Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Rival]

It always amazes me how non-Christians still fall into mindless Christian apologism like this.

How is this apologism? Is Ehrman an apologist because he believes Jesus existed and that Christians were martyred? Is doing history apologism now?

1) Paul met Jesus in a vision. According to Paul, this is good enough because he believes that Jesus is still alive. Whether you believe Jesus is alive or not isn't germane; we can accept that Paul had some kind of mystical experience in which he believed he saw Jesus. I don't think this should be too difficult for anyone to accept, especially given that it is recorded in two places (Acts by Luke and in Galatians by Paul). If you are going to deny that Paul even had a mystical experience then you are going to have to explain why. When Paul goes to the Apostles after this experience they find no fault with him and allow him to preach to the non-Jews (Galatians 2:6-10). He had later disagreements, but Paul and Peter were not the only ones having disagreements.

2) I wasn't specifically referring to the Jesus of Christianity. I was referring to the Jesus of history. That Jesus, by scholarly majority consensus, existed. I'm talking about people who deny the historical existence of Jesus.

3) We have records of Jesus' brother, 4 biographies of him, letters detailing a movement inspired by him, early anti-Christian graffiti showing a crucified man, and no evidence anywhere of anyone in this period denying the founder of the Christian religion even existed. That's a pretty good amount for a Galilean woodworker. The fact that you will take Suetonius but not the Gospels even though they're the same genre is baffling and that's on you to explain. Obviously we have more material evidence for Roman emperors than we have for Judean peasants, but the fact that 4+ people wrote incredibly cultured biographies about him is extraordinary. If he hadn't existed I think at least 1 of them ought to have known about it.

4) These religious claims are 2000 years old, they're hardly new. You are the one with the onus to disprove the claims.

 

[Heyo]

So when a prominent biologist tells them that the only way to accept science is to stop taking their religion seriously, what is the expected result?

Rational scientists?

 

[Heyo]

I think some folks are overcomplicating this thread.


1) Do you believe Christians were put to death by Rome? (for any reason)

2) Do you believe Paul was a Christian and was intent on spreading what he believed is the Gospel?

3) Do you believe Jesus existed? (in any form)

4. Do you believe, as scholarship argues, that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biography in the tradition of other Greco-Roman biographers?


If you answered yes to at least 3 of these questions, you're not the problem. I have come across RFians who would answer no to all of them.

I did answer "yes", so, when I'm not the problem, maybe I'm part of the solution?

I guess the historians, as historians, are pretty able to come to a consensus. Problems arise when faktuality is claimed by either side as that brings the other side either to question the veracity or assume an agenda even if they accept the facts.
E.g. the martyrdom is often cited by Christians as evidence for the sincerity of the beliefs of the martyrs. But that is only valid if they had a choice. Thus the knee jerk reaction of rejecting the martyrs. (And using the word "martyr" by the Christians doesn't help, it is loaded. Simply saying that Christians have been persecuted and killed by Romans is the neutral approach a historian would use.)

 

[Rival]

(And using the word "martyr" by the Christians doesn't help, it is loaded. Simply saying that Christians have been persecuted and killed by Romans is the neutral approach a historian would use.)

I disagree with this bit; I think folks have a knee jerk reaction to this word but in its original sense it doesn't have anything to do with whether the belief is correct. We could say, for example, that the kamikaze pilots were martyrs for Japan's cause without siding with Japan.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree with this bit; I think folks have a knee jerk reaction to this word but in its original sense it doesn't have anything to do with whether the belief is correct. We could say, for example, that the kamikaze pilots were martyrs for Japan's cause without siding with Japan.

Yeah, take the concept of dogma. To some it can only be religious and bad. But in effect I have non-standard religious dogmas as me and those pertain to my core moral beliefs.
As a joke that dogma is bad, is a dogma.

 

[Zwing]

That’s an extremely circular argument, don’t you think? Anthropomorphise God…

I am only evaluating the God which has been presented to me via the biblical narratives. The God of the Bible is highly anthropomorphic, would you not say? If I find the Biblical God to be unbelievable, what then should I do? Re-imagine the nature of a God based upon my own fancy? If I did that, I would end up with a God having no epistemological basis, conjured up by the vagaries of my own imagination.

My atheism is based not upon any evaluation of the nature of God, though, which I have no means whatsoever of achieving since God is so utterly remote and secluded from me. I can only evaluate what I am able to discern, so my atheism is rather based upon an evaluation of scripture as a source of knowledge regarding the proposition that “there is a God…”. I am an atheist because I have adjudged the Bible to be of no epistemological value regarding the question of God. If I reject the notion of the Biblical God based in part upon that, should I then consider that the authors of scripture merely got the details wrong, resulting in a mischaracterization? That might perhaps be reasonable if one had an extra-biblical means for assuming a knowledge of a God, but we do not. This leaves me with the recognition of the Bible as epistemically worthless, and with no other epistemological source for discerning a God. The proper conclusion is an obvious one. It also seems to preclude, however, adoption of the ideas that “there is no such thing as a God” or “God does not exist”, for being epistemically worthless, it cannot teach that, either. This is why I did not ever make the jump to antitheism.

 

[Audie]

Jesus as portrayed in the Bible obviously didn't exist, but scholars do tend to agree there was someone who was real who did influence and inspire the Jesus character we see in the Bible.

Two ways of saying the same thing

 

[RestlessSoul]

Rational scientists?

During the 5th Solvay Conference in 1927, Einstein repeated his contention that there was a logical inconsistency at the heart of quantum theory. Niels Bohr, having a background in philosophy as well as mathematics, repeatedly tried to iron out the ontological contradictions of the theory, but never to Einstein’s satisfaction. Bohr was, ultimately, comfortable with contradiction in a way Einstein never was. So, which was the rational scientist? Or is ‘rational scientist’ in fact as much of an unrealisable ideal as ‘objective paradigm’?

 

[Zwing]

We could say, for example, that the kamikaze pilots were martyrs for Japan's cause without siding with Japan.

Right! The jihadi suicide bombers are often characterized as martyrs for their cause. If martyrdom proves a belief as being correct, then perhaps I was raised with the wrong documentation, and should rush out and buy a copy of the Qur’an??

 

[Rival]

Right! The jihadi suicide bombers are often characterized as martyrs for their cause. If martyrdom proves a belief as being correct, then perhaps I was raised with the wrong documentation, and should rush out and buy a copy of the Qur’an??

Right, but to deny there were martyrs at all is silly, yet some do.

 

[Zwing]

I think this is an especially great point. I remember having a discussion with a conservative Muslim about evolution several years ago where I asked him why he believed evolution was irreconcilable with a belief in a creator deity. He said, "Dawkins has repeatedly said this, and he understands evolution better than most people in the world."

That comment gave me pause because, at that moment, it dawned on me that Dawkins' approach could be quite damaging and alienating some people from believing they could reconcile their religious beliefs with science. Many people are never going to stop being religious, nor do they need to. So when a prominent biologist tells them that the only way to accept science is to stop taking their religion seriously, what is the expected result?

This is an unfortunate happenstance. An omnipotent God could as easily create the mechanisma of evolution as a means for the achievement of what it intends to create, and an omniscient God could easily foresee the results of said mechanisma across billions of years. The findings of science have produced no arguments whatsoever against theism, and trying to make such arguments is counterproductive.

 

[Zwing]

Right, but to deny there were martyrs at all is silly, yet some do.

Sure, the world is full of martyrs. Jim Jones and his followers were martyrs for the “Peoples Temple Agricultural Project” back in 1978. What does it prove? Martyrs are a dime a dozen, rendering martyrdom somewhat unimpressive.

 

[Rival]

Sure, the world is full of martyrs. Jim Jones and his followers were martyrs for the “Peoples Temple Agricultural Project” back in 1978. What does it prove? Martyrs are a dime a dozen, rendering martyrdom somewhat unimpressive.

I'm not arguing it proves anything. I saw a person posting on RF that all Christian martyr stories were fabrications; he didn't believe any of them. In effect he was saying that he doesn't believe Rome ever put any Christians to death. This is inaccurate and thus an extreme bizarre belief.

 

[Zwing]

I'm not arguing it proves anything. I saw a person posting on RF that all Christian martyr stories were fabrications; he didn't believe any of them. In effect he was saying that he doesn't believe Rome ever put any Christians to death. This is inaccurate and thus an extreme bizarre belief.

There are even those who deny the much more recent Holocaust. Such beliefs seem to arise by the same psychological process as some of the more unorthodox theistic beliefs. People, human beings, will come to believe whatever they have to, even things nonsensical, in support of some or another mental thesis.

 

[PureX]

As if religion as a category is full of virtue and best intentions. Critical thinkers tend to respond more to the most outrageous claims by theists, the creationists, the mystics who misrepresent non-belief as "not getting it" as they can't articulate what there is to actually "get", the dogmatists, etc. It seems that moderate and light theists are often innocent bystanders who suffer damage to their religious beliefs as critical thinkers meet the outrageous claims of more vocal and overly-confident believers. Critical thinkers have no real skin in this game. It is believers who run the risk of putting their heads on the block and daring critical thinkers to swing that axe.

Yet these "critical thinkers" ignore time and time and time again the very simple and obvious fact that they are arguing with mythology because it is mythology. Which is a patently stupid thing to do even especially in the face of someone else that cannot or will not recognize mythology as mythology. It's like debating with an adult child that refuses to accept that Santa Claus is a myth because Santa Claus is a myth. What possible hope is there in achieving ANYTHING from that? You become an adult child to debate an adult child that has already determined and stated that he intends to remain an adult child.

And you people claim you're "critical thinkers"??? Not hardly!

No one ever comes to a conclusion that a God exists via facts and reasoning,

THEN WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY DEMANDING FACTS AND REASONING AS JUSTIFICATION? And WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY OFFERING YOUR FACTS AND REASONING AS AN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEISM? Clearly, THEISM IS NOT ABOUT FACTUAL REASONING. It's about something else, entirely.

And yet you all can never seem to grasp this most obvious fact about the reason for theism (i.e., the progress of faith). All while proclaiming what mighty "critical thinkers" you think you all are. Good grief!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, it

There are even those who deny the much more recent Holocaust. Such beliefs seem to arise by the same psychological process as some of the more unorthodox theistic beliefs. People, human beings, will come to believe whatever they have to, even things nonsensical, in support of some or another mental thesis.

Yeah, in a sense it is sometimes combined with exterme idea, that wrong thoughts/feelings are not in reality. It leads to a weird form of meta-reality of real reality and real not in real reality.
In a sense for my example it is connected to the fallacy of reification and is in psychology terms a form of lack of meta-cognition and intrapsychology ability.

 

[Zwing]

THEISM IS NOT ABOUT FACTUAL REASONING. It's about something else, entirely.

And yet you all can never seem to grasp this most obvious fact about the reason for theism (i.e., the progress of faith). All while proclaiming what mighty "critical thinkers" you think you all are.

I can certainly appreciate the reasons for the theistic franchise, for I myself have all of the psychological needs upon which it is based. However, my personal experience has indicated a certain danger to me in my decisionmaking processes which appear naturally to derive from a theistic worldview. I therefore discern a seemingly universal human incumbency to fulfil those psychological needs in another manner, particularly by trying to urge (in small ways, of course) my fellow men towards the establishment of societies wherein those needs can be fulfilled for each of us by the others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can certainly appreciate the reasons for the theistic franchise, for I myself have all of the psychological needs upon which it is based. However, my personal experience has indicated a certain danger to me in my decisionmaking processes which appear naturally to derive from a theistic worldview. I therefore discern a seemingly universal human incumbency to fulfil those psychological needs in another manner, particularly by trying to urge (in small ways, of course) my fellow men towards the establishment of societies wherein those needs can be fulfilled for each of us by the others.

We are in effect playing 2 versions of religion and how different cognitive shemata influences how someone understands religion. But that is far as I can tell always in part cultural, psychological and some version of limited relativism.

 

[wellwisher]

Richard Dawkings is an expert in Biological Science, which is one of the Sciences, that still heavily depends on the same math used by gambling casinos and politics. The Atheist attacks on religion are sold as rational, but it sounds more like rationalizing partisan politics than scientific reasoning. In politics, you need to state your belief with conviction, with a partisan not expected to be objective or ever play devil's advocate, since that may undermine their own conviction. Empathy can make you overcome the hate that separates.

Casino math appears to induce its own religion affect on the brain similar to religion. As an analogy, the gist of casino math is essentially based on an idiot savant god; Statistolus (stat-tis-o-lus) who is blind and has no sense of direction, but he is often lucky and seems to fall into gold every now and then. This is not a god that is useful for developing the power of reason, even if this is the sales pitch. Reason needs sight and not a black box of darkness; Monday morning quarterback.

If you were blind, with risk everywhere; falling, you cannot just go off in any direction or else you may fall or get hurt. You need to memorize and stick to a well worn path with all the furniture in predictable places. This well worm path, allows you a sense of confidence in an otherwise dark world. This sense of being blind; black box, but safe, creates a need for a repetitious and dogmatic foundation, as a template for reason. I often mention the importance of water for the activity of DNA, but it does not click, since the blind cannot remove a hand from the wall, nor do they want me to add another ottoman or end table.

The Religious usually have God or Gods who can see are clearly and have definitive plans. These may be good or evil and/or have a speciality like love or war, but they are all determined leaders. In this case, standing behind them, one does not feel fear, due to blindness. But rather one has a forward light and can go in different directions; many denominations, allowing a more expansive use of day to day reason; exploration.

Religion does not have to touch the wall of blindness, and therefore appears to be lumped as risk. Faith is about releasing the wall, which is harder to do with the god, Statistolus.

 

[PureX]

I can certainly appreciate the reasons for the theistic franchise, for I myself have all of the psychological needs upon which it is based.

Calling it a "franchise" and assuming that it's all psychologically need based only shows that you don't understand theism nearly as well as you think you do.

However, my personal experience has indicated a certain danger to me in my decision making processes which appear naturally to derive from a theistic worldview. I therefore discern a seemingly universal human incumbency to fulfil those psychological needs in another manner, particularly by trying to urge (in small ways, of course) my fellow men towards the establishment of societies wherein those needs can be fulfilled for each of us by the others.

People have all kinds of troubles and issues and needs that can be aided and met in many, many different ways. That you presume yourself to be the overseer of all this, and the decider of who needs what and where it should come from is an astonishing feat of ego that is not backed up by any logical or factual evidence. And yet you seem to have adopted this position for yourself with amazing freedom, ease, and surety.

Seems to me that would warrant some serious "critical" reconsideration. Don't you think?