Reasons why religion fails to impress

PDN · 26-11-2010 03:26PM

bluewolf wrote: »

He might be wrong about what you do and your general denomination do, but I don't think you can wave all christians under the blanket like that

Sigh, I think we're wasting our time here, aren't we?

liamw claimed that, in order to have a relationship with God, you need to make an assertion. So, if such an assertion is necessary - he was the one making a blanket statement about all Christians.

I therefore pointed out that his blanket statement was wrong, because you don't necessarily have to make such an assertion.

Then you accuse me of 'waving all Christians under a blanket'.

Do you see why much of this is just a futile exercise where we seem to be talking past each other?

I try to avoid making blanket statements about all atheists, or all Christians. I think we are all different. Christians and atheists alike comprise all kinds of people - friendly people, hostile people, bigots, generous thinkers, homophobes, liberals, warmongers, intelligent people, extraordinarily thick people, and trolls.

PDN · 26-11-2010 03:27PM

bluewolf wrote: »

You've been thanked over 3000 times, I'm sure more than 5 were non-christians :pac:

And, as in life in general, those who thank you for correcting an mistake are rarely those who made the error in the first place.

26-11-2010 03:29PM

PDN wrote: »

Sigh, I think we're wasting our time here, aren't we?

liamw claimed that, in order to have a relationship with God, you need to make an assertion. So, if such an assertion is necessary - he was the one making a blanket statement about all Christians.

I therefore pointed out that his blanket statement was wrong, because you don't necessarily have to make such an assertion.

Then you accuse me of 'waving all Christians under a blanket'.

Do you see why much of this is just a futile exercise where we seem to be talking past each other?

I try to avoid making blanket statements about all atheists, or all Christians. I think we are all different. Christians and atheists alike comprise all kinds of people - friendly people, hostile people, bigots, generous thinkers, homophobes, liberals, warmongers, intelligent people, extraordinarily thick people, and trolls.

Of course he was, but I was surprised you would reply telling him what all christians do(n't) believe or do, one the same as the other

And, as in life in general, those who thank you for correcting an mistake are rarely those who made the error in the first place.

Wha?

liamw · 26-11-2010 03:30PM

PDN wrote: »

liamw claimed that, in order to have a relationship with God, you need to make an assertion. So, if such an assertion is necessary - he was the one making a blanket statement about all Christians.

I therefore pointed out that his blanket statement was wrong, because you don't necessarily have to make such an assertion.

I don't understand how you can have a relationship with something that doesn't exist unless you mean the sort of relationship I could have with a fictional character from a Stephen King book.

If you mean the latter sort of relationship, then we are in agreement about your God.. fictional. If you claim your God is more than fictional then merely saying you have a 'relationship' doesn't cut it.

CerebralCortex · 26-11-2010 03:37PM

PDN wrote: »

I try to avoid making blanket statements about all atheists, or all Christians. I think we are all different. Christians and atheists alike comprise all kinds of people - friendly people, hostile people, bigots, generous thinkers, homophobes, liberals, warmongers, intelligent people, extraordinarily thick people, and trolls.

Difference between the sets is one either is completely wrong or completely right.

philologos · 26-11-2010 05:46PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I and others have tackled Jakkass' list of his arguments for his faith and, unsurprisingly, found them seriously lacking.

Inadequately, indeed this is true. In most cases it involves some form of glossing over the actual topic. This is particularly true in respect to the Resurrection.

Zombrex · 26-11-2010 05:52PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Inadequately, indeed this is true. In most cases it involves some form of glossing over the actual topic. This is particularly true in respect to the Resurrection.

Can you explain which bits I "glossed over" as I'm more than happy to go into as much detail as necessary.

philologos · 26-11-2010 05:58PM

The so called alternatives that have been posed by yourself and others are actually less likely than the proposition posed by the Christian faith given the context, and given the circumstances both before and after the Crucifixion of Jesus. Then again, if one isn't willing to even begin that it is possible that God exists and was involved in such an event, one is forced to go down this route.

Edit: I guess what you've glossed over is adequate consideration of the real possibility of the Resurrection.

Zombrex · 26-11-2010 06:20PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The so called alternatives that have been posed by yourself and others are actually less likely than the proposition posed by the Christian faith given the context

So the idea that people are mistaken or lying, something that, lets be honest, the world is overflowing with examples of, is less likely that supposing a supernatural all powerful deity exists.

Thanks you for demonstrate exactly what I mean why I say "lacking" :pac:

For a start how can you possibly assess how likely God existing is? Surely the most likely expanation is the one that draws on stuff that can and has already happened, such as people inventing meetings and sightings of dead people in times of stress and loss.

Secondly surely this can be applied to any and all religions. Introducing the required deity explains anything. What is more likely, that Mohammad had a hallucination in a cave due to dehydration (something that happens all the time) or he actually saw an angel? The second one apparently, since it is close minded to suppose otherwise apparently.

Finally how is any of this glossing over? I've tackled this over and over. You simply say God could have done it, yet ignore that equally he might not have and the events don't require that he did. So the question is why do you suppose he did? Saying it is more likely is just supposing something that difficult to disprove since I've no idea that criteria you are judging when the existence of a supernatural deity is or isn't likely.

Jakkass wrote: »

Then again, if one isn't willing to even begin that it is possible that God exists and was involved in such an event, one is forced to go down this route.

I'm willing to consider that God could exist but there is nothing in the Bible story that requires he does to explain it. So at the moment there is no reason to suppose he does.

The fact that you do anyway demonstrates that rationality is far from your mind when you decided to believe all this stuff.

mikhail · 26-11-2010 06:21PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The so called alternatives that have been posed by yourself and others are actually less likely than the proposition posed by the Christian faith given the context, and given the circumstances both before and after the Crucifixion of Jesus. Then again, if one isn't willing to even begin that it is possible that God exists and was involved in such an event, one is forced to go down this route.

Edit: I guess what you've glossed over is adequate consideration of the real possibility of the Resurrection.

Oh, please, the gospels don't even agree on what happened, and two of them are believed to be derived from a third (the Synoptic gospels).

robindch · 26-11-2010 07:00PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The so called alternatives that have been posed by yourself and others are actually less likely than the proposition posed by the Christian faith given the context, and given the circumstances both before and after the Crucifixion of Jesus.

As Wicknight says, do you really believe it's more likely that an unexceptional Palestinian rabbi brought people back to life, turned water into wine, walked on water and finally died and flew up into the sky, than a person or persons unknown made up a story (intentionally, or unintentionally) to this effect?

Try as I might, I really can't make believe that this is what you genuinely think!

And that's quite apart from the innumerable other serious, often fatal, problems that attend the many different variations of the christian religion.

26-11-2010 07:12PM

The resurrection story brings to mind all the "elvis isn't dead I SAW him!!" stories to be honest

PDN · 26-11-2010 07:24PM

robindch wrote: »

As Wicknight says, do you really believe it's more likely that an unexceptional Palestinian rabbi brought people back to life, turned water into wine, walked on water and finally died and flew up into the sky, than a person or persons unknown made up a story (intentionally, or unintentionally) to this effect?

No, because if said rabbi did those things then He could hardly be called unexceptional, could He?

Anything else I might say here would be superfluous.

robindch · 26-11-2010 07:34PM

PDN wrote: »

if said rabbi did those things then He could hardly be called unexceptional, could He?

No, he certainly couldn't.

The reason I referred to him as unexceptional is because what he says is unexceptional: almost entirely derivative, and in the main, it's pretty banal stuff. Jesus was clearly not a first-rate philosopher, or even a very deep thinker in any context. This is to contrast with his actions which are described as the actions of a god or, more likely, a demi-god.

Quite apart from the extraordinary things he's said to have done, it's this curious disjunction between reported speech and reported action which suggests as much as any other single thing does, that the story is simply not credible.

.

Des Carter · 26-11-2010 09:22PM

robindch wrote: »

No, he certainly couldn't.

The reason I referred to him as unexceptional is because what he says is unexceptional: almost entirely derivative, and in the main, it's pretty banal stuff. Jesus was clearly not a first-rate philosopher, or even a very deep thinker in any context. This is to contrast with his actions which are described as the actions of a god or, more likely, a demi-god.

Quite apart from the extraordinary things he's said to have done, it's this curious disjunction between reported speech and reported action which suggests as much as any other single thing does, that the story is simply not credible.

.

Would you not agree that Jesus' teachings, however banal, are positive, good and promote love and peace? And is it not good to base your beliefs on his teachings?

Also Jesus' teachings may be banal by todays standards but at the time, and in his culture, they were revolutionary. The Idea that God was like a loving father as opposed to genecidal maniac. The whole forgive those who wrong you having dinner with sinners etc. At the time this was unheard of for Jews as they were like muslim extremists today - just without guns and weapons.

Improbable · 26-11-2010 09:32PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Would you not agree that Jesus' teachings, however banal, are positive, good and promote love and peace? And is it not good to base your beliefs on his teachings?

Also Jesus' teachings may be banal by todays standards but at the time, and in his culture, they were revolutionary. The Idea that God was like a loving father as opposed to genecidal maniac. The whole forgive those who wrong you having dinner with sinners etc. At the time this was unheard of for Jews as they were like muslim extremists today - just without guns and weapons.

I don't understand why you can't be a good person without having to attribute the reason to god. He may have been ahead of his time, he may not have been, I don't really know. But what I do know is he didn't invent the concept of niceness so why is it his teachings.

Des Carter · 26-11-2010 10:25PM

Improbable wrote: »

I don't understand why you can't be a good person without having to attribute the reason to god. He may have been ahead of his time, he may not have been, I don't really know. But what I do know is he didn't invent the concept of niceness so why is it his teachings.

I dont either and I agree that people can be nice without believing in God. Jesus did not invent the concept of niceness but his teachings of niceness, however unoriginal, are the most well know in Ireland today.

For example why would you buy a cook book even though all the receipies (sp?) have been used before and there is nothing original (for the most part) in it? Answer: simply to have all the receipies together in the one place. Similarly Jesus' teachings are an easy to understand list of how to live a good life.

Dades · 26-11-2010 11:47PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Similarly Jesus' teachings are an easy to understand list of how to live a good life.

So easy to understand there's 100's of contradictory "Christian" churches!

robindch · 27-11-2010 12:16AM

Des Carter wrote: »

Would you not agree that Jesus' teachings, however banal, are positive, good and promote love and peace?

Good grief, Have you ever read them? Try Luke 12:51-53 quoting Jesus on what's since become "Family Values":

Luke wrote:

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Des Carter wrote: »

And is it not good to base your beliefs on his teachings?

His restatement of the much-earlier Golden Rule is good and proper. The rest of it is either obvious, useless, stupid or in the case of Luke above, actively obnoxious.

Des Carter wrote: »

Also Jesus' teachings may be banal by todays standards but at the time, and in his culture, they were revolutionary.

They were nothing of the kind.

There are one or two arcane, abstract ideas which the Gospel of John introduced (the much earlier and more pedestrian gospels contain nothing about them at all) which are arguably original. The majority of the remainder of the stories in the NT are almost entirely derived from earlier religions and philosophies (except for the Book of Revelation which, frankly, reads like the author was on crack cocaine when he wrote it). The lack of originality and consistency is really quite startling, given the current belief amongst most christian believers to the contrary.

Des Carter wrote: »

The Idea that God was like a loving father as opposed to genecidal maniac.

The Persian philosopher Zoroaster used that idea in his religion perhaps as much as 1500 years before Jesus pretended he'd invented it. FYI, the head god's name was Ahura Mazda and was omniscient, loving, possessed of infinite justice etc, etc.

Des Carter wrote: »

The whole forgive those who wrong you having dinner with sinners etc.

Quite a few of the ancient Greeks recommended equal treatment for all, as did various Romans. Jesus on the other hand, seemed to have believed that lifetime slavery from childhood was fine.

Des Carter wrote: »

At the time this was unheard of for Jews as they were like muslim extremists today - just without guns and weapons.

There were many other religions and philosophies around the place before christianity showed up. From your claims in your post above, I can't help but suspect you may not be all that familiar with many of them.

Improbable · 27-11-2010 12:29AM

Des Carter wrote: »

I dont either and I agree that people can be nice without believing in God. Jesus did not invent the concept of niceness but his teachings of niceness, however unoriginal, are the most well know in Ireland today.

For example why would you buy a cook book even though all the receipies (sp?) have been used before and there is nothing original (for the most part) in it? Answer: simply to have all the receipies together in the one place. Similarly Jesus' teachings are an easy to understand list of how to live a good life.

If the recipe book has 1 good idea and 50 terrible ideas, I'll remember the 1 good idea and then throw the book out.

mikhail · 27-11-2010 01:04AM

Improbable wrote: »

If the recipe book has 1 good idea and 50 terrible ideas, I'll remember the 1 good idea and then throw the book out.

Especially if several of the other recipes are poisonous.

Des Carter · 27-11-2010 03:29AM

Dades wrote: »

So easy to understand there's 100's of contradictory "Christian" churches!

Nearly all the splits are due to beliefs that Jesus didn't comment on like hating gays, contraception, whether or not Mary had original sin, if communion is Jesus' body and having people buy their way into heaven. Also many of these splits were due to political or alternative reasons that had nothing to do with Jesus.

philologos · 27-11-2010 03:32AM

mikhail wrote: »

Oh, please, the gospels don't even agree on what happened, and two of them are believed to be derived from a third (the Synoptic gospels).

I know the so called "contradictions" you are referring to. Most are based on personal viewpoints, or rather that one gospel may give more detail in relation to one thing than another may do. This is logical given that there were a number of eyewitnesses who may describe parts in more detail than others. This is what one would expect of human testimony even in a court of law.

Less detail or more detail in one area than another != contradiction

liamw · 27-11-2010 04:22AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Less detail or more detail in one area than another != contradiction

Go to bed Jakkass, you have to be up early for Mass in the morning!!! (yes I'm drunk)

strobe · 27-11-2010 04:48AM

liamw wrote: »

Go to bed Jakkass, you have to be up early for Mass in the morning!!! (yes I'm drunk)

Zombrex · 27-11-2010 11:17AM

Des Carter wrote: »

Would you not agree that Jesus' teachings, however banal, are positive, good and promote love and peace? And is it not good to base your beliefs on his teachings?

What ever about love (Christians seem to have a different interpretion of that concept than the rest of us) they didn't promote peace, Jesus says so himself.

As much as modern day Christians like to pretend otherwise Jesus' teachings were supposed to prepare those who heard the teaching for meeting God because it was taught that was going to be happening soon.

That is what Jesus' message was about, drop what you are doing, drop your family and your friends. Stop focusing on earthly things and prepare to meet thy maker, prepare to be judged. This life is irrelevant, soon you will be before God.

Which is why you get very little in Jesus teaching of any use today, especially to non-Christians.

The passages people call on most when remembering Jesus are largely influenced by modern sensibilities, like someone reading back a passage from a Greek prophet that says "The rich the poor, you will all face eternal damnation in Hades" and thinking "Isn't it nice how he promotes equality"

Jesus' overriding message is as much about fear as it is about love, you are soon going to be dead you are soon going to be judged now prepare yourself.

Everything we are told are withing this context, including famous quotes such as love thy enemy.

All these concepts were articulated and explored centuries before Jesus arrived on the scene and with out the need to invoke divine authority to justify them.

philologos · 27-11-2010 01:00PM

liamw wrote: »

Go to bed Jakkass, you have to be up early for Mass in the morning!!! (yes I'm drunk)

I don't go to mass*, and its Saturday :pac:

* Perhaps being pedantic here!

robindch · 27-11-2010 01:12PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I know the so called "contradictions" you are referring to. Most are based on personal viewpoints, or rather that one gospel may give more detail in relation to one thing than another may do. [...] Less detail or more detail in one area than another != contradiction

Whereas:

saying-one-thing-in-one-place + saying-the-opposite-in-another-place = contradiction.

Here's one which implicates John, and I've chosen him since John is clearly the most educated of the gospel writers and I'd expect him to go to the greatest lengths to ensure it's accurate, although he was almost certainly writing many years after all the witnesses had died:

John 2:19-21 wrote:

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

Mark 14:57-58 wrote:

And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

So, did Jesus say he'd tear the temple down and rebuild it (as John says), or was this a lie concocted by his enemies amongst the religious authorities (as Mark and Matthew 26:59-61 say) to land him in deep doo-doo, so that a credible call could be made to kill him?

PDN · 27-11-2010 01:23PM

robindch wrote: »

So, did Jesus say he'd tear the temple down and rebuild it (as John says), or was this a lie concocted by his enemies amongst the religious authorities (as Mark and Matthew 26:59-61 say) to land him in deep doo-doo, so that a credible call could be made to kill him?

No, Jesus did not say He would tear any temple down in three days. And the verse from John doesn't say He did. He said to others, if you tear this temple down I will build it in three days. Do try to concentrate.

(But thanks for demonstrating Jakkass' point so wonderfully!)

Zombrex · 27-11-2010 05:01PM

PDN wrote: »

No, Jesus did not say He would tear any temple down in three days. And the verse from John doesn't say He did. He said to others, if you tear this temple down I will build it in three days. Do try to concentrate.

(But thanks for demonstrating Jakkass' point so wonderfully!)

That isn't relevant to the contradiction Robin is pointing out (as I'm sure you are aware), but thanks for demonstrating why discussions like this are pointless with overtly defensive Christians, something I've long told the rest of them here. :P

Reasons why religion fails to impress

Comments