which to me, defines the transcendent experience, where truth is beyond anything conceived or understood. It is the Incomprehensible.

 

The words in the Bible ain't that.

 

That is not what is meant by objective truth. You are redefining terms to suit your worldview. Objective truth means that something is true independent of whether anyone believes it to be true.

LNC

 

Sounds like science. That is a million Creationists believe science is wrong and they are right. That doesn't make Creationists right. The fact is, the Bible isn't true, but science is. Science has been tested over and over again and we have gained knowledge for it. The Bible always fails in this realm.

 

Wow, I didn't know that so many people attempted mind-reading as a hobby on this site. I wouldn't suggest it as a profession for you as you are not very good at it. Still, none of you has established an objective basis for morality given naturalism; would you care to give it a try or are you satisfied that morals are subjective in nature? Again, it is important to establish whether morals can be objective if God doesn't exist before discussing how we know what they are.

 

LNC

 

 

I don't think you want to see it. We don't need some book written by cavemen to tell us what we should call moral, esp when they weren't moral themselves. For a society to survive, there has to be common rule/laws, such as making murder illegal. Here's a suggestion- look at the Code of Hammurabi, which was written long before the Bible. Those laws were laid out so that their society could survive and they look similar to what you are attributing to morals.

[Antlerman]

That is not what is meant by objective truth. You are redefining terms to suit your worldview. Objective truth means that something is true independent of whether anyone believes it to be true.

Ad hominem. Perhaps he is redefining a term, but who are you to argue his purpose?

 

Objective truth means that it exists regardless of a human's opinion. I agree. However, the word "objective," by itself, has more than just one definition, which complicates the discussion.

 

What you call collective subjectivity is merely subjectivity writ large.

A contract between multiple parties will bring about an objective fact. The agreement will stand and exist regardless of people's opinions about it.

 

Here is the problem of the different definitions of "objective": You are specifically talking about "objective TRUTH," while Antlerman is talking about objective things.

 

Morals are not necessarily truths. Morals are values, opinions, and judgments. Some judgments hold better than other. Some values are better than others. But is one specific judgment also a specific truth?

 

How do you handle moral dilemmas? If lying is absolutely and objectively wrong in all situations, then how do you solve a dilemma where lying is required to save someone's life? I guess you are very much a Kantian and would still tell the truth to the Nazis about the refugees in your basement. Am I right?

 

Just because most people agree that something is true doesn't mean that it is necessarily true.

However, it is true that they agree to it. And it is an objective truth that they agreed to it. The agreement exists objectively too. If it is the best agreement is something completely different.

 

The words "objective" and "truth" are not interchangeable.

 

Suppose that we were conquered by an evil dictator who convinced everyone in the world that killing certain minorities was true (as I have illustrated earlier), would it make it morally right and true?

You're mixing up "right" and "true." They're not the same thing.

 

Would the dictator use that language? "It is true to kill this minority!" That's how he would say it? He probably would say, "It is right to kill this minority!" And of course it wouldn't be right, but I'm not sure how that can be said to be "true" or "false."

 

"I think bananas taste good!" Is that true or false? It's true that I said it. It's true that it's my opinion. But can we really ask: Is it true that bananas taste good?

This is well argued. I'll let this stand as my response also.

 

 

I hope your answer would be no. Yet, that seems to fit your definition of collective subjectivity, which you say is now "objective reality."

You have to look at it from a much more complex view than just the kind you exposed above. The collective agreement does objectively exist, so it is true that it exists.

And hence, that it exists, people interact with it and it becomes reality to them. It is "objective reality", it is a inter-subjective space that becomes an active influence from "outside" the individual. That is something that can be measured in its effects. That defines objective, doesn't it?

 

The point that he has a hard time seeing, and frankly so do many others, is that at each stage of growth, or development, of understanding, of reality changes. Each level claims to have a handle on reality, but that presumes there is no further stage of development beyond theirs. To have an understanding of ultimate reality, they would be on the level of God where they is no further understanding, no further perceptions to be had.

 

The question you are asking is really: is it absolutely true, for all situations, conditions, and circumstances, that killing this minority is right?

 

An agreement between individuals about objective rights does exist. (The law is an example of how that works, or a business contract. The books, texts, agreements, etc exists--objectively.)

 

Is it objectively true that they agree to it, can also be true.

 

Is it absolutely right, and objectively right from a standpoint outside of humanity and history? That is a tougher question to answer. That question can only be answered if we can define the worth and value of humanity's existence. And perhaps now we have reached a point in this discussion where only religion can presuppose some conditions for this worth.

I had an interesting discussion this last weekend with a former fundi-school classmate of mine who has moved to a more milder form of Christianity, and he was talking about Absolutes existing (in a friendly discussion with him). I asked him to name one. He said Love. To which I responded that though I personally believe that Love (with the capital L), is the Ultimate state of depth in consciousness and being, that that is different than an Absolute which can be used to judge all others by. A worm for instance knows nothing of love. His response was that a worm is not a moral being. To which I answered that humans are considered moral creatures, yet a human child has not yet developed the capacity to understand or express love. They are developmentally yet incapable of true compassion.

 

To understand love, you have to be able to understand the other. You have to be able to put yourself into their perceptive, and furthermore you must learn to empathize with them. A child simply has not developed that ability yet and is incapable of it. In this regard, his moral standard is not any different than that of the worm. So Love is not an Absolute even to moral beings. It would be narrowed down to only apply to mature, developed humans, and furthermore only those who are emotionally and psychologically capable (i.e., no developmental pathologies - which the witch-doctors call "sin nature").

 

This notion of being able to judge by an Absolute standard - "God", is a fallacy. Some, most, are simply developmentally incapable yet to understand or grasp these deeper structures. It is not a matter of "sin", but developed mind. To judge would be like an adult yelling or threatening their four year old child to "grow up!!". It's not going to happen through threats, and it certainly isn't helpful to lead them into maturity. I would say those who do so, themselves need some growth and a whole lot more depth of understanding, that in my belief will naturally lead them into the Ultimate Goal, which is Absolute Love. And there is a huge difference between that and an absolute on which to be the standard for judgment. An absolute state of being is a Goal, not a standard.

 

So is this understand something that "religion" talks to (as you suggest), or is it a realization through experience in expanding contexts that we as developing humans naturally are coming into? Is that religion? Or is it the integration of ideals found in religion, 'spiritual ideals', with the understanding of our rational minds? The next step beyond science and religion?

[Ouroboros]

Good points. I'm not sure I can add anything to it.

 

The only thing I can say to expand on my previous post is perhaps to explain the "worth" problem of humanity. Does humanity as a whole have any kind of intrinsic worth? Is there any value to us (humans) existing?

 

Belief in some higher reality (God, Karma, Tao, Gaia, ...) can give a person an argument to this "worth."

 

As a neo-progressive-pragmatic-atheist, I find it a bit difficult to give a convincing argument to why we are worthy to be alive and continue to live. Perhaps the only argument I can give is that we owe it somehow to Nature, from where we came, to explore, improve, progress, and learn about Nature itself. In other words, we are the only way for Nature to learn about itself, and we have that duty. To be able to do this, we have to ensure our continued existence and improve our living conditions. I don't know. I believe this is the only area of real conflict between religion and science. Religion can at least propose an answer. If their answer is the right one or not is hard to say, but religious people can at least argue certain humans have the right (so to speak) to live--a right given by their deity. This doesn't mean that they really do have this right, but I'm not sure how to formulate a right just based on our existence.

 

Maybe tomorrow we'll be struck by a gamma-radiation burst from some exploding star, and we'll be all wiped out. No more worries about what is or what could be...

[agnosticator]

Ouroboros

Is it absolutely right, and objectively right from a standpoint outside of humanity and history? That is a tougher question to answer. That question can only be answered if we can define the worth and value of humanity's existence. And perhaps now we have reached a point in this discussion where only religion can presuppose some conditions for this worth.

 

Does humanity as a whole have any kind of intrinsic worth? Is there any value to us (humans) existing?

 

Belief in some higher reality (God, Karma, Tao, Gaia, ...) can give a person an argument to this "worth."

...Religion can at least propose an answer.

 

Your posts nailed down all the facets of our discussion, well. That was an awesome post.

 

I've taken snippets from them to say this: Humanity can only value itself. Placing the worth of humanity outside of human existence is irrelevant, IMHO. It seems to me to be an unrealistic excercise in wishful thinking for the religious, and logic for the philosophers. All of our morals exist due to human thought.

 

I agree with Antlerman's assessment of our moral "realization through experience in expanding contexts that we as developing humans naturally are coming into". I don't think an outside authority could even know our worth and value. Only we can be making assessments about that, imperfect as we may be.

 

 

If lying is absolutely and objectively wrong in all situations, then how do you solve a dilemma where lying is required to save someone's life?

 

Now this is totally relevant! It demonstrates the futility of an outside objective basis for morality and human worth. We exist, therefore we are the judges of our relationships. It's up to us and only us. But you know that. I just don't see any reason for agreeing with an outside force defining our worth. It is a fantasy to me.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I have a question relating directly to the question in the title of this thread. Do all atheists care about religion, or just those who used to be religious or are surrounded by religious people?

 

I don't know. Have you looked at the Jesus Seminar? CFI has a section on it AND they are currently or going to do something similar.

 

I barely gave religion a thought for 50 years, then about a year ago, after a debate with a Pentecostal friend, when he said that he feared for my soul because I was an atheist, I decided to find out how humans ever came to believe in their god or gods. Well, what an eye-opener it was, to discover how Christian beliefs came about, and how the nasty, evil Yahweh became THE "one true god". I ended up on this site, as I researched and stumbled across other ex-Christians.

 

So, I would say, no, not all atheists care about religion, I've never met another atheist who even thinks a little bit about religion, it just doesn't exist at all for most of them. I now care about religion enough to want to see the end of ALL religions, not just Christianity.

[Mriana]

So, I would say, no, not all atheists care about religion, I've never met another atheist who even thinks a little bit about religion, it just doesn't exist at all for most of them. I now care about religion enough to want to see the end of ALL religions, not just Christianity.

 

I wish it didn't exist for me. I wish no one ever confronted me with and I wish I never thought about it anymore. I wish it would all just disappear from everyone's mind. sigh. I don't think it will ever happen though.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Religion can at least propose an answer. If their answer is the right one or not is hard to say, but religious people can at least argue certain humans have the right (so to speak) to live--a right given by their deity. This doesn't mean that they really do have this right, but I'm not sure how to formulate a right just based on our existence.

 

Religious people are also, from their belief in their god, under the impression that their god "created" them as being special. Christians even believe that their god gave them a soul, but didn't give a soul to any other life form on this planet. I'm sure they think that they were given a "right" to live by their creator. Their god also gave them dominion over all other creatures.

 

Humans are not special in the scheme of things, in the Universe, just another life form that has developed and evolved differently to other life forms on planet Earth.

 

Monotheism destroyed the spiritual contact that humans had always with "Nature", their surroundings, plants, trees, other animals, even rocks and mountains, lakes, rivers and the creatures therein. They believed that they were part of the planet and everything upon it, not created special by a single invisible deity that demanded their worship in order to earn "his" love. Their gods lived in everything that surrounded them. Humans earlier than Christianity weren't all told by their gods that they were born as "sinners" and were going to need to repent to be accepted by their god for life eternal, even if they had never done anything "sinful".

 

I don't see that it's possible to formulate a right to live based on our existence. The only "rights" in nature is that of survival, to do what it takes to survive, and to procreate to maintain the species. They are not even "rights", but instincts.

 

We are given "rights" that are controlled by our societies, rights that can also be taken away by our societies, even the "right" to live can be taken away by the breaking of societal law.

[Guest I Love Dog]

So, I would say, no, not all atheists care about religion, I've never met another atheist who even thinks a little bit about religion, it just doesn't exist at all for most of them. I now care about religion enough to want to see the end of ALL religions, not just Christianity.

 

I wish it didn't exist for me. I wish no one ever confronted me with and I wish I never thought about it anymore. I wish it would all just disappear from everyone's mind. sigh. I don't think it will ever happen though.

 

It will happen, all in good time! It's like a broken love affair, you'll forget it eventually.

[Mriana]

Religion can at least propose an answer. If their answer is the right one or not is hard to say, but religious people can at least argue certain humans have the right (so to speak) to live--a right given by their deity. This doesn't mean that they really do have this right, but I'm not sure how to formulate a right just based on our existence.

 

Religious people are also, from their belief in their god, under the impression that their god "created" them as being special. Christians even believe that their god gave them a soul, but didn't give a soul to any other life form on this planet. I'm sure they think that they were given a "right" to live by their creator. Their god also gave them dominion over all other creatures.

 

Humans are not special in the scheme of things, in the Universe, just another life form that has developed and evolved differently to other life forms on planet Earth.

 

Monotheism destroyed the spiritual contact that humans had always with "Nature", their surroundings, plants, trees, other animals, even rocks and mountains, lakes, rivers and the creatures therein. They believed that they were part of the planet and everything upon it, not created special by a single invisible deity that demanded their worship in order to earn "his" love. Their gods lived in everything that surrounded them. Humans earlier than Christianity weren't all told by their gods that they were born as "sinners" and were going to need to repent to be accepted by their god for life eternal, even if they had never done anything "sinful".

 

I don't see that it's possible to formulate a right to live based on our existence. The only "rights" in nature is that of survival, to do what it takes to survive, and to procreate to maintain the species. They are not even "rights", but instincts.

 

We are given "rights" that are controlled by our societies, rights that can also be taken away by our societies, even the "right" to live can be taken away by the breaking of societal law.

 

You said it and I agree 100%. I've been thinking that for a VERY LONG time.

 

So, I would say, no, not all atheists care about religion, I've never met another atheist who even thinks a little bit about religion, it just doesn't exist at all for most of them. I now care about religion enough to want to see the end of ALL religions, not just Christianity.

 

I wish it didn't exist for me. I wish no one ever confronted me with and I wish I never thought about it anymore. I wish it would all just disappear from everyone's mind. sigh. I don't think it will ever happen though.

 

It will happen, all in good time! It's like a broken love affair, you'll forget it eventually.

 

Well, I hope you are right. It doesn't help when you have relatives that keep poking at you though, as well as live in Fundie country. That's one reason why I want to move so badly.

[Shyone]

The only thing I can say to expand on my previous post is perhaps to explain the "worth" problem of humanity. Does humanity as a whole have any kind of intrinsic worth? Is there any value to us (humans) existing?

 

Agnosticator said basically what I'm about to say; that I value my existence, and I suspect that others value their own existence, and our mutual consensus means that we value humans existing.

 

Even human value is based on human judgements.

 

By the same token, however, some societies, social groups or religions value their own persons, families and social groups to the exclusion of others. This is the basis of genocide, whether biblical or historical.

[Antlerman]

You cannot rely on empiricism as the answer to that dilemma as empiricism would be just as tainted by perception, no matter how many tests you did to verify a certain principle or claim. Either a person has access to the external world directly or one does not.

You really are confused, aren't you? Yes, science is tainted by the problems of perception and interpretation. And no, no one has access directly to the external world with a perception above it all, that is not influenced and affected by all that comprises our views of reality. The only place above those contexts is to be entirely outside them. God.

 

You also seem to conclude that God cannot communicate to his creation, but I'm not sure on what you base that belief. Maybe you could elaborate.

Did you see conclusions to that in anything I said, or are you simply drawing off all your years of choosing arguments with atheists and skeptics and assuming you can apply these to me as well?

 

What I would understand as God communicating would not entail some sort of dictation of specific human societal laws, such as you consider to be "God's word". That frankly places God as a clearly anthropomorphic deity of an ancient people out of our evolving past. Rather, I would say it is far more subtle, as opposed to dictatorial as in your inherited theologies.

 

You can see my comments above to Hans where I talked about my discussion of absolutes with that old Christian friend this last weekend. How I believe is that there is a draw to that depth of being, ultimately realized in Union with the Absolute. It is both Infinite complexity and Infinite simplicity in Absolute Oneness, Absolute Being.

 

Does this 'reveal'? I suppose I would say it is exposed. It simply IS, and it is in a sense revealed to us as it is exposed. It is there. It is always, ever, accessible. And as it is accessed, it is exposed, or 'revealed' in increasing levels of depth through our growth within it, within existence, through evolution.

 

But this I'm afraid is very different than what you would like to imagine to support your traditional theologies, that 'revealed' means that it is an act of God. That we sit here idling our lives away, and God chooses to tell us how things are, to teach us in human words, hoping that we will choose him and make him our god, for reasons that vary everywhere from he's lonely to he owns everything and deserves our worship under threat of eternal punishment.

 

In my views, those are simplistic expressions of some fundamental and profoundly subtle essence of Being, an earlier child-like conception framed in mythological terms. Now this is not to say that how I am choosing to speak about 'It' is 'correct', 'the right way', or is the way of things. Hardly. It goes much beyond this as well, to the point that it is infinite complexity and simplicity, before and beyond all that is. Language to speak of it is far more sublime than what I'm saying, and goes infinitely beyond the use of any words or concepts.

 

Suffice to say, any concepts of it is beyond what you pick from the Bible to conclude are the linear 'facts' about God.

 

Regarding the religious dogmatist claim, well, we all end up being dogmatists in the end, it is just a difference as to what we are dogmatic about and whether our dogma has a solid foundation.

Ummm... no. But thank you for admitting you're a dogmatist. I would suggest that be something you seriously look into, as being dogmatic places you in a position to be intellectually dishonest to yourself and others as you seek to defend that dogma.

 

Believe me, I run into a lot of very dogmatic atheists. If you don't believe me, listen to Hitchens and Dawkins when they get on their moral high horses, there are not many more dogmatic and indignant than they.

Oh I certainly agree with this. And I criticize them for their tunnel vision for the same reasons of what I just said to you above.

[Antlerman]

Why is it that you believe that God cannot reveal truth to us and that we cannot perceive and understand that revelation?

I addressed this just now above, but to expand a little on your argument specifically here, you are starting with the assumption of the anthropomorphic God that actively has specific intention towards human affairs, talking to them like his beloved earth-pets. So when you insert into my thinking that I "believe that God cannot reveal truth to us", you are working off your assumption as to what God is and does.

 

The best I can try to explain this to you, expanding on what I said above is that our understanding of it evolves. It grows like a child becoming more and more aware of the world, aspects of it, experiences of it, understandings of it, as he moves through the stages of development. Apply that to the whole of creation. We are always seeing the world through our immediate contexts within which we create symbolic frameworks reflecting that perception. That perception changes as we grow, as we evolve, just as it has from the days before your myth system came along, and now the days beyond that, and the days beyond this worldview to come.

 

If we could interface directly, bypass any and all influences of language, cultural, and rational frameworks, then we are directly accessing the mind of God. And reading the Bible, will always involve all those influences. You would have to bypass the Bible and any of your thoughts about it and Become.

 

It seems that you would have to have some knowledge of God to know that we could not understand him, but then that becomes self-refuting as you claim to know what you claim cannot be known.

Only if that knowledge of God came through reading words on the pages of a book, which I explained just now above.

 

Whenever someone says that God is incomprehensible, it is to commit this same error.

Only if it is based on 'deductive reasoning', or as you say, 'from the evidence' (meaning from evaluating with your mind what you read on the pages of a book, or somebody teaches you from their thoughts).

 

Therefore, you cannot say that the words in the Bible are not God's word.

In reading your systematic logic both here and elsewhere it takes me back to those in the past who likewise employed these good reasoning skills in argument. The problem is that their arguments, their reasoning, their logic was all filtered through the context of how they perceived the world. They were valid arguments, but based on an understanding of the way of things without the benefit of perceiving what lay beyond it. In refutation of Galileo by the nobleman Francesco Sizzi,

 

“There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head, through which the air is admitted to the tabernacle of the body, to enlighten, to warm and to nourish it. What are these parts of the microcosm? Two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth. So in the heavens, as in a macrocosmos, there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury undecided and indifferent. From this and many other similarities in nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven.”

 

And one more example simply because it is amusing (Shyone will like this one). From the Medieval Thinker Oswald Croll,

“Walnuts prevent head ailments because the meant of the nut resembles the brain in appearance.”

[Shyone]

You cannot rely on empiricism as the answer to that dilemma as empiricism would be just as tainted by perception, no matter how many tests you did to verify a certain principle or claim. Either a person has access to the external world directly or one does not.

You really are confused, aren't you? Yes, science is tainted by the problems of perception and interpretation. And no, no one has access directly to the external world with a perception above it all, that is not influenced and affected by all that comprises our views of reality. The only place above those contexts is to be entirely outside them. God.

May I point out that individual perceptions or even group perceptions may be tainted, but the whole idea behind empirical science is the idea of independent verification - even by those who don't accept whatever hypothesis is being tested.

 

Science is also a body of knowledge that should be consistent and interlocking so that if perceptions conflict with other things that are known from other people, it becomes a challenge to determine where the fault lies. Any errors, and particularly errors of perception, are thereby corrected.

 

It is only in the realm of the speculative or the imaginary that there can be no agreement. One man says there is no hell, another says there is, and there is no empirical way to solve the problem because both are speculating out of their asses about the imaginary.

[Antlerman]

You cannot rely on empiricism as the answer to that dilemma as empiricism would be just as tainted by perception, no matter how many tests you did to verify a certain principle or claim. Either a person has access to the external world directly or one does not.

You really are confused, aren't you? Yes, science is tainted by the problems of perception and interpretation. And no, no one has access directly to the external world with a perception above it all, that is not influenced and affected by all that comprises our views of reality. The only place above those contexts is to be entirely outside them. God.

May I point out that individual perceptions or even group perceptions may be tainted, but the whole idea behind empirical science is the idea of independent verification - even by those who don't accept whatever hypothesis is being tested.

I'm fully aware of the merits of the scientific method. However I stand by what I said. I find taking what we can understand about the physical world, which itself is operating within a certain paradigm, just as it was in previous days before modern science, to be itself, beyond the individuals, tainted within a general context. It is that collective reality. And that reality is not the absolute or final one. Is the scientific method an improvement and offers greater understanding? Certainly. Is it the key to all knowledge, this far and no farther for all time, even within understanding the physical world alone? I don't share that religious faith.

 

But just so, this most certainly does not mean what the past offered is where we'll be better served because this itself has limits. It was replaced for a reason. Just as I believe this is not the end Answer today for all tomorrows to come. That's what they believed too.

 

Science is also a body of knowledge that should be consistent and interlocking so that if perceptions conflict with other things that are known from other people, it becomes a challenge to determine where the fault lies. Any errors, and particularly errors of perception, are thereby corrected.

And again, the major criticism is that it reduces all that is to that which can be studied and examined empirically - the world of surfaces. To be sure, philosophically to see the world as that offers an illusion of security, that with the right tools we can find the truth, just as turning to Divine Dictation offered that "security" as well. (Hence why LNC is making his arguments, and using the scientific method to sell it).

 

It is only in the realm of the speculative or the imaginary that there can be no agreement.

As I said, to be sure in the world of the subjective you have to deal with interpretation, and agreement can be more difficult (not impossible). But it is a lot less clean, easy, and "definitive" in its judgments. That's the appeal of reductionism, you know? Toss all that messy stuff out. Just study the outside and say "this is how it is."

 

One man says there is no hell, another says there is, and there is no empirical way to solve the problem because both are speculating out of their asses about the imaginary.

Of course an example of the mythological is not applicable to the general nature of the subjective. But I see the point in raising it, to illustrate how overboard people can be. It's not all as 'pulled out of their asses' as that.

 

No one lives as a counting machine.

[centauri]

...It seems that you would have to have some knowledge of God to know that we could not understand him, but then that becomes self-refuting as you claim to know what you claim cannot be known.

Whenever someone says that God is incomprehensible, it is to commit this same error.

Then the Christian Trinity is also self-refuting.

From the Athanasian creed:

 

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

[bdp]

Why is it that you believe that God cannot reveal truth to us and that we cannot perceive and understand that revelation?

 

Whether it can or can't, it doesn't.

 

 

Therefore, you cannot say that the words in the Bible are not God's word.

 

I'll say it - they aren't.

[Mriana]

Why is it that you believe that God cannot reveal truth to us and that we cannot perceive and understand that revelation?

 

Whether it can or can't, it doesn't.

 

 

Therefore, you cannot say that the words in the Bible are not God's word.

 

I'll say it - they aren't.

 

I'll second it. It is the words of humans, not of a god.

[LNC]

I'm going to go for the very heart of the matter. IF Paul knew Jewish law and history inside out, he would have known that JC did not meet the requirements to be the messiah. "He was not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy." Seems to me he fell for some "wives tale" or being a lawyer, he was very good at his job. If he knew his stuff then he should have known that whoever was telling him about a man named JC they were off the mark. Remember, Paul never met JC personally, so someone told him a story about a man they called JC. The thing is, none of the stories fulfill any of the requirements for JC to be a messiah, much less JC being anything special. They weren't duped at all. They did know what they were doing. They duped everyone else. Let's just start with the idea that JC is the messiah. Right? Wrong.

 

Apparently, I missed this post the first time around, so my apologies. When you say that Jesus didn't meet the requirements to be Messiah, to which are you referring? Jesus was of the lineage of David (take the genealogies from Matt. 1 and Luke 2 for evidence), he was sinless (Heb. 4:15), and he claimed to be Messiah (John 4:15). He also made claims to be Son of Man in the likeness of that spoken about in Dan. 7 (Matt. 16:27; 19:28; 24:27-30; 26:64; Mark 2:8; 13:24-26; 14:62; and elsewhere). On top of that he claimed powers and authority that only God could have (Matt. 9:6; 12:8; 13:41; 16:27-28; 19:28; and elsewhere).

 

You are also uninformed about Paul as he did meet Jesus personally (Acts 9:4-6); he was also well trained as a Jew, having studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), a renowned Pharisee (Acts 5:34). So, was Jesus Messiah and therefore someone special? Yes, your assertion is refuted.

 

I am not even going to go back to animism to show what Paul was saying was not quite right and was actually a myth. I don't have to go back that far, but rather you discuss the Book of Hebrew or the Hebrew language, Paul screwed up. Well, he didn't screw up, he deceived people and then Matthew and Luke come along and rewrites an old myth to fit "Hebrew culture", further messing up the Hebrew language of Isaiah 7:14. That's just for starters, but since the NT is based on the Jewish mythology (which both were based on Egyptian mythology, but I won't go that far back) I'll just stick with the Bible and Hebrew texts to establish the Paul and the Bible is full of crap and going straight for one of the basic tenets of Xianity- the idea that JC was the messiah, God incarnate, etc etc, not just the Book/Epistle of Hebrews alone.

 

Your knowledge of the Hebrew language (btw, the Book of Hebrews is a NT book written in Koine Greek, not Hebrew), as the LXX translated the word ha·'al·mah from the Hebrew to parthenos, the same Greek word that Matthew used in his first chapter reference to Isaiah 7:14. FYI, the LXX was translated by 70+ Jewish Hebrew scholars in the third century B.C. (well before Jesus entered the scene). So, if anyone screwed up, it must have been Jewish scholars themselves who had no idea that this verse would be cited by Matthew centuries later. Were they trying to deceive future generations? Unlikely. Your reference to Jewish mythology has been long debunked as well, we have no writings that predate the Bible that refer to like mythologies. All writings of these kind followed the NT. Again, you need to do more homework before posting these debunked ideas.

 

One should be aware of the fact that Paul, a founding father of the early church, and the most successful missionary that ever lived, confessed to using deception and lies to make converts:

 

* 1 Corinthians 9:20-22: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

 

* Romans 3:7: If through my lies God’s truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

 

* Philippians 1:18: In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Jesus is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

 

Paul was such a good attorney that he freaking lied about a lot of things. Not only that, the Tanach was misinterpreted and mistranslated. Nah, they weren't duped. They duped everyone else who bought it.

 

Here again, you show a lack of effort to actually check the facts from these websites on which you are relying for your information.

 

1 Corinthians 9:20-22: Why could not Paul simply adapt to the people with whom he was speaking in order to better relate to them. For example, he took the Nazarite vow when interacting with devout Jews. Paul was fully within his rights as a Pharisee to take this vow and was not being deceptive as he kept the requirements. While with Gentiles, he didn't talk to them or deal with them as Jews, nor did he feel compelled to keep dietary laws that had been rescinded by Jesus (Acts 10). There is nothing deceptive about this.

 

Romans 3:7: Again, it would help if you read the whole passage in context:

 

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

 

“That you may be justified in your words,

and prevail when you are judged.”

 

5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

 

Paul is speaking hypothetically about people in general and he is condemning such an attitude as you can see from his final statement. It would do you well to read before making claims about which you know not.

 

Philippians 1:18:

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

 

Paul is speaking about those who preach Christ out of selfish or bad motives, he is not speaking about himself. However, you didn't take the time to actually read the context to know this as you should have before posting these assertions.

 

The Greek is mistranslated in places too, but one really should go back to the Hebrew too, because the NT is so messed up it isn't funny. The whole thing is bogus. Because there were some words in Hebrew that Greek did not have, they used words that did not quite fit the meaning of the original Hebrew text. Alma means young maiden, not virgin, but, at least back then, Greek did not have a word for young maiden, so they used the Greek word for virgin. Even then when the Greek was translated into English there were some mess up along the way.

 

Which takes me right back to the beginning of this thread- Why atheist care about religion. We care so that we know what is really happening and well, it's all bogus and Paul was full of crap, no matter which book you read that is attributed to him.

 

So, I am supposed to take your word the the Greek is mistranslated? Sorry, after how you have dealt with the Hebrew and the NT passages that you cited, you have not shown that you have a grasp of the English, let alone Koine Greek. What has the Hebrew got to do with this argument. As I said before, Hebrews was written in Koine Greek, not in Hebrew. However, I'm not surprised that you would think this as many who are unfamiliar with the Bible think that Hebrews is in the OT rather than the NT where it actually resides. I have already dealt with the Is. 7:14 issue, but even if you were to be right, a young maiden in those times would also have been a virgin. But then, the translators of the LXX did translate it as parthenos, which means virgin. You are wrong about the Greek regarding young maiden as the word korasiō/korasion could have been used and was used in other parts of the NT. You make assertions, but you have backed them up with no evidence.

 

You say that you care, so that you know what is really happening, but it is apparent that you are misinformed and base your rejection of God on false information. If you are concerned about buying into a "load of crap" as you say, then maybe you should do better work at checking your facts as it seems that you have, in fact, bought the full load and are now spreading it as well. ~LNC

[J.W.]

Jesus was not the Messiah LNC. The genealogies trace him through Joseph, but the Father "over shadowed" Mary. Jesus was son of Mary-- Not seed of David

[Guest Valk0010]

Jesus was not the Messiah LNC. The genealogies trace him through Joseph, but the Father "over shadowed" Mary. Jesus was son of Mary-- Not seed of David

 

Seems like a contradiction almost, you were of someone's seed yet, god has no seed, since he is not a physical being.

[Mriana]

When you say that Jesus didn't meet the requirements to be Messiah, to which are you referring?

 

I gave you the links to the Jewish requirements for the messiah and Jesus does not meet those.

 

Your knowledge of the Hebrew language (btw, the Book of Hebrews is a NT book written in Koine Greek, not Hebrew),

 

Yes, I know it was written in Greek, but I was referring to what proceeded that- Judaism.

 

as the LXX translated the word ha·'al·mah from the Hebrew to parthenos, the same Greek word that Matthew used in his first chapter reference to Isaiah 7:14. FYI, the LXX was translated by 70+ Jewish Hebrew scholars in the third century B.C. (well before Jesus entered the scene). So, if anyone screwed up, it must have been Jewish scholars themselves who had no idea that this verse would be cited by Matthew centuries later. Were they trying to deceive future generations? Unlikely. Your reference to Jewish mythology has been long debunked as well, we have no writings that predate the Bible that refer to like mythologies. All writings of these kind followed the NT. Again, you need to do more homework before posting these debunked ideas.

 

Sorry, but alma and parthenos does not mean the same thing. Alma is young maiden, not virgin. There is no word in Greek for young maiden. However, parthenos and alma are not the same thing. There is yet another word for virgin in Hebrew. And yes, I do know it is in reference to Isaiah 7:14. You are not telling me anything new and the word was alma for young maiden, not virgin. I would say you need to do your homework. I don't know where you get your information from, but the Bible is a rewrite of other mythologies. The Bible pre-dates nothing, except the Quran and just barely, but about 400 to 500 years depending on which scholar you're listening to.

 

Gee, I would really hate it if anyone listened to your apologetics, because IMHO, it is nothing but a brainwashing. Little of it is correct information, but rather pure apologetics to keep the believer believing it really happened.

 

On top of it all, the two genealogies are NOT the same and they are BOTH Joseph's. "He is not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!" (someone tell me what movie that quote is from?)