Some thoughts / questions from an Atheist

RossFixxxed

Hi everyone.

First off, as the title says I'm an atheist, but I'm (hopefully) not one of THOSE guys that need to throw the patronising card about. So if anything is offensive or annoying it's due to bad writing/stupidity not out of any desire to annoy.

I got thinking about science last night (I'm so cool) and how it is there to put a model on things. It tries to put things in a way understandable to our brains, thus allowing us to predict future outcomes etc... Then I thought... Isn't that what religion is doing too?

What I was thinking was: didn't Jesus just put a human model on something insanely complex. Humans naturally personify things, God as a beardy old guy with sandles and a big robe etc. So perhaps Jesus was a scientist of a sort, putting a model on the infinite for us to understand.

Now: doesn't that mean that what he presented wasn't ENTIRELY the whole deal, it was as much as language could describe to people? Aren't the other prophets etc doing the same thing? What killed religion for me was comparative religion... Wait, others belive this, it's only 2000 years old etc... Where did Zeus etc go in the meantime? (Keep in mind I was six). So perhaps this is an explanation?


Next question: I'm sure this has been answered before so apologies if repeating. Jesus said he was the SON of God and we are all CHILDREN of God... Was he LITERALLY the son? Was he, perhaps, enlightened more and realised he was a son in the same way as you guys are all sons and daughters? He saw the work he had to do and spent his time creating a model to understand the spiritual, and writing stories to explain God, the universe. Many of these stories are not literal of course, He Himself said that they were parables. They are like the atom diagrams from science class, a little ball and a smaller one whizzing about it! Not literal or accurate, but humanly understandable and can be used to work out further things etc.

Thanks for reading the ramble! I look forward to your thoughts. I'm absolutly no theologean so I'm interested to read things here, not to argue them. The very worst thing ANYONE can do (IMO) in terms of religion is try to convert you. Actually maybe the 'why don't you go back to your colouring book and hug the spaghetti monster stuff' might be. That patronising, self righteous tone drives me up the bloody wall. What does that achieve? It's another little clique @£;"!ing all over other people and then giving out to them for doing the same thing!

Cheers,
R

Joe1919

RossFixxxed wrote: »

Next question: I'm sure this has been answered before so apologies if repeating. Jesus said he was the SON of God and we are all CHILDREN of God... Was he LITERALLY the son? Was he, perhaps, enlightened more and realised he was a son in the same way as you guys are all sons and daughters? He saw the work he had to do and spent his time creating a model to understand the spiritual, and writing stories to explain God, the universe. Many of these stories are not literal of course, He Himself said that they were parables.
R

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, we are quite limited in what can be said about God. e.g.

'Therefore as to the names applied to God--viz. the perfections which they signify, such as goodness, life and the like, and their mode of signification. .....'(Article3)

'God, however, as considered in Himself, is altogether one and simple, yet our intellect knows Him by different conceptions because it cannot see Him as He is in Himself. Nevertheless, although it understands Him under different conceptions, it knows that one and the same simple object corresponds to its conceptions.'
(Article12)

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm

Fanny Cradock

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I got thinking about science last night (I'm so cool) and how it is there to put a model on things. It tries to put things in a way understandable to our brains, thus allowing us to predict future outcomes etc... Then I thought... Isn't that what religion is doing too?

There are better definitions of science. It might be better to stick to an accepted definition in order to avoid confusion. I would suggest that science is concerned with observations and experimentation made in the broad field of natural and physical sciences. Jesus didn't seem to be overly concerned with such things.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

What I was thinking was: didn't Jesus just put a human model on something insanely complex. Humans naturally personify things, God as a beardy old guy with sandles and a big robe etc. So perhaps Jesus was a scientist of a sort, putting a model on the infinite for us to understand.

I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of your words. Not everything done is science, nor can everything be understood and explained in terms of science.

This anthropomorphizing of God (old geezer in the saddles) is a ideal no serious minded Christian I have ever met would subscribe to. Most serious though about God attempts to avoid such avenues.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

Now: doesn't that mean that what he presented wasn't ENTIRELY the whole deal, it was as much as language could describe to people? Aren't the other prophets etc doing the same thing? What killed religion for me was comparative religion... Wait, others belive this, it's only 2000 years old etc... Where did Zeus etc go in the meantime? (Keep in mind I was six). So perhaps this is an explanation?

Well, given that our minds are quite incapable of understanding concepts like infinity, omnipresence, before time, I would agree that Jesus didn't present the whole deal. Furthermore, given the limitations of language regarding such concepts I wonder how he could have totally addressed them. But then again it has never been a claim of Christianity that we were getting the whole deal. Rather, I believe that we have been given sufficient understanding and sufficient grounds for belief.

With regards to our limitations, our knowledge will always be measured on an asymptotic curve against Gods. In short, unless we become God (and you'll have to go to another religion to find such a promise) there will always be some sort of gap in our understanding of everything.

As for other religions, if we dropped everything on the basis that there are opposing perspectives or other options then I guess things become impossible. Simply because there are different claims to truth doesn't mean there is no truth. The truth claims of Christianity either stand or fall on their own. It seems reasonable that they should judged on such grounds, not in relation to what one believes about Zeus - even though Christianity would agree with you when it comes to Zeus.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

Next question: I'm sure this has been answered before so apologies if repeating. Jesus said he was the SON of God and we are all CHILDREN of God... Was he LITERALLY the son? Was he, perhaps, enlightened more and realised he was a son in the same way as you guys are all sons and daughters? He saw the work he had to do and spent his time creating a model to understand the spiritual, and writing stories to explain God, the universe. Many of these stories are not literal of course, He Himself said that they were parables. They are like the atom diagrams from science class, a little ball and a smaller one whizzing about it! Not literal or accurate, but humanly understandable and can be used to work out further things etc.

Refreshing your mind about the Trinity would be beneficial.

I don't believe that Jesus was here to create a "new model" (again, I don't fully know what this means in the context of someone who believes that Jesus was God) or simply to tell some stories that illustrated how nice it is to be nice.

If you are asking a Christian about the goal of Jesus' time here I'm hoping that the answer you will receive will be something along the following lines. Jesus came to die for a world given over to sin. This sin is what separates us from God, a perfectly holy being. Through Jesus' death - in the mysterious workings of the cross that I don't pretend to understand - there was forgiveness for each one of us should we choose it. Jesus' resurrection then signalled that death had been overthrown and some day the cosmos and everything in it would be made anew - free of things like sin and death. No doubt there will be objections from some, but I allowing for my poor interpretation of the Christian message, I don't believe there was any other revealed to us behind Jesus' mission.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

The very worst thing ANYONE can do (IMO) in terms of religion is try to convert you.

Sorry to be so blunt, Ross, but I find this preposterous. Why should someone not share their beliefs, especially if they sincerely think the other person will benefit from them? Maybe you have the image of a "conversion" involving a great deal of aggressive tactics or shouting from a street corner. Thankfully this is not always the case, and more often than not I would think that any conversion begins with private discussions between individuals.

Fanny Cradock

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I got thinking about science last night (I'm so cool) and how it is there to put a model on things. It tries to put things in a way understandable to our brains, thus allowing us to predict future outcomes etc... Then I thought... Isn't that what religion is doing too?

There are better definitions of science. It might be better to stick to an accepted definition in order to avoid confusion. I would suggest that science is concerned with observations and experimentation made in the broad field of natural and physical sciences. Jesus didn't seem to be overly concerned with such things.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

What I was thinking was: didn't Jesus just put a human model on something insanely complex. Humans naturally personify things, God as a beardy old guy with sandles and a big robe etc. So perhaps Jesus was a scientist of a sort, putting a model on the infinite for us to understand.

I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of your words. Not everything done is science, nor can everything be understood and explained in terms of science.

This anthropomorphizing of God (old geezer in the saddles) is a ideal no serious minded Christian I have ever met would subscribe to. Most serious though about God attempts to avoid such avenues.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

Now: doesn't that mean that what he presented wasn't ENTIRELY the whole deal, it was as much as language could describe to people? Aren't the other prophets etc doing the same thing? What killed religion for me was comparative religion... Wait, others belive this, it's only 2000 years old etc... Where did Zeus etc go in the meantime? (Keep in mind I was six). So perhaps this is an explanation?

Well, given that our minds are quite incapable of understanding concepts like infinity, omnipresence, before time, I would agree that Jesus didn't present the whole deal. Furthermore, given the limitations of language regarding such concepts I wonder how he could have totally addressed them. But then again it has never been a claim of Christianity that we were getting the whole deal. Rather, I believe that we have been given sufficient understanding and sufficient grounds for belief.

With regards to our limitations, our knowledge will always be measured on an asymptotic curve against Gods. In short, unless we become God (and you'll have to go to another religion to find such a promise) there will always be some sort of gap in our understanding of everything.

As for other religions, if we dropped everything on the basis that there are opposing perspectives or other options then I guess things become impossible. Simply because there are different claims to truth doesn't mean there is no truth. The truth claims of Christianity either stand or fall on their own. It seems reasonable that they should judged on such grounds, not in relation to what one believes about Zeus - even though Christianity would agree with you when it comes to Zeus.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

Next question: I'm sure this has been answered before so apologies if repeating. Jesus said he was the SON of God and we are all CHILDREN of God... Was he LITERALLY the son? Was he, perhaps, enlightened more and realised he was a son in the same way as you guys are all sons and daughters? He saw the work he had to do and spent his time creating a model to understand the spiritual, and writing stories to explain God, the universe. Many of these stories are not literal of course, He Himself said that they were parables. They are like the atom diagrams from science class, a little ball and a smaller one whizzing about it! Not literal or accurate, but humanly understandable and can be used to work out further things etc.

Refreshing your mind about the Trinity would be beneficial.

I don't believe that Jesus was here to create a "new model" (again, I don't fully know what this means in the context of someone who believes that Jesus was God) or simply to tell some stories that illustrated how nice it is to be nice.

If you are asking a Christian about the goal of Jesus' time here I'm hoping that the answer you will receive will be something along the following lines. Jesus came to die for a world given over to sin. This sin is what separates us from God, a perfectly holy being. Through Jesus' death - in the mysterious workings of the cross that I don't pretend to understand - there was forgiveness for each one of us should we choose it. Jesus' resurrection then signalled that death had been overthrown and some day the cosmos and everything in it would be made anew - free of things like sin and death. No doubt there will be objections from some, but I allowing for my poor interpretation of the Christian message, I don't believe there was any other reason revealed to us behind Jesus' mission.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

The very worst thing ANYONE can do (IMO) in terms of religion is try to convert you.

Sorry to be so blunt, Ross, but I find this preposterous. Why should someone not share their beliefs, especially if they sincerely think the other person will benefit from them? Maybe you have the image of a "conversion" involving a great deal of aggressive tactics or shouting from a street corner. Thankfully this is not always the case, and more often than not I would think that any conversion begins with private discussions between individuals.

RossFixxxed

Sorry to be so blunt, Ross, but I find this preposterous. Why should someone not share their beliefs, especially if they sincerely think the other person will benefit from them? Maybe you have the image of a "conversion" involving a great deal of aggressive tactics or shouting from a street corner. Thankfully this is not always the case, and more often than not I would think that any conversion begins with private discussions between individuals.

Firstly thanks very much for such a long and detailed reply!

Secondly let me say sorry for the disjointed nature of this, and the language issues, I'm in the office and have to ALT TAB away anytime the boss walks past!

Chatting about your belief, inviting someone, sharing it with me etc is great. As we are doing now. What I mean is trying actively to change my mind that I'm wrong etc is not on at all and will be met with a 'goodbye' from me!

If I came on saying you are wrong there is no God, and kept trying to convinice you I don't imagine you'd take to it kindly either! But if I said: here's why I don't believe, then we can chat, debate etc! I think we're on the same page on this, but the terminology I used was wrong. I guess we're talking underhand or aggressive conversion being bad. If you shared and it struck a chord then maybe that would convert me.

As for my definition of science, I'm keeping it brief for this post, what I was getting at is that religions seem to be a framework around spirituality, like science is a framework around the universe if you get me. I've read the link you sent and that is only part of it. Yes it is experimentatin, observation, hypothetesis etc, but ultimately it comes to building a model of behaviour for the universe, and prdicting future outcomes (if i drop this it wall fall on the ground). It does create concepts to explain things; look at light, it behaves like a wave and a particle!! We just say that as we can then use the model for particle and wave to predict and then observe things that light will do! At the end of the day it's just 'light' and incredibly complicated, these models make it a human-friendly concept. Otherwise we can't possibly understand it all with our minds, so in a way Jesus put the concept of the divine/God etc. in human terms in everyday language. Just an idea that popped into my mind. That that might have been part of his reasons for being here! It's a musing on the theme.

As you say, nobody will actually thing God is a guy in a robe, but we naturally personify things so we can easier understand / relate to them! Seeing him as The Father is such a way to understand, and we are his children. That's a very basic model to introduce the concept and it makes a kind of sense. It doesn't mean you take it as completely literal!

As for me, I simply don't believe, and my brain totally rejects it. I'm not going to pretend to do so out of fear or any other reason. I'm sure most people would agree on that front, that's just hypocracy!

Science does endevor to explain everything, but it's a bit complicated (like talking to a woman (hehehe)) so it takes time, and errors and totaly cock ups along the way. Sometimes the mistakes acutally have good results! However again there is a barrier as to what your brain can actually coceptualise: can you picture a 5 dimensional object? Could someone who lived in a 2D world on a sheet of paper comprehend the concept of a 3rd dimension involving 'depth' what's that. Maths can further be used to express things, but eventaully the human mind has a limit (that can be pushed by some).