Against Atheism

[Jerrell]

Evidence of Jesus outside the Bible

From: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=57&u_sid=1092659
Did Jesus even exist?
The question may seem absurd, but years ago some radicals treated him as an imaginary figure. Today's experts don't take the canard seriously.
But surprisingly, the issue is revived in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, which claims to examine evidence rationally as it seeks to debunk religions and hoaxes, ancient and modern. It's published by the secularist Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
Reviewing Mel Gibson's "Passion" film, committee senior researcher Joe Nickell asserts: "Historically, apart from later Christian sources, there is virtually no evidence for Jesus' crucifixion - or even his very existence."
Perhaps Skeptical Inquirer needs to be more skeptical about its skepticism.
Consider: Could a non-person whose crucifixion was a non-event be seen as real, not in "later" sources but within 20 years (see Paul's early letters)? The four Gospels appeared in succeeding decades, the equivalent of 2004 books looking back at the Depression, World War II, school desegregation or the Kennedy assassination.
But Nickell indicates we must reject all New Testament evidence. He doesn't explain why, but such writers typically complain that the Gospels were written by partisans and insiders. True enough, but under that standard, scholars must erase much of secular history as well.
But even if all New Testament records are thrown out, nonbelievers also provided early evidence of Jesus' existence.
Such references are scarce, but that doesn't surprise E.P. Sanders of Duke University, author of "The Historical Figure of Jesus" and no fundamentalist. He says "it is sometimes hard to believe how unimportant Jesus was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine."
The most important non-Christian source is "Jewish Antiquities," completed in A.D. 93 by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
One passage cites the execution in A.D. 62 of "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name."
A longer reference to Jesus poses a famous problem. Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that it was retouched by later believers, who added pious phrases that no Jew employed by pagans would have written.
But scholars say the additions are obvious. If they are deleted, Josephus provided at least these bare facts: Jesus was thought to be a "wise man" and "doer of wonderful works," attracted followers, was crucified by Pilate and started a movement that remained in existence decades later.
Any records the Roman occupiers kept about Jesus would have been lost during the devastating Jewish rebellion that began in A.D. 66, Sanders figures.
It took time for awareness of this tiny religious movement to reach other Romans, but three early references have survived:
-Pliny the Younger was sent as imperial legate to Bithynia (in present-day Turkey) starting in A.D. 111. One of his reports to the Emperor Trajan described a policy of executing Christians who refused to curse Christ and worship Roman gods. He said believers would sing an "antiphonal hymn to Christ as God," followed by a meal.
-Tacitus, who loathed the Christian "plague," recorded around A.D. 115 in "Roman Annals" that Jesus "was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."
-Suetonius wrote about A.D. 120 that the Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome because they were continually rioting "at the instigation of Chrestus." Historians think this misspelling of "Christ" means Suetonius mistakenly thought a troublemaker with that name lived in Rome. The comment indicates that by A.D. 49, belief in Christ had reached Rome and was dividing Jews.
Nickell cites support for his skepticism from "Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by humanist colleague Robert Price, a member of the left-wing Jesus Seminar who teaches at the Universal Foundation for Better Living seminary in Carol City, Fla.
Price's seminary, founded by a Unity School minister, promotes the sort of New Thought spiritual healing Skeptical Inquirer might debunk - and treats Jesus as though he actually existed.

 

[Majikthise]

lol....John a disciple of Jesus, he wrote about Jesus. Peter was a Discple of Jesus, he wrote about it. Paul saw Jesus, he wrote about it. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, he wrote about it. Even the Muslims write about it...

Do you escape or try to ignore the Historical records written by Jews and Romans aboutJesus? do you? It is Sad if you will ignore Factual Evidence....this is bad....

People find it quite easy to ignore recent historical records of the nazi genocide attempt.
I would deem this to be of higher significance....this is worse...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Consider: Could a non-person whose crucifixion was a non-event be seen as real, not in "later" sources but within 20 years (see Paul's early letters)?

Yes. A significant number of people thought Elvis was still alive 20 years after his death. Muhammad's followers wrote of the miracles he performed within 20 years of the events they claim to record......so that stuff must be true too, right?

The four Gospels appeared in succeeding decades, the equivalent of 2004 books looking back at the Depression, World War II, school desegregation or the Kennedy assassination.
But Nickell indicates we must reject all New Testament evidence. He doesn't explain why, but such writers typically complain that the Gospels were written by partisans and insiders. True enough, but under that standard, scholars must erase much of secular history as well.

Secular historians reconstruct events by examining converging lines of evidence--examining what sources from different perspectives have in common. Christian and Muslim sources might differ on a number of details when trying to reconstruct the Crusades...but if they both agree that such-and-such a town was taken in such-and-such a year, that's good evidence that that particular event actually happened.

However, if Christian sources are the only ones claiming that Jesus walked on water, and Muslim sources are the only ones claiming that Muhammad split the Moon in half, and Pagan sources are the only ones claiming that Thor thew down lightning bolts, then it makes sense for historians to not regard those stories as fact, but legend.

If you're an historian and you start reading about miracles, from an academic standpoint the only thing to do is to assume that the miracle stories are precisely that--stories. Otherwise, historians would have to accept all the miracle stories in all the ancient scriptures in every culture in human history, from Zoroastrian mythology to the miraculous events in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

If jesus did not die on the cross why did Acared Disciples Die for him?

For the same reason every other person who has died for their beliefs through the entire history of the world did. They died for something they believed in...but their deaths don't actually prove anything other than that they had a strong belief in something.

 

[Jerrell]

Yes. A significant number of people thought Elvis was still alive 20 years after his death. Muhammad's followers wrote of the miracles he performed within 20 years of the events they claim to record......so that stuff must be true too, right?

Secular historians reconstruct events by examining converging lines of evidence--examining what sources from different perspectives have in common. Christian and Muslim sources might differ on a number of details when trying to reconstruct the Crusades...but if they both agree that such-and-such a town was taken in such-and-such a year, that's good evidence that that particular event actually happened.

However, if Christian sources are the only ones claiming that Jesus walked on water, and Muslim sources are the only ones claiming that Muhammad split the Moon in half, and Pagan sources are the only ones claiming that Thor thew down lightning bolts, then it makes sense for historians to not regard those stories as fact, but legend.

If you're an historian and you start reading about miracles, from an academic standpoint the only thing to do is to assume that the miracle stories are precisely that--stories. Otherwise, historians would have to accept all the miracle stories in all the ancient scriptures in every culture in human history, from Zoroastrian mythology to the miraculous events in the Book of Mormon.

I did not write this. It was a post from the Site above it.

 

[Booko]

There is always somone thing to convice you. I have a Question for every Atheist on here, Please Answer this Question.

Do you beleive Jesus Christ died on the Cross?

I'll give you the answer I would've given you when I was an atheist:

Yes.

 

[Booko]

Answer my Two Questions please....

1) Do you beleive Jesus died on the Cross?

2) What are your reasons for beleiveing no God exists?

Already answered the first. Again, here's the answer I would've given you when I was an atheist:

Because if believing God results in such despicable behaviour, I want NO part of it.

 

[Booko]

lol....John a disciple of Jesus, he wrote about Jesus. Peter was a Discple of Jesus, he wrote about it. Paul saw Jesus, he wrote about it. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, he wrote about it. Even the Muslims write about it...

So do Baha'is:

"XXXVI. Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 85)

 

[Æsahættr]

Works without Faith is dead, why feed the sick? Why help the needy if you just beleive we are evolved animals? Or Why ehlp the needy if u beleive we jsut cease to exist after death? or Why help the needy if you beleive we are nothing but animals "we are not designed in the image of God", we are not special..?

I know that there have been a couple of replies to this already, but I don't think it can have too many.

If you don't have a clue why any atheist or agnostic would act altruistically, then you are seriously lacking in any understanding of us whatsoever.
There are lots of different answers to this question, so I'll add mine to the ones that have already been said. Yes, I think that humans are just animals. I do not think we are fundamentally different, that we are designed in the image of God. I believe that we only exist for a short period of time, after which all consciousness ceases and we are no more. And all of that is the best reason I could ever have to make the most of my time on this planet.
A common accusation levelled against materialists is that wanting to make the most of you life means living selfishly. It really doesn't. One day, I may well be lying on my death bed, knowing that the end is about to come. In that moment, the only way I think I can die happily is to know that I have contributed. That from my actions, others have benefited. That I have been a force for good in the world (and hopefully enjoyed myself at the same time).

I tell you Many Religions hold a respect for human beings, but none surpass the Respect Christians have for mankind, the Creation of God, whom he loved and Died for.

Oh, and this...I don't want to get into a competition to see who can have the greatest respect for human beings, but seriously, I think humanists qualify there a bit you know. It's possible for have enormous pride and respect for humanity without thinking of it as the creation of god. I certainly don't think I could respect our species as much if I thought that we hadn't done everything we have done alone, but had been guided occassionally by a higher being.


As for your two questions:
1) I do not claim to know whether Jesus died on the cross. There is plenty of evidence, but at the same time the whole issue is so suffused with bias and pressure from religion that I don't think I can hold a definite belief one way or the other on the matter. Nor do I think it matters much. I certainly don't think that he rose from the dead.
2) Why do I not believe in God? Plenty of reasons. First of all, the fact that disbelief is the default belief position in anything. Evidence has to exist to prove you that something exists, and the level of evidence has to be proportionate to the claim. For example, when I said to a Christian the other day that the onus was on him to provide evidence, he said that I don't have much evidence for the existance of Pluto, certainly not as much as I was demanding for the existance of God, so why did I believe so certainly that Pluto exists? The answer I gave was that firstly, the existance of Pluto was not a particularly strange claim. There are several other planets, so the idea that there is another one is nothing special. Second is the fact that there is no reason for people to either lie to me about Pluto or to believe so themselves without good reason. While there is not much reason for people to lie to me about the existance of God, there is, I believe, explanations for why people might want to believe in a god irrationally.
So, that's one reason. Another is the existance of evil in the world. I have yet to see a theistic explanation of evil that satisfies me as being coherant. I don't think that free will explains it sufficiently, certainly not to the degree it exists. God wants us to have free will, and if He is omnibenevolant, He also doesn't want us to suffer. In that case, He could do far more to encourage us to not use our free will to create evil. Everyone has free will to kill someone, yet through punishments, teaching when young etc. we make sure that 99.9% of people never kill anyone, and that process that we carry out doesn't interfere with the basic free will. Equally, God should be even better at that than us. If there is free will, He could never eliminate the possibility of evil happening, but He should be able to make it a ridiculously unlikely event.
Another reason...my trust in science to explain things. As far as I'm concerned, god-belief belongs to the time when we couldn't explain the rising of the Sun in the morning. As Richard Dawkins has said, it is a meme that refuses to die long past its time. We can explain so much of the Universe without needing to evoke a God, and in the areas that we can't, there is none where we are not making any progress at all. We don't need God.
Another (yes I have a lot of reasons, that's why I'm a strong atheist) is that the Bible is full of contradictions. As such, I see no reason to look to it for guidance in any way. That's just a reason not to be a Christian obviously. I need to get round to examining in detail the holy books of other religions, but to anyone who says that I therefore can't reject them, please see all other reasons.
Then there's the fact that I've never felt the presence of God in any mystical spiritual reason whatsoever. I used to be religious, and I used to pray, but I never got a sense that there was any reply, or even anyone paying any attention. I believed in God up until the age that I realised that I didn't have to believe something because some people told me it was true, and then stopped. I actually continued to pray occassionally after becoming semi-agnostic, but I never did get a feeling that God was there. (Incidentally, I think even if I had had that feeling, I still might have stopped believing, because I don't think that a feeling is ever a good enough reason for believing something if it doesn't make logical sense. If logic and emotion stand at odds with one another, then question whether the logic is correct and question whether there is some other explanation for you having that feeling. I think there are plenty of explanations for someone feeling that there is a higher presence. Hell, they've even given people religious experiences by sticking electrical currents through their brains.)
5 reasons enough for you?

 

[Booko]

I know that there have been a couple of replies to this already, but I don't think it can have too many.

I agree. Considering there is no unified notion of "atheistic belief" (despite what some theists would like to believe), I think it's highly useful to look at the different perspectives that people have.

If you don't have a clue why any atheist or agnostic would act altruistically, then you are seriously lacking in any understanding of us whatsoever.

I was an atheist for years, but I've been a theist for more now, and I can't even begin to explain the weird things I get sometimes when my fellow theists discover I was an atheist. I have no idea why they cannot understand why an atheistic view could possibly work for anyone, and after this long and so many questions from people, I've just come to the conclusion that some people are just not going to get it, no matter how much I explain.

I had a very entertaining time in HS when I took a "Bible as Literature" class. Now, I know this sounds like a "camel's nose in the tent" kind of class, but this was actually a class intended to examine the Bible as literature, including the historical/cultural context. It happened (not surprisingly) that I was the only atheist in the class and everyone else was a Christian. And one day when it came up, my fellow students seemed very befuddled and asked me how it was I could not be religious. My reply was, "Well, who would you rather have for a neighbor, someone who goes to Church on Sundays and then makes little effort to follow Christ's ethics, or an atheist who does actually make an effort to follow Christ's ethics?" The students, and yeah, even the teacher, had clearly never thought of it in this light, though they all admitted they had run into their share of hypocrites in their life (like, who hasn't?).

It's true...you can be an atheist and be highly ethical. I've known plenty. I hope I was one myself, though I'm sure there was room for improvement.

A common accusation levelled against materialists is that wanting to make the most of you life means living selfishly. It really doesn't. One day, I may well be lying on my death bed, knowing that the end is about to come. In that moment, the only way I think I can die happily is to know that I have contributed. That from my actions, others have benefited. That I have been a force for good in the world (and hopefully enjoyed myself at the same time).

Even now, though I subscribe to a religion that teaches there is an afterlife, to me it's still irrelevant. Doing something to improve the world around you in order to get a personal payoff later on seems to me to be the more selfish pov. As a way to motivate people to do the right thing, it does have its uses, though, and the hope is people will grow to eventually do right things for the sake of just doing them.

Oh, and this...I don't want to get into a competition to see who can have the greatest respect for human beings, but seriously, I think humanists qualify there a bit you know. It's possible for have enormous pride and respect for humanity without thinking of it as the creation of god. I certainly don't think I could respect our species as much if I thought that we hadn't done everything we have done alone, but had been guided occassionally by a higher being.

I rather thought Russell's pov about WW1 was far more respectful of humanity than the pov's that held that God is on our side so let's go kill people.

I don't have a problem with the possibility that humanity might be guided by a higher being. We were all, as individuals, guided by "higher" beings anyway. We had parents. I don't think any of us would've turned out to be much if we had been cut off from all the knowledge that came before us. It would be a strange world indeed if we were all no more than toddlers. It doesn't make me think any less of us as a species.

Another reason...my trust in science to explain things. As far as I'm concerned, god-belief belongs to the time when we couldn't explain the rising of the Sun in the morning. As Richard Dawkins has said, it is a meme that refuses to die long past its time. We can explain so much of the Universe without needing to evoke a God, and in the areas that we can't, there is none where we are not making any progress at all.

I don't think we need God to explain the physical universe either, and history has shown that religion needs to tread very carefully there. At most, religion is there to inform us of ethical uses of our discoveries.

Another (yes I have a lot of reasons, that's why I'm a strong atheist) is that the Bible is full of contradictions. As such, I see no reason to look to it for guidance in any way.

I'd be wary of judging religion per se based on your examination of one book, and it seems from later in your post you realize this anyway. The problem I have with texts from other times (and even modern ones from other cultures) is the historical and cultural blocks to our understanding of these books. It's no easy feat to wade through all that stuff.

fwiw, as an atheist, I went off on a study of comparitive religion by reading source texts (in translation, of course) and discovered that what's in the text and what happens in practice are not always the same. (duh! ) But from reading the texts themselves and trying to see them for myself instead of assuming that some time-honored interpretation of something was the only possibility, I found there is a core of very similar concepts that cross the lines in all of those religions.

My motivation in studying religion was to try to understand why the masses of humanity would be so deranged as to adhere to such a destructive thing. I discovered that there is construction also, and the destruction follows later on, typically after the desire for wealth and power have inserted themselves into any religion's structure. I found it hard to blame the original text that it was later perverted for baser reasons. People do that sort of thing every day, most especially with statistics.

That's just a reason not to be a Christian obviously. I need to get round to examining in detail the holy books of other religions, but to anyone who says that I therefore can't reject them, please see all other reasons.

It seems you have a good provisional reason for not being religious. I can hardly fault you for not doing so, under the circumstances. It's silly to try to pretend you believe in something you don't.

Then there's the fact that I've never felt the presence of God in any mystical spiritual reason whatsoever. I used to be religious, and I used to pray, but I never got a sense that there was any reply, or even anyone paying any attention. I believed in God up until the age that I realised that I didn't have to believe something because some people told me it was true, and then stopped. I actually continued to pray occassionally after becoming semi-agnostic, but I never did get a feeling that God was there. (Incidentally, I think even if I had had that feeling, I still might have stopped believing, because I don't think that a feeling is ever a good enough reason for believing something if it doesn't make logical sense. If logic and emotion stand at odds with one another, then question whether the logic is correct and question whether there is some other explanation for you having that feeling. I think there are plenty of explanations for someone feeling that there is a higher presence. Hell, they've even given people religious experiences by sticking electrical currents through their brains.)

Uh...are you sure we're not related?

 

[Æsahættr]

I agree. Considering there is no unified notion of "atheistic belief" (despite what some theists would like to believe), I think it's highly useful to look at the different perspectives that people have.

Completly agree with that, although when I said that it needed plenty of answers, I was meaning more that it was such a ridiculous assertation that it didn't to be squashed into the ground and severely stampted on as much as possible.

I don't have a problem with the possibility that humanity might be guided by a higher being. We were all, as individuals, guided by "higher" beings anyway. We had parents. I don't think any of us would've turned out to be much if we had been cut off from all the knowledge that came before us. It would be a strange world indeed if we were all no more than toddlers. It doesn't make me think any less of us as a species.

Yes, I think that that particular thinking of mine is an exception rather than a rule. I'm sure most people don't have a problem with that (as the statistics of the number of religious people obviously show). It's just that personally, I take huge satisfaction believing that humans created morals and ethics, and that we manage to create purpose for our lives. One of the things that I think some theists misunderstand about atheists is that believing that there is no in-built purpose to the Universe, and no grand morals waiting for us to discover them, is an inherently depressing idea. I love it. I love thinking that we manage to create our own purpose. Obviously I'd never use that as an argument for being an atheist. I'd like to think that if I still had all the same logical reasons for being an atheist, but was less emotionally comfortable with it, I'd still be one.

I'd be wary of judging religion per se based on your examination of one book, and it seems from later in your post you realize this anyway. The problem I have with texts from other times (and even modern ones from other cultures) is the historical and cultural blocks to our understanding of these books. It's no easy feat to wade through all that stuff.

That's very true. I try not to use religious books as a direct primary source of judging religions. I confess I generally only use the Bible now to find ways of attacking any sort of literal Christianity.

I think that the historical blocks to understanding religious books is just as much a problem, if not more so, for members of those religions trying to look to those books for guidance, than for anyone critically examining those books. I'm pretty sure that not just absolute literal fundamentalists, but the vast majority of Christians now, take the Bible more literally than it was intended for when it was first written.

I'm also fairly certain that the original writers didn't intend for it to be absolutely holy and untouchable. A while ago, I voiced the opinion to a number of my friends that the passages in Leviticus regarding the stoning of homosexuals, witches etc. should be taken out of modern editions of the Bible. All of my friends are reasonably liberal and I'm sure if anyone had said to them that they thought that homosexuality should be illegal, they'd attack that person very strongly. However, nearly all of them that are religious did not agree with me. Indeed, I was severly reprimanded for having offended them so much. Even one or two non-religious peope told me that I had been offensive, by attacking a part of their holy book. Now none of them would have said that they thought that those particular passages were indeed the word of God, that homosexuality was a terrible sin, so therefore that part of it can't have been holy. Yet this mystical aura seems to surround the Bible in their minds.

Hmmm, I seem to have ranted my way quite a long way off topic. Oh yes, judging religions by their holy books. Yes, my stance is that reading the holy book of a religion is an optional thing to do when deciding whether the religion is true or not. All you need is to know one basic thing underpinning the religion that you are sure you have sufficient reason for believing not to be true (ie. the statement that there is a god) and you can dismiss the whole religion if you want. It's a good thing to find out more about the religion as well if you can, because there may be messages in it and parts of it that you think are good, but you don't need to place any higher priority on that than you do on reading a lot of books or newspapers, or finding out about a particular philosophy or political ideology. And of course, if you do know a lot about a religion then you are in a position to be able to criticise it if you disagree with what it says. I think anyone, atheists or theists, should be wary about going beyond believing a religion to be false to attacking specific parts of that religion, without having done a lot of good research. I for example think I am only in a position to attack specific parts of Christianity, because that's the only religion that I have been sufficiently exposed to.

My motivation in studying religion was to try to understand why the masses of humanity would be so deranged as to adhere to such a destructive thing. I discovered that there is construction also, and the destruction follows later on, typically after the desire for wealth and power have inserted themselves into any religion's structure. I found it hard to blame the original text that it was later perverted for baser reasons. People do that sort of thing every day, most especially with statistics.

Hmm, out of curiosity, do you think that the original text of much of the Old Testament has been perverted? I'm thinking most of Leviticus here, Numbers, all the accounts of the bloody history of the Israelites.

I had a very entertaining time in HS when I took a "Bible as Literature" class. Now, I know this sounds like a "camel's nose in the tent" kind of class, but this was actually a class intended to examine the Bible as literature, including the historical/cultural context. It happened (not surprisingly) that I was the only atheist in the class and everyone else was a Christian. And one day when it came up, my fellow students seemed very befuddled and asked me how it was I could not be religious. My reply was, "Well, who would you rather have for a neighbor, someone who goes to Church on Sundays and then makes little effort to follow Christ's ethics, or an atheist who does actually make an effort to follow Christ's ethics?" The students, and yeah, even the teacher, had clearly never thought of it in this light, though they all admitted they had run into their share of hypocrites in their life (like, who hasn't?).

I find this story rather depressing. That even a teacher of religious matters would not have seriously considered whether it was better to be a good disbeliever or a bad believer, or had to express such incredulity about anyone being an atheist, seems very bizarre to me. Religious people that I know don't seem to find it so inconceivable, or if they do, they keep quiet about it. Where exactly in America was this school of yours? I see your current location is given as Atlanta; is that where you went to school. Because I would only have thought of that sort of incomprehension as existing at all in the Bible Belt, and to my knowledge Atlanta isn't particularly a Bible Belt place. If that's wrong, if it is, please correct me and my pessimism regarding religion in America will increase.


I'm rather curious to know why you stopped being an atheist. You mentioned that from studying religious texts you began to gain a higher opinion of religion, but what actually made you believe that there is indeed a god? I ask because I get the impression of you as being a pretty logical person like myself, and I think of most atheist who convert as converting because of "seeing the light" etc, ie. a sudden emotional faith conversion, whereby they totally abadon atheism and can't understand why they were ever atheists.

Uh...are you sure we're not related?

Do you mean that regarding the part of the quote where I was talking about not having some mystical feeling about God, or the bit about conflict between logic and emotion? Again, I'm curious.

 

[Jerrell]

I know that there have been a couple of replies to this already, but I don't think it can have too many.

If you don't have a clue why any atheist or agnostic would act altruistically, then you are seriously lacking in any understanding of us whatsoever.
There are lots of different answers to this question, so I'll add mine to the ones that have already been said. Yes, I think that humans are just animals. I do not think we are fundamentally different, that we are designed in the image of God. I believe that we only exist for a short period of time, after which all consciousness ceases and we are no more. And all of that is the best reason I could ever have to make the most of my time on this planet.
A common accusation levelled against materialists is that wanting to make the most of you life means living selfishly. It really doesn't. One day, I may well be lying on my death bed, knowing that the end is about to come. In that moment, the only way I think I can die happily is to know that I have contributed. That from my actions, others have benefited. That I have been a force for good in the world (and hopefully enjoyed myself at the same time).




Oh, and this...I don't want to get into a competition to see who can have the greatest respect for human beings, but seriously, I think humanists qualify there a bit you know. It's possible for have enormous pride and respect for humanity without thinking of it as the creation of god. I certainly don't think I could respect our species as much if I thought that we hadn't done everything we have done alone, but had been guided occassionally by a higher being.


As for your two questions:
1) I do not claim to know whether Jesus died on the cross. There is plenty of evidence, but at the same time the whole issue is so suffused with bias and pressure from religion that I don't think I can hold a definite belief one way or the other on the matter. Nor do I think it matters much. I certainly don't think that he rose from the dead.
2) Why do I not believe in God? Plenty of reasons. First of all, the fact that disbelief is the default belief position in anything. Evidence has to exist to prove you that something exists, and the level of evidence has to be proportionate to the claim. For example, when I said to a Christian the other day that the onus was on him to provide evidence, he said that I don't have much evidence for the existance of Pluto, certainly not as much as I was demanding for the existance of God, so why did I believe so certainly that Pluto exists? The answer I gave was that firstly, the existance of Pluto was not a particularly strange claim. There are several other planets, so the idea that there is another one is nothing special. Second is the fact that there is no reason for people to either lie to me about Pluto or to believe so themselves without good reason. While there is not much reason for people to lie to me about the existance of God, there is, I believe, explanations for why people might want to believe in a god irrationally.
So, that's one reason. Another is the existance of evil in the world. I have yet to see a theistic explanation of evil that satisfies me as being coherant. I don't think that free will explains it sufficiently, certainly not to the degree it exists. God wants us to have free will, and if He is omnibenevolant, He also doesn't want us to suffer. In that case, He could do far more to encourage us to not use our free will to create evil. Everyone has free will to kill someone, yet through punishments, teaching when young etc. we make sure that 99.9% of people never kill anyone, and that process that we carry out doesn't interfere with the basic free will. Equally, God should be even better at that than us. If there is free will, He could never eliminate the possibility of evil happening, but He should be able to make it a ridiculously unlikely event.
Another reason...my trust in science to explain things. As far as I'm concerned, god-belief belongs to the time when we couldn't explain the rising of the Sun in the morning. As Richard Dawkins has said, it is a meme that refuses to die long past its time. We can explain so much of the Universe without needing to evoke a God, and in the areas that we can't, there is none where we are not making any progress at all. We don't need God.
Another (yes I have a lot of reasons, that's why I'm a strong atheist) is that the Bible is full of contradictions. As such, I see no reason to look to it for guidance in any way. That's just a reason not to be a Christian obviously. I need to get round to examining in detail the holy books of other religions, but to anyone who says that I therefore can't reject them, please see all other reasons.
Then there's the fact that I've never felt the presence of God in any mystical spiritual reason whatsoever. I used to be religious, and I used to pray, but I never got a sense that there was any reply, or even anyone paying any attention. I believed in God up until the age that I realised that I didn't have to believe something because some people told me it was true, and then stopped. I actually continued to pray occassionally after becoming semi-agnostic, but I never did get a feeling that God was there. (Incidentally, I think even if I had had that feeling, I still might have stopped believing, because I don't think that a feeling is ever a good enough reason for believing something if it doesn't make logical sense. If logic and emotion stand at odds with one another, then question whether the logic is correct and question whether there is some other explanation for you having that feeling. I think there are plenty of explanations for someone feeling that there is a higher presence. Hell, they've even given people religious experiences by sticking electrical currents through their brains.)
5 reasons enough for you?

I see your Point. But how do u really know Pluto Exists? Have you seen it yourself? Or has someone told you about it, or shown you a picture? That is the same thing, you may not have seen the phytsical form of God, but he showed us a picture through Jesus Christ who rose from the Dead, Jesus was is and will always be God, My God.

God Beleif is faith, not science. Did you know that the Bible was written before Science, and it said that the world was round? That the sun rose from the east? It said so many things about science before Science Even Existed. God is not some Pre-Historic being with no knowledge, he knows all things. And he knows wethere u shall beleive in him or not. But it will always be your choice to belevie or not....when will u make it...Make it soon enough before the nations clash.

 

[Æsahættr]

I see your Point. But how do u really know Pluto Exists? Have you seen it yourself? Or has someone told you about it, or shown you a picture? That is the same thing, you may not have seen the phytsical form of God, but he showed us a picture through Jesus Christ who rose from the Dead, Jesus was is and will always be God, My God.

I have not seen Jesus Christ. Also, I did say that evidence for the existance for God would have to be more than the evidence for Pluto because:
a)It is a claim that requires more other things that I hold to be true, things that there is also evidence for, to be false. As such, it needs more evidence than there is for the things that it contradicts.
b)I can identify why someone who told me that God exists might believe that mistakenly, I can identify possible psycological and sociological explanations for them believing that, whereas I can't identify possible reasons for someone believing Pluto to exist unless it really does.

God Beleif is faith, not science.

What is that faith based upon? Is it based on logic or feeling? I have already addressed my personal feelings regarding when logic and feeling contradict. It is a fundamental belief of mine that I should believe only what I have evidence for, not because of vague feelings that you may like to call faith.

Did you know that the Bible was written before Science, and it said that the world was round?

Where in the Bible does it say that the world is round? Then, can you give me the date that that particular part of the Bible was written. If I find that date unlikely, I may need evidence of some sort. Because I know when the idea that the world was round was being first suggested, and you may be surprised by how early it was.

That the sun rose from the east?

It really doesn't take a genius to notice that.

It said so many things about science before Science Even Existed.

What things? Also bear in mind that science came into existance very gradually. There's no definite date that you can say it existed after. The roots of science go back for thousands of years.

God is not some Pre-Historic being with no knowledge, he knows all things. And he knows wethere u shall beleive in him or not. But it will always be your choice to belevie or not....when will u make it...Make it soon enough before the nations clash.

I have given you the reasons why I do not believe in God. Any argument to convince me otherwise that is based upon the initial assuption that God exists is not going to go one step towards convincing me otherwise.

Why does every argument from a certain type of Christian have to end with a crude attempt to appeal to people's fear? And is there really anyone stupid enough to believe something because they are convinced to fear it? I don't fear what will happen when I find out that there is a God any more than I fear that the bogeyman will come and get me in my sleep.

 

[Tiberius]

Atheism is a beleif system in itself.

No it's not. it's a lack of belief. Calling atheism a belief is like calling balld a hair colour. it's like calling Clear your favorite colour. Atheism is a LACK of belief, not a belief.

They say there is no "God" mainly they are attcking Christinaity. But to make such a statement you would have to know all things, and therefore be God,(if u knew for a fact there was no God). Since man is not God, how can he say there is no God? One must have faith in something.

The argument that it's impossible to prove a negative? So when I say "Two plue two does not equal five", I am logically flawed? it is very possible to prove a universal negative.

Keep in mind Every Civilization of History Beleived in a god.

Argument from numbers. Logical fallacy.

Why now do men deciede not to beleive in God? The BIble says so, and history always repeats itself. Jesus said the World would return to as the days of Noah, what were those days like? Party People, Gay People, city builders, deniers of God. Those who didn't live for God and ignored him. There was only one rightouess man. Noah.

There have been atheists for a long time.

Now if u deny God exists, how do you explain HIstorical fact that the First born of Every Creature in Egypt Died before the exodus.

Can you support this claim with non-biblical references?

Since you dont beleive in God, how did the Prophets fortell the comming of Jesus, describing with over 300 details how and when he would come, and where he would be born, where he would be born, how he would teach. Jesus did EVERY SINGLE THING that the Porphecies said of him. Now, will you blind yourself to compelling evidence just to remain in the dark?

because that's the way they were written. I can write a story that starts with a detailed prophecy and then have that prophecy fulfilled by the end. When you look at the Bible like that you understand how the bible can make those claims and yet still be false.

Regarding the essays linked to in the OP, the first is basically one big straw man argument. The man obviously hasn't done his research and is making unjustified claims about atheism, and then proceeding to attack his flawed ideas of atheism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No it's not. it's a lack of belief.

Atheism is an ontological decision.

 

[Booko]

I love thinking that we manage to create our own purpose.

I dunno, there are vast number of essentialy atheistic Buddhists out there who do think there are morals and whatnot to discover (e.g. Enlightenment). Although in the case of Buddhism it may be described as atheistic, or merely that God is irrelevant.

I confess I generally only use the Bible now to find ways of attacking any sort of literal Christianity.

It's the best method. If the basis of a belief is X, it makes not so much sense to reply with evidence from Y. Well, except for science vs. religion discussions, mostly.

I think that the historical blocks to understanding religious books is just as much a problem, if not more so, for members of those religions trying to look to those books for guidance, than for anyone critically examining those books. I'm pretty sure that not just absolute literal fundamentalists, but the vast majority of Christians now, take the Bible more literally than it was intended for when it was first written.

It's true that people can be *very* attached to particular understandings of their religious text, and because of that be blinded from other possible interpretations.

I'm not so sure Christains take the Bible more literally now. It depends on which part you're referring to, for starters. I don't notice too many people being all that serious about all of those commandments in Leviticus. They ignore most of them on the grounds that their religion supercedes all that, but then some people single out a few to hammer with. Go figure.

I'm also fairly certain that the original writers didn't intend for it to be absolutely holy and untouchable.

I have no idea what the original writers intended. We don't have much evidence to say, so it's pretty much speculation, afaik.

A while ago, I voiced the opinion to a number of my friends that the passages in Leviticus regarding the stoning of homosexuals, witches etc. should be taken out of modern editions of the Bible.

I have a different view of that subject, in that I am stuck with not only Biblical injunctions on homosexual practice, but with a few successive religions that maintain that teaching, not that stoning goes hand in hand with it or anything, but then none of the "major" religions have taught homosexual practice is ok. I have no clue really why that might be, and am not especially happy about it, but let's just say I'm relieved that my scriptures expect me to mind my own business when it comes to that. <whew>

Hmmm, I seem to have ranted my way quite a long way off topic. Oh yes, judging religions by their holy books. Yes, my stance is that reading the holy book of a religion is an optional thing to do when deciding whether the religion is true or not. All you need is to know one basic thing underpinning the religion that you are sure you have sufficient reason for believing not to be true (ie. the statement that there is a god) and you can dismiss the whole religion if you want.

Ah, fear not...I ramble on with some frequency, so it won't bother me at all.

However, by finding one thing wrong about a religion and thereby declaring it not true, you risk missing some things. First, maybe the thing you thought was "wrong" was just a misunderstanding, in which case you've closed your mind to any other possibilities.
And if the thing you have potentially misunderstood is what some mere human adherent tells you is so, and you don't bother to look into the original text to verify that it is actually what the text says, then that's not really very solid research, imo.

It's a good thing to find out more about the religion as well if you can, because there may be messages in it and parts of it that you think are good, but you don't need to place any higher priority on that than you do on reading a lot of books or newspapers, or finding out about a particular philosophy or political ideology.

In fact, I took the idea of karma from Eastern traditions and have internalized it in a way that keeps me from getting my knickers in a twist over a lot of things. It saves my energy for more useful things.

And of course, if you do know a lot about a religion then you are in a position to be able to criticise it if you disagree with what it says

That's a good approach. Though I suppose it leads naturally to the question of why, not believing in some religion, one would feel the need to attack it? There are a lot of religious beliefs I don't hold, but don't feel the need to attack.

Hmm, out of curiosity, do you think that the original text of much of the Old Testament has been perverted? I'm thinking most of Leviticus here, Numbers, all the accounts of the bloody history of the Israelites.

Perverted implies that someone's done funny stuff to the text, yes? No, I don't think it's been particularly messed with. People tend not to mess with the very thing they love most. But I will say this: those texts were written in a time when our idea of "historical writing" was unheard of. It's a common thing in texts of the time, and even much later (heck, even today!) to write history to make you sound tougher than you really were. Also, I understand there are midrashim in Judaism that indicate that perhaps the invasion of Canaan was not quite as bloody as indicated. Without some corroboration from non-Hebrew sources, it's really difficult to sort it out.

I find this story rather depressing. That even a teacher of religious matters would not have seriously considered whether it was better to be a good disbeliever or a bad believer, or had to express such incredulity about anyone being an atheist, seems very bizarre to me. Religious people that I know don't seem to find it so inconceivable, or if they do, they keep quiet about it.

Oh, he wasn't rude about it at all...very sincere actually. It spawned a lot of good questions, and therefore an excellent exchange. Believe me, I had my crazed religious person antennae full out at that time of my life, and if I had as much as smelled an agenda to proselytize to me, all hades would've broken loose.

It's possible that, being nonreligious, your religious friends do keep quiet about it, because they don't want to annoy you. I, otoh, being religious, would not be offended by the question. I didn't get many questions when I was an atheist either.

Where exactly in America was this school of yours? I see your current location is given as Atlanta; is that where you went to school.

Michigan, in the 70s.

Because I would only have thought of that sort of incomprehension as existing at all in the Bible Belt, and to my knowledge Atlanta isn't particularly a Bible Belt place. If that's wrong, if it is, please correct me and my pessimism regarding religion in America will increase.

Atlanta is and is not a Bible belt place. It's very cosmopolitan, but includes people from the rural parts and traditional Southern folks as well. There's a big stink made about Halloween every year (the devil's holiday!) though it was a tradition invented by Christians. But my kids haven't had any problems for religious reasons in their time in schools, except for people being silly and putting major events on a Holy Day as big for Baha'is as Christmas is for Christians. But they don't do that intentionally, they just think sometimes everyone's Christian anyway, so why worry about it.

I'm rather curious to know why you stopped being an atheist. You mentioned that from studying religious texts you began to gain a higher opinion of religion, but what actually made you believe that there is indeed a god? I ask because I get the impression of you as being a pretty logical person like myself, and I think of most atheist who convert as converting because of "seeing the light" etc, ie. a sudden emotional faith conversion, whereby they totally abadon atheism and can't understand why they were ever atheists.

If I had had an emotional experience, I would have rejected it off the bat. I mistrust emotions -- they are too easily manipulated.

I ran across the Kitab-i-Iqan, a book by Baha'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i Faith. In that work he explained away all the issues I'd had with religion in a way I had never conceived of, and basically made sense of the whole religion thing, not to mention entire swaths of human history. By the time I concluded the guy knew what he was talking about, I figured he might have a point about the God thing too.

You could think of it this way -- I had one theory of the universe and how it existed and why things the way they were, and I thought that was a good approximation and was content with it.

Then I stumbled on a better paradigm, and once you come up with something you believe is a better explanation, why would you stick with the old explanation?

It would be like the theological equivalent of Einstein insisting that the Uncertainty Principle couldn't be true.

Do you mean that regarding the part of the quote where I was talking about not having some mystical feeling about God, or the bit about conflict between logic and emotion? Again, I'm curious.

I jest that I am mysticism impaired, and leave the poetry to my husband, who is much better at that. But I didn't have great mystical feelings either...I don't trust such things, though over time I have seen their utility in others. Mysticism has its uses, but should not be confused with being airy-fairy, which is quite another thing. Mystical people are some of the most grounded in life, so it must have some use after all.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Did you know that the Bible was written before Science, and it said that the world was round? That the sun rose from the east? It said so many things about science before Science Even Existed.

Yeah, because the East wasn't actually East before science came along.:bonk:
Let's not even get into the whole world was round thing...there was a whole thread dedicated to that very subject that ended up in an argument about translation and interpretation. No-one could agree.
It's also come up with some complete and utter rubbish that science has proven to be incorrect. I'd be quite interested in hearing your theory of what science actually is and when it came into being. I imagine it will be rather good value.

 

[Æsahættr]

I dunno, there are vast number of essentialy atheistic Buddhists out there who do think there are morals and whatnot to discover (e.g. Enlightenment). Although in the case of Buddhism it may be described as atheistic, or merely that God is irrelevant.

Hmm, well I suppose that it's true that disbelieving in God doesn't have to mean disbelieving in the existance of purpose and external morals etc. That was a linguistic mistake on my part. It's easy to just think of atheistic beliefs as just those who define themselves primarily or nearly primarily as atheists, and those people tend to also be materialists.

It's the best method. If the basis of a belief is X, it makes not so much sense to reply with evidence from Y. Well, except for science vs. religion discussions, mostly.

Well, of course technically if the evidence from Y is correct and is much greater than the evidence X, then there's no problem with using that. The problem comes when you are dealing with people, because it's far easier to get through to someone by talking about things that they're familiar with than trying to prove a point with something they're not so familiar with.

I'm not so sure Christains take the Bible more literally now. It depends on which part you're referring to, for starters. I don't notice too many people being all that serious about all of those commandments in Leviticus. They ignore most of them on the grounds that their religion supercedes all that, but then some people single out a few to hammer with. Go figure.

I think that while some things are just ignored completly, there's definitely a decrease in the number of people who think of the Bible as a whole as being a book of metaphors rather than of true stories.

However, by finding one thing wrong about a religion and thereby declaring it not true, you risk missing some things. First, maybe the thing you thought was "wrong" was just a misunderstanding, in which case you've closed your mind to any other possibilities.
And if the thing you have potentially misunderstood is what some mere human adherent tells you is so, and you don't bother to look into the original text to verify that it is actually what the text says, then that's not really very solid research, imo.

Well, the thing that I find wrong with most religions is the belief that there is a god of some description. I also find wrong for example, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead in Christianity. I'm talking about that sort of level of thing, so I'm fairly sure that I haven't misunderstood any of those things.

That's a good approach. Though I suppose it leads naturally to the question of why, not believing in some religion, one would feel the need to attack it? There are a lot of religious beliefs I don't hold, but don't feel the need to attack.

Hmmm, I guess attack is a bit of a strong word. I would say that I attack a belief when I not only think that it is untrue but think that it is immoral or destructive, and I question beliefs that I simply don't agree with but find harmless.

Perverted implies that someone's done funny stuff to the text, yes? No, I don't think it's been particularly messed with. People tend not to mess with the very thing they love most. But I will say this: those texts were written in a time when our idea of "historical writing" was unheard of. It's a common thing in texts of the time, and even much later (heck, even today!) to write history to make you sound tougher than you really were. Also, I understand there are midrashim in Judaism that indicate that perhaps the invasion of Canaan was not quite as bloody as indicated. Without some corroboration from non-Hebrew sources, it's really difficult to sort it out.

I don't honestly see that it makes that much of a difference really. I think that a religion with a holy book that glorifies violence in places is always going to have a potential for destructive influence. I don't think it matters whether the people really were that violent or if they just wanted to appear to be, either way I don't see why huge passages condoning murder and rape are anything but dangerous when placed in a book that millions of people hold to be a source of truth and guidance.

Oh, he wasn't rude about it at all...very sincere actually. It spawned a lot of good questions, and therefore an excellent exchange.

I still think it's depressing that he could spent some time as an expert of religion without ever understanding atheism whatsoever until you came along.

Believe me, I had my crazed religious person antennae full out at that time of my life, and if I had as much as smelled an agenda to proselytize to me, all hades would've broken loose.

Hmm, I think I'm starting to agree with you that we must be related.

But they don't do that intentionally, they just think sometimes everyone's Christian anyway, so why worry about it.

Yes, that is one thing that you get a lot of here as well. Either some Christians really aren't aware that according to statistics, a decent proportion of people they meet are not going to be Christian, or they believe that they'll be alerted to the fact that some people are not Christian by the horns poking out of their head.

If I had had an emotional experience, I would have rejected it off the bat. I mistrust emotions -- they are too easily manipulated.

I ran across the Kitab-i-Iqan, a book by Baha'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i Faith. In that work he explained away all the issues I'd had with religion in a way I had never conceived of, and basically made sense of the whole religion thing, not to mention entire swaths of human history. By the time I concluded the guy knew what he was talking about, I figured he might have a point about the God thing too.

You could think of it this way -- I had one theory of the universe and how it existed and why things the way they were, and I thought that was a good approximation and was content with it.

Then I stumbled on a better paradigm, and once you come up with something you believe is a better explanation, why would you stick with the old explanation?

It would be like the theological equivalent of Einstein insisting that the Uncertainty Principle couldn't be true.

That is a very interesting story. It is definitely the first example I have heard given to me of an atheist making a genuinelly logical conversion. I must have a look at some Baha'i material.

I jest that I am mysticism impaired, and leave the poetry to my husband, who is much better at that. But I didn't have great mystical feelings either...I don't trust such things, though over time I have seen their utility in others. Mysticism has its uses, but should not be confused with being airy-fairy, which is quite another thing. Mystical people are some of the most grounded in life, so it must have some use after all.

I guess that for some people mysticism is useful, but I think that in the end, there's no fundamental reason why logic alone can't suffice for everyone. I see mysticism as something that helps some people because it's easier to feel comfortable with that the "coldness" of pure logic.

Atheism is an ontological decision.

Is it really fundamentally an ontological decision, or just in practise? An atheist who had never encountered the concept of a god would not have made a decision to reject belief in that god, but they'd still be an atheist.

 

[Jerrell]

Some people just wont beleive God eixists, To you Christians, If they reject you, whipe the dust off your feet and move on. They will have to answer to God for their actions. Atleast you will have done your job and told them about His Almighty Love and grace.

They take the creation of God for granted. As though a Picture has no Painter. As though an invention, has no inventor. As though no formation has no former.

Now if the big bang is true(which is an alternative to creation) Do you really beleive non-living matter created living things? Science itself says living organisms CANNOT come from non-living matter....now out of this non-living matter( if u believe Big Bang)

You get, By Chance...Oxygen, argon, Carbon, NItrogen, water, diffrent types of rock, patroleum..you know this is just a amazing thing to happen...that all we need to live was mistkaingly created from a atom that existed forever..since there was no Inital begining of time...for Science..


My POint is Atheist look over many things, and only look at things to further their denail of GOd.Sometimes you have to give up. They dont want tos erve God...They plan on being like this forever.

 

[Æsahættr]

Now if the big bang is true(which is an alternative to creation) Do you really beleive non-living matter created living things? Science itself says living organisms CANNOT come from non-living matter....now out of this non-living matter( if u believe Big Bang)

Where have you read/heard that science forbids living organisms coming from non-living matter?

You get, By Chance...Oxygen, argon, Carbon, NItrogen, water, diffrent types of rock, patroleum..you know this is just a amazing thing to happen...that all we need to live was mistkaingly created from a atom that existed forever..since there was no Inital begining of time...for Science..

A) Why was it a mistake?
B) It wasn't an atom. It was a singularity, and all the Universe was contained in that singularity, so nothing was created.
C) That singularity did not exist forever.
D) There was a "beginning of time," although I don't think the word "beginning" is a very good one