NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do you follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) you adhere to?
i.e. If you are (for example) a Roman Catholic, why?

I am an agnostic atheist because nothing else makes sense to me.

"Religion? Meh. People can think, but feh as far as I'm concerned". Hence atheist.

Being a skeptic in all things, I chose atheism. It doesn't ask me to believe anything.

I am what I am because it seemed the most sensible option.

Much of it got stomped by logic and my personnal experience over the years, but what's left is sound, I believe.

The best thing that's happened to me on the subject is realising that what I believed in had no effect on actual reality (Possible Hell and Heaven would not change whether or not I believed in them). Therefore, Ockham's razor. I'm a happy philosopher now :). (Oh well, "philosopher" anyways).

I was raised a little bit Catholic, but religion didn't really play a role in my life. When I became old enough to think about it I became atheist because anything else seems weird, stupid and useless to me.

Catholic, but meh.

Catholic, but meh.

Why are you catholic?

I am an agnostic atheist because nothing else makes sense to me.
Nothing else makes sense to anyone. Religious beleifs are irrational.

Nothing else makes sense to anyone. Religious beleifs are irrational.

Yea, definitely, thiss.

I was raised Catholic or Baptist depending on who had me at the time. I couldn't get myself to believe it so I decided there was no God. I don't know why I decided that. Later I became agnostic because it seemed that it was silly to definitively proclaim that there was or was not a higher power of some sort. In high school I had a very intense spiritual experience that I could only describe as a revelation that all things are one and the universe was conscious, so I became spiritual but still reject religion.

honestly, religion just seems like a load of bull to me. It always has, even when my parents tried to make me go to church/sunday school. I would sit their and cause trouble due to boredom, and when in actual church, I would read the bible for something to read, mostly the parts that involved Jehovah killing thousands for some minor offence. By about 10 years old, I had decided that no gods existed, and even if Jehova did exist, he'd be less worthy of worship then Satan.

So there I was, drunk and stoned out of my gourd, a piece of nubile young perfection squirming under me as we ride the genital trolley to the wonderland of fuck, when I realise that I am tripping on a synergistic high that could only come from a higher level of organisation, probably caused by the flooding of so many dopamine recepetors on so many levels, and then it strikes me.

If god doesn't love us and want us to be happy, why would he make sex, drugs, dancing, booze, and sports so goddam euphoric?

Apatheistic seems to suit my opinion on the matter

Why do you follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) you adhere to?
i.e. If you are (for example) a Roman Catholic, why?

I am an agnostic atheist because nothing else makes sense to me.

I was recruited with promises of tacos and dirty dirty sex. *nod*

Atheistic Christian.

I don't believe in God, however I think the overall message of faith is a worthy one.

If you mean why I am Christian, that's due to my interest in various faiths when I was in junior high/high school. I spent a lot of time in my town's library and to the best of my ability, tried to find out as much as I could about various faiths and beliefs. I finally decided on Christianity due to a number of factors, attractiveness of the message (As Douglas Adams had it, wouldn't it be great if everyone just got along for a change?), and a feeling that it was 'right'. The nitty gritty stuff I more or less go hang.

As for being Presbyterian, that has more to do with a strange set of cowikidinks involving interest in martial arts due to an interest in Japan, the fact that the pastor of my church at the time taught kenpo on the side in the church, and that the kenpo class included a large part of the church's youth group that decided that since I kept showing up for kenpo, I should also show up for other things as well. Besides, the church fit my views for the most part on things (Rather liberal church) and, again, it just felt right.

I'm Catholic even though I declared their whole business retarded.
That's because I see organized religion more as a social club than anything else.
I believe in God and I believe Jesus died for us. It turns out that's enough to join. :eek:
If you ask why I believe, I had a revelation.

I was recruited with promises of tacos and dirty dirty sex. *nod*
And you still wait?...

Why are you catholic?
The answer's there... meh. Too lazy to change it. :D

Raised Christian - that lasted untarnished until the first time I read the Bible cover-to-cover. The deeper I went... the less consistent it got. Learning to read it in the original tongues made it more so. After I couldn't accept that book, I looked for others - always to the same ends.

I'm still looking, still finding no answers.

Hence, Implicit Atheist.

The answer's there... meh. Too lazy to change it. :D

Why did you become catholic in the first place?

i had a revelation. religion is bollocks, the idea of god(s) is laughable ==> atheist

Why did you become catholic in the first place?
born and raised Catholic.

too lazy to disbelieve in God, too lazy to attend Mass either. :D The entire issue of religion is "meh" to me.

born and raised Catholic.

too lazy to disbelieve in God, too lazy to attend Mass either. :D The entire issue of religion is "meh" to me.

jeez, getting full answers from you is like pulling teeth...

*pulls Norden's teeth*

See?

Thank you btw

jeez, getting full answers from you is like pulling teeth...

*pulls Norden's teeth*

See?
HEY! WHY'D YOU DO THAT? You've already turned my other half into jerky, then this?

NO PUDDINGS FOR YOU!!!! :mad:

:)

HEY! WHY'D YOU DO THAT? You've already turned my other half into jerky, then this?

So that Norden can't have the Brutland Jerky™ thusly providing more for me.
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Sinister.gif

Everyone else was doing it, I just wanted to belong...

EDIT: Post 2700!

So that Norden can't have the Brutland Jerky™ thusly providing more for me.
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Sinister.gif
:(

:(

*gives Norden some Brutland Jerky™ to suck on*

I realized what reality is and left the dream world.

*gives Norden some Brutland Jerky™ to suck on*
*goes away crying while eating his other half* :(

I see no logical reason to prefer one faith over another. My own intuitively seems true, so I stick with it.

That, and it allows me to annoy strangers. Not as much as I could do if I were a Jehovah's Witness, but enough to make me happy.

I was always an animist. I didn't know that was the word for it for a long time, though. I wasn't raised with any religion beyond a vague alignment towards(ish) the Congregationalists, but that just meant nothing to me. I mean, nice ideas and all, but no reason to do it. Considered Wicca with some Wiccan friends, but that wasn't meaningful to me, either. Considered atheism too, but that just made no sense to me; I found it too much work to maintain that mindset. Practiced zen for a long time, but the thing about zen is that when you really get the gist of it, you realize there's no reason to do it. ;) What I was doing was looking for something that suited the way I already thought about life, but I wasn't finding anything.

Then, for something unrelated, I happened to be reading studies of shamanism, and that was when I discovered that there already were entire religions in the world that perfectly matched what had been in my mind my whole life. Not shamanism (I hope my life never gets that crazy). Animism. Kind of an "Ugly Duckling" moment when I was like, "Wow, check that out, I was an animist all along! Wacky. Wish I'd known that earlier, I would have wasted less time."

So I didn't really choose to become anything. I just found the word for what I already was. Because of that, I concluded that animists are born, not made.

Moralistic Agnostic. There's something more to this life than what meets the eye, but omnipowerful and omnipresent entities, I rather think not. I also believe that our responsibility as humans is to leave the world the better place than what it was when we became concious of it. As a result, I try to treat each and every person I meet in the same fashion I desire to be treated. For I believe, if there were to be some sort of "God", then they would not care whether or not you believed in them, but judge you by how you conducted your life.

Non-evangelist atheist.

Proselytizing is getting far too popular among the supposed supporters of Reason. Leave the believers alone, as long as they don't try to interfere with science or civil rights.

I'm a fan of Richard Dawkins, but I also think he makes far too big a deal out of his atheism.

Proselytizing is getting far too popular among the supposed supporters of Reason. Leave the believers alone, as long as they don't try to interfere with science or civil rights.


They do try to interfere with science AND civil rights.

So... what is an atheist to do?

Meh, I was brought up Jewish and so I identify as Jewish. However, I "choose" Judaism only on the basis of what it means to me, in the form of the intellectual and analytic traditions there-in; the more spiritual and mystic components are really absent from my life. Generally, as specifically regards "God", I feel a creative force by argument from first cause makes sense to me, but, also, if I'm feeling especially religious on the occasion I might admit to subscribing to a form of pantheism (based purely on a firm belief in functionalism).

Atheistic Christian.

I don't believe in God, however I think the overall message of faith is a worthy one.
Same here, although there is lots of crap in the Bible, the core of most stories is 1 worth of spreading wich don't really matter if a god would exist or not. Ofcourse, I apply the same principle to the Islam, Hinduism etc etc. The main difference is though, that I didn't use holy books to learn those principles, I just use simple logic to come up with things like "Love thy enemy/neighboor." and "Turn the other cheek." and forgiveness. Worth teaching, but there is not need for all the wierd stuff to learn it.
I also try to apply lots of Taoistic and Buddhistic philosophies in my life, although I didn't really get the chance yet to study those philosophies. I try to pick the most realistic philosophies from those teachings. Although I recognise the beauty of pure Buddhism (peace & love baby :p), I can reason it's an utopia, unpracticle.
When it's about more wordly matters and not morality, I have a pure scientific point of view.

For something completly different, I see people saying things like "Tried atheism/christianity/whatever" but I like to say, that those things are just meaningless labels by themselfs (just like the word "God").

Why do you follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) you adhere to?
i.e. If you are (for example) a Roman Catholic, why?

I am an agnostic atheist because nothing else makes sense to me.

I was brought up Roman Catholic.

I don't adhere to Catholicism anymore although if I have to attend church for any reason, I rather visit a Catholic church. I'm more of an agnostic now, but I don't think I adhere to any particular belief system or lack of thereof. And I consider myself agnostic because of things I've seen that tend to desestimate the existence of a god, per se.

I realized what reality is and left the dream world.
I realized what reality is and left for the dream world.
Which turned out to be real.

Catholic. Converted. Lutheranism didn't make sense. Frankly, at this point, neither does Catholicism. It's rigid, and they basically dictate your personal beliefs as if you are part of the damn Borg. That and I don't care for the current Pope.

So yeah, I am a Catholic in name only and an agnostic leaning toward theism at heart.

I realized what reality is and left for the dream world.
Which turned out to be real.

lol

They do try to interfere with science AND civil rights.
So... what is an atheist to do?
Is the answer "proselytize"? :confused:
Or perhaps "fight back, calling the sensible believers to help the cause instead of telling them how wrong they are"?

At it again Dyakovo don't you ever get tired of it, surely mate there is something else that occupies your mind or are you just trying to revive an old fad quickly?

At it again Dyakovo don't you ever get tired of it, surely mate there is something else that occupies your mind or are you just trying to revive an old fad quickly?

Señor Dyakovo is a masochist when it comes to religion, I guess.:D

Señor Dyakovo is a masochist when it comes to religion, I guess.:D

That would explain a lot

Is the answer "proselytize"? :confused:
Or perhaps "fight back, calling the sensible believers to help the cause instead of telling them how wrong they are"?

The humour in the situation is - when the atheist fights back, we get accused of victimising Christians. Yes... they only outnumber us a hundred to one, we must stop victimising them so... what with trying to stop their religion from setting our laws, and the like.

The humour in the situation is - when the atheist fights back, we get accused of victimising Christians. Yes... they only outnumber us a hundred to one, we must stop victimising them so... what with trying to stop their religion from setting our laws, and the like.
Where do you live, in XIX century Spain?

Sikh coz it matches more closely my own thoughts and feelings of God.

i don't have a solid idea of my religion, so i suppose i could fit into agnostic atheist too, however i could be agnostic theist so really i'm not sure.
It's really hard to shake of a general idea of God, but then again there's so many arguments that can be used to challenge the idea of a God.

At it again Dyakovo don't you ever get tired of it, surely mate there is something else that occupies your mind or are you just trying to revive an old fad quickly?
Tired of what?
Señor Dyakovo is a masochist, I guess.:D

Fixed

There are millions of religions out there. As far as I know none of them actually fits observable reality.

So.. no way for me to choose one.

I'm Agnostic.
Makes the most sense to me; we don't know what the hell created the realm we exist on, but it's my belief that there must be SOME greater deity that did it. Otherwise our existence is entirely pointless, which is a damned sad thought.
:/

Where do you live, in XIX century Spain?

1 vs 100 is indeed an exaggeration. It is about 200 million atheists vs 2.1 billion Christians according to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

(numbers for the subgroup atheism in nonreligious are further down the page).

Where do you live, in XIX century Spain?

:rolleyes:
Contrary to what many people may believe, in XIX centruy Spain ignorance wasn't rampant nor under such a strong sway by the Inquisition.

Where do you live, in XIX century Spain?

Yeah, it was probably a big exaggeration. I think the US is supposed to be a little under 10% agnostic, atheist, or.. whatever... and about 90% Christian of various flavours.

I don't really know if I even do choose to believe what I do. I think by and large my agnostic mysticism is something I've just defaulted to after rejecting all possible alternatives.

The age old rebuke by Atheists is that when the Christians realise why they reject all other faiths, they will know why the Atheists reject theirs. My position on Atheism is that when you realise why the religious do not reject their own faith, you will know why I must reject Atheism as well.

I'm a Mormon. "Why?" do you ask?

Well I guess the short, smart-assed answer is "Because I'm a glutton for punishment." Because of the flak I get from Evangelical Christians both on forums like this and from people in real life.

But the true answer is much more interesting and I've told the story in detail on here before. Suffice it to say that I have always believed firmly that God can and sometimes does directly communicate to people, and did so in my case. That pretty much overrides all other concerns.

I'm a Mormon. "Why?" do you ask?

Well I guess the short, smart-assed answer is "Because I'm a glutton for punishment." Because of the flak I get from Evangelical Christians both on forums like this and from people in real life.

But the true answer is much more interesting and I've told the story in detail on here before. Suffice it to say that I have always believed firmly that God can and sometimes does directly communicate to people, and did so in my case. That pretty much overrides all other concerns.

:D

Señor Dyakovo is a masochist when it comes to religion, I guess.:D

I'll say this for Dyakovo... In all the times he's questioned religion or expressed his own beliefs to the contrary, not once have I known him to be vitriolic or nasty in expressing his views. He's not the only one, of course, but I don't find the frequency bothersome.

:rolleyes:
Contrary to what many people may believe, in XIX centruy Spain ignorance wasn't rampant nor under such a strong sway by the Inquisition.
I was referring exclusively to the very high percentage of Christians.
Yeah, it was probably a big exaggeration. I think the US is supposed to be a little under 10% agnostic, atheist, or.. whatever... and about 90% Christian of various flavours.
Wow. :eek:
I was so amazed that I did a bit of digging on my own. It's less, but high (US Census Bureau, 2001 data):
Adult population, total - 207 980
Total Christian - 159 506 (76,7%)
Total other religions - 7 740 (3,7%)
No religion specified, total - 29 481 (14,2%)
Refused to reply to question - 4 11 246 (5,4%)
(values don't add up to 100& because of rounding errors made by yours truly).

They do try to interfere with science AND civil rights.
Not all of them.

So... what is an atheist to do?
How about apply reason to the problem of identifying one's true enemies? Figure out just who it is who is actually trying to interfere with science and civil rights and why they are doing it, and counter/defeat them as appropriate, rather than just tag all believers as A Problem.

:D

I'm not joking, man... I used to spend a considerable amount of time in chats back in my AOL/Yahoo heyday discussing these things with people and you'd be amazed. I could be in there talking about things like Jesus and the Gospel and so on and then the very instant it came out that I was a Mormon then it was like "BURN THE HERETIC" and "COME OUT OF THAT CULT BEFORE YOU BURN IN HELL!"

So then I'd head on over to the LDS chats to lick my wounds and there'd be 2 Evangelicals for every Mormon in there going "ALL OF YOU ARE HELLBOUND" and "THE BOOK OF MORMON IS A FALSE BIBLE!"

So for peace and quiet I had to duck into the Islam chat where people were much more calm.

...mind you, at no time did it occur to me to simply turn off the damn computer...

<snip>

For something completly different, I see people saying things like "Tried atheism/christianity/whatever" but I like to say, that those things are just meaningless labels by themselfs (just like the word "God").

I can't speak for others, but when I say things like that I don't mean that I just tried out the label, like on my stationery letterhead or something, to see how it looked.

I'm not joking, man... I used to spend a considerable amount of time in chats back in my AOL/Yahoo heyday discussing these things with people and you'd be amazed. I could be in there talking about things like Jesus and the Gospel and so on and then the very instant it came out that I was a Mormon then it was like "BURN THE HERETIC" and "COME OUT OF THAT CULT BEFORE YOU BURN IN HELL!"

So then I'd head on over to the LDS chats to lick my wounds and there'd be 2 Evangelicals for every Mormon in there going "ALL OF YOU ARE HELLBOUND" and "THE BOOK OF MORMON IS A FALSE BIBLE!"

So for peace and quiet I had to duck into the Islam chat where people were much more calm.

...mind you, at no time did it occur to me to simply turn off the damn computer...

Ah, you misinterpreted the smiley was indicating my agreement with that statement... ;)

Seriously, though I figured that you were serious.

I can't speak for others, but when I say things like that I don't mean that I just tried out the label, like on my stationery letterhead or something, to see how it looked.

Personally, when I see that I assume that, in a sense anyways, they are 'trying out the label'.
What I mean by that is that the person knows they believe but are looking for a religion or philosophy that "fits".

Personally, when I see that I assume that, in a sense anyways, they are t'trying out the label'.
What I mean by that is that the person knows they believe but are looking for a religion or philosophy that "fits".
Well, yes, in that sense, yes, that's exactly what it means. I was really thinking of how much thought goes into the process. Some people have these huge lists of religions they've tried and rejected, sometimes just within a few years, and I guess one could conclude that they didn't give each one much of a chance. But if you spend a few years studying and/or practicing (test driving?) a religion, I think that's a bit less shallow.

I'm a Christian. No particular denomination.

Why? It's the best label for my religious views, which in turn are the best fit for the information and experiences I have. I'm not a member of any particular organized religion because I don't think religion should be dictated by someone else. It is a personal thing, and I can find issues with pretty much anyone else's religion if we did deeply enough.

Well, yes, in that sense, yes, that's exactly what it means. I was really thinking of how much thought goes into the process. Some people have these huge lists of religions they've tried and rejected, sometimes just within a few years, and I guess one could conclude that they didn't give each one much of a chance. But if you spend a few years studying and/or practicing (test driving?) a religion, I think that's a bit less shallow.

Exactly

I was referring exclusively to the very high percentage of Christians.

You would be amazed. Although almost everyone portrayed themselves as Catholic, in practice, almost no one went to church. I've always been curious about it, you see, because the Inquisition, although in decline, still was a force to be reckoned with and for the population to disregard holy days and going to church like so many did...

I'll say this for Dyakovo... In all the times he's questioned religion or expressed his own beliefs to the contrary, not once have I known him to be vitriolic or nasty in expressing his views. He's not the only one, of course, but I don't find the frequency bothersome.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Dziekuje.gif

Ah, you misinterpreted the smiley was indicating my agreement with that statement... ;)

Seriously, though I figured that you were serious.

I think maybe on some level I am a glutton for punishment, because when I was in those chats I never hid my religion, but I did tend to wait until someone asked me before saying. This way people who agreed with me up to that point would get real pissed off that they'd been agreeing with a Mormon without realizing it.

good times.

I think maybe on some level I am a glutton for punishment, because when I was in those chats I never hid my religion, but I did tend to wait until someone asked me before saying. This way people who agreed with me up to that point would get real pissed off that they'd been agreeing with a Mormon without realizing it.

good times.

This is why I like you, you're a sneaky bastard. :D

I'm a pagan. I didn't choose this, it's just what I happened to believe. I don't believe in a god that created all things, I think that humans created the gods, if enough people believe something exists then essentially it does, if only to them; it's when things start getting historical that religion gets stupid (for me)

I believe in the gods, no specific names. I believe man created the gods, and that they're uncocnious. I also have one moral, which is my nation's motto "An it harm non do what ye will". I also believe the only sins are those that which directly contravene basic human nature/instincts.

How about apply reason to the problem of identifying one's true enemies? Figure out just who it is who is actually trying to interfere with science and civil rights and why they are doing it, and counter/defeat them as appropriate, rather than just tag all believers as A Problem.

Should we atheists evangelize? Should we mobilise? Organise?

Atheism is like being truly liberal - it is wonderful because it is so permissive, but it cant 'fight' on equal terms.

Should we atheists evangelize?

Some do. They tend to be just as annoying as the theists who do it, though, and equally closed to actual discussion.

Should we mobilise? Organise?

On the front of making sure you aren't discriminated against by the law? Absolutely! And many of us crazy theists would join you.

As some sort of atheist church? Methinks that would be missing the point a bit.... =)

Should we atheists evangelize? Should we mobilise? Organise?
Someone has to. And because the moderates have been hesitant in doing so, the radicals have taken the initiative. That's why Atheism is being represented by the reactionary and outspoken "We hate all mythology" crew of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and the like, becoming the very ideological tyrants that Atheism should be trying to dethrone.

I was recruited with promises of tacos and dirty dirty sex. *nod*

*tears up Evil Atheist Conspiracy membership card*

Where do I sign?

Some do. They tend to be just as annoying as the theists who do it, though, and equally closed to actual discussion.

I do want to know--do you think that those who do should? If not, why not, if they are polite about it? (As I certainly hope I am.)


On the front of making sure you aren't discriminated against by the law? Absolutely! And many of us crazy theists would join you.

As some sort of atheist church? Methinks that would be missing the point a bit.... =)

Perhaps this is just the cynic in me, but in America, I'd say a handful more than I'd say many, but the support is appreciated. :)


EDIT:

I forgot to include my own story thingy.

Well, I didn't really choose atheism, so to speak. I discovered that I was an atheist. More specifically (and rather condensed-- it was more complicated than this):

I was raised a nondenominational Christian in a Lutheran Church. At one point, I was actually pretty faithful. I mean, I was the kid who asked the Sunday School teacher about dinosaurs, but I mostly doublethought away that little problem. (I had no knowledge of evolution, merely that dinosaurs existed about 65 million years ago.) I didn't do the interpretation where the Bible was actually inaccurate in that regard-- I just doublethougt it away.

In middle school, I was taught about Evolution and was first introduced to the non-literal Genesis idea. I jumped on that, as it gave me a convenient excuse to avoid further thought about the subject. For a long while, I was pretty faithful. I even, at one point, considered the ministry. (Believe it or not)

Anyway, I slowly began to think more and more about it. I became more doubtful as I thought more and more, and I especially found that I could not reconcile the Bible with certain things I slowly found myself accepting despite my initial reluctance to do so (because they were against the Bible.) I also found out that certain things that made me very uncomfortable in the Bible. Pro-Slavery passages, murder as a punishment for the smallest offenses, et c.

I finally realized that I no longer believed about a year and a half ago, when my roommate was killed in a car wreck. I looked to God for comfort... and felt nothing. Even moreso than that, I thought about things more and more-- and I found all the evidence and arguments in favor of God to be lacking. So, there is no rational reason to believe in God-- and so I did not believe.

This is why I like you, you're a sneaky bastard. :D

Just remember that the next time you and I debate something :cool:

I do want to know--do you think that those who do should? If not, why not, if they are polite about it? (As I certainly hope I am.)

I'm not a big fan of evangelizing.

I love religious discussion. But I'm not a big fan of "I'm right and you're wrong and you should believe the exact same thing as me." It might be the agnostic in me coming out. I don't believe that any of us know for certain, so trying to convince others seems arrogant to me. If you engage in religious discussion, I think it should be more to learn than to teach.

Perhaps this is just the cynic in me, but in America, I'd say a handful more than I'd say many, but the support is appreciated. :)

You never know, but there is the problem of apathy. Plenty of people would have a problem with the treatment of atheists in this country if they really noticed it. But it doesn't affect them personally, so they don't really care. =(

I was Catholic, but then cardinal egan said that the yankees were ordained by God or something, so I renounced my religion.
LETS GO METS

I'm not a big fan of evangelizing.

I love religious discussion. But I'm not a big fan of "I'm right and you're wrong and you should believe the exact same thing as me." It might be the agnostic in me coming out. I don't believe that any of us know for certain, so trying to convince others seems arrogant to me. If you engage in religious discussion, I think it should be more to learn than to teach.

Hm. See, I have no problem with people trying to convince others that they are correct, even if they are themselves not completely certain-- as long as they are civil.


You never know, but there is the problem of apathy. Plenty of people would have a problem with the treatment of atheists in this country if they really noticed it. But it doesn't affect them personally, so they don't really care. =(

How I wish I could believe that. But many (I would say a majority) of Christians in this country want to oppress Atheists. I mean, about half of the population of this country would never vote for an atheist political candidate.

Now, as far as I know that poll wasn't broken down, but armchair reasoning tells me that an even larger proportion of Christians would refuse to ever vote for an atheist-- consider that the proportion of atheists who would refuse to vote for one is probably near zero, and I'd guess certain other groups, like Pagans, probably would have low percentages, too. This indicates to me that at least a slim majority of Christians actually agree with oppression of atheists.

This may only be one issue-- presidential elections-- but I think disqualifying somebody from being president on such a basis is a good indication that, in all probability, you would at least not object to discrimination against the group.

Also, personal experiences indicate that most Christians at least have no problem with the treatment of atheists, even when they know. I have many discussions with Christians, and while those who are my friends generally think it's horrible how we're treated, (a few of them who are Christians actually say that my friendship has shown them how bigoted they once were) those who don't already know me very often tell me "it's no big deal" or even that I deserve it for daring to be an atheist. :(

I might just have had bad experiences, but again. I wouldn't trust most Christians to support atheist rights. Indeed, I would count on (most of)them to actually be against it.

Hm. See, I have no problem with people trying to convince others that they are correct, even if they are themselves not completely certain-- as long as they are civil.

I can deal with it, so long as they admit that uncertainty.

Unfortunately, most evangelical types - theist or atheist - don't. They won't even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. And that just doesn't make for good discussion.

How I wish I could believe that. But many (I would say a majority) of Christians in this country want to oppress Atheists. I mean, about half of the population of this country would never vote for an atheist political candidate.

Now, as far as I know that poll wasn't broken down, but armchair reasoning tells me that an even larger proportion of Christians would refuse to ever vote for an atheist-- consider that the proportion of atheists who would refuse to vote for one is probably near zero, and I'd guess certain other groups, like Pagans, probably would have low percentages, too. This indicates to me that at least a slim majority of Christians actually agree with oppression of atheists.

This may only be one issue-- presidential elections-- but I think disqualifying somebody from being president on such a basis is a good indication that, in all probability, you would at least not object to discrimination against the group.

Also, personal experiences indicate that most Christians at least have no problem with the treatment of atheists, even when they know. I have many discussions with Christians, and while those who are my friends generally think it's horrible how we're treated, (a few of them who are Christians actually say that my friendship has shown them how bigoted they once were) those who don't already know me very often tell me "it's no big deal" or even that I deserve it for daring to be an atheist. :(

I might just have had bad experiences, but again. I wouldn't trust most Christians to support atheist rights. Indeed, I would count on (most of)them to actually be against it.

Polls also suggest that a huge percentage of people in this country think that the sun revolves around the Earth, but I don't think it's actually that high.

I really think most of the discrimination against atheists comes from people simply not trying to think about it from the perspective of the atheist. They don't see it as discrimination because it doesn't, as your friend said, "seem like a big deal." It takes active thought to see something from the point of view of another, and many people just can't be arsed to do it.

But I don't think most Christians want to oppress atheists. They just don't have the perspective from which to see it that way. And I do think that's changing.

Should we atheists evangelize?
Ye gods, NO! Please, too many people nowadays think other people are interested in what they have to say and want to buy into whatever crap they're promoting. Evangelical atheists would be just more dogs yapping in the pack.

Should we mobilise?
Depends. Do you have somewhere to go?

Organise?
Depends. How bad are your closets?

Atheism is like being truly liberal - it is wonderful because it is so permissive, but it cant 'fight' on equal terms.
Really? I've met both permissive and non-permissive atheists. I guess one thing atheists have in common with believers is that they also sometimes forget themselves and speak in over-reaching generalizations that don't really mean much. But I think that's just basic human nature.

Why do you follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) you adhere to?
i.e. If you are (for example) a Roman Catholic, why?

I am an agnostic atheist because nothing else makes sense to me.

Pagan because of history and it just feels right.

Hm. See, I have no problem with people trying to convince others that they are correct, even if they are themselves not completely certain-- as long as they are civil.
I'm with Dem on this, only I'm less polite about it than she. But then I don't have a "cynic in me" -- I'm 100% pure cynic down to the marrow. To me, evangelists are just another kind of salesman. Whether they're selling phone services, cars, mortgage loans, salad spinners, penis enhancers, diet pills, political candidates, or the kingdom of heaven, etc, etc, etc, they're all the same -- cheap hucksters grabbing at my sleeve in a desperate sweat to convince me that I really, really need whatever useless, mass-produced, counterfeit snake oil they have to off-load. My very soul hangs in the balance, until they get the hint that I'm not buying -- then they drop me and rush after the next prospective rube.

I detest all such creatures, whether they are religious or not.

How I wish I could believe that. But many (I would say a majority) of Christians in this country want to oppress Atheists. <snip>
First, I'd just like to point out that Christians are not the only theists in the US. That said, yes, a large number of US "Christians" (whatever the hell that means when people are answering political opinion polls) have taken up talking crazy talk like it's their new job, but trust me, atheists aren't the only ones they'd like to keep down.

Depends. Do you have somewhere to go?

Yes, Spain.


Time to start the agnostic atheist version of the Spanish Inquisition.

I grew up Muslim, but the more I thought about it and looked at the world around me, it didn't work on several levels, so I found a religion that does. I follow and agree with the beliefs concerning the nature of the gods and the world, and the ethical earthly matters and how one relates to the other. There's no real “zap/pow” moment, or life crisis. Just that I saw what I saw and the religion I was told to believe in was not in alignment with what my thoughts, my heart, my ethics and my senses were telling me. The gods lead who they will, how they will. Not up to us...

Plus, none of the Abrahamic religions make much sense...

Yes, Spain.


Time to start the agnostic atheist version of the Spanish Inquisition.

:eek:
American doppleganger! No one can duplicate the Spanish Inquisition! They were teh ebil of the chorizo eating/wine guzzling kind! Yesh!:D

I grew up Muslim, but the more I thought about it and looked at the world around me, it didn't work on several levels, so I found a religion that does. I follow and agree with the beliefs concerning the nature of the gods and the world, and the ethical earthly matters and how one relates to the other. There's no real “zap/pow” moment, or life crisis. Just that I saw what I saw and the religion I was told to believe in was not in alignment with what my thoughts, my heart, my ethics and my senses were telling me. The gods lead who they will, how they will. Not up to us...

Plus, none of the Abrahamic religions make much sense...

Let me say this, and I don´t say it lightly. I absolutely find your statement glorious in a secular level. No passion, simple truth. You, sir/ma´am might be the first believer in gods that I respect.;)

I am a deist because I do not believe in revelation or supernatural miracle, but I do believe in the rational necessity for a prime mover.

I don't believe that any of us know for certain, so trying to convince others seems arrogant to me.
I know for certain that I don't know for certain.

but I do believe in the rational necessity for a prime mover.
Why?

Atheistic Christian.

I don't believe in God, however I think the overall message of faith is a worthy one.

You know, my roommate always told me she wanted to meet a Christian who doesn't believe in God.

I was raised as a Lutheran, so that probably has a lot to do why I chose my religion, even though I'm mostly a non-denominational Christian these days.

I used to be an agnostic for a long time, and I still think that it is the only rational standpoint regarding religion. I suppose I always was a closet-Christian, but then I had a sort of a revelation, that made me more strongly religious. One day I was just sitting around and minding my own business, when I suddenly realized that it doesn't make one bit of difference how I believe, in this lifetime at least. Nobody cares about my religion, it doesn't affect anything in my life, and due to lack of evidence of any kind, it's just not worth worrying about.

I don't know if it makes any sense to anyone else that this sort of revelation would make me believe in God, but the power of my logic does tend to amaze people.

Let me say this, and I don´t say it lightly. I absolutely find your statement glorious in a secular level. No passion, simple truth. You, sir/ma´am might be the first believer in gods that I respect.;)

Thank you. Respect is mutual :)

How I wish I could believe that. But many (I would say a majority) of Christians in this country want to oppress Atheists. I mean, about half of the population of this country would never vote for an atheist political candidate.

Now, as far as I know that poll wasn't broken down, but armchair reasoning tells me that an even larger proportion of Christians would refuse to ever vote for an atheist-- consider that the proportion of atheists who would refuse to vote for one is probably near zero, and I'd guess certain other groups, like Pagans, probably would have low percentages, too. This indicates to me that at least a slim majority of Christians actually agree with oppression of atheists.

This may only be one issue-- presidential elections-- but I think disqualifying somebody from being president on such a basis is a good indication that, in all probability, you would at least not object to discrimination against the group.

Also, personal experiences indicate that most Christians at least have no problem with the treatment of atheists, even when they know. I have many discussions with Christians, and while those who are my friends generally think it's horrible how we're treated, (a few of them who are Christians actually say that my friendship has shown them how bigoted they once were) those who don't already know me very often tell me "it's no big deal" or even that I deserve it for daring to be an atheist. :(

I might just have had bad experiences, but again. I wouldn't trust most Christians to support atheist rights. Indeed, I would count on (most of)them to actually be against it.

Is that really true, can you produce some evidence of real oppression in the US. I am not saying it is not there I just can't comprehend it.

I may have to agree with you that most US Christians won't support an atheist to become President, hell they didn't even like the idea of JFK becoming president because he was Catholic. Which is something I have got to remember when reading these threads most people on here relate their experience from US Christians which are different to the rest of the world.

Of course I know Christians aren't oppressed in the US they may be ridiculed, told that they are stupid and even hit on by a few thugs every now and then, I suppose the same goes for atheists.

Why do you follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) you adhere to?
i.e. If you are (for example) a Roman Catholic, why?

I am an agnostic atheist because nothing else makes sense to me.

I used to be a highly devout Roman Catholic. HIGHLY DEVOUT. However, one day I watched Gandhi, and Gandhi was telling someone that it was everyone's spiritual obligation to investigate all religions. I realized at that point that the only reason I was Catholic was because I had been raised that way by my parents and the only line of belief I was willing to consider was Catholicism. So, I did a rather extensive study into Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism to a much lesser extent. After examining scientific and historical arguments, I became an atheist, which I remain to this day.

Being a skeptic in all things, I chose atheism. It doesn't ask me to believe anything.

Except absence of of a god(s).

So... you actually really aren't skeptic in all things....

As for me, I'm a 'non-denom' Christian. I grew up in a slightly Lutheran family (except that my mom, who was no longer with my dad, was Catholic, so I got a small sprinkle of both).

In High School I really found God with the help of my now ex-fiancees family, and their churches.

Is that really true, can you produce some evidence of real oppression in the US. I am not saying it is not there I just can't comprehend it.

I may have to agree with you that most US Christians won't support an atheist to become President, hell they didn't even like the idea of JFK becoming president because he was Catholic. Which is something I have got to remember when reading these threads most people on here relate their experience from US Christians which are different to the rest of the world.

Of course I know Christians aren't oppressed in the US they may be ridiculed, told that they are stupid and even hit on by a few thugs every now and then, I suppose the same goes for atheists.


Christians are the overwhelming majority in America. Theyre in the 80% range. I doubt Christians get abused, except maybe by other Christians for worshipping God in the wrong way.

An interesting fact. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans were least likely to vote for Athiests in politics. They would rather vote for a black, jew, woman, mormon, homosexual, or even a muslim before an athiest.

Athiests arent "oppressed" in the traditional sense (on a regular basis). They are more told to shut up, bend over, and take it while Christians shove religion into every orifice possible.

Whenever someone fights back against egregious breaches of church and state, they are labeled as "militant athiests" or some other such nonsense. The religious right often refers to the ACLU as the Anti Christian Liberties Union, which is fucking stupid.

I am a Christian because praying to him has actually brought miracles, even if they are extremely small. People need to notice what God does for us more often.

Don't bash the Christian!

Don't bash the Christian!

But you guys make it so easy.

But you guys make it so easy.

:(

It's sad, you're too right for my own good.

budum ptsh?

I'm Discordian because I was attracted to how little it takes itself seriously and am actually greatly comforted by the idea of a fundamentally chaotic universe. "Maybe," I thought, "it's the universe that's crazy, not me." And behold! Here were an indeterminately large number of others who agreed!

You have two religions, both claim to be right but can offer no prove, therefore, both are wrong, and god must not exist.

You have two religions, both claim to be right but can offer no prove, therefore, both are wrong, and god must not exist.
:confused: So... now all of a sudden, absence of proof is proof of absence?

And you don't just have two religions.

You have two religions, both claim to be right but can offer no prove, therefore, both are wrong, and god must not exist.

What world do you live in where
A) This is a valid arguement
B) There are only two religions


If your going to slam religion, do it properly. Athiest who cant argue their case are just as annoying as Christian wackos.

:confused: So... now all of a sudden, absence of proof is proof of absence?

And you don't just have two religions.

You're right, their are multiple religions, all of whom have claimed to be right, everyone from modern Christianity to Islamic, to the Greek and roman gods of their day, Ra and Thor.

But none of these religions have been able to produce some sort of physical proof of the existence of their God(s), and the vast majority of them haven't been able to survive any great length of time.

if everyone claims to be right, then they must be all wrong, unless one of them can make an argument or show proof, that cannot be used in the same way to prove any other religion.

Therefore, we can conclude that because none of them can offer any real proofs or arguments, that none of them must be true, or that the real religion that worshiped a real god has been lost to time. But if this is true that the 'real creator' mustn't give two shits about humanity because he or she or they haven't stepped in and allowed themselves to be rediscovered.

What world do you live in where
A) This is a valid arguement
B) There are only two religions


If your going to slam religion, do it properly. Athiest who cant argue their case are just as annoying as Christian wackos.

Of course their isn't two religions, but it makes the example simpler.

My argument is no less invalid in this world then an argument that goes something like "My god exists, and all other gods are false, I have no proof, and all my arguments for the existence for a god can be stolen by the religions I condemn and be used with equal validity. "

I don't have to slam religions, they typically do that themselves.

Athiests arent "oppressed" in the traditional sense (on a regular basis). They are more told to shut up, bend over, and take it while Christians shove religion into every orifice possible.

I know what you're talking about, but I wouldn't call that oppression.

What I think is interesting is that although many people complain of being oppressed, and many public figures publicly denounce atheism, the US is a fairly atheistic, or at least secular, place. The number of Americans who seldom or never attend weekly worship is a little greater than those who do, and even the religious right isn't in favor of one particular religion; they just like the idea of Judeo-Christian beliefs in general. Even more important are the basic ideas that the US is based on. Capitalism is a pretty good system, but it's not really Christian. People like Pat Robertson have a large audience, but no formal political power. And even the most fundamentalist of Christians are forced to acknowledge science: again, not a bad thing, but not Christian.

I'm not trying to condone what many Christians do, but I guess I'm trying to reassure you: you live in a post-Christian world. I suspect what you've seen is the frustration many Christians feel when they realize this.

I'm not trying to condone what many Christians do, but I guess I'm trying to reassure you: you live in a post-Christian world. I suspect what you've seen is the frustration many Christians feel when they realize this.

So it is true then.. Rome has fallen.

Lament my brothers, for the age of Christian man has passed into the winds of time. The dawn of Athiesm is upon us and the Reckoning is at hand.

So it is true then.. Rome has fallen.

Lament my brothers, for the age of Christian man has passed into the winds of time. The dawn of Athiesm is upon us and the Reckoning is at hand.

Isn't that a great phrase? :) It's true, though, Rome (using it in the metonymic sense) doesn't exert nearly the same influence as it did before the Enlightenment, or even Renaissance.

Isn't that a great phrase? :)

Yes, when I wake up and start associating with people, the first person I see is greeted with such a phrase.
"Good morning. Though.. Rome has fallen." "Rome, though it has fallen, remains in the hearts and bodies of our countrymen on this fine day." "Now fallen, Rome is but a wisp in the dungeon of travesty. Oh, hello."

It's true, though, Rome (using it in the metonymic sense) doesn't exert nearly the same influence as it did before the Enlightenment, or even Renaissance.
Hrmph. People forgetting the glory of Rome after a mere [insert proper number here] years. Tsk tsk.

Christians are the overwhelming majority in America. Theyre in the 80% range. I doubt Christians get abused, except maybe by other Christians for worshipping God in the wrong way.

If you are referring to the fact that I said that some may be bashed for their beliefs, then yes I do recall reading a news report about it, I never said it was widespread i just said that in at least one occasion it did (and no I m not going to bother to find some link from a few years ago take it or leave I don't really care). Second of all I stated in an earlier post that I know Christians aren't oppressed in America so what are you saying. Oh and having a majority doesnt always mean you get to dictate what happens, those with power and money do which can be a minority.

An interesting fact. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans were least likely to vote for Athiests in politics. They would rather vote for a black, jew, woman, mormon, homosexual, or even a muslim before an athiest.

As I said I would agree that, that would be the case.

Athiests arent "oppressed" in the traditional sense (on a regular basis). They are more told to shut up, bend over, and take it while Christians shove religion into every orifice possible.

Same with Christians, you only have to look at this thread to see that Christians are told to shut up.

Whenever someone fights back against egregious breaches of church and state, they are labeled as "militant athiests" or some other such nonsense. The religious right often refers to the ACLU as the Anti Christian Liberties Union, which is fucking stupid.

WTF are you talking about, what has this got to do with anything I said or are you just posting for the sake of posting.

Or I could go the easy way out as some people on these forums do. Your arguments are meaningless because I am talking about Atheists not Athiests.

Christians are the overwhelming majority in America. Theyre in the 80% range. I doubt Christians get abused, except maybe by other Christians for worshipping God in the wrong way.


Not quite. Liberal estimates have about 75% of the country being Christian. Just over half of it is Protestant, and then about one-quarter Catholic.

Of course, this all depends on your definition of Christian. If it's someone who goes to church every week, the number is something like 42%. If it's someone who says they are Christian, then it's around three-quarters.

If you are referring to the fact that I said that some may be bashed for their beliefs, then yes I do recall reading a news report about it, I never said it was widespread i just said that in at least one occasion it did (and no I m not going to bother to find some link from a few years ago take it or leave I don't really care). Second of all I stated in an earlier post that I know Christians aren't oppressed in America so what are you saying. Oh and having a majority doesnt always mean you get to dictate what happens, those with power and money do which can be a minority.



As I said I would agree that, that would be the case.





Same with Christians, you only have to look at this thread to see that Christians are told to shut up.



WTF are you talking about, what has this got to do with anything I said or are you just posting for the sake of posting.

Or I could go the easy way out as some people on these forums do. Your arguments are meaningless because I am talking about Atheists not Athiests.


I dont know why you are getting so defensive when all I am doing is telling you the situation in the US at the time. No one is attacking you or putting words in your mouth. You said you found a certain thing hard to believe, and I just pointed out that it is the reality. You dont live here, so I thought I was being nice and filling you in on the cultural conditions. By the way, you correction of my spelling is totally irrelevent and rather petty, especialy when you use that to somehow say my "arguements" (which in fact are more statements than anything) are false.

I would also like to deal with the bolded part. Christians are not being told to shut up on a national scale. Christians run this country. This is a fact. Sometimes theyre excellent leaders. Sometimes they are batshit wackos. But sometimes, they violate the seperation of church and state, like putting the Ten Commandments in federal courthouses or trying to have prayer time in schools. When atheists complain, they are told to shut up. The ACLU will step in sometimes and be told they are just evil anti-Christian secular activists and should just shut up.

Just because Christians on this small little thread are told to shut up when they say stupid fucking things doesnt mean Christians are discriminated against in the real world, and the whole United States.

If you will also notice, I have been slaming atheists for being idiots too. I dont discriminate when it comes to stupidity.

You're right, their are multiple religions, all of whom have claimed to be right, everyone from modern Christianity to Islamic, to the Greek and roman gods of their day, Ra and Thor.

But none of these religions have been able to produce some sort of physical proof of the existence of their God(s), and the vast majority of them haven't been able to survive any great length of time.

if everyone claims to be right, then they must be all wrong, unless one of them can make an argument or show proof, that cannot be used in the same way to prove any other religion.

Therefore, we can conclude that because none of them can offer any real proofs or arguments, that none of them must be true, or that the real religion that worshiped a real god has been lost to time. But if this is true that the 'real creator' mustn't give two shits about humanity because he or she or they haven't stepped in and allowed themselves to be rediscovered.
No, your argument is not valid for two reasons:

1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is a logical fallacy. Just because no religion presents proof that their god(s) exists, that does not mean that said god(s) does not exist. The lack of evidence is a fault of the religion, not the god. It tells you absolutely nothing about the god and cannot be used to declare that the god does not exist.

2) The standard of proof you are using is inappropriate to the subject. Religion is not about facts. It is about philosophy and mystical personal experience, and/or it is about moral precepts for social control. Philosophy, mysticism and morality do not need physical evidence/beings/objects to be meaningful and useful.

When religions make assertions about things that actually are facts, it is easy to prove whether they are true or false, because such things can be measured, demonstrated, or observed. So, for instance, myths about the origin of the world that don't match geological science can easily be disproved by a collection of rocks. But if you want physical proof that a god physically exists, you are first going to have to show me where religions claim that their gods exist physically in the world. Yes, religions say their gods are real, but aren't emotions also real? Yet emotions are not physical objects either.

Yes, some people say they have seen their god, but that is where you crash into mysticism, which seems to trip up many atheists, because mysticism uses concrete language to describe something ephemeral. It is a language of dreams and allegory, not descriptions of factual occurrences.

Observable evidence and proof are the stuff of science, not religion. Denigrating religions for not having a feature that belongs to science, is kind of like blaming a cow for not being a giraffe.

I would also like to deal with the bolded part. Christians are not being told to shut up on a national scale. Christians run this country. This is a fact. Sometimes theyre excellent leaders. Sometimes they are batshit wackos. But sometimes, they violate the seperation of church and state, like putting the Ten Commandments in federal courthouses or trying to have prayer time in schools. When atheists complain, they are told to shut up. The ACLU will step in sometimes and be told they are just evil anti-Christian secular activists and should just shut up.


If I remember correctly, the judge was told to take the Ten Commandments out.

If I remember correctly, the judge was told to take the Ten Commandments out.

He was. And prayer in schools was shot down. But it became a battle where many Christians, and many high ranking ones, were telling everyone who was against them to shut up and that they were just anti-Christian.

I am not saying that all Christians are like this. I AM saying that many Christians either activally try to silence atheists, or are complacent in the actions their brothers take in silencing them.

Not quite. Liberal estimates have about 75% of the country being Christian. Just over half of it is Protestant, and then about one-quarter Catholic.




Not in the polls Ive seen.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_christian.html


Thats the most credible one I could find.

He was. And prayer in schools was shot down. But it became a battle where many Christians, and many high ranking ones, were telling everyone who was against them to shut up and that they were just anti-Christian.

I am not saying that all Christians are like this. I AM saying that many Christians either activally try to silence atheists, or are complacent in the actions their brothers take in silencing them.

That's true, but people shouting at me is not the same as people oppressing me. Now, if the courts told the ACLU to shut up or risk being shut down, that would be oppression. But someone like Jerry Falwell telling them to shut up is just the ugly side of freedom of speech.

I am not saying that all Christians are like this. I AM saying that many Christians either activally try to silence atheists, or are complacent in the actions their brothers take in silencing them.

Well, if one side isn't quiet all we are going to be reduced to is a giant shouting match. Which essentially is what mainstream 'discussions' of this topic amount to. In my mind.

That's true, but people shouting at me is not the same as people oppressing me. Now, if the courts told the ACLU to shut up or risk being shut down, that would be oppression. But someone like Jerry Falwell telling them to shut up is just the ugly side of freedom of speech.

No, but when prominent politicians do it, it becomes a threat.


Let me give you an example. My buddy almost spent a night in jail for handing out pamphlets that "promoted atheism" on grounds that he was "disturbing the peace". Christian groups do that all the time. Find me an instance where they faced similar treatment. If you do, that speaks to another trend. Christian groups being told to shut it gets media attention and is decried as oppression. Atheist groups get no such positive treatment.

I dont know why you are getting so defensive when all I am doing is telling you the situation in the US at the time. No one is attacking you or putting words in your mouth. You said you found a certain thing hard to believe, and I just pointed out that it is the reality. You dont live here, so I thought I was being nice and filling you in on the cultural conditions. By the way, you correction of my spelling is totally irrelevent and rather petty, especialy when you use that to somehow say my "arguements" (which in fact are more statements than anything) are false.

I know your spelling isn't relevant, I meant to put that disclaimer down that I wont use it as I think it is bs that people do just ask RynoD. I didn't thin I was getting defensive just that you pointed out to me that a poll showed Americans would be the least favourite when I had already said that I agreed with that situation. I thank you for showing me a small snippet of how it is in America. It is just that when people use the argument that majority means that there is no oppression against the majority it riles me because it does not mean that at all.

But isn't saying that Atheists are being oppressed because they are told to shut up just the same as when some Christians claim they are being oppressed when they aren't allowed to express the beliefs?

I would also like to deal with the bolded part. Christians are not being told to shut up on a national scale. Christians run this country. This is a fact. Sometimes theyre excellent leaders. Sometimes they are batshit wackos. But sometimes, they violate the seperation of church and state, like putting the Ten Commandments in federal courthouses or trying to have prayer time in schools. When atheists complain, they are told to shut up. The ACLU will step in sometimes and be told they are just evil anti-Christian secular activists and should just shut up.

Just because Christians on this small little thread are told to shut up when they say stupid fucking things doesnt mean Christians are discriminated against in the real world, and the whole United States.

Well I used the Americans on NSG as my sample (yes I know that there are a few problems with that one of which isn't the number in the sample), and I presumed that the statements and arguments that people made here were the same ones they used in the real world. Also I don't think they are discriminated against on a large scale they may be some instances where they are.

If you will also notice, I have been slaming atheists for being idiots too. I dont discriminate when it comes to stupidity.

No no I have noticed.

Well, if one side isn't quiet all we are going to be reduced to is a giant shouting match. Which essentially is what mainstream 'discussions' of this topic amount to. In my mind.

I think that's true. Both Christians and atheists shout at each other, but the greater volume of Christians gives them a noisier voice.

No, but when prominent politicians do it, it becomes a threat.
Right. And when Dick Cheney said "Go fuck yourself" on the Senate floor, it was a real command.

Let me give you an example. My buddy almost spent a night in jail for handing out pamphlets that "promoted atheism" on grounds that he was "disturbing the peace".
Wait a minute, he ALMOST spent the night? So, he did not, in fact, get arrested and put in jail? I smell something here in the example.

Christian groups do that all the time. Find me an instance where they faced similar treatment. If you do, that speaks to another trend. Christian groups being told to shut it gets media attention and is decried as oppression. Atheist groups get no such positive treatment.
Anyone getting told to shut it gets media attention. That's the name of the game.

I think that's true. Both Christians and atheists shout at each other, but the greater volume of Christians gives them a noisier voice.

That and the fact that those Christian Living stores that look like Churches(wtflol?) sell Christian Keyboards. These keyboards replace the 'Caps Lock' button with a 'Christ Lord' one. Needless to say, they feel that key up a lot.

So how many is many here? Most folks don't know and honestly don't care, but you are trying VERY hard to make it seem like the whole of the world is against you, sorry, but I am from the US and haven't seen anything like what you describe.

Im sure it depends on where you live. Where I live and where I grew up, many would easily be 80%.

By the way, I am trying to do no such thing. Im stating the facts. The world is not out to get me. I only know of two Christians who are out to get me.

I would say many is probably at least 40-50%.


EDIT: Nice post delete. You seem to be getting frusterated. Have I struck a nerve?

Wait a minute, he ALMOST spent the night? So, he did not, in fact, get arrested and put in jail? I smell something here in the example.


Really? Police threats for exercising your constitutional rights arent a big deal?

Really? Police threats for exercising your constitutional rights arent a big deal?

Not until they tase you bro!

Im sure it depends on where you live. Where I live and where I grew up, many would easily be 80%. Then that is the condition where YOU live and work, not the rest of the nation. I have a hard enough time convincing people in Japan that America is a rather large nation with many different cultures and experiences, so finding an American who should know better making the same damn generalizations sets my teeth on edge.

I would say many is probably at least 40-50%.
Ah, probably, so you admit that you don't actually KNOW. At least you're being honest.

EDIT: Nice post delete. You seem to be getting frusterated. Have I struck a nerve?
Nope, as Bann-ed said, this usually just degrades into a shouting match. It ain't worth it, it really isn't.

Really? Police threats for exercising your constitutional rights arent a big deal?
Where was he handing them out? How was he handing them out? Did he have a permit to do so? There are SO many nice questions I have that go far beyond your vague "He ALMOST spent a night in jail". Which, also means what? Now we find that he just got threatened. So, was it a real threat or just a move along comment?

No, your argument is not valid for two reasons:

1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is a logical fallacy. Just because no religion presents proof that their god(s) exists, that does not mean that said god(s) does not exist. The lack of evidence is a fault of the religion, not the god. It tells you absolutely nothing about the god and cannot be used to declare that the god does not exist.

The absence of Evidence isn't evidence of existence ether, so basically, all religion is a Logical fallacy.

And it's also logically false to say "oh, it's not the God's fault, it's the religion's" because frankly, that's like saying, "oh, it's not the theory's fault, it's the evidence's fault, for not existing to prove it."

2) The standard of proof you are using is inappropriate to the subject. Religion is not about facts. It is about philosophy and mystical personal experience, and/or it is about moral precepts for social control. Philosophy, mysticism and morality do not need physical evidence/beings/objects to be meaningful and useful.

You forget that philosophy is the foundation of science, and that's where science draws a lot of it's methods and such.

How, exactly, is it 'inappropriate' to demand proof of your god? is it because you know full well you have none, and thus your theory is a baseless one.

When religions make assertions about things that actually are facts, it is easy to prove whether they are true or false, because such things can be measured, demonstrated, or observed. So, for instance, myths about the origin of the world that don't match geological science can easily be disproved by a collection of rocks. But if you want physical proof that a god physically exists, you are first going to have to show me where religions claim that their gods exist physically in the world. Yes, religions say their gods are real, but aren't emotions also real? Yet emotions are not physical objects either.

Emotions can be generated through the use of brain stimulates, so yes, they are 'physical'.

Yes, some people say they have seen their god, but that is where you crash into mysticism, which seems to trip up many atheists, because mysticism uses concrete language to describe something ephemeral. It is a language of dreams and allegory, not descriptions of factual occurrences.
Magic Mushrooms makes me see a giant orange Ronald Reagen having sex with Michael J Fox, that doesn't make it true.

If Mysticism is not a description of factual occurrences, then it's not really describing anything at all, in fact, one could say that they just made that shit up.


Observable evidence and proof are the stuff of science, not religion. Denigrating religions for not having a feature that belongs to science, is kind of like blaming a cow for not being a giraffe.
Up until a few hundred years ago, Religion claimed to have all the answers, then observations proved them wrong, on a number of topics. How then, is this any different. God is no less immune to science then creation myths have been.

Why do you follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) you adhere to?
Because it made sense. It makes sense to have faith in reality.

I am an agnostic atheist because nothing else makes sense to me.
As it should be.

Because it made sense. It makes sense to have faith in reality.


As it should be.

Thank you for the on topic response. :D

The absence of Evidence isn't evidence of existence ether, so basically, all religion is a Logical fallacy.
Other people being wrong does not change the fact that you are wrong. We're talking about your argument and its fatal flaws. Other people's errors are not relevant to your errors.

And to address your comment, which has flaws of its own:

A) Only a small number of religious commentators try to use the "there's no evidence that he doesn't exist" argument to PROVE that their god does exist. Those who do are committing the mirror image of the fallacy you committed and are just as easily debunked in the exact same way.

B) However, "there's no evidence against" IS a valid counter to arguments that "there's no evidence for." The mutual lack of evidence makes the pro and con proven-god-existence arguments cancel each other out.

C) The vast majority of religions, including their established clergy, maintain the ineffability of their god-concepts and discourage people from trying to pin the god down to a finite physical object or point. This is a strong indicator that what they believe is "real" about their god has nothing to do with any measurable/observable physical presence. So if they are not talking about a physical presence, blaming them for not presenting one is a waste of time and breath.

And it's also logically false to say "oh, it's not the God's fault, it's the religion's" because frankly, that's like saying, "oh, it's not the theory's fault, it's the evidence's fault, for not existing to prove it."
I see, so according to you, in a murder trial, if a jury decides that the state failed to prove its case against the accused due to insufficient evidence, that is proof positive that no one got killed? No, in the real world, it is only proof that the state failed to prove that a certain individual committed the crime. It does not mean there was no crime.

Likewise, a particular religion failing to convince you that their god exists is not proof that their god does not exist. It is only proof that that particular religion failed to make its case to your satisfaction.

But that is beside the point, which is that you are still judging religion by a standard that does not apply to it. The kind of "evidence" you are demanding simply is not relevant to the "truth/untruth" quotient of religion. You want to judge religion by the standards of science. But religion is not science, it doesn't act like science, and it isn't supposed to do what science does. Like I said, it is pointless to blame a cow for not being a giraffe. If you want something you can only get from a giraffe, go to a giraffe, not to a cow. If you want what you can get from science, then go get it, because science is right there to give it to you. Don't try to milk it out of religion and then get pissed off when it fails to produce.

You forget that philosophy is the foundation of science, and that's where science draws a lot of it's methods and such.
So? It's also closely related to politics, social structures such as family, class, gender roles, etc., and the arts. Oh, and it's intimately tied up with religion, too. What's your point?

How, exactly, is it 'inappropriate' to demand proof of your god? is it because you know full well you have none, and thus your theory is a baseless one.
:rolleyes: I've already explained twice why it's inappropriate. Are you one of those people who likes to pretend that if you ignore an argument that means it was never made? Well, I'm one of those people who does not like to be made to repeat myself. See above in this very post for the answer to your question.

And by the way, your reference to a "theory" is evidence of how off the mark you are in religion. Theories belong to science. There are no theories in religion. There are only beliefs. I have no theory about gods at all, therefore it is not possible for me to have a baseless one.

Emotions can be generated through the use of brain stimulates, so yes, they are 'physical'.
*stimuli* And you are still wrong. Physiological responses to emotion are measurable by scientific means. And those exact same physiological responses can be triggered by different emotions and physical conditions. Thus crying is a response to sorrow, happiness, fear, and physical pain. Elevated blood pressure and respiration is a response to fear, anger, sexual arousal, and/or exercise. So when you stimulate the brain to produce a response, which one are you producing?

Meanwhile, the conscious experience of emotion is so individualized and subjective and of such complex origin in the mind, combining aspects of personality, memory, conditioning, as well as current circumstances, that there is no one universal recipe for happiness or love or hate or fear. There is always one thing you can do to make any person cry from pain. There is not alway one thing you can do to make any person cry from emotion.

Also, it is rare for a person to cry from pain in the absence of a present cause of pain. But it is common for a person to cry from emotion merely from remembering or just imagining an emotional kind of situation, or just the emotion itself, as a concept.

This would seem to indicate that it is not physical stimuli that cause emotional responses, but rather that emotions are the stimuli that cause the physical responses.

So tell me, when a person is just sitting in a chair thinking about their grandmother, what is the measurable/observable stimulus that causes the changes in brain activity that produce the physical responses that indicate the person's emotion?

Magic Mushrooms makes me see a giant orange Ronald Reagen having sex with Michael J Fox, that doesn't make it true.
They don't make your arguments valid, either. Maybe you should try a different food.

If Mysticism is not a description of factual occurrences, then it's not really describing anything at all, in fact, one could say that they just made that shit up.
Well, see, now there you go: You are arguing from a biased, closed-minded perspective. You have a narrow set of standards that is satisfactory to you. You wish to use those standards to judge absolutely everything. That is fine for you, but now you also want to denounce what other people do with their own lives because they're not using your standard to organize their lives. And you refuse to listen to what they say about their own thinking/beliefs/lives, consider it objectively, try judging it by its own standards, to see if there is any logical validity to it or not. It's your way or the highway, with you. But I wonder who made you the boss of such things for all people and all purposes? Really, you sound no different from those extremist religious types who think that their way is the only way and denounce anyone who thinks differently.

If you want to use basic, physical factuality as your ultimate measure for whether a thing is true and worthwhile, then go ahead and do that, but you will be cutting out not only religion but also the arts, a large part of social relationships, and of course, science's precious philosophy as well, because those things are not based on facts, either.

Up until a few hundred years ago, Religion claimed to have all the answers, then observations proved them wrong, on a number of topics. How then, is this any different. God is no less immune to science then creation myths have been.
I have already explained to you why god IS immune to science. It is because the posited existence of god(s) is not a scientific theory. It is not a description of an aspect of the world.

Just because you don't want to recognize the distinction between one kind of idea and another kind of idea doesn't mean the distinction does not exist. It just means that you are stubborn in your refusal to allow that your view might not the sum total of human thought or experience, and that some people spend their time thinking about things that are different from what you like to think about.

Thats the most credible one I could find.
Either a webpage Adherents.com, last updated 2000, quoting The Top 10 of Everything, DK Publishing, Inc.: New York (1997) as a source is more credible for you than the US Census Bureau survey of 2001 or you haven't read this thread.
Or perhaps you chose the former rather than the latter because the 76% figure isn't as dramatic as 85%?

Why do you follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) you adhere to?
i.e. If you are (for example) a Roman Catholic, why?

I am an agnostic atheist because nothing else makes sense to me.

When considering the options presented in living life, I found the failures and shortcomings of Existentialism and its pessimistic world view revealed it to be a hollow and useless thing, and worse yet, in the end, simply wrong.

I found Subjectivity’s final conclusion to be trying to establish, or to found the ability in oneself to accept or create the ability to accept, an all-encompassing self-deception as a ‘modus operandi’, denial of objective reality outside of oneself and to replace that observable reality with a self-deception as ones guiding goal and principles of living one’s life, again, in the end, wrong.

Simple theism, although not incorrect in and of itself, as it does at least recognize the existence of objective truth, yet I found it to be insufficient for guiding or providing insight into living one’s life and to dealing with the problems that comes with living life.

Christianity, God himself incarnate, revealed and fulfilled through the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the good news, the objective truth of existence and the promise of true life now and forever. The good news is that the purpose of our existence is fulfilled when Christ was crucified in proxy for us and yet we are baptized into death with Christ and then raised in fact with him in his resurrection.

Thus, I choose to be a Christian, objective reality, objective truth.

When considering the options presented in living life, I found the failures and shortcomings of Existentialism and its pessimistic world view revealed it to be a hollow and useless thing, and worse yet, in the end, simply wrong.

I found Subjectivity’s final conclusion to be trying to establish, or to found the ability in oneself to accept or create the ability to accept, an all-encompassing self-deception as a ‘modus operandi’, denial of objective reality outside of oneself and to replace that observable reality with a self-deception as ones guiding goal and principles of living one’s life, again, in the end, wrong.

Simple theism, although not incorrect in and of itself, as it does at least recognize the existence of objective truth, yet I found it to be insufficient for guiding or providing insight into living one’s life and to dealing with the problems that comes with living life.

Christianity, God himself incarnate, revealed and fulfilled through the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is the good news, the objective truth of existence and the promise of true life now and forever. The good news is that the purpose of our existence is fulfilled when Christ was crucified in proxy for us and yet we are baptized into death with Christ and then raised in fact with him in his resurrection.

Thus, I choose to be a Christian, objective reality, objective truth.
I'm not in any way questioning the truthfulness and meaning of your beliefs in your life, nor the validity of your reasoning in choosing it.

I only want to point out, for the sake of balance and full disclosure, that I don't see any objective reality in your description of what you found in Christianity -- no more than I see anything objective in Xomic's insistence that there is no such thing as a god.

As far as I can tell, looking at it as an outsider with no stake (either positive or negative) in one viewpoint or another (the objectivity of disinterest), both your view and his are equally subjective and equally lacking in objective proofs. This is not to say that either view is wrong, only that neither is objective.

Of course, this has nothing to do with your reasons for choosing your religion beliefs. I only wanted to say it in reference to my critique of Xomic's arguments, to illustrate that my focus is on the difference between objective proof and subjective experience. I apologize for using your post for that purpose.

Either a webpage Adherents.com, last updated 2000, quoting The Top 10 of Everything, DK Publishing, Inc.: New York (1997) as a source is more credible for you than the US Census Bureau survey of 2001 or you haven't read this thread.
Or perhaps you chose the former rather than the latter because the 76% figure isn't as dramatic as 85%?

Oh get over yourself. I hadnt read that.


Did the USCB include Mormons as Christians?


Besides, you make it seem like 76% isnt a vast majority.

Then that is the condition where YOU live and work, not the rest of the nation. I have a hard enough time convincing people in Japan that America is a rather large nation with many different cultures and experiences, so finding an American who should know better making the same damn generalizations sets my teeth on edge.


Me saying that there are many Christians who think atheists aught to just shut up and deal with religion being shoved down their throats somehow is me saying America isnt multicultural?


There is a logical disconnect going on here.

Is that really true, can you produce some evidence of real oppression in the US. I am not saying it is not there I just can't comprehend it.

I don't have links at the moment, but I do know that several state constitutions bar atheists from public office. That's a pretty clear-cut case. There's also the mingling of religion and state, which doesn't only discriminate against atheists (ie. it also discriminates against members of religions to which the integrated ideas don't apply), but is a problem


Whenever someone fights back against egregious breaches of church and state, they are labeled as "militant athiests" or some other such nonsense. The religious right often refers to the ACLU as the Anti Christian Liberties Union, which is fucking stupid.

*is waiting for the day that she gets labeled a 'militant atheist' so she can laugh*

I don't have links at the moment, but I do know that several state constitutions bar atheists from public office.




In all fairness, I doubt that those state constitutions really matter, because the Federal Constitution says there are no religious tests for office, and Fed overrides state Constitutions.

I don't have links at the moment, but I do know that several state constitutions bar atheists from public office. That's a pretty clear-cut case. There's also the mingling of religion and state, which doesn't only discriminate against atheists (ie. it also discriminates against members of religions to which the integrated ideas don't apply), but is a problem



*is waiting for the day that she gets labeled a 'militant atheist' so she can laugh*

*labels Dem as a militant atheist so she can laugh*
:D

He was. And prayer in schools was shot down. But it became a battle where many Christians, and many high ranking ones, were telling everyone who was against them to shut up and that they were just anti-Christian.

I am not saying that all Christians are like this. I AM saying that many Christians either activally try to silence atheists, or are complacent in the actions their brothers take in silencing them.

And not everything has been shot down. Blue laws still exist in many parts of the South, for instance. They pretend that such laws are secular, but it doesn't really fool anyone.

The references to God in the pledge and on the currency that were officially added in the '50's in a clear attempt to discriminate against atheists and communists still stand, and are actually vehemently defended (albeit often by people who don't realize that they weren't always there).

In all fairness, I doubt that those state constitutions really matter, because the Federal Constitution says there are no religious tests for office, and Fed overrides state Constitutions.

That only matters if they are actually challenged and shot down.

Meanwhile, there have been judges who have interpreted the "no religious tests for office" as meaning that a particular religion cannot be required. In other words, they feel that requiring a belief in god is ok, as long as you don't specify the specific god that must be believed in.


*labels Dem as a militant atheist so she can laugh*

teehee!

Did the USCB include Mormons as Christians?
Yes. It's here:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/religion.html
Besides, you make it seem like 76% isnt a vast majority.
Its vastness is significantly diminished when compared to the 85% figure, especially if viewed from the minority point of view – 15% is much less than 24% (yes, I know, 3% being other denominations and 5 "refused to answer").

...
As far as I can tell, looking at it as an outsider with no stake (either positive or negative) in one viewpoint or another (the objectivity of disinterest), both your view and his are equally subjective and equally lacking in objective proofs. This is not to say that either view is wrong, only that neither is objective.

The 'objectivity' comes with the acceptance, or denial, of the resurrection event. If Jesus was objectively raised from the dead and was renewed in life in actuality, then the objective reality of what he said is proven true by that event. You don't believe he was raised from the dead, but I'm saying that the objective reality of Jesus rising in the flesh from the dead is the evidence in reality that I am pointing to. (I'm not saying that I can convince you he rose from the dead in the flesh though)

...
Of course, this has nothing to do with your reasons for choosing your religion beliefs. I only wanted to say it in reference to my critique of Xomic's arguments, to illustrate that my focus is on the difference between objective proof and subjective experience. I apologize for using your post for that purpose.

No need to apologize.

The 'objectivity' comes with the acceptance, or denial, of the resurrection event. If Jesus was objectively raised from the dead and was renewed in life in actuality, then they objective reality of what he said is proven true by that event. You don't believe he was raised from the dead, but I'm saying that the objective reality of Jesus rising in the flesh from the dead is the evidence in reality that I am pointing to. (I'm not saying that I can convince you he rose from the dead in the flesh though)


Damn now I'm confussed? Are you saying that the objectivity that you are talking about consists of the subjective belife that the resurection of Christ was objectivley true?

There is no objectivitiy in there at all, unless one posesses actual proof of the resurection.

Damn now I'm confussed? Are you saying that the objectivity that you are talking about consists of the subjective belife that the resurection of Christ was objectivley true?

There is no objectivitiy in there at all, unless one posesses actual proof of the resurection.

The evidence is in the testimonies of those that witnessed it. I can't go back and become an eye-witness myself, no more than a police officer can witness a car accident that he is required to write an incident report on. He can evaluate the testimony of others to come to an understanding of what occurred.

That's not good enough for some though, Thomas didn't believe until Jesus said to him, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." and after that Thomas said to him... "My Lord and my God!"

The evidence is in the testimonies of those that witnessed it. I can't go back and become an eye-witness myself, no more than a police officer can witness a car accident that he is required to write an incident report on. He can evaluate the testimony of others to come to an understanding of what occurred.

Not if there are no eyewitness accounts at all. In case of Jesus almost all is hearsay, written down by people that never knew the man.

That's not good enough for some though, Thomas didn't believe until Jesus said to him, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." and after that Thomas said to him... "My Lord and my God!"

Using the texts that need to be proven true as proof they are true is poor logic I fear. Thomas might be just as made up as Jesus.

Not if there are no eyewitness accounts at all. In case of Jesus almost all is hearsay, written down by people that never knew the man.

Using the texts that need to be proven true as proof they are true is poor logic I fear. Thomas might be just as made up as Jesus.

There is no evidence to support your supposition that the testimonies were written by people that didn't know Jesus. It is the theoretical conclusion you came to, but it is without evidence.

The evidence is in the testimonies of those that witnessed it. I can't go back and become an eye-witness myself, no more than a police officer can witness a car accident that he is required to write an incident report on. He can evaluate the testimony of others to come to an understanding of what occurred.

That's not good enough for some though, Thomas didn't believe until Jesus said to him, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." and after that Thomas said to him... "My Lord and my God!"

So then there is no objective proof at all, that is all subjective.

There is no evidence to support your supposition that the testimonies were written by people that didn't know Jesus. It is the theoretical conclusion you came to, but it is without evidence.

That the writers lived well after Jesus supposedly died and do not claim to have been eyewitnesses themselves is not evidence ?

So then there is no objective proof at all, that is all subjective.

No, there IS a truth, either he did or he did not rise from the dead. The answer is not subjective. Your response to the evidence is subjective, but not the actuality of the event, that is objective.

No, there IS a truth, either he did or he did not rise from the dead. The answer is not subjective. Your response to the evidence is subjective, but not the actuality of the event, that is objective.

Nope it is not objective truth unless you can show that it actualy happend. Beliving that it happend is subjective belife.

That the writers lived well after Jesus supposedly died and do not claim to have been eyewitnesses themselves is not evidence ?

There is no evidence that the synoptic gospels were written after the death of Peter or even that of Paul (64 - 66AD), there no reason to assume there were no eyewitnesses around still... The author of Luke says he talked to witnesses and most scholars in the field say Mark was written before Luke and Matthew was written around the same time or ebfore Luke as well. John was written later and might have been written after 70AD though, but there is no requirement to read the evidence that way either.

The 'objectivity' comes with the acceptance, or denial, of the resurrection event. If Jesus was objectively raised from the dead and was renewed in life in actuality, then the objective reality of what he said is proven true by that event. You don't believe he was raised from the dead, but I'm saying that the objective reality of Jesus rising in the flesh from the dead is the evidence in reality that I am pointing to. (I'm not saying that I can convince you he rose from the dead in the flesh though)
Two things. First, that's a big and unverifiable if. Second, although the resurrection gives Jesus credit for successfully predicting his own revival, how does that lead on to verify anything other than the fact that he got that right? If you're looking at it objectively, to use it as proof for anything other than the fact that Jesus did predict one thing correctly is to make an inductive inference that can only be speculative.

(No offense here, but when I hear "Objective" in regards to spirituality, alarm bells start ringing)

I was born agnostic and atheist, and I've yet to encounter a good reason to change that.

Nope it is not objective truth unless you can show that it actualy happend. Beliving that it happend is subjective belife.

There is a tree in my front yard, it is objective reality regardless if either of us believe it or not. You don't know if there is a tree in my front yard, if it's true or not, but the tree is real, or it is not, based on reality, not opinion.

Your response to the evidence (that it is I who says it is so) is the only 'subjective' element of the statement.

Jesus did, or did not, rise from the dead, outside of our opinions on the matter.

There is a tree in my front yard, it is objective reality regardless if either of us believe it or not. You don't know if there is a tree in my front yard, if it's true or not, but the tree is real, or it is not, based on reality, not opinion.
There is a hologram of a tree in my front garden. Is that a real tree?

Two things. First, that's a big and unverifiable if. Second, although the resurrection gives Jesus credit for successfully predicting his own revival, how does that lead on to verify anything other than the fact that he got that right? If you're looking at it objectively, to use it as proof for anything other than the fact that Jesus did predict one thing correctly is to make an inductive inference that can only be speculative.

(No offense here, but when I hear "Objective" in regards to spirituality, alarm bells start ringing)

When Jesus was resurrected from the Dead he proved himself to be who he said he was because no one else can raise themselves from the dead... If there is any other way of raising oneself from the dead then we could talk about alternative possibilities. But so far, the only guy to do it said it was that way and there is no reason to argue with him because there is no evidence to the contrary.

There is a hologram of a tree in my front garden. Is that a real tree?

define tree, and you will get your answer

The evidence is in the testimonies of those that witnessed it. I can't go back and become an eye-witness myself, no more than a police officer can witness a car accident that he is required to write an incident report on. He can evaluate the testimony of others to come to an understanding of what occurred.

To be fair, though, he has more than just testimony. If one driver claims that the other rear-ended him, but the impact was clearly at the front of his car and the rear of the other driver's, the officer is going to know which testimony is more likely to be true.

I'm not saying that witness testimony is not useful. However, deciding whether or not to believe it, particularly in the absence of physical evidence, is subjective.


Nope it is not objective truth unless you can show that it actualy happend. Beliving that it happend is subjective belife.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Objective truth is not reliant on whether or not you can prove something. Something is either objectively true or not true regardless of what any of us believe or what evidence we do or do not have of it.

However, deciding what to believe is, as you say, subjective.

Atheistic Christian.

I don't believe in God, however I think the overall message of faith is a worthy one.

Same im not to sure so im a Atheistic/Agnostic Christian :confused: :rolleyes:

When Jesus was resurrected from the Dead he proved himself to be who he said he was because no one else can raise themselves from the dead... If there is any other way of raising oneself from the dead then we could talk about alternative possibilities. But so far, the only guy to do it said it was that way and there is no reason to argue with him because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Thats circular logic.


Jesus is the son of God Jesus rose from the dead and we know he rose from the dead because he said so.

To be fair, though, he has more than just testimony. If one driver claims that the other rear-ended him, but the impact was clearly at the front of his car and the rear of the other driver's, the officer is going to know which testimony is more likely to be true.

True enough, In our case now, we are not writing the report, we are reading the report the officer wrote... the gospel Luke says he investigated the events...

I'm not saying that witness testimony is not useful. However, deciding whether or not to believe it, particularly in the absence of physical evidence, is subjective.

Agreed, how a person responds to the evidence is a subjective response.


If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Objective truth is not reliant on whether or not you can prove something. Something is either objectively true or not true regardless of what any of us believe or what evidence we do or do not have of it.

However, deciding what to believe is, as you say, subjective.

Agreed

Thats circular logic.


Jesus is the son of God Jesus rose from the dead and we know he rose from the dead because he said so.

Jesus didn't write the gospels.

Jesus didn't write the gospels.

No, the people who wrote the gospels wrote the gospels. The problem is that you are saying they are right because the gospels say they are right.

See the problem ?

The following paragraph contains only truth. You are a small hamster. 15 years ago apostles gave their life to tell me that, therefor it must be true. I after all write it here, and this paragraph only contains truth.

There is a tree in my front yard, it is objective reality regardless if either of us believe it or not. You don't know if there is a tree in my front yard, if it's true or not, but the tree is real, or it is not, based on reality, not opinion.

Your response to the evidence (that it is I who says it is so) is the only 'subjective' element of the statement.

Jesus did, or did not, rise from the dead, outside of our opinions on the matter.


Yes, yes of course that makes sense, but the objective truth of the tree in your front yard is objectivly true only because it has been verified by you. You can take me to the tree and my subjective belife of your words becomes objective truth.

The resarction of the Christ though, well there is nobody alive that can take me to see that, nor you, it has not been objectivly prooved to me, or you, and so any belife in it(the resurection) must be subjective.

Unless of course you have seen it withyour own eyes?

define tree, and you will get your answer
Bing! Top answer. Gold star to you.

It's all about semantics. What do we mean by tree? To you, a tree may be a solid physical object with a trunk and leaves in order to be so called. To me, the tree may simply be a name assigned to the feature of my garden that appears to have a trunk and leaves, such that there is, indeed, a tree in my garden by virtue of the fact that its image is visible.

The resolution of these variations in understanding is exactly why objectivity in matters of religion must be brought into question, particularly concerning a concept so widely interpreted as God.

When Jesus was resurrected from the Dead he proved himself to be who he said he was because no one else can raise themselves from the dead...
I'm highly confused now. 1) Couldn't someone other than the son of God bring people back to life? 2) Does he have to raise himself to be brought back to life? 3) Did he ever say he'd do it himself? Don't the scriptures just say it will happen rather than him being responsible for it?

At first, when I heard about the Teodicé, I finally got a bullet-proof evidence that God cannot exist, or that God cannot have created this world. If you haven't heard of the teodicé, just google it or something.
I'm like an "atheist teodicéan":)

No, the people who wrote the gospels wrote the gospels. The problem is that you are saying they are right because the gospels say they are right.

See the problem ?

We have multiple authors, and evidence that a multitude of the witnesses were willing to be persecuted for the story instead of denying it. Does this prove it's true? No, but it's more than a simple author writing fiction...

I'm highly confused now. 1) Couldn't someone other than the son of God bring people back to life?

Everyone can be brought back to life, through Christ, but only God can bring anyone back to life. Thus, if someone prays for someone to come back to life and they are, it is God, not the person praying, that brings the person back to life...


2) Does he have to raise himself to be brought back to life? 3) Did he ever say he'd do it himself? Don't the scriptures just say it will happen rather than him being responsible for it?

Jesus foretells his own Death
Luke 9:21-22
And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."

Jesus again foretells His Death
Luke 9:-43-45
But while they were all marveling at everything he was doing, Jesus said to his disciples, "Let these words sink into your ears: The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men." But they did not understand this saying, and it was concealed from them, so that they might not perceive it. And they were afraid to ask him about this saying.

Jesus foretells His Death a third Time
Luke 18:31-33
And taking the twelve, he said to them, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise." But they understood none of these things.

Jesus says HE is the resurrection itself, not just performing it.

John 11:23-25
Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

We have multiple authors

And none of them a primary source. All working from hearsay.

and evidence that a multitude of the witnesses were willing to be persecuted for the story instead of denying it.

Actually, what we have is that the story itself claims that a multitude of witnesses was persecuted for it. Very cleverly done.

And none of them a primary source. All working from hearsay.

Whats the definition of a primary source? We have very many names of those that are identified as witnesses.


Actually, what we have is that the story itself claims that a multitude of witnesses was persecuted for it. Very cleverly done.
We have Caius Plinius Caecilius (61/63 - ca. 113), who wrote from a Roman governors perspective and wrote letters to Trajan asking for how far he should go in persecuting Christians. Should he have them put to death even if they repent and worship the Roman Gods or are they condemned even if they do repent, and what about the women and children?

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
edit: added link (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html)

Clearly, the Christian witnesses were persecuted for their beliefs and some refused to deny it.

We have Caius Plinius Caecilius (61/63–ca. 113), who wrote from a Roman governors perspective and wrote letters to Trajan asking for how far he should go in persecuting Christians.
Which goes to show nothing more than Christians exist, not their saviour.

There exist those who believe that the Earth is flat, those who believe fairies exist, and those who believe that Bigfoot roams the American outback. This doesn’t prove that the Earth is flat, or that fairies or Bigfoot exists.


Why do you follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) you adhere to?
I was brought up as a Presbyterian, but got disheartened with the church as a young teenager due to dissatisfaction with both the hierarchy of the church’s organisation, and its opposition to the repealment of Section 28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28) of the UK’s Local Government Act.

At the same time as leaving the organisation behind, my personal faith was challenged by the philosophy I was studying, along with other influences in my life at the time. I never looked back.

I live my life as an atheist, (though I would only ever argue for an agnostic position on the existence of a god or gods), though an atheist with an awe and respect for chaos, which leads me to be sympathetic to Discordianism.

The 'objectivity' comes with the acceptance, or denial, of the resurrection event. If Jesus was objectively raised from the dead and was renewed in life in actuality, then the objective reality of what he said is proven true by that event. You don't believe he was raised from the dead, but I'm saying that the objective reality of Jesus rising in the flesh from the dead is the evidence in reality that I am pointing to. (I'm not saying that I can convince you he rose from the dead in the flesh though)

No problem, we both know we're just debating concepts on an intellectual level, not trying to change anyone's beliefs or challenge anyone's right to hold them. :)

That said, though, simply accepting a story is not objectivity. If you are asserting that an event (Jesus' resurrection) is an objective reality, then you are asserting that it is a fact. If so, you then fall into the class of arguments that Xomic denounces (rather high-handedly, imo) as false because if it is a fact, then the fact of it should be presentable as supporting proof of the assertion. Yet there is no such factual proof or evidence. There are only stories told by other people, and that is hearsay, which proves nothing.

You yourself reveal the uncertainty of hearsay when you say "If Jesus was objectively raised from the dead and was renewed in life in actuality, then the objective reality of what he said is proven true by that event."

That first "IF" is what undermines your argument because you cannot prove that the event actually happened. You have only hearsay to rely on that it did happen, but there is no way that you can prove that the hearsay sources you are relying on got the story right themselves. You might have better standing if any of the Christian gospels were attributed to Jesus himself, and especially if there were other sources that independently confirmed that he had written an autobiography and also claimed to have witnessed the miracles credited to him. Then you could rely on such a source to a similar degree as we might rely on Julius Caesar (was it Julius or Augustus? *shrug* whatever) as a source for the Punic Wars -- he ran the Roman forces in those wars, so we sort of need to at least partially take his word for how they went. But none of the gospels was authored by Jesus, so all of the gospels are hearsay -- and of uncertain date and authorship as well.

So, yes, indeed, IF Jesus actually did return from death, THEN it does not require faith to believe that he actualy did return from death. But you have to prove the initial IF before we can accept the THEN.

There is a tree in my front yard, it is objective reality regardless if either of us believe it or not. You don't know if there is a tree in my front yard, if it's true or not, but the tree is real, or it is not, based on reality, not opinion.

Your response to the evidence (that it is I who says it is so) is the only 'subjective' element of the statement.

Jesus did, or did not, rise from the dead, outside of our opinions on the matter.

Yes, yes of course that makes sense, but the objective truth of the tree in your front yard is objectivly true only because it has been verified by you. You can take me to the tree and my subjective belife of your words becomes objective truth.

The resarction of the Christ though, well there is nobody alive that can take me to see that, nor you, it has not been objectivly prooved to me, or you, and so any belife in it(the resurection) must be subjective.

Unless of course you have seen it withyour own eyes?
This is precisely why, in my opinion, it is a mistake to insist upon factual verity for religious beliefs.

When you contemplate the stories beyond their mere content -- the details of who, what, where, when, treating the texts as if they are old newspapers -- then it is possible to find meaning in them that can be transcendant and transformative. In my opinion, as a non-Christian, it does not matter whether Jesus really was crucified and resurrected. All that matters is the transcendant and transformative spiritual experience a Christian might access by contemplating the idea of such a purifying sacrifice. But when you focus on the details of the stories more than their meanings, and insist that the ancient events must be true more than you insist that the current experience is true, in my personal opinion, one is missing the point of what religion is for. But as I say, that's just me.

This is one of the reasons I like animist religions. They are only interested in present experience in the here and now, and have no holy texts at all. It saves a lot of confusion -- as well as argument with atheists. ;)

I think one could call be a radical Agnostic.
I doubt everything, not only religion.
Now that sounds probably like a rather pessimistic world view, but mind you, I do doubt the bad things as well and consider everything possible.

So basically I do try not to concern myself too much with questions which are out of any practical frame.

And I don't think there was any particular reason why I chose this mind set. I just at some point realized.

This is precisely why, in my opinion, it is a mistake to insist upon factual verity for religious beliefs.

...

This is one of the reasons I like animist religions. They are only interested in present experience in the here and now, and have no holy texts at all. It saves a lot of confusion -- as well as argument with atheists. ;)

It also helps a lot when you are clarifying the difference between science and religion. The central idea of religion is the transformation of the individual, whether we call it salvation, enlightenment, communion, or anything else. The central idea with science is the continual progress of our understanding of the natural world. The latter demands factual verity, while the former does not. Which is why we have beliefs in religion rather than theories.

*op* snip

I am an atheist because I demand proof.

I was born a Jew. My parents raised me as a Jew. That's why I am Jewish.

However, my level of observance (much greater than my family) is my own choice. I was always more pious than my family, voluntarily taking on restrictions. Attending a religious high school accelerated the process.

Clearly, the Christian witnesses were persecuted for their beliefs and some refused to deny it.

I'd certainly agree that some Christians were persecuted and refused to deny their beliefs (although we also know of many who hid their faith, feigned paganism or denounced Christ when threatened with violence: it was common enough to trigger schisms, like the Donatists in the time of Augustine).

I don't, however, see any indication in the passage from Pliny that those being persecuted were witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. Wasn't the letter written during Pliny's governership of 111-113 AD? I don't image there would have been many witnesses left by then, or am misunderstanding your point? :(

I'd certainly agree that some Christians were persecuted and refused to deny their beliefs (although we also know of many who hid their faith, feigned paganism or denounced Christ when threatened with violence: it was common enough to trigger schisms, like the Donatists in the time of Augustine).

I don't, however, see any indication in the passage from Pliny that those being persecuted were witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. Wasn't the letter written during Pliny's governership of 111-113 AD? I don't image there would have been many witnesses left by then, or am misunderstanding your point? :(

How many people in your home town’s senior citizen center remembers Franklin D. Roosevelt, give his "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" inauguration speech? Or Adolf Hitler gives his "Proclamation to the German People" in Berlin? Or seeing the original version of King Kong when it was released in movie theaters, or remembers the great depression itself or when beer was relegalized in the U.S., eight months before the full repeal of Prohibition?

Two of my very own Grandmothers remembers those things (one on wife’s side, one on mine), neither is dead yet and both remember the early thirtys. That would be about the same time difference from Jesus three years ministery to the time of Pliny's letter to Trajan.

But my main point was showing evidence of persecution that comes from non-biblical sources…as per the accusation that the Bible authors may have very cleaverly done or otherwise ‘made it up.’ And Pliny is a very early source of Roman prosecution of Christians for nothing other than being Christians.

There is no evidence to support your supposition that the testimonies were written by people that didn't know Jesus. It is the theoretical conclusion you came to, but it is without evidence.

There is no extrabiblical evidence to suggest that the testimonies were written by people the DID know Jesus. Indeed, there's little (or non - depending on how rigourous you are) evidence there was a literal 'Jesus' to know.

Jesus did, or did not, rise from the dead, outside of our opinions on the matter.

Or Jesus never existed, and the whole binary equation is irrelevent.

When Jesus was resurrected from the Dead he proved himself to be who he said he was because no one else can raise themselves from the dead... If there is any other way of raising oneself from the dead then we could talk about alternative possibilities. But so far, the only guy to do it said it was that way and there is no reason to argue with him because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Jesus wasn't the only resurrected godman - nor even the first.

Osiris was being celebrated as a resurrected godman for 1900 years before Jesus is supposed to have lived, and the celebration of the resurrected godman Osiris continued for almost three centuries after Jesus is supoosed to have 'died'.

Tammuz was a resurrected godman, resurrecting annually from about 1900 BC onwards.

Attis was a resurrected godman, Mithra was a resurrected godman for maybe 1400 years before the Jesus story begins.

Jesus' resurrection trick is hardly original, and the biblical claim that it is unique is easily verifiable (now) as untrue.

Agnosticism is the only system of belief logically consistent with my experience. My burden of proof is too high for any dogmatic religion or areligion.

It also helps a lot when you are clarifying the difference between science and religion. The central idea of religion is the transformation of the individual, whether we call it salvation, enlightenment, communion, or anything else. The central idea with science is the continual progress of our understanding of the natural world. The latter demands factual verity, while the former does not. Which is why we have beliefs in religion rather than theories.

Exactly. :)

How many people in your home town’s senior citizen center remembers Franklin D. Roosevelt, give his "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" inauguration speech? Or Adolf Hitler gives his "Proclamation to the German People" in Berlin? Or seeing the original version of King Kong when it was released in movie theaters, or remembers the great depression itself or when beer was relegalized in the U.S., eight months before the full repeal of Prohibition?

Two of my very own Grandmothers remembers those things (one on wife’s side, one on mine), neither is dead yet and both remember the early thirtys. That would be about the same time difference from Jesus three years ministery to the time of Pliny's letter to Trajan.
Were your grandmothers present at the time and place to see those men make those speeches? If not, then the only thing they can be accurate witnesses to is what they were told about them, and what they remember of how they responded to hearing them out of their actual context of time and place.

If they were present, then they are eyewitnesses, in which case, we are still seeing the event through the prism of their imperfect memories of their subjective responses to what they saw and heard. Either way, their recollections are not perfect reportage. This is why eyewitness testimony is almost never enough to convict a person of serious crimes anymore, unless it is supported by physical evidence as well. Five people can witness the same event at the same time with their own eyes and later give five totally different descriptions of it.

But my main point was showing evidence of persecution that comes from non-biblical sources…as per the accusation that the Bible authors may have very cleaverly done or otherwise ‘made it up.’ And Pliny is a very early source of Roman prosecution of Christians for nothing other than being Christians.

I do not for a moment deny that Christians were brutally persecuted in the early years of the movement. That is as established a fact as we can ever hope for from many historical sources. BUT it has not one thing to do with the factual verity of Christianity's beliefs. The fact that Christians were persecuted does not prove that Jesus was resurrected to physical life.

Or Jesus never existed, and the whole binary equation is irrelevent.
Or he did exist, but the story is a metaphor or a symbolic allegory.

Or he did exist, but the story is a metaphor or a symbolic allegory.

That's an option, too - but I was pointing out that Balders' "he rose from the dead or he didn't" dichotomy isn't as di- a -chotomy as he presented.

Atheist, one reason is most religions are way to human self centered yea were here but the planet was designed just for us we made it that way, just one among a thousand.

Were your grandmothers present at the time and place to see those men make those speeches? If not, then the only thing they can be accurate witnesses to is what they were told about them, and what they remember of how they responded to hearing them out of their actual context of time and place.

If they were present, then they are eyewitnesses, in which case, we are still seeing the event through the prism of their imperfect memories of their subjective responses to what they saw and heard. Either way, their recollections are not perfect reportage. This is why eyewitness testimony is almost never enough to convict a person of serious crimes anymore, unless it is supported by physical evidence as well. Five people can witness the same event at the same time with their own eyes and later give five totally different descriptions of it.


I'm not sure how it's supposed to connect, anyway - unless we're now believing Pliny witnessed the crucifixion, or something...?


I do not for a moment deny that Christians were brutally persecuted in the early years of the movement. That is as established a fact as we can ever hope for from many historical sources. BUT it has not one thing to do with the factual verity of Christianity's beliefs. The fact that Christians were persecuted does not prove that Jesus was resurrected to physical life.

Even the existence of Christians at all (martyred or otherwise) says nothing to the truth of Christian belief. Unless the existence of Scientologists 'proves' the truth of Scientology...

And, of course, even if Christians were mayrtyred... we don't actually know for sure what any martyr believed - especially given how divided nascent Christianity already was, even during the writing of the Gospels.

That's an option, too - but I was pointing out that Balders' "he rose from the dead or he didn't" dichotomy isn't as di- a -chotomy as he presented.
True. I was just trying to head off any "you people just hate faith!" folks that might be waiting to pounce.

True. I was just trying to head off any "you people just hate faith!" folks that might be waiting to pounce.

:D

I certainly don't hate faith, and I'd be pretty horrified to find someone claiming that doubting the existence of Jesus was evidence of 'hate'.

But, it's like Pascal's Wager - you can present arguments about something that seem very convincing, until you realise that the terms suggested are not exclusive.

I'm not sure how it's supposed to connect, anyway - unless we're now believing Pliny witnessed the crucifixion, or something...?
Yes, in an earlier post to Balders I addressed the problem of hearsay.

Even the existence of Christians at all (martyred or otherwise) says nothing to the truth of Christian belief. Unless the existence of Scientologists 'proves' the truth of Scientology...

And, of course, even if Christians were mayrtyred... we don't actually know for sure what any martyr believed - especially given how divided nascent Christianity already was, even during the writing of the Gospels.
This is also completely true. The fact that people were/are persecuted for a belief or for belonging to a group tells us absolutely nothing about the belief or the group. Shit, when you consider how persecution works, I wonder how many martyrs were even members of the group they were martyred for. There were very few people hanged or burned as witches who actually professed to be witches, after all, and relatively few communists out of all the people blacklisted during the Red Scare.

True. I was just trying to head off any "you people just hate faith!" folks that might be waiting to pounce.

Oh, no need to worry there, Mur. Those folks you mentioned have already pounced and been shredded to pieces by Jha´s wit. LOL!

This is also completely true. The fact that people were/are persecuted for a belief or for belonging to a group tells us absolutely nothing about the belief or the group. Shit, when you consider how persecution works, I wonder how many martyrs were even members of the group they were martyred for. There were very few people hanged or burned as witches who actually professed to be witches, after all, and relatively few communists out of all the people blacklisted during the Red Scare.

Very true.

It's not not entirely unrealistic to imagine that purges of 'Christians' rarely, if ever had anything to do with people following a biblical Jesus.

You're the boss in some remote province, and you've got some dissidents making the place look untidy? Some uppity natives? A puppet that isn't bouncing along willingly enough when you tug the strings? Pow! A new crop of 'Christians' martyred for their heretical beliefs.

Ironically, of course - that makes a pretty good argument for how Christianity (might have) survived and grew so well under such conditions of persecution.

Ex-Catholic Non-Denominational Christian (Semi-Unitarian)

Why? There are a number of reasons that I believe in God. Philosophy, personal experience, and the experiences of others. I believe that Jesus was an emissary of this God (As I reject the Trinity, I believe him to be either an enlightened human, or of a closer link to God) because I put two and two together.

I was raised Catholic, but didn't quite like the idea of having a bunch of guys in a little country in Rome determining my beliefs for me. I questioned my faith, for a time becomeing a de-facto Atheist (I believed that there was something called God that did exist, but was not omnipotent or even spiritual)
Then I had a bit of a revelation, and returned to Deism, Theism, and then finally Christianity.

Though I do not call myself a Catholic, I remain a de jure member of the Church, often go to Catholic masses(By my logic, if one's nothing more than Christian, one may attend the services of any denomination), and I love the Church, it's art, and it's work.

The Majority of Judiahs People Front believe in a God but none known to this planet. We Believe that we are a lab experiment created by Aliens. But who created the Aliens?

Oh, no need to worry there, Mur. Those folks you mentioned have already pounced and been shredded to pieces by Jha´s wit. LOL!
That's right! All hail the Jha! He's my new hero of the moment. ;)

Very true.

It's not not entirely unrealistic to imagine that purges of 'Christians' rarely, if ever had anything to do with people following a biblical Jesus.

You're the boss in some remote province, and you've got some dissidents making the place look untidy? Some uppity natives? A puppet that isn't bouncing along willingly enough when you tug the strings? Pow! A new crop of 'Christians' martyred for their heretical beliefs.

Ironically, of course - that makes a pretty good argument for how Christianity (might have) survived and grew so well under such conditions of persecution.
Actually, we know that's specifically how it survived and grew. Hosts of Romans had taken up Christianity long before Constantine's conversion, and according to surviving reports of the time, it was precisely because of sympathy for the persecuted.

The Majority of Judiahs People Front believe in a God but none known to this planet. We Believe that we are a lab experiment created by Aliens. But who created the Aliens?

I did! I am your God!

There is no extrabiblical evidence to suggest that the testimonies were written by people the DID know Jesus. Indeed, there's little (or non - depending on how rigourous you are) evidence there was a literal 'Jesus' to know.

That's been said about most of the primary characters of the NT gospels. But as new discoveries are made, like the burial cave of the High Priest Caiaphas being discovered, and archaeological evidence that Pontius Pilate was real and the governor at the time has been discovered, the list of supposedly "no evidence of these fictional characters in the NT texts" gets smaller and smaller.

Jesus wasn't the only resurrected godman - nor even the first.

Osiris was being celebrated as a resurrected godman for 1900 years before Jesus is supposed to have lived, and the celebration of the resurrected godman Osiris continued for almost three centuries after Jesus is supoosed to have 'died'.

Tammuz was a resurrected godman, resurrecting annually from about 1900 BC onwards.

Attis was a resurrected godman, Mithra was a resurrected godman for maybe 1400 years before the Jesus story begins.

Jesus' resurrection trick is hardly original, and the biblical claim that it is unique is easily verifiable (now) as untrue.

How does Osiris represent a godman? Osirus is one of the oldest Egyptian gods we have records of, no one ever claims that Osiris existed as a human man, ever, in any of his various forms. Your intention is obvious though, to try and draw with big fat lines to attempt and make the similarities look more than just the superficial which they are.

Tammuz does not die annually, he decends into the netherworld for half of every year. Neitehr is Tammuz (like Osiris) ever considered a godman. Tammuz is a god like any babylonian god, not a human hero that dies and is resurrected. Again, upon closer inspection, your attempt to draw a similarity circle around him and Jesus fails when scrutinized.

Attis, at least here you have a godman (born of a god though) but this fellow is said to have castrated himself and then died and the god said his body should neither rot nor decay and he was ‘reborn’ as an evergreen tree. Not exactly a resurrection, not anything like Jesus.

As to Mirtha, you seem to have gotten your ancient Iranian/Persian god mixed up with your Ancient Roman god (by the dating you used, the Romans didn’t start up with mirtha bull fighting god until the late first century AD, Christianity is before that of course.)? But let’s assume you know which one you are talking about, perhaps you could tell me which of the two had a resurrection story involved with them. Neither of them (with the name Mirtha) have a resurrection story that I am aware of. Now I recognize that there are about a million tin-foil hat anti-Christian websites out there that pretend that Mithra has a resurrection story, but if you could please find an actual scholarly work that says so I would like to see it.

I'm not sure how it's supposed to connect, anyway - unless we're now believing Pliny witnessed the crucifixion, or something...?

How many questions can you pretend that one post tried to prove? The reason for the Pliny quote was stated in more than one post, but I'll repeat it. It served the purpose of showing persecution stories outside of biblical sources. Too bad you would rather use a demeaning tone to attempt to mock and pump a bunch of false information (as shown is the other post of yours I responded to) than have an actual conversation...


Your point of view is well established, and as unfounded with a lack of evidence as any you claim I have presented.

That's an option, too - but I was pointing out that Balders' "he rose from the dead or he didn't" dichotomy isn't as di- a -chotomy as he presented.

:D

I certainly don't hate faith, and I'd be pretty horrified to find someone claiming that doubting the existence of Jesus was evidence of 'hate'.

But, it's like Pascal's Wager - you can present arguments about something that seem very convincing, until you realise that the terms suggested are not exclusive.

Clearly your not listening to your own logic. IF Jesus didn't exist, then he didn't rise from the dead. The options of the dichotomy still stand. Your ability to miss the obvious notwithstanding.

Clearly your not listening to your own logic. IF Jesus didn't exist, then he didn't rise from the dead. The options of the dichotomy still stand. Your ability to miss the obvious notwithstanding.
I disagree, I think it's a false dichotomy because there are really more than two options for how the Jesus/resurrection thing could have played out.

But it doesn't matter because you are still insisting on a factuality standard that (A) is not appropriate for religion, (B) you can't meet because you lack facts, and (C) is not necessary for the story to have the full force and meaning it needs to be a foundational religious concept.

How many people in your home town’s senior citizen center remembers Franklin D. Roosevelt, give his "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" inauguration speech? Or Adolf Hitler gives his "Proclamation to the German People" in Berlin? Or seeing the original version of King Kong when it was released in movie theaters, or remembers the great depression itself or when beer was relegalized in the U.S., eight months before the full repeal of Prohibition?

Two of my very own Grandmothers remembers those things (one on wife’s side, one on mine), neither is dead yet and both remember the early thirtys. That would be about the same time difference from Jesus three years ministery to the time of Pliny's letter to Trajan.

The modern comparison isn't helpful because:
1. Modern medicine allows people to survive much longer.

2. All of those events were broadcast to mass audiences, so most of the people who 'witnessed' them weren't actually there: were either of your grandmothers actually at FDR's speech, or at Hitler's, or at the premiere of King Kong (which is a much fairer analogy than going to any cinema).

3. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who say they remember Hitler's speech only heard a few extracts translated into English, or even just remember reading in the paper that Herr Hitler had given a speech.

4. Modern populations are far larger than ancient ones, so it's far more likely that some people will survive to older ages: consider how much less likely you are to find a centenarian in a population of 100, lacking modern medicine, than you are in a population of several million with professional doctors and high-tech medical technology.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the verse from Paul's Epistle (can't remember which one, Romans?) which tells us that Jesus appeared to 500 people after his resurrection is genuine: you've now got a pool of just over 500 witnesses (call it 500 for simplicity).

Allocating ages is difficult, because the older ones don't have much chance of lasting 80 more years, and the younger ones are likely to die young from disease. We don't have enough information to do the math, but I'd be very surprised if more than 10 (1 in 50, a rather optimistic estimate) were still alive by Pliny's time, and the odds of them having been involved in his persecution are tiny. If we had evidence that some of them were witnesses then maybe we could assume that they got lucky, but in the absense of such evidence the only reasonable conclusion seems to be that they probably weren't.

How many people in your home town’s senior citizen center remembers Franklin D. Roosevelt, give his "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" inauguration speech? Or Adolf Hitler gives his "Proclamation to the German People" in Berlin? Or seeing the original version of King Kong when it was released in movie theaters, or remembers the great depression itself or when beer was relegalized in the U.S., eight months before the full repeal of Prohibition?

Two of my very own Grandmothers remembers those things (one on wife’s side, one on mine), neither is dead yet and both remember the early thirtys. That would be about the same time difference from Jesus three years ministery to the time of Pliny's letter to Trajan.

The modern comparison isn't helpful because:
1. Modern medicine allows people to survive much longer.

2. All of those events were broadcast to mass audiences, so most of the people who 'witnessed' them weren't actually there: were either of your grandmothers actually at FDR's speech, or at Hitler's, or at the premiere of King Kong (which is a much fairer analogy than going to any cinema).

3. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who say they remember Hitler's speech only heard a few extracts translated into English, or even just remember reading in the paper that Herr Hitler had given a speech.

4. Modern populations are far larger than ancient ones, so it's far more likely that some people will survive to older ages: consider how much less likely you are to find a centenarian in a population of 100, lacking modern medicine, than you are in a population of several million with professional doctors and high-tech medical technology.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the verse from Paul's Epistle (can't remember which one, Romans?) which tells us that Jesus appeared to 500 people after his resurrection is genuine: you've now got a pool of just over 500 witnesses (call it 500 for simplicity).

Allocating ages is difficult, because the older ones don't have much chance of lasting 80 more years, and the younger ones are likely to die young from disease. We don't have enough information to do the math properly, but I'd be very surprised if more than 10 (1 in 50, a rather optimistic estimate) were still alive by Pliny's time, and the odds of them having been involved in his persecution are tiny. If we had evidence that some of them were witnesses then maybe we could assume that they got lucky, but in the absense of such evidence the only reasonable conclusion seems to be that they probably weren't.

The modern comparison isn't helpful because:
1. Modern medicine allows people to survive much longer.

Modern comparisons are helpful, we know modern medicine increases the average life span of the population AND an individuals life span when the individuals require medical intervention, but longevity is only remarkable when a person reaches the hundred and over digits today. We are talking about less than that with these hypotheticals

2. All of those events were broadcast to mass audiences, so most of the people who 'witnessed' them weren't actually there: were either of your grandmothers actually at FDR's speech, or at Hitler's, or at the premiere of King Kong (which is a much fairer analogy than going to any cinema).

Modern communication is irrelevant to the situation. If Jesus was able to broadcast his speeches to the entire world at the time then there would have been very many more Christians to begin with as well. The type of transmission of information is moot.


3. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who say they remember Hitler's speech only heard a few extracts translated into English, or even just remember reading in the paper that Herr Hitler had given a speech.

You would have to ask them.


4. Modern populations are far larger than ancient ones, so it's far more likely that some people will survive to older ages: consider how much less likely you are to find a centenarian in a population of 100, lacking modern medicine, than you are in a population of several million with professional doctors and high-tech medical technology.

I agree, there is every reason to believe that there are very many more very old people now than in the past. That doesn’t mean no one lived to a ripe old age of ninety plus something back then though…

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the verse from Paul's Epistle (can't remember which one, Romans?) which tells us that Jesus appeared to 500 people after his resurrection is genuine: you've now got a pool of just over 500 witnesses (call it 500 for simplicity).

Then for the sake of argument, why do I have to limit my pool of Christians who remember Christ to only the five hundred and not the tens of thousands that were in Israel and Jerusalem during his ministry years?

Allocating ages is difficult, because the older ones don't have much chance of lasting 80 more years, and the younger ones are likely to die young from disease. We don't have enough information to do the math, but I'd be very surprised if more than 10 (1 in 50, a rather optimistic estimate) were still alive by Pliny's time, and the odds of them having been involved in his persecution are tiny. If we had evidence that some of them were witnesses then maybe we could assume that they got lucky, but in the absense of such evidence the only reasonable conclusion seems to be that they probably weren't.

If allocating numbers by mere speculation, we reach nothing but guess work and fiction.

If any person lived long enough to remember Jesus eighty years later, what are they likely to bring with them? 4-8 children of their own, and those children with their spouses too and 4-8 children for each pair of them as well, and those children now having children of their own… We are talking about 100 family members with access to an eyewitness they likely trust.

That's 100 (or more) without recruiting any non-family members. What does all of this mean? It means you and I are just playing with numbers, not accomplishing anything. The point of quoting Pliny was to show a non-biblical source of persecution of Christians, not proof of Jesus or how long early Christians lived.

always admits to satanism, as it is usually a conversation stopper when it comes to religion :)

I did! I am your God!

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/respect.gif

The modern comparison isn't helpful because:
1. Modern medicine allows people to survive much longer.

Modern comparisons are helpful, we know modern medicine increases the average life span of the population AND an individuals life span when the individuals require medical intervention, but longevity is only remarkable when a person reaches the hundred and over digits today. We are talking about less than that with these hypotheticals
Try again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_lifespan#Timeline_for_humans) reference 1 (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340119/life-expectancy) reference 2 (http://www.uwyo.edu/WINWyoming/bullets/2004/bullets11-04.htm)
2. All of those events were broadcast to mass audiences, so most of the people who 'witnessed' them weren't actually there: were either of your grandmothers actually at FDR's speech, or at Hitler's, or at the premiere of King Kong (which is a much fairer analogy than going to any cinema).

Modern communication is irrelevant to the situation. If Jesus was able to broadcast his speeches to the entire world at the time then there would have been very many more Christians to begin with as well. The type of transmission of information is moot.
Actually a good point.
4. Modern populations are far larger than ancient ones, so it's far more likely that some people will survive to older ages: consider how much less likely you are to find a centenarian in a population of 100, lacking modern medicine, than you are in a population of several million with professional doctors and high-tech medical technology.

I agree, there is every reason to believe that there are very many more very old people now than in the past. That doesn’t mean no one lived to a ripe old age of ninety plus something back then though…
True, but see the links I provided above.
If any person lived long enough to remember Jesus eighty years later,
Highly unlikely, again see the links I provided above
what are they likely to bring with them? 4-8 children of their own, and those children with their spouses too and 4-8 children for each pair of them as well, and those children now having children of their own… We are talking about 100 family members with access to an eyewitness they likely trust.
But which still isn't necessarily reliable.
That's 100 (or more) without recruiting any non-family members. What does all of this mean? It means you and I are just playing with numbers, not accomplishing anything. The point of quoting Pliny was to show a non-biblical source of persecution of Christians, not proof of Jesus or how long early Christians lived.
No it isn't as I have already shown. If I tell you about something which I've seen, does that make you an eyewitness also? No, it does not.

<snip>
No it isn't as I have already shown. If I tell you about something which I've seen, does that make you an eyewitness also? No, it does not.
QFT. This is the bottom line right here. Absent an independently corroborated for authenticity autobiography by Jesus, ALL Biblical reports of what Jesus said or did comes to us second- or third-hand at best (because even if one believes the gospels were written by the actual witnesses, those witnesses still tell us about events they were not personally present at and things Jesus supposedly said to other people who do not confirm such reports). Everyone who bases their belief in something on what they learned from other people's imperfect (i.e. containing gaps, hearsay, and not perfectly matching other versions of the same incidents) reports of it, is relying on hearsay, plain and simple.

Now, my view is that factuality is not necessary to religion, so there is no problem in doing that. But to claim that this is "objective reality" we're talking about is just not supportable.

Now, my view is that factuality is not necessary to religion, so there is no problem in doing that. But to claim that this is "objective reality" we're talking about is just not supportable.

Exactly...

That's been said about most of the primary characters of the NT gospels. But as new discoveries are made, like the burial cave of the High Priest Caiaphas being discovered, and archaeological evidence that Pontius Pilate was real and the governor at the time has been discovered, the list of supposedly "no evidence of these fictional characters in the NT texts" gets smaller and smaller.


That's a good thing, surely? However - finding a cave that is attributed to the High Priest, or evidence for the literal existence of a Roman governor still doesn't support the literal existence of any of the apostles, or 'Jesus' himself.

Just because we can find lots of historical details that are accurate in American Psycho, doesn't make it real.


How does Osiris represent a godman? Osirus is one of the oldest Egyptian gods we have records of, no one ever claims that Osiris existed as a human man, ever, in any of his various forms. Your intention is obvious though, to try and draw with big fat lines to attempt and make the similarities look more than just the superficial which they are.

Tammuz does not die annually, he decends into the netherworld for half of every year. Neitehr is Tammuz (like Osiris) ever considered a godman. Tammuz is a god like any babylonian god, not a human hero that dies and is resurrected. Again, upon closer inspection, your attempt to draw a similarity circle around him and Jesus fails when scrutinized.

Attis, at least here you have a godman (born of a god though) but this fellow is said to have castrated himself and then died and the god said his body should neither rot nor decay and he was ‘reborn’ as an evergreen tree. Not exactly a resurrection, not anything like Jesus.

As to Mirtha, you seem to have gotten your ancient Iranian/Persian god mixed up with your Ancient Roman god (by the dating you used, the Romans didn’t start up with mirtha bull fighting god until the late first century AD, Christianity is before that of course.)? But let’s assume you know which one you are talking about, perhaps you could tell me which of the two had a resurrection story involved with them. Neither of them (with the name Mirtha) have a resurrection story that I am aware of. Now I recognize that there are about a million tin-foil hat anti-Christian websites out there that pretend that Mithra has a resurrection story, but if you could please find an actual scholarly work that says so I would like to see it.

Firstly - there is a common trend in Mesopotamian mythology to ascribe godlike powers to mortal kings - or to blur the boundaries between 'god' and 'man'. Especially obvious in the Egyptian pharaohs where various pharaohs were either deified on death, or assumed to be incarnations of deity while alive. It is not uncommon to find characters that (in later histories are claimed as gods) are supposed to have ruled as mortal rulers, in Mesopotamian histories.

That alone speaks to the 'godman' attribution of - for example - Osiris or Tammuz.

Denying that Osiris is a godman is illogical - he allegedly ruled Egypt as Pharaoh (at least, that's how he's presented) - rather than being a remote, animal-linked deity. Osiris is described as the son of God (specifically, Geb there are clear chthonic links between Osiris and Jesus in this regard, look at the 'womb' in which Jesus is 'reborn'), and exists in the area of Egyptian history where 'gods' and 'men' are entwined - when gods are the rulers of men in earthly kingdoms, or are the heroic figures of myth.

There are, of course, other clear links between the Osiris story and the Jesus story - not just the chthonic origins, but the trinity of Osiris (identified with Ptah and Seker as other incarnations), and even the worship of Osiris as a 'holy ghost' (in 'ba' form). It might even be no coincidence that Jesus comes 'out of Egypt'. Add the nature of the trinity (a creative spirit, a vengeful spirit and an immortalising spirit - all of which are aspects of the immortal resurrector), the identification of Osiris with the ram (versus lamb), the identification of Osiris as a 'shepherd' of men, the fact that Osiris' godhood comes upon him in a baptism (in the Diodorus Siculus version of the myth, where Osiris is a mortal king, and his remains are recovered from the Nile by Isis, and go on to seed Osiris worship). Osiris worship even had passion plays (where Osiris is murdered, before his resurrection) and a 'pure' god (since Osiris was rendered non-sexual). Osiris worship also has a 'eucharist' - where the flesh of Osiris is symbolically eaten, the specific ceremony of which involved 'bread' and 'beer'... not far removed from the bread and wine of the christian eucharist.

There are SO many similarities in the two myths. To deny the similarities is either to choose to ignore Egyptian mythology, or to wilfully dismiss it. What IS clear though, is that (at least according to Diodorus Siculus), Osiris WAS a mortal king (which agrees with the spirit of the earliest incarnations of Osiris), and that (according to almost every source) Osiris 'came back to life' and was the 'passage to immortality' for the common people.

Thus - Osiris as mortal king, resurrected god, saviour - immortal resurrected godman.

Clearly your not listening to your own logic. IF Jesus didn't exist, then he didn't rise from the dead. The options of the dichotomy still stand. Your ability to miss the obvious notwithstanding.

Are you for real?

You presented a dichotomy - a real Jesus, who either was resurrected... or wasn't. Obviously - that dichotomy is NOT a genuine descriptor of the whole array of possibility - Jesus could be a fictional character... Jesus could represent TWO (or more) real (or fictional) characters - and thus could have been both resurrected AND not resurrected.

Your dichotomy - like Pascal - is fundamentally flawed, in that it's two alternatives are actually only two possible alternatives from a number of possible answers.