The Root of all Evil, Channel 4, Monday @ 20.00

legspin

archdukefranz wrote:

Why then did he say that not a word would be striken from the OT?




He wrote a lot, but he wasn't the only one, there was the accounts written by other apostles etc.



Read the gospel accounts, they are quite good

The earliest official gospel is that of John, and he never met JC. He was a disciple of Paul and got most of his information from him, who btw never met JC either, or from Peter on the odd occation. So at best they are a matter of second-hand gossip and conjecture. The only first-hand account of JC's life is from Peter and he says very little about him. At least in none of the 3 versions of the bible I have read anyway.
And as for the gospel of Matthew you will not get a bigger pack of falsehoods and half-truths. The much vaunted Slaughter of the Innocents never took place and JC's mum and Dad never went to Egypt. Just ask the Romans who were inverate note takers and wrote down just about everything that took place in Palestine up to the fall of the Temple of Solomon. Matthew was a political writer who wanted to equate JC with Moses. In doing so he hoped to inspire the Jews to overthrow thier Roman overlords by taking up the cause of JC
Now if the Church has more pertinant information, I for one would love to read it.

pH

CerebralCortex wrote:

Yours is not to convince ppl not to believe. Everyone believes something. You perhaps believe in nothing that is a belief system as much as I believe anything is possible.

This only appears to make sense if your use of the English language has the words something and nothing being synonyms!

I assure you that for most people the words 'nothing' and 'something' are not interchangable, in fact they're ... whats the word I'm looking for .. opposites.

archdukefranz

legspin wrote:

The earliest official gospel is that of John, and he never met JC. He was a disciple of Paul and got most of his information from him, who btw never met JC either, or from Peter on the odd occation. So at best they are a matter of second-hand gossip and conjecture. The only first-hand account of JC's life is from Peter and he says very little about him. At least in none of the 3 versions of the bible I have read anyway.
And as for the gospel of Matthew you will not get a bigger pack of falsehoods and half-truths. The much vaunted Slaughter of the Innocents never took place and JC's mum and Dad never went to Egypt. Just ask the Romans who were inverate note takers and wrote down just about everything that took place in Palestine up to the fall of the Temple of Solomon. Matthew was a political writer who wanted to equate JC with Moses. In doing so he hoped to inspire the Jews to overthrow thier Roman overlords by taking up the cause of JC
Now if the Church has more pertinant information, I for one would love to read it.

try reading the information where MARK is the first gospel!!!!

Your information is obviously based on what you heard somewhere and half remembered

oh and have you decided to retract your points on Jesus rejecting the OT??

Beruthiel

Closing Doors wrote:

What I meant is that there are a lot of people who kind of "fall" into atheism because they aren't arsed being committed to a religion

I put it to you that most people just fall into whatever religion their parents told them to, there was no thought process in it, you just take it on board as the truth because everyone (parents/teachers/priests) told you it was.

To become an atheist, for most people, there is a lot of thought put into it, a lot of questions which have no solid answers and a lack of logic which in the end is the finish for any religion for me personally.
Telling me that one requires 'faith' in order to follow a religion just doesn't cut it for me, I require logic and there is none.

Atheism would be a belief in "nothing", no? Is that not what you wish to replace it with?

I don't wish to 'replace' it with anything, school is where you go to become educated, not to be taught a religion.
If a parent wishes to bring their child up in a particular religion, let them do it in their own time, not during school hours.

robindch

> Telling me that one requires 'faith' in order to follow a religion
> just doesn't cut it for me [...]

Religion, as a topic of thought, becomes easier to work with if one uses the word 'belief' instead instead of 'faith'. Who on earth wants to be seen as 'faithless' or 'unfaithful'?

This kind of carefully prejudicial use of language, as the perhaps-unconscious behest of the religions themselves, is one of the ways in which religion tries to makes apostates/atheists feel uncomfortable, and believers cosy. I was a bit surprised to see Dawkins fall into this elementary language trap!

Dades

Closing Doors wrote:

Ok I'm guessing I didn't phrase this well :rolleyes:

What I meant is that there are a lot of people who kind of "fall" into atheism because they aren't arsed being committed to a religion (whatever that may entail). Religion doesn't enter into the equation for them at all, by sheer virtue of the fact they've just been ignoring it out of habit. After a certain amount of time of being "detached" from religion, they sort of become atheists by default. I'm not sure I've explained myself any better, but I've seen this happen so it does exist

Still flogging that dead unicorn, eh?

As Beruthial says, you must think before you can call yourself an atheist. The people you speak sound like they would struggle to define atheism - or agnosticism for that matter. But what this has to with anything I don't know.

Atheism would be a belief in "nothing", no? Is that not what you wish to replace it with?

Nobody suggested atheism be taught in schools. Atheism is just a noun. But I'm sure there are many noble subjects worthy of an hour a week. One suggestion being humanism.

Beruthiel

robindch wrote:

Religion, as a topic of thought, becomes easier to work with if one uses the word 'belief' instead instead of 'faith'

I disagree with the word 'belief'
it has to be faith - how can you believe a bible that was written by someone else, 300 years after jesus died, as totally 100% correct in every way, you can't - faith is the only way to cover that one

Closing Doors

The Atheist wrote:

As Beruthial says, you must think before you can call yourself an atheist. The people you speak sound like they would struggle to define atheism - or agnosticism for that matter. But what this has to with anything I don't know.

Why must one think before one becomes an atheist? People here keep telling about the "horrors" of the Catholic church lulling people into religion....is it not conceivable that people be lulled into atheism in a similar fashion?

Beruthiel

Closing Doors wrote:

is it not conceivable that people be lulled into atheism in a similar fashion?

no it is not conceivable,
not for a person who seriously calls themselves one

Asiaprod

Closing Doors wrote:

Why must one think before one becomes an atheist? People here keep telling about the "horrors" of the Catholic church lulling people into religion....is it not conceivable that people be lulled into atheism in a similar fashion?

In one word......No
It takes tremendous courage to swim agains the current.

legspin

archdukefranz wrote:

try reading the information where MARK is the first gospel!!!!

Your information is obviously based on what you heard somewhere and half remembered

oh and have you decided to retract your points on Jesus rejecting the OT??

I said nothing about JC rejecting the old testament.

And it is historically correct that John was the first Gospel. Mark may be the first gospel in the bible, depending on the version (yet more selective editing) but it is certainly not the oldest. Most of the gospels were written at least 100 years after the death of JC. In most versions Matthew is the first and thats the youngest of them.

Zombrex

Closing Doors wrote:

is it not conceivable that people be lulled into atheism in a similar fashion?

Not really because Atheism doesn't offer anything. As I said before in this forum Atheism is a description not a religion.

You are an atheist if you don't believe in a god(s). Pure and simple. It isn't an instruction on how to live, it is a moral belief system. It doesn't promise anything, or attempt to reward you with anything. It is simply a description.

You talk about atheism as if it is a way for lazy Christians to get out of going to Church. I don't quite follow the logic behind that thinking. If you believe in God and Jesus etc but couldn't be arsed going to church on a Sunday you are not an Atheist. You are a lazy Christian.

The reason why people say you have to "think" to be an Atheist is because we live in a very religious orientated society, so by default most people are expect to be religious in some way. It also seems to be part of basic human nature to accept the concept of God. Therefore to reject the idea of God you kinda have to do this through though, reflection, education and logic. All of which involve thinking.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

Therefore to reject the idea of God you kinda have to do this through though, reflection, education and logic. All of which involve thinking.

Which isn't to say, either, that after thought, reflection, education and logic you won't remain religious. Just that a genuine conviction must be reached by a thought process.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Which isn't to say, either, that after thought, reflection, education and logic you won't remain religious. Just that a genuine conviction must be reached by a thought process.

True, I am sure there are lots of people who sat down and logically decided to become a Catholic, or for example convert from Christianity to say Islam.

Its just Closing Doors seems to be some how implying Atheism is some kind of lazy cop-out, ie I don't believe in God anymore cause I can't be arsed going to church on sundays.

Of course a person could become an atheism as simply as someone doing that, but then I was more a reflection on how weak their orignal faith was than anything to do with atheism.

robindch

Playboy -

> You know very well that serious christians who examine
> their faith rigoursly are far from uneducated or unwise.

I do know plenty of christians who spend -- literally -- a lifetime examining their belief system, and its underpinnings in the form of the bible, prayer, group activity and so on. However, I know no religious believers who approach these activities with anything like the degree of scepticism which such extravagant claims to absolute truth should merit. Or indeed, even be aware of the right mind-tools to be able to understand the massively successful cultural artefact which is christianity (and judaism, islam, etc, etc).

> Christianity is as I have come to discover of late is very
> intellectually robust.

I disagree completely -- having studied how it propagates from mind to mind and generally sustains itself as a cultural artefact, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that its complete intellectual incoherence is one of the many survival mechanisms which it's evolved to sustain itself from generation to generation. A belief system which is derived from a book and which demands answers only in terms of that book is a circular belief system. This is not 'robust' in the sense that you mean it, but tautologous.

In simpler lanaguge, the bible describes illnesses that do not exist, then provides imaginary cures to them. And, like homeopathy, who's to say that an imaginary disease can't be cured by an imaginary medicine?

> I might be playing devils advocate here but many of dawkins
> arguments with regard to religion are straw men.

Which arguments? I haven't seen the second program of the two yet, so I can't comment upon what's in it, but I found very little to disagree with in the first.

archdukefranz

legspin wrote:

I said nothing about JC rejecting the old testament.

And it is historically correct that John was the first Gospel. Mark may be the first gospel in the bible, depending on the version (yet more selective editing) but it is certainly not the oldest. Most of the gospels were written at least 100 years after the death of JC. In most versions Matthew is the first and thats the youngest of them.

my mistake, that was wickknight

sorry dude... john was the last to be written
mark was the shortest and the first to be written
and dude if you didn't even know the order in which the gospels are ordered the the bible what kind of authority are you on anything scripture (Mathew, Mark, Luke then John).

Whiskeyjack

Religion (at least monotheism anyway) is a reflection of what we all are as humans, it has a good noble side that encourages us to be good and "love thy neighbour" but like humans it also has a twisted malicious side, the side that is shown in the Crusades, in suicide bombers and in Jihads.Therefore I don't belive religion is wholly evil, but it certainly isn't all good.

Tar.Aldarion

Whiskeyjack wrote:

Religion (at least monotheism anyway) is a reflection of what we all are as humans, it has a good noble side that encourages us to be good and "love thy neighbour" but like humans it also has a twisted malicious side, the side that is shown in the Crusades, in suicide bombers and in Jihads.Therefore I don't belive religion is wholly evil, but it certainly isn't all good.

Because most people have enough religion to hate and not enough to love.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

I do know plenty of christians who spend -- literally -- a lifetime examining their belief system, and its underpinnings in the form of the bible, prayer, group activity and so on. However, I know no religious believers who approach these activities with anything like the degree of scepticism which such extravagant claims to absolute truth should merit. Or indeed, even be aware of the right mind-tools to be able to understand the massively successful cultural artefact which is christianity (and judaism, islam, etc, etc).

In my experience there are many christians who do apply a degree of scepticism to their beliefs. Liberation theology for example.

Liberation theologians believe that the orthodox doctrine of God tends to manipulate God in favor of the capitalistic social structure. They claim that orthodoxy has been dependent upon ancient Greek notions of God that perceived God as a static being who is distant and remote from human history. These distorted notions of God's transcendence and majesty have resulted in a theology which thinks of God as "up there" or "out there." Consequently the majority of Latin Americans have become passive in the face of injustice and superstitious in their religiosity. Liberation theology responds by stressing the incomprehensible mysteriousness of the reality of God. God cannot be summarized in objectifying language or known through a list of doctrines. God is found in the course of human history. God is not a perfect, immutable entity, "squatting outside the world." He stands before us on the frontier of the historical future (Assmann). God is the driving force of history causing the Christian to experience transcendence as a "permanent cultural revolution" (Gutierrez). Suffering and pain become the motivating force for knowing God. The God of the future is the crucified God who submerges himself in a world of misery. God is found on the crosses of the oppressed rather than in beauty, power, or wisdom.
The biblical notion of salvation is equated with the process of liberation from oppression and injustice. Sin is defined in terms of man's inhumanity to man. Liberation theology for all practical purposes equates loving your neighbor with loving God. The two are not only inseparable but virtually indistinguishable. God is found in our neighbor and salvation is identified with the history of "man becoming." The history of salvation becomes the salvation of history embracing the entire process of humanization. Biblical history is important insofar as it models and illustrates this quest for justice and human dignity. Israel's liberation from Egypt in the Exodus and Jesus' life and death stand out as the prototypes for the contemporary human struggle for liberation. These biblical events signify the spiritual significance of secular struggle for liberation.

The church and the world can no longer be segregated. The church must allow itself to be inhabited and evangelized by the world. "A theology of the Church in the world should be complemented by a theology of the world in the Church" (Gutierrez). Joining in solidarity with the oppressed against the oppressors is an act of "conversion," and "evangelization" is announcing God's participation in the human struggle for justice.

The importance of Jesus for liberation theology lies in his exemplary struggle for the poor and the outcast. His teaching and action on behalf of the kingdom of God demonstrate the love of God in a historical situation that bears striking similarity to the Latin American context. The meaning of the incarnation is reinterpreted. Jesus is not God in an ontological or metaphysical sense. Essentialism is replaced with the notion of Jesus' relational significance. Jesus shows us the way to God; he reveals the way one becomes the son of God. The meaning of Jesus' incarnation is found in his total immersion in a historical situation of conflict and oppression. His life absolutizes the values of the kingdom, unconditional love, universal forgiveness, and continual reference to the mystery of the Father. But it is impossible to do exactly what Jesus did simply because his specific teaching was oriented to a particular historical period. On one level Jesus irreversibly belongs to the past, but on another level Jesus is the zenith of the evolutionary process. In Jesus history reaches its goal. However, following Jesus is not a matter of retracing his path, trying to adhere to his moral and ethical conduct, as much as it is re-creating his path by becoming open to his "dangerous memory" which calls our path into question. The uniqueness of Jesus' cross lies not in the fact that God, at a particular point in space and time, experienced the suffering intrinsic to man's sinfulness in order to provide a way of redemption. Jesus' death is not a vicarious offering on behalf of mankind who deserve God's wrath. Jesus' death is unique because he historicizes in exemplary fashion the suffering experienced by God in all the crosses of the oppressed. Liberation theology holds that through Jesus' life people are brought to the liberating conviction that God does not remain outside of history indifferent to the present course of evil events but that he reveals himself through the authentic medium of the poor and oppressed.

Link

robindch wrote:

I disagree completely -- having studied how it propagates from mind to mind and generally sustains itself as a cultural artefact, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that its complete intellectual incoherence is one of the many survival mechanisms which it's evolved to sustain itself from generation to generation. A belief system which is derived from a book and which demands answers only in terms of that book is a circular belief system. This is not 'robust' in the sense that you mean it, but tautologous.

In simpler lanaguge, the bible describes illnesses that do not exist, then provides imaginary cures to them. And, like homeopathy, who's to say that an imaginary disease can't be cured by an imaginary medicine?

Is it intellectual incoherence or the development of a social institution over an enormous period of time? I'm not going to argue the merits of christianity or religion in general because to be honest I don't know enough and am only in the process of learning. But what I will say is that I have been surprised about some of the misconceptions I had in regards to quite a lot of aspects of christian theology. The whole notion of faith for instance is much more complex than i had originally thought and really is quite far removed from the common understanding of it by non-believers and christians alike.

robindch wrote:

Which arguments? I haven't seen the second program of the two yet, so I can't comment upon what's in it, but I found very little to disagree with in the first.

I havent seen the programs myself and I only know Dawkins from his writings but Dawkins completely misinterprets the idea of faith. Strange because you would think that if you were going to publicly attack something then you prepare yourself adequately. As far As I can see Dawkins applies a double standard to a lot of his arguments in regards to religion. Even the title of the show "The Root of all Evil" is ridiculous. Religion has been the subject of persecution by the secular state as with the Nazi's and Stalin resulting in some of the worst atrocities ever commited. Should we then consider that the secular state is the root of all evil? Human nature is the root of all evil and nothing else and it is ridicluous to argue otherwise.

Yossie

Beruthiel and Robindch have my vote for talking the most sense.

Beruthiel wrote:

I put it to you that most people just fall into whatever religion their parents told them to, there was no thought process in it, you just take it on board as the truth because everyone (parents/teachers/priests) told you it was.

I think that’s right. The single biggest influence, by far, on someone religion is what they were raised with. The act of blind faith/indoctrination comes first. The “intellectual” justification are only bolted on after, by theologians, to act as fig-leaves to disguise the incoherence and irrationality of their beliefs. Atheism wins the rational argument quite easily and some atheists are happy with that, regarding it only as an intellectual pursuit.

For me atheism has to say more than just “not believing in god”, otherwise it is only a label forced on us by the sheer prevalence of theists. If billons believed that coffee beans had souls and I didn’t, would I also need the label “acoffeebeanist”. I would hope that most considered atheist regard god, the supernatural, psychics, coffee-bean souls, etc as nonsense, even without labels to describe their lack of belief.

Unfortunately, as Robindch so eloquently talks about - religion is a cultural phenomenon. And really that is where the battle is to be had - highlighting the costs and dangers associated with such irrational beliefs, even if dressed in the sentimentality of love and caring. Theist hegemony will always remain unchallenged while it is allowed to dominate these public spaces.

Hence, I’m all for proselytising (Sorry The Atheist;) ). And hence, I was delighted with the Dawkins programme – a primetime unabashed attack on the most common and one of the most dangerous irrational beliefs; namely god, beamed into the sitting rooms of "normal peolpe". I’ve never see the likes of it before on telly. Whether it convinces any theist is not the point, it flies a flag for atheism/reason in a place that hasn’t known one before. More of it please!
(PS I’m not as militant as my rhetoric sounds:) )

Closing Doors

Asiaprod wrote:

In one word......No
It takes tremendous courage to swim agains the current.

In two words...me arse!
I can't see that it takes any courage whatsoever, it's not like people go around demanding to know if you're religious 24/7.

Wicknight wrote:

Its just Closing Doors seems to be some how implying Atheism is some kind of lazy cop-out, ie I don't believe in God anymore cause I can't be arsed going to church on sundays.

That's not what I'm implying at all. It can be a cop out, but that doesn't mean all atheists fall into that category. Say some teenager would rather stay at home playing his PS2 etc on a given Sunday. Over time this develops into a habit. He becomes detatched from the church (and religion) simply because he'd rather be doing something else. He may well hold on to some vague idea of a God, but from my experience, mostly he just won't have faith/interest in any religion after a while. If you asked him, he'd say that he didn't believe in God. Fits any description of atheism I've seen (pulled a random one from dictionary.com as an example):

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Playboy

Yossie wrote:

Atheism wins the rational argument quite easily and some atheists are happy with that, regarding it only as an intellectual pursuit.

That is simply not true. Reason and logic takes us to a dead end where the philosophical notion of God is concerned. Where people run in to probems with the idea of God is when they try and define who and what it is. So yes atheism is the more rational view point when arguing aginast religion but in my opinion the only rational stance to take in regards to the idea of "God" (not a religious god) is agnosticism.

Zombrex

Closing Doors wrote:

He becomes detatched from the church (and religion) simply because he'd rather be doing something else.

As I said, that shows more of a lack of initial faith to begin with, than any conscious move towards being an atheist.

The mistake I think you are making is assuming he (who ever he is) actually believed in God in the first place. From your example it seems more likely that he was only going to Chruch because his parents/teachers etc were making him, and eventualy said "nuts to this, I don't want to go" so he stopped going.

But even if that was the case it doesn't really matter. He either ends up an atheist or he doesn't. As I said Atheism is a description of someone. The reason they rejected the concept of a god is largely irrelivent.

Closing Doors wrote:

He may well hold on to some vague idea of a God, but from my experience, mostly he just won't have faith/interest in any religion after a while.

Well if he holds on to some vague belief in God he isn't an atheist.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

That is simply not true. Reason and logic takes us to a dead end where the philosophical notion of God is concerned.

Only if you ignore human psychology and why we would make up the concept of a god.

If you look at it from that aspect, and then look at the fact there is no evidence at all for the existance of a god, it becomes, from a logical point of view at least, perfectly logical to assume God is simply a product of the human imagination.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Only if you ignore human psychology and why we would make up the concept of a god.

If you look at it from that aspect, and then look at the fact there is no evidence at all for the existance of a god, it becomes, from a logical point of view at least, perfectly logical to assume God is simply a product of the human imagination.

What part of human psychology is that. I study psychology so I would be interested in knowing.

There is also no evidence that a God does not exist. It could be argued that the universe itself is evidence enough for the existence of a "God".

Yossie

Playboy wrote:

That is simply not true. Reason and logic takes us to a dead end where the philosophical notion of God is concerned. Where people run in to probems with the idea of God is when they try and define who and what it is. So yes atheism is the more rational view point when arguing aginast religion but in my opinion the only rational stance to take in regards to the idea of "God" (not a religious god) is agnosticism.

That wasn't really the thrust of my post....

but how agnostic are you above coffee-beans having souls?:D

Playboy

Yossie wrote:

That wasn't really the thrust of my post....

but how agnostic are you above coffee-beans having souls?:D

As i said earlier you run into problems when you start applying defintions. The existence of a God does not go hand in hand with the existence of a soul.

Yossie

Playboy wrote:

There is also no evidence that a God does not exist.

How about the evidence that we couldn't find him! And we have looked quite widely.

Playboy

Yossie wrote:

How about the evidence that we couldn't find him! And we have looked quite widely.

Maybe it is beyond our capacity to know. That does not mean it doesnt exist.

Yossie

Playboy wrote:

As i said earlier you run into problems when you start applying defintions. The existence of a God does not go hand in hand with the existence of a soul.

Do you believe 1. coffee beans have souls
2. coffee beans do not have souls
3. don't know