Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Sometime the face palms its self.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 1 post ] 
Sometime the face palms its self.
Author Message
NahliPosts: 8Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:55 am Gender: Male

Post Sometime the face palms its self.

Days ago on a board far far away. . .

I started the following thread.



Proposition: Jesus (if he existed as depicted in the bible) was an Atheist.

Support for the Proposition:
Atheism: A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, without supporting facts or evidence.
Knowledge: Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education.

Conclusion: Anyone who possesses knowledge of a thing, is precluded from having faith in that thing.

The biblical Jesus 'knew' the biblical 'god', therefor he was an atheist. Furthermore every person who claims to 'know' 'god' is, by this proposition an Atheist as well.

(Note: This is me starting a conversation. Don't get fussy.)

Of course that note didn't help for long. As the dark side always rises,

I think you're working with a flawed conception of belief, and of faith. As I understand them, Jesus's teachings aimed to replace a legalistic interpretation of God's laws and ritual obedience to them with a more intuitive understanding of the larger meaning behind these laws. This intuitive understanding is the basis of "faith"--not a simple minded antonym of evidence based reasoning.

So I defended my position. Even attempting to grant the idea that there could be positive features in the stories at the end of my defense.


I don't see how my concept of faith could be flawed in regards to the Bible, given that I'm using the same definition of faith as the Bible does. The Bible itself says that faith is that which is believed but not seen. As to Jesus's teachings if his purpose was to replace as you say, the legal interpretation of God's laws with a more intuitive understanding then he wouldn't have existed to teach anything.

Intuition: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without use of rational processes; immediate cognition.

Instead Jesus would have remained a spirit (Just as is said in Paul's writings.) and worked to reprogram the base mental workings of humanity. Or if you are simply trying to say that he explained things in more simplistic terms, in that case if he was teaching God's laws in the sand simplistic terms he would've simply said kill everyone who does something bad or you don't like. Of course I'm not suggesting that modern Christians follow those rules, however that would summarize the actions of God and the punishments entailed for anything done wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me I'm not trying to be insulting towards the Christian faith it simply that if you read the Bible states quite specifically that the punishment for most sins, transgressions, what have you is death. For instance if you were to be found performing labor on at the wrong time the consequence is being set before groups of people who will then to throw rocks at you until you die. If you eat the wrong thing, if you sacrifice inappropriately if you do a whole host of various actions I mean planting crops inappropriately side-by-side etc. etc. the punishment is death. Then we have how you should treat your enemies all of them literally genocide is the most highly recommended method of waging war. Second only to killing all of the men and children and take the virginal women, specifically as your slave wives, and the non-virgin women get to die too.

Absolutely new testament God is basically hippie God, he loves everybody sends free help to the poor and to the sick, then says that the rich aren't going to make it into heaven, and all you have to do is believe in him and everything's forgiven. But Old Testament God loved his murder, loved infanticide, loved genocide, slavery was cool, punishing the descendents for the crimes of those who came before them, aborting the babies of women who were unfaithful and just a host of truly horrible things.

TLDR:

Suffice it to say that, no matter the source of the definition be it the Bible or a modern dictionary faith gets the same treatment, it's believing in that which has no evidence to it. Furthermore the teaching people claim was made by Jesus did not replace complexity with that which is more easily understood, instead he replaced hate and murder with things much closer to love and acceptance.

Sometimes though the dark side acts in strange ways.



Suffice it to say that, no matter the source of the definition be it the Bible or a modern dictionary faith gets the same treatment, it's believing in that which has no evidence to it.

Absurd. What's the point of being an atheist? Surely, for you it's not the freedom to think unimpeded by religious mythology, as you haven't demonstrated any pleasure in complex thought. It's all

I don't have to think about things, the answers are all written down in the dictionary, in no more than one or two sentences.

No wonder you characterize Christianity as the crudest kind of fundamentalism- you haven't the brains to figure out belies that don't treat you as if you were a child.

Read this article on faith. It may disabuse you of your simplicity.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/

It was then in that link that the dark side raised its hand and held it before its face, and I saw my chance.


Ah, so were going to play the definition game. Yes it is true that having faith in something can be defined as having trust in that which has been observed. However that is not the only definition of faith. Faith can also mean exactly that which I stated that it can also mean a belief in that which has no evidence. I can even go so far as to provide you with proof of where that is stated biblically.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Faith is believing without evidence things that you wish were true (but aren't).

The article that you linked describes several different types of faith however it does not add additional definitions of faith. In fact it even reinforces the definition that I first gave you as seen in this quote from the article you linked. "It is thus widely held that faith goes beyond what is ordinarily reasonable, in the sense that it involves accepting what cannot be established as true through the proper exercise of our naturally endowed human cognitive faculties—and this may be held to be an essential feature of faith." Your article even continues on to go further stating, "I have… Found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith" (From the preface to the second edition of, Critique of pure reason. Kant 1787/1933, 29) if one continues on reading your linked article they will find that it even fact continues along the same idea.

The ‘purely affective’ model: faith as a feeling of existential confidence.
In the "purely affective" version which is based on a feeling faith has no evidence to support it.

The ‘special knowledge’ model: faith as knowledge of specific truths, revealed by God.
In this version of faith as well there is no evidence that supports what the faith holds as true.

The ‘belief’ model: faith as belief that God exists.
Again the article denotes a lack of evidence.

The ‘trust’ model: faith as belief in (trust in) God.
In regards to this the article describes a bit of the trust definition but still states that that trust is held in something that cannot be proven to exist.

The ‘doxastic venture’ model: faith as practical commitment beyond the evidence to one's belief that God exists.
This model is described in the article as it essentially a trust with still provable risk as that which you have trust in cannot ever be proven falsifiable.

The ‘sub-doxastic venture’ model: faith as practical commitment without belief.
This model does not require or in some cases even permit that the person holding this kind of faith actually even believes what that they have faith in, and began does not make any claims as to having evidence.

The ‘hope’ model: faith as hoping—or acting in the hope that—the God who saves exists.
This last example tries to get around faith lacking evidence by saying that it is only a hope, essentially wishing upon a star that your imaginary friend will make something happen.

The article does also mentioned faith in reference to its more factual uses by stating the following. "Much of the belief which underlies knowledge… Is the outcome of faith which ventures beyond the apprehension and treatment of data to supposition, imagination and creation of ideal objects, and justifies its audacity and irrationality (in accounting them to be also real) by practical actualization." This type of faith is not equivalent with faith of the religious kind although scientists must act as if they are "ideal objects" exist when they put their theories to the empirical test is by the result of these tests that confirmation is supplied.

The last thing I'll say in reference to that article is that in that article God is referenced as an inadequate concept, and that he can dish in this four which faith is permissible may indeed exclude faith in God because of said inadequate concept. All things considered I should really thank you for linking up that article as it contained a lot of information that was in support of the point I was trying to make. So thank you for the additional information which I was able to use to strengthen my position.

As to your question of, "What's the point of being an atheist?" The first thing you might do is read the definition, and see that there is no stated point or objective. Now if you would like to know what my personal pursuit is, how about pursuing that which is truthfully honest and evidently so.

As to your seeming assertion that you think that I think that thought is not required if the answers are already written down, you are incorrect. Instead would I provide definitions and their source material I'm trying to establish a common ground that we can both work from whereby we will both understand what the other is saying.

With a person speaks of Christianity in a historical sense, generally throughout the vast majority of the history there of Christianity they find that people did treat it in a literal and fundamental sense where they would kill the infidel. Just as God frequently asked or commanded them to in the Old Testament.

The last thing I'll put down here in this entire bit of writing is this. Whether or not you feel that I take pleasure in complex thought or am simplistic in my processes or am childish or lack certain reckless it amount of "brains" is utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is the facts and no fanciful magic djinn from the fairytales told by some ancient desert nomads, who was entranced by the sent of blood as though it were an "sweet incense", is going to change the facts.

PS I would also like to take this opportunity to notate that at no point in any of the writings I have directed at you have I made any attempt to insult you whatsoever. Nor have I attacked or belittled you in any way. The only negative comments I have made would be about a system of beliefs. You are a person separate in existence from any system of beliefs.


I share this story with you all in hopes that it may someday help others in this our valiant struggle against the dark side.
Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:16 am
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 1 post ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests