Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism

Michael Nugent

Quadratic Equation wrote:

Mickey, do you have your red jumper on ? You need a new jumper.

My brother knows Karl Marx. He met him eating mushrooms in the Peoples Park.

Antiskeptic wrote:

I can see from this piece why some don't want their atheism to come under your umbrella Michael.

Homer911 wrote:

If this is the best that the head of Atheism in Irelance can present as reasoned argument, then Christianity has little to worry about.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

The Quadratic Equation

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You are using lack of 'definite proof' of Socrates’ existence to argue that Jesus could well have existed, as it cant be proved either did/didn’t.

I think therefore I know I am.
Philosophically, I don't have any proof anything exists other than me, you and the rest of this universe could well be a figment of my imagination.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

There could well have been a Jewish man who thought he was the son of a god, who had some nice ideas, (few of them original), and got crucified for his troubles. Assuming Jesus did exist which is more likely, he was the son of a god, or he was pathologically deluded? And why is it more reasonable to accept than Perseus was the son of god too? Why does the ‘fact’ if happened 2000 years ago make it any more plausible? I presume you reject Perseus as being the son of a god, why?

Well to give a very short answer, the overiding opinion of professional historians is Jesus did exist and Persus is a myth.

I'm then left with the option that Jesus was
(a) Mad, Bad, or telling the truth
(b) The apostles and early Christians were lying and falsifed the Gospels and rest of the NT in a massive conspicacy theory.

(a) Is out for me, because I don't believe he was evil, or mad. Mad people claiming to be God, or thinking they are a God, pop up every day of the week all over the world, and none of them have come even remotely close to a theology as perfect as that presented by Jesus Christ.
(b) Lying is done for benefit. Why would so many people give up their homes, famailies with nothing to gain only certain poverty, persecution and death ? Why would their message endure timelessly untill today ?

Btw I'm giving you the reason why I believe what I do, what you choose to believe is your own business.

The moment I'm given credible and solid proof that my belief is incorrect, I'll be the first to change it, but of all the thousands of counter theories regarding Christianity, personaly I've seen nothing credible or solid.

Michael Nugent

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

There's one fatal flaw running throughout your theory.
Your theory rests on the erroneous premise that because recorded eye witness and oral accounts can naturally vary regarding the details (just as could be expected today), the major events described could not have happened. In fact I'd be much more suspicious of eye witness and oral accounts that tallied exactly.

I made four main points in the article, only one of which refers to the contradictions in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The four main points that I made were:

1. Even if you believe that there is a god, why, other than by accident of birth, should you choose this particular version of god out of the many that have been invented?

2. If you read the books of the New Testament in the sequence in which they were written, instead of the sequence in which they appear in the Bible, you will see how a human Jewish preacher gradually evolved into part of a newly invented Christian god.

3. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the central tenet of Christianity, but the evidence for this extraordinary claim is nonexistent outside the Bible, and contradictory within it.

4. Such fantastic and wildly inconsistent stories may have seemed convincing in more primitive times, but today we can best understand reality by using science and we can best live together by using empathy. None of this requires a god.

Out of these four points, you have mistakenly assumed that my argument rests on an erroneous premise relating to the third of these points, and a premise that I did not even introduce never mind rely on. You have simply ignored the other three points.

With regards to the premise that you have introduced, you have conflated “recorded eyewitness and oral accounts” into one concept, whereas the biblical accounts of Jesus include no recorded eyewitness accounts of anything that he did or said. They include only oral traditions written down after he had died, and none of them were written by anybody who had met or known Jesus during his lifetime.

Also, the fact that accounts of an incident can very regarding the details is not the only reason to reject the idea that the incident happened. You also have to take into account the plausibility of the incident actually happening, regardless of whether or not anybody witnessed it. Today, we have many eyewitness accounts of UFOs, some of which involve aliens abducting humans. Most of us give little credibility to these stories, regardless of whether the eyewitness accounts vary or concur.

As an aside, the contradictory nature of the stories of the biblical Jesus at least rule out the argument that the Bible is the direct word of the Christian god, as he (if he existed) would presumably have known the accurate sequence of events that occurred.

If you’d like to share a rebuttal of the main points that I made in the article, I will be happy to respond.

Michael Nugent

The Quadratic Equation wrote:

Grand, at least you undersand its about your personal belief.
Equally, there is also no solid reason to believe it did not happen.

This is a common tactic of theists in debate, and it is one of the reasons that many atheists can be reluctant to describe their philosophical position as a belief. I don’t fall into that category. I’m quite happy to describe my philosophical position about gods as a belief that gods do not exist.

But this does not mean that all beliefs are equally likely or unlikely to be true. Some beliefs are more reliable than others, and the best test of this is whether or not the belief is consistent with applying reason to the best currently available evidence.

The belief that there are no gods, and specifically the belief that Jesus Christ was not a God, are more reliable beliefs than the opposite ones, because they are more consistent with applying reason to the best currently available evidence.

The Quadratic Equation wrote:

What evidence, and contemporary sources have you to believe the accounts of Socrates life and his Philosophy in the 5th Century BC ? What makes them more credible ?

Actually, Socrates is a good example to use here. He almost certainly existed as a person, to the extent that we could describe his existence as a fact. However, he wrote nothing himself, and all that we know of his philosophy is based on the writings of others.

The most well-known source is Plato, who wrote fictional dialogues in which Socrates was a character. Most scholars believe that Plato’s Socrates conveys both ideas that Socrates promoted, and ideas that Plato came up with and put into the mouth of his fictional Socrates.

As recedite said, this is unimportant because nobody is worshiping Socrates or making outlandish claims about Socrates such as that he and/or his father created the universe. If a large number of people did actually make that claim, and tried to shape the laws of society on supposed revelations from Socrates and/or his father, you would find a lot more critical investigation into the reliability of records of his life.

Knasher

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I'm talking about the contemporary eyewitness and oral testimonies recorded for propesperity from 51 AD etc.
Your hardly claiming because something was not written down at a time it did not occur ?

No I'm just highlighting how far away from meeting the burden of proof you claims are. But let me ask you, do you truly believe that eyewitness and oral testimonies are sufficient evidence for anything, even if they were recorded around the time they supposedly occurred?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Socrates and his works are much more important than that. He was one of the founders of Western Philosophy, and made a considerable impact on the field of ethics. His ideas helped form the foundations of Western Philosphy and ethics and has had a profound influence on the world to date, but whether you choose to accept his philiosophy and ethics or not is irelevant here, as a historical figure, I'm asking, what evidence, and contemporary sources and proof have you to believe the accounts of Socrate's life and his Philosophy in the 5th Century BC ?

I've already admitted that Socrates might be fictional and then went on to explain why it doesn't matter. I really don't see how I can make it any clearer.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

How do you know Hannibal of Carthage existed in the 3rd Century BC, how do you know his related historical actions and events occured ? What evidence, contemporary sources, and proof have you ?

Are you just going to keep picking people from history or are you going to make your point. No there aren't any contemporary accounts and if I were to gamble on it I'd guess that quite a lot of it is entirely fictional with a grain of truth to it. I really fail to see how this demonstrates that your belief in a god is in any way reasonable.

Michael Nugent

antiskeptic wrote:

There's the supposed dilemma (from the Euthyphro Dilemma) awaiting Michaels response.

I’ll come back to that later.

antiskeptic wrote:

Michael seems to share Richard Dawkins penchant for back-of-a-cornflake-packet theological understanding when it comes to Christianity. There isn't even the beginnings of depth to begin dialogue with. Take this..

The points that I made in the article are part of the general theological discourse in both universities and seminaries. You have simply ignored the main points in the article, and responded to one example of one of the points. I’ll respond to that in a moment, but first here are the four main points that I have already summarised for Quadratic Equation:

1. Even if you believe that there is a god, why, other than by accident of birth, should you choose this particular version of god out of the many that have been invented?

2. If you read the books of the New Testament in the sequence in which they were written, instead of the sequence in which they appear in the Bible, you will see how a human Jewish preacher gradually evolved into part of a newly invented Christian god.

3. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the central tenet of Christianity, but the evidence for this extraordinary claim is nonexistent outside the Bible, and contradictory within it.

4. Such fantastic and wildly inconsistent stories may have seemed convincing in more primitive times, but today we can best understand reality by using science and we can best live together by using empathy. None of this requires a god.

As with Quadratic Equation, if you’d like to share a rebuttal of these main points, I will be happy to respond.

Now with regard to the specific sub-point that you have chosen to respond to:

antiskeptic wrote:

I don't know where the idea of Jesus as exclusively peaceful came from. It's one thing to instruct sinners in how they should behave with one another. Quite another in how you yourself intend to deal finally with sin. Hellfire and Damnation might have gone out of vogue. But it's not gone out of the bible. Every knee will bow. Whether it want's to or not.

The idea of Jesus being exclusively peaceful is quite common in the promotion of Christianity. It is typically used to explain away the violent warmongering god of the Old Testament, by claiming that Jesus brought about a new covenant. I agree with you that it is not an accurate reflection of the Bible. In fact, that was the point that I was making: that many if not most Christians mistakenly believe otherwise.

antiskeptic wrote:

As for just? Michael begs the question here. What is it and who defines it?

And besides, for an example of Jesus' unjustness, we have to wait til the tail end of the Bible where Jesus “threatens to kill the children of Jezebel for the sins of their mother”.

..does Michael know the genre of writing from whence the book of Revelation?

Well, if you think killing the children of Jezebel for the sins of their mother is just, I suspect we will never agree on a shared definition of justice. And whether or not it is at the tail end of the Bible surely has no relevance to its morality, although in terms of the chronological sequence in which the books were actually written, it is probable that it was written before the Gospels, at a time when Christians believed that the apocalypse was happening within the lifetime of those who had been alive at the time that Jesus lived.

The Book of Revelation is based on a supposed vision to the the author John on the island of Patmos. This John had never met Jesus but he nevertheless believed (or claimed to believe) that Jesus had appeared to him and told him several things. The Jesus of Revelation was either as real, or else as imaginary, as the Jesus that appeared in a vision to Paul on the road to Damascus. There is no valid reason to give either of these hallucinations any more or less credibility than the other.

Also, the threat by Jesus to kill the children of Jezebel does not come from the later part of John’s vision in which he is shown the end of the world. It comes from the earlier part of the vision, in which Jesus is dictating letters to seven actual churches in Turkey. Jesus tells one church that a woman called Jezebel has seduced his servants to fornicate, so he is going to kill her children with death. This is a specific real-life threat, and not part of the apocalyptic vision later in the book.

As an aside, threatening to kill someone with death is one of my favorite threats in the Bible. It's up there with smiting your knees with an unhealable sore botch.

Michael Nugent

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's the supposed dilemma (from the Euthyphro Dilemma) awaiting Michaels response.

First let’s remember what the dilemma is: it is about defining the fundamental characteristic of moral goodness. The argument that something is good because it pleases a god creates the following dilemma:

Option one: Does the god have a reason for being pleased by goodness? If so, that reason is closer to the fundamental characteristic of goodness, and the god is merely observing that something is good rather than causing it to be good.

Option two: Does the god have no reason for being pleased by goodness? If so, then goodness is arbitrary from the perspective of the supposed god, and the answer tells us nothing about the fundamental characteristic of goodness.

You first argued that good is a label for “that which aligns with god’s will”, that his will stems from his character, and that his character is immutable.

I replied that all that this does is push the dilemma onto his immutable characteristics rather than onto his will, and I asked if there is any reason, or no reason, that your god happens to have the immutable characteristics that your god happens to have?

You replied that there is no reason required for God’s characteristics to be as they happen to be, that he might have had characteristics causing him to love selfishness but as it happens he doesn’t, and that he wants us to align ourselves with his will because it is the only way that he is able to share our company.

Well, if we apply that to the Euthyphro dilemma, then goodness is arbitrary, as it is based merely on the characteristics that your god happens to have, and these are characteristics for which there is no reason required and over which he has no control. Also, the only reason to do good is to facilitate the desire of this god to be able to share our company.

Fortunately for those of us with a different sense of morality, based on concepts like empathy and compassion and reciprocation, there is no evidence that such a god exists.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Fortunately for those of us with a different sense of morality, based on concepts like empathy and compassion and reciprocation, there is no evidence that such a god exists.

Without wishing to prejudice this discussion, antiskeptic pointed out recently that he's happy to murder children, so long as he can convince himself that the instructions to do so originated with his the deity that he's chosen to believe exists.

In this case, antiskeptic's position on Euthyphro is (obviously enough) that the deity defines what's right. And since the human can pick any one of the innumerable deities and possible deistic messages to believe, this equates to a position of total moral relativism, rather than moral absolutism, as suggested by the other horn of the dilemma.

Dades

Non-believers: "We see no solid evidence to lead us to believe the monumental claim that Jesus was the 'son' of the creator of the Universe".

The Quadratic Equation: "The moment I'm given credible and solid proof that my belief is incorrect, I'll be the first to change it, but of all the thousands of counter theories regarding Christianity, personaly I've seen nothing credible or solid."


Conclusion: Some people look for a reason to believe, others, for a reason to not believe.

antiskeptic

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The points that I made in the article are part of the general theological discourse in both universities and seminaries. You have simply ignored the main points in the article, and responded to one example of one of the points.

If it's included in your article then it need stand. Little or big.

I’ll respond to that in a moment, but first here are the four main points that I have already summarised for Quadratic Equation:

1. Even if you believe that there is a god, why, other than by accident of birth, should you choose this particular version of god out of the many that have been invented?

Pretty Standard Christian Theology would hold that I didn't choose God at all. Instead God choose me and revealed himself to me and as a result of him revealing himself to me, I believe he exists. That's the sequence.

PSCT would also say that heaven will be occupied by peoples of all tribes and nations, whether those tribes/nations are predominantly Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindi ...or Secular. That you happen to be speaking to one who happens to live in a predominantly (and nominally imo) Christian land is an accident of geography. Christendom (which isn't Christianity says PSCT) happened to take hold in Ireland and not Saudi Arabia. I can't help that.


There is an overarching problem which this objection can't really surmount. PSCT would hold that not all who say "Lord Lord" are Christians. It could be that there are less Christians in Ireland than there is in say, Saudi Arabia - whatever about the headline numbers in each land. This isn't convenient (to either of us) but that's the position.

2. If you read the books of the New Testament in the sequence in which they were written, instead of the sequence in which they appear in the Bible, you will see how a human Jewish preacher gradually evolved into part of a newly invented Christian god.

What are folk supposing to be the earliest written book? As an aside, I'd imagine the sequence of authorship is subject to some conjecture.

I see it reckoned that Romans was the earliest book written and that something is made of what it doesn't mention. The book of Romans has particular functions and one of the central functions is to lay out gospel mechanics to those Christians in Rome: it is explaining to them the mechanics of what it is that has happened to them in their being saved. And it is telling them how it is they should life in the light of who it is they now are. Doctrine/application of doctrine - that's the format.

That it doesn't contain lots of other things isn't an issue. It's function is to deal with what it deals with and no more.

3. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the central tenet of Christianity, but the evidence for this extraordinary claim is nonexistent outside the Bible, and contradictory within it.

I've no issue with the first issue. There are a whole lot of things about which we have no record. You've heard the term "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" I'm sure.

I've come across a lot of attacks on the bible (God condones rape, the bible is full of contradictions) in my time and the vast majority can be dealt with reasonably simplistically. For the rest, a bit of digging (and a bit of contextualising) very often present with plausible resolutions - if not proof). We'll come to an example with your "Jesus-the arms dealer" claim presently

4. Such fantastic and wildly inconsistent stories may have seemed convincing in more primitive times, but today we can best understand reality by using science and we can best live together by using empathy. None of this requires a god.

The existence of the world with or without God is fantastic. If God, then the stories aren't at all fantastic since they are nothing more than God going about his business.

As I say, I've found the "wildly inconsistent" claim being more one of hyperbole than substance once the probing commences.

The idea of Jesus being exclusively peaceful is quite common in the promotion of Christianity. It is typically used to explain away the violent warmongering god of the Old Testament, by claiming that Jesus brought about a new covenant. I agree with you that it is not an accurate reflection of the Bible. In fact, that was the point that I was making: that many if not most Christians mistakenly believe otherwise.

Again we'll stumble against who exactly is a Christian. In your view it'll be whoever professes to be one (80-90% of the Irish population at present perhaps). In my view it's be whoever is born again (that being a technical term from something applied to the person by God rather than being a term someone applies to themselves)

I don't think a Christian who had even a passing knowledge of theology would fail to understand what it is the New Covenant is heralding. It isn't saying that God is any less wrathful against sin. It is saying that the means whereby a man is set right with God (one consequence of which is to avoid God's wrath) is by God's grace rather than by mans attempt to behave himself.

Jesus came in peace waving a white flag. Not in the sense the defeated surrender but in the sense of a mighty General holding fire long enough to implore those on the point of being wiped out that they should accept his terms of surrender.

Your Jesus-buying-swords 'evidence' remains a woefully inadequate support for your position. It was done in the immediate context of a prophecy being fulfilled by his arrest (that he would be "numbered amongst the transgressors"). The two swords deemed enough are symbolic of a resistance that would see him and his band of merry men transgressors. His view on the actual use of swords is clearly and consistently other.

But hey! If you insist on seeing inconsistency and evidence of Jesus propensity towards bloodshed then I can't stop you.

Well, if you think killing the children of Jezebel for the sins of their mother is just, I suspect we will never agree on a shared definition of justice.

I don't see God killing anyone under any circumstances as unjust. How can I: he gives life for his purpose and takes it away again as is his right. And I've not seen many mount more than a cursory argument against that position.

I mean, where the heck does an argument find purchase?

The Book of Revelation is based on a supposed vision to the the author John on the island of Patmos. This John had never met Jesus but he nevertheless believed (or claimed to believe) that Jesus had appeared to him and told him several things. The Jesus of Revelation was either as real, or else as imaginary, as the Jesus that appeared in a vision to Paul on the road to Damascus. There is no valid reason to give either of these hallucinations any more or less credibility than the other.

I'm not sure I get the relevance of this. Let's assume the visions were actual and take it from there.

Also, the threat by Jesus to kill the children of Jezebel does not come from the later part of John’s vision in which he is shown the end of the world. It comes from the earlier part of the vision, in which Jesus is dictating letters to seven actual churches in Turkey. Jesus tells one church that a woman called Jezebel has seduced his servants to fornicate, so he is going to kill her children with death. This is a specific real-life threat, and not part of the apocalyptic vision later in the book.

I'm not sure how someone need conclude that Jezebel was the actual name of the person being referred to. As an Old Testament figure of ill repute, her name can be used as a type and applied to those in the NT church then (and now). So when someone is acting as Jezebel acted, the type (or figurehead) is invoked. Indeed, we call people Jezebel today (although in the sense of "ye little divil" - ignorant of the older meaning and making less strenuous a reference to a type).

Of the original Jezebel:

Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians or Tyre and Sidon. King Ahab of Israel, the son of Omri, did evil in the sight of the Lord, took Jezebel in marriage and went and served Baal. Ahab coveted the vineyard of Naboth and when he could not obtain it, Jezebel slandered Naboth, he was stoned and the vineyard given to Ahab. The wife of Ahab had introduced the abominations of Astarte worship into Israel. Jezebel slew the prophets of the Lord, hiding others in a cave with bread and water. Jezebel is referred to as the corrupt woman, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. She led her husband into the same idolatry and fed the prophets of Baal at her own table.

http://latter-rain.com/eschae/jezebel.htm


Mother of harlots > indicates harlots down the ages are her 'children'. In invoking the Jezebel-type in the case of the church in Revelation what is being invoked is the description of a harlot with the warning that the harlot and all her children (i.e. all who engage in harlot activity) will suffer the consequences described.

The bible is littered with types (eg: the lamb slaughtered prior to the Exodus is a type of Christ - Christ being the lamb of God slaughtered so that we can be freed from captivity (in Eygpt - another type) and be brought to the promised land (another type)) and I'd be advising you to ask for you money back if ever on a theology/seminary course where this wasn't recognised

As an aside, threatening to kill someone with death is one of my favorite threats in the Bible. It's up there with smiting your knees with an unhealable sore botch.

Threat of death pales into insignificance when compared to the warning of being "cast into outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" in my view. I've suffered some intense agony in my life (thankfully not too much or for too long). But I never gnashed my teeth in agony. That must really smart.


I'll get to your E/D post when I get a moment. Cheers..

antiskeptic

Michael Nugent wrote: »

First let’s remember what the dilemma is: it is about defining the fundamental characteristic of moral goodness. The argument that something is good because it pleases a god creates the following dilemma:

You first argued that good is a label for “that which aligns with god’s will”, that his will stems from his character, and that his character is immutable.

Correct

I replied that all that this does is push the dilemma onto his immutable characteristics rather than onto his will, and I asked if there is any reason, or no reason, that your god happens to have the immutable characteristics that your god happens to have?

You replied that there is no reason required for God’s characteristics to be as they happen to be, that he might have had characteristics causing him to love selfishness but as it happens he doesn’t, and that he wants us to align ourselves with his will because it is the only way that he is able to share our company.

Correct

Well, if we apply that to the Euthyphro dilemma, then goodness is arbitrary, as it is based merely on the characteristics that your god happens to have, and these are characteristics for which there is no reason required and over which he has no control.

Correct. As stated previously, the sense of arbitrary applicable isn't the sense which says what's good today could be bad tomorrow. That would indeed cause a dilemma.

I asked what the dilemma was with an arbitrary goodness which was fixed and immutable.

Also, the only reason to do good is to facilitate the desire of this god to be able to share our company.

I thought I did mention another reason? That it facilitates our expressing our hearts desire wrt God.


Why do good? Because I feel I ought.

Why do you feel you ought? Because God installed a sense of ought as part of a mechanism related to finding him (and post-having found him, to enable growth in the relationship). I'm subject to it's pressure "I ought, I ought not"

It's not an arbitrary, pulled-out-of-a-hat-on-a-whim kind of thing: when I do as I ought I am, in fact, expressing myself according to the image of the God after whom I was made. And when I am not, I am not. These responses feed into an algorithm (of sorts*) which ensures my hearts desire will obtain the option offered it.

Why did God go to this trouble on my behalf? So that I could enjoy God and he me, forever.

Why does God want that? Because God is love and the immutable nature of love is to desire to express itself to a beloved.

Why do you want that? I'm made in the image of God and so part of me is love too and the immutable nature of love... The other bit of me which isn't made in the image of God wants the opposite. I get to choose which it will be for all eternity.


-


Where's the dilemma in 'good' existing within a closed system and for an immutable reason?

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

I asked what the dilemma was with an arbitrary goodness which was fixed and immutable....Where's the dilemma in 'good' existing within a closed system and for an immutable reason?

If goodness was found to arbitrary, the philosophers of morality and ethics would consider that to be an unsatisfactory outcome. A dilemma can be defined as a choice between two unsatisfactory outcomes.

The reason it would be unsatisfactory is that "goodness" would be reduced to "correctness", as in trying to achieve a facsimile of the god's nature or his instructions. Goodness would have no intrinsic value of its own.

So we would be just like the Nazi concentration camp guards, following correct procedure at all times; there would be no separate consideration about whether the correct procedures were just.

You have already referred to your willingness to participate in a "righteous slaughter" provided the orders come from the correct/good/god source, but I have to point out, this is unsatisfactory to a normal sentient being having some empathy for others.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

The reason it would be unsatisfactory is that "goodness" would be reduced to "correctness", as in trying to achieve a facsimile of the god's nature or his instructions. Goodness would have no intrinsic value of its own.

So we would be just like the Nazi concentration camp guards, following correct procedure at all times; there would be no separate consideration about whether the correct procedures were just.

This merely kicks the can up the road.

Like goodness, 'value' and 'satisfactory' and 'just' can be examined under the Euthyphro Dilemma setup. Is it valuable/satisfactory/just because God says so (in which case arbitrary). Or is it that God too must bow to a higher authority where 'good' is what's intrinsically good (where intrinsically excludes any reference to or connection with God).

My response here would be the same as it was for "good". And since that response appears to sidestep the Euthyphro Dilemma, so to would my response to "just/value/etc.


The only dilemma that I can see is one for the man who finds himself in a closed system the boundary of which is God. And in finding himself there he finds he is subject to God's plan for him - which kicks into touch whatever intellectual mastur...means a man might generate in the attempt to rid himself of God.

That would appear to include the Euthyphro Dilemma (so called)

marty1985

Even if you believe that there is a god, why, other than by accident of birth, should you choose this particular version of god out of the many that have been invented?

If we were born in China, there would be a high probability we would all be atheist. Is this not the Genetic Fallacy? An idea shouldn't be discredited based on its origin and not on the merits of the idea itself. It is implying, it appears to me, that the belief is questionable or that a believer's intellectual rigour or honesty should be called into question because they hold to the traditional belief of the area? I think this is one argument that should be met with a shrug of indifference. If his belief is false, then your belief can also be false. Your belief is no more credible because it is going against the grain in a given area. What do we do then with all the young Chinese guys embracing Christianity? It just seems to me that this geography thing is a moot point. If the idea makes sense to him and he believes it and thinks it has merit, well then... Anyway, gods die when they stop being worshipped. Maybe he can take that as evidence those gods were false, I dunno.

antiskeptic

marty1985 wrote: »

If we were born in China, there would be a high probability we would all be atheist.

Or, as my own post suggests: if we were born in Ireland, there would be a high probability we would all be atheist (where cultural Christianity is seen as no different to atheism in God's economy)

Dades

marty1985 wrote: »

If we were born in China, there would be a high probability we would all be atheist. Is this not the Genetic Fallacy? An idea shouldn't be discredited based on its origin and not on the merits of the idea itself. It is implying, it appears to me, that the belief is questionable or that a believer's intellectual rigour or honesty should be called into question because they hold to the traditional belief of the area? I think this is one argument that should be met with a shrug of indifference. If his belief is false, then your belief can also be false. Your belief is no more credible because it is going against the grain in a given area. What do we do then with all the young Chinese guys embracing Christianity? It just seems to me that this geography thing is a moot point. If the idea makes sense to him and he believes it and thinks it has merit, well then... Anyway, gods die when they stop being worshipped. Maybe he can take that as evidence those gods were false, I dunno.

I think the point is that as most people hold to the religion of their community, it shows how much religion is a cultural thing rather than a conscious thing. So when people say "look at all the Christians!", what they are really saying is "look at all the people raised in Christian communities". If people believed in their religion simply by virtue of the evidence for it, there would be an even spread of religion throughout the (connected) world.

There's a reason the churches don't want to let go of schools - they know that if they don't get them young - they unlikely ever will.

On your point re Chinese guys embracing Christianity - there are more telling statistics showing the percentage of theists who become non-theists (or change religions) - vice versa. In terms of volume it's virtually one way toward non-belief.*

* There was an image denoting graphically the volume of conversions from one religion to another posted here before - anyone remember where?

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

* There was an image denoting graphically the volume of conversions from one religion to another posted here before - anyone remember where?

Nope, but a few Google searches have brought me lots of cartoons. To the Funny Side thread!

Edit: Wait, I found it!



Second edit - the above is from the UK. This one's from the US:

ghostchant

The second figure is interesting. It would appear to show a system that hasn't reached equilibrium yet. It shows about 50% of non-believers switching, but the whole group growing. If the percentage of people leaving each group is maintained over time (no reason for that to be the case of course), you'd expect a turnover of the growth of atheist vs theist at some point in the future (and a further turnover later). Actually if you left that long enough then everyone would be in the blue group eventually, since there's effectively no-one leaving the group. (or is there something missing from the picture? The width of the blue group's label is larger than the width of the blue -> blue movement, with no other movement from blue. That's different to all the other groups)

The Mad Hatter

ghostchant wrote: »

The second figure is interesting. It would appear to show a system that hasn't reached equilibrium yet. It shows about 50% of non-believers switching, but the whole group growing. If the percentage of people leaving each group is maintained over time (no reason for that to be the case of course), you'd expect a turnover of the growth of atheist vs theist at some point in the future (and a further turnover later). Actually if you left that long enough then everyone would be in the blue group eventually, since there's effectively no-one leaving the group.

Being colour-blind I'm compelled to ask - is that "Other" or "Black Protestant"? If the latter, then there's sort of a theoretical maximum...

ghostchant

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Being colour-blind I'm compelled to ask - is that "Other" or "Black Protestant"? If the latter, then there's sort of a theoretical maximum...

Black Protestant, apologies I get what you're saying, and I'm simply going on what the figure is implying. Then again that theoretical maximum isn't constant, and if you wait long enough the definitions of black and white will become blurred enough for the distinction to possibly be unimportant.

The Mad Hatter

ghostchant wrote: »

Black Protestant, apologies

In that case, for many Americans it would involve more than just a religious conversion :P

ghostchant

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

In that case, for many Americans it would involve more than just a religious conversion :P

Sorry edited the point I was trying to make into the above post. Genetic conversions over generations happens quicker than religious ones possibly

gizmo555

Dades wrote: »

There's a reason the churches don't want to let go of schools - they know that if they don't get them young - they unlikely ever will.

Who says they don't want to?

THE DOMINANCE of the Catholic Church in the patronage of the State’s primary schools is “a remnant of the past and no longer tenable today”, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said.

The Government had been “very slow in providing a plurality of patronage models”, Dr Martin added, calling for a national forum to debate such plurality.

In a lengthy address to the Cambridge Group for Irish Studies at Magdalene College yesterday, he said: “I am the patron of about 93 per cent of all primary schools in the archdiocese of Dublin, while Catholics compose only about 85 per cent of the population.”

Such “a massive presence of the Catholic Church in the management of schools is, however, patently a remnant of the past and no longer tenable today”.

It was “obvious that there is a desire for change in the management structure of Irish schools. It is recognised that the Irish Government has an obligation to ensure that parents who do not want a religious ethos in the formation of their children can, as far as possible, exercise their rights.”

dmw07

gizmo555 wrote: »

Who says they don't want to?

I read the article and this is how my brain interpreted it.

We are losing power, the game is up lads.
The government suck more than us though, so we're not that bad.
Young people just won't listen to us anymore.
The government won't listen to us anymore.
People are not proud to say they are catholic anymore so we can't attach ourselves to the famous. Boo hoo.
We should have more power and young people should listen to us!
I'm trying to change all this.
We need a new trick.


Very honest opinion from Mr. Martin though. An almost realistic view on things.

Dades

gizmo555 wrote: »

Who says they don't want to?

THE DOMINANCE of the Catholic Church in the patronage of the State’s primary schools is “a remnant of the past and no longer tenable today”, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said.

Nothing in those comments indicates to me the "church" wants to relinquish control - only that an honest senior figure realises it has too.

Doctor DooM

In a lengthy address to the Cambridge Group for Irish Studies at Magdalene College yesterday, he said: “I am the patron of about 93 per cent of all primary schools in the archdiocese of Dublin, while Catholics compose only about 85 per cent of the population.”

In Dublin there were parishes “where the presence at Sunday Mass is some 5 per cent of the Catholic population and, in some cases, even below 2 per cent”.

Not to drag up an old argument, but I think we can now safely say the Irish Catholic Church does not get its membership figures from a mass census or anything of the like, as I'd say 2 or three dioceseseseses with those figures in Dublin would make it impossible for the overall total to be 85%, especially when you include the amount of people who aren't Catholic for any other reason.

marty1985

Dades wrote: »

I think the point is that as most people hold to the religion of their community, it shows how much religion is a cultural thing rather than a conscious thing. So when people say "look at all the Christians!", what they are really saying is "look at all the people raised in Christian communities". If people believed in their religion simply by virtue of the evidence for it, there would be an even spread of religion throughout the (connected) world.

Of course, what else would anyone expect? Religion was always not primarily something people thought, but something they did. Its truth was acquired by practical action, so of course people inherit it from their culture. Religion is a practical discipline that combined mythos and logos. Now we live in a society dominated by scientific logos and myth has fallen into disrepute, but it once had a strong value, as if a primitive form of psychology. But that's gone now, and we have literalism, a literalism unparalelled in the history of religion, which in turn leads to a rise in atheism - two modern phenomena. As in China, religion has always been seen as a "knack", something you did, acquired through constant practice. Zhuangzi explained that it was no good trying to analyse religious teachings logically. Nor did the Buddha waste time answering theological questions. If I ask a Daoist monk what evidence he has for there being a transcendant dimension of life, he would look pretty confused. It's frustrating for a modern Western person, so I sympathise with your irritation.

And of course, modern Western people have a tendency to push their way of thinking forward as if its the only acceptable one, like a juggernaut.

There's a reason the churches don't want to let go of schools - they know that if they don't get them young - they unlikely ever will.

I don't really have a view on this, but I don't buy into any big manipulative conspiracy. I think the church would be happy to relinquish control of the schools, which they should, and I think most people agree. The Late Late Show debacle seemed to me to be merely people rolling their eyes at the atheists expressing horror that Catholic schools teach children Jesus is God, and talking about gods "small g" and the supernatural. For the majority of that audience, I'd imagine religion was something they do, and it's natural for children to follow their example. Which is why Atheist Ireland's arguments, going on about evidence, or the indignant furious retorts of "I'm sure all of those audience members don't use condoms!" go straight over their heads, and rightly so. I think it should happen soon and we should be happy to be in a situation where it can happen, while acknowledging that without the church, putting their crimes to one side, a lot of our forefathers would have gone unschooled, not to mention unnursed, unconsoled and unburied, in the words of Terry Eagleton.

On your point re Chinese guys embracing Christianity - there are more telling statistics showing the percentage of theists who become non-theists (or change religions) - vice versa. In terms of volume it's virtually one way toward non-belief.*

I'm not sure what this refers to, or how it's more telling. The world's major religions are involved in a scramble for China, soon China will be the world's biggest Christian nation, as well as the world's biggest Muslim nation. For you, religion might be an oppressor. For others, it is a liberator, associated with insurrection. Mao Zedong put religion second only to capitalism on his list of evils. Now, there are more Christians than members of the Communist Party - at a conservative guess. Whatever the numbers surveyed, the realistic amount of Christians is going to be a lot higher. Atheism is fashionable here. Christianity is fashionable there.

Statistics showing the percentage of theists who become non-theists perhaps apply to secular Europe? Even then, you have some problems with demography. We're not having enough babies. Our global domination and stratospheric living standards give us an unfounded confidence in the rightness of our attitudes but have also deluded us into an over-haughty rejection of the wisdom of the societies that went before us. We've taken our eye off the ball. We're committing demographic suicide in most places. The only two realistic possibilities are an unimaginable increase in birth rates or a vast increase in immigration, which is coming in the form of religious communities. Higher birthrates of religious communities have been empirically verified globally. To prevent long term demographic decline (which results in tax burdens etc) we actually need non-assimilating migrants. That's why I don't think these statistics might not have a real impact in the long run, if we are not replacing ourselves while religious communities are multiplying.

I agree that religion is a cultural thing. It will become a cultural thing in the most populated country on Earth too. And I imagine there will be a revival of religious cultures in secular Europe based on demographic predictions. It's not religion that is the problem. It's religion + power. Religion flourishes best when it operates in a world of free choice, and we should respect others choices. I think we should learn to live with it.

We might tend to look at other cultures, particularly religious ones, with a sense of embarrassment at their backwardness, but it's worth noting that our own culture is the one failing the first and most vital test of any human culture: it cannot reproduce itself into the future. That's why we need cultures that can.

Dades

I was with you down to here...

marty1985 wrote: »

We might tend to look at other cultures, particularly religious ones, with a sense of embarrassment at their backwardness, but it's worth noting that our own culture is the one failing the first and most vital test of any human culture: it cannot reproduce itself into the future. That's why we need cultures that can.

Our own culture is slowly pushing Catholicism into the back pews. There's virtually no priests being ordained anymore. The church will always be there, but it's influence will wane over time.

I would consider the immigration of religious communities with a penchant for having more children than then rest of us as a speed-bump in the slow decline of religion here. I don't see any of those new religious cultures as likely to go viral amongst the "indigenous" ex-catholic population. We are more likely to end up like Britain with distinct cultures but high levels of secularism.

But again, call it culture or call it an accident, what almost always determines what religion you are is not the evidence for that religion but where, and to whom, on earth you happened to be born. I think that was Michael's original point. Even if you happen to be Chinese, whether as an atheist or victim of part of the soul-grab that is going on all over the Second/Third World.

antiskeptic

Marty wrote:

We might tend to look at other cultures, particularly religious ones, with a sense of embarrassment at their backwardness, but it's worth noting that our own culture is the one failing the first and most vital test of any human culture: it cannot reproduce itself into the future. That's why we need cultures that can.

You mean to say that those who most believe in survival of the fittest aren't proving fit enough to survive. And vice versa?

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

(a) Is out for me, because I don't believe he was evil, or mad. Mad people claiming to be God, or thinking they are a God, pop up every day of the week all over the world, and none of them have come even remotely close to a theology as perfect as that presented by Jesus Christ.

So you think it is real because you like what he said? Isn't that the excuse of every followers of these mad/evil people?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

(b) Lying is done for benefit. Why would so many people give up their homes, famailies with nothing to gain only certain poverty, persecution and death ? Why would their message endure timelessly untill today ?

Because their faith promised eternal happiness. As you say lying is done for benefit. Benefit can include the promise of an after life, particularly to people leading poor harsh lives in this world.

History is litered with examples of people who have deceived and allowed themselves to be deceived in the goal of following wonderful promises of a better life or after life.

Followers at Jones Town actively helped Jim Jones deceive other followers into believing that he could heal and cure them. These same followers, who must have known on some level that they had participated in deceptions, willingly killed themselves and killed their children on the order of Jones, who killed himself.

So it is not in anyway surprising or unusual that people do such things in the pursuit of a religious goal. Christianity is in fact one of the easier examples to explain using purely natural ordinary human behavior, the early followers of Jesus would have been devastated at the death of their Messiah who had promised to lead them to salvation, it is relatively easy to see how such devastation and refusal to accept what had happened to lead to false sightings and other stories, simply at first but embellished later, of Jesus actually returning and not being really dead.

Ask what benefit Jesus got out of going around pretending to be the messiah and the answer is actually in the Bible itself, he was supported financially by the wealthy members who followed him (Luke 8:3). Just like pretty much every cult leader that has ever existed.

I really can't help but think that there would be a lot less believers in religion if people just took some time to study human psychology a bit more and stopped being so utterly naive about how they think humans operate.