what religions could be
As atheism becomes ever more popular in human society, patience with the beliefs of many religious organisations is thinning. This can often be seen as opposition to religion in general, which has the danger of fueling intolerance towards individuals who hold religious beliefs.
How can atheists avoid falling into the trap of frighening those of a religious persuasion with their utopian vision of a world that won’t tolerate the ‘delusion’ of their religious thinking?
The history of the human race holds stark lessons for us about tolerance and acceptance of all people, regardless of how we feel about their world views. Just as we have to accept people of all political persuasions, regardless of their outlook, we have to accept people of all religious persuasions – unless they are promoting something that goes against our secular laws, in which case they are a criminal.
I’m not convinced that shouting from the rooftops that religious thinking is delusional, poisonous or harmful in any way helps human society move forward constructively. So I’m going to suggest an alternative way of engaging with the inevitable religious component (indeed majority) of human society.
We appeal to reason.
We don’t start with ‘reason’ alongs the lines of insisting invisible gods don’t exist. This would be unreasonable. As individuals, we have no way to evaluate the personal experience of other people in terms of something they believe is supernatural. We can only honestly say that it’s unlikely, but also acknowledge that unlikely things happen all the time.
We appeal to reason in terms of helping religions evolve into something that is more personal. We convince adherents that given the variation in religious interpretation over time and across cultures, it is only reasonable to assume that religion is a strictly personal experience. Religious institutions could still usefully exist as facilitators for discussion, as hubs for disseminating information about the history of all religions and these personal experiences, and also as centres to co-ordinate valuable community services.
What religions should come to realise they no longer can do, is issue rules or even guidance.
If we take Christianity as an example, it has evolved from a religion that encourages slavery, to one that denounces slavery. It has evolved from a religion that encourages communism, to one that generally fears communism. It has denominations that encourage family planning, demoninations that prohibit family plannings; it had interpretations that allow women and homosexual preachers and interpretations that deny them a role. You get the picture.
Religious institutions have no place in issuing rules or guidance, because they have proven themselves to be entirely inconsisent and unreliable. Besides which, everyone prefers to live by the secular laws we have developed rather than running the risk of opening the doors to something like Sharia law or their competing religion equivalent.
So instead of arguing for religion to end, I think we should put the case for religions to develop into something that makes more sense in today’s society, something that can reflect the experiences of all adherents. If we can convince adherents to take the institution out of religion, we can ensure that individuals can have a say in their own beliefs based on their own experiences – and that’s a valuable freedom for everyone.
“Religious institutions could still usefully exist as facilitators for discussion, as hubs for disseminating information about the history of all religions and these personal experiences, and also as centres to co-ordinate valuable community services”
LOL! Why thank you, Violet. It’s mighty generous of you to redefine how,why, and in what context, religion is going to be allowed to exist in your world.
“What religions should come to realise they no longer can do, is issue rules or even guidance.”
You probably won’t be able to hear this,but maybe if we change one word you will understand how oppressive,abusive,and demeaning you really sound.
“What WOMEN should come to realise they no longer can do, is issue rules or even guidance”
“What BLACKS should come to realise they no longer can do, is issue rules or even guidance”
In a country such as the US, were some 80%of us value those rules,guidance,and standards in some way or form, what authorizes you to now decide for the rest of us how we are going to live?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Religion is primarily based upon an untenable supernatural foundation and the ensuing doctrine/dogma is usually made-made and very often simply erroneous.
The bible is the perfect example as is the Qur’an.
You would not knowingly/willingly tolerate a non-religious worldview/standards/guidance etc based on fallacious data yet you believe and accept the tenets of Christianity?
Why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You don’t value the rules and guidance from Mormons or from the Catholic Church, do you? You don’t even value guidance from your own branch on the heresy in the Shack. I just think it’s time for everyone to acknowledge that centralising something as personal as belief simply doesn’t make sense. You’re all smart enough to extract messages from the Bible on your own (which you normally do). Why do you want a hierarchical structure around your ‘personal relationship’ telling you what your god wants? I’m quite sure it would be an arrangement that would suit everyone – except the top dogs profiting by power and money from the religious experience.
And nice try comparing it to women or black people – but I’m talking about religious institutions, not individuals. Perhaps I worded it incorrectly – instead of ‘come to realise’, perhaps ‘encouraged to recognise’?
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are correct conflict of different world views is inevitable. In different places and cultures different values will win out. Reconciliation is no more possible than the tiger can be reconciled with the antelope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s not reflective of the human experience so far. Some groups just take longer to accept facts and change, often over generations.
LikeLike
If you are referring to non-radical Christianity then the change has been tremendous. We now have gay bishops , same sex marriage, women ministers and of course the acceptance of evolution along with the big-bang. Unfortunately radicals seem unable to reinterpret the Bible and often insist on literal explanations. Western democracies are run by secular governments who improve the law with time ; so same -sex activity is now legal. The object of law is to give individual freedom but to prevent irresponsible behaviour. The freest world communities are secular democracies and all who live in them must obey their laws. If individuals or groups choose to obey additional rules that’s fine as long as they do not clash with the countries legal statutes.
‘ No man can have two masters’
LikeLike
“We appeal to reason.”
1+1=2
why?
LikeLike
Well, I guess it must be because an invisible god created reality and made it so! Otherwise I’m quite sure 1+1 would be random and chaotic (oh, in which case we wouldn’t have evolved to express it like that …. hmmm)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see an answer in there Violet. I also, 2 years later, (or is it 3?) still don’t see Ark’s definition of “probability,”
Your appeal to “reason” has, to this day, yielded zero meaningful results .
The vaunted “flying spaghetti monster” would actually be as reasonable an explanation as all the ones you folks have never given.
LikeLike
Well, you tell me why 1+1=2 and I’ll let you know if I agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again? Ok. Hang on.
LikeLike
Here. Let’s do it THIS way.
Can I ask you to actually read it this time?
LikeLike
I read for about 10 minutes, kind of nostalgic experience, but I’m not sure what you think it answers. Write a summary here, a short or long paragraph. I meandering conversation from several years ago doesn’t really do the trick.
LikeLike
“So instead of arguing for religion to end, I think we should put the case for religions to develop into something that makes more sense in today’s society”
Hmmm . . . seems to me that insisting there’s no such thing as the supernatural makes more sense PERIOD. It’s called reality. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s very interesting, IB, that you would challenge violetwisp by using a false equivalency. But since you’ve done that, let’s use your ‘substitution’ to examine the latest idiocy from Mike Pence. In case you haven’t read it, violetwisp, MP’s ‘religious views’ govern his interactions with women – specifically, he won’t dine alone with another woman who isn’t his wife. Of course, totally not sexist in any way. (I guess it must be because he can’t trust his base instincts around any other woman; obviously his hormones must be uncontrollable)
What I’m wondering, IB, is if you thought of substituting . .say, Blacks . . . in the place of women in the above example – can you then see how ‘oppressive, abusive, and demeaning’ THAT is??
I’m betting NOT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good example. I saw some posts defending Pence but didn’t get a chance to find out exactly what he’d said. So, that’s useful that the second most powerful man in the USA can’t share food with women on an individual basis.
LikeLike
Insisting people are wrong. I’m just not convinced that’s a useful way to approach it.
LikeLike
I think different approaches work with different people.
LikeLike
True, I do remember another blogger saying that Ark wore him down and deconverted him. 😀
LikeLike
Ark has been known to open up people’s minds about all sorts of things. . .spiders and assorted other creepy crawlers, for instance. (Mine, however, stays firmly closed on the topic of snakes) 🙂
LikeLike
It was the Pope … but it is our secret. I promised not to say which Pope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I cannot speak for other atheists … so I won’t.
I do not care if any adult wishes to be religious, in whatever fashion they want, providing it was a choice made freely.
I am an atheist and do not beleive in any gods.
I am also an anti-theist when a religious individual or group wishes to impose their unsubstantiated beliefs or religious doctrine onto others, and especially those who are unable to make a rational defense based on critical thought. Mainly children and those who have believe they are trapped (often literally) within a religious community/environment that does not recognise apostasy.
And this applies to all religions not just Christianity.
Oh, and if people wish to practice their religion then at least they should lobby their organisations/churches to pay some damn taxes!
Otherwise …. Peace love and that other good stuff and go forth and worship whichever god you want in whatever fashion you like.
Ark
LikeLike
Good, what a nice summary for this fine day of religious peace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always willing to help out … you know me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh,pee ess …. why are you ”playing” with David Wood’s number one groupie?
😉
LikeLike
Who’s that?
LikeLike
Which one, the groupie or David Wood?
LikeLike
Is that the post that quotes (clearly) you and then talks about their belief system? I did think it was a sound post. I didn’t know why I was following them, so I went to some old posts but found they didn’t seem as … sound. And I don’t really understand what’s going there, looks like a long story I won’t get the hang of.
LikeLike
No …not Paul, Mrsmcmommy!
And David Wood is a psychopath who stove his father’s head in with a hammer then afterwards found god and became a minister. How nice!
Amanda thinks he is truly delightful!
LikeLike
Oh, that’s an interesting story. They just liked using my last post as an example of atheists being like Christians, I guess. Wanted to ‘feel sorry’ for me. I tried to point out that we’re used to discussing things, it’s not quite the same as being locked out a church for bad behaviour is it? I still kind of like mrs mcmommy, she said a couple of weird things, but overall has useful conversations.
LikeLike
Really? Well there’s no accounting for taste, I guess.
🙂
LikeLike
Well, Ark, you know that nothing excites a fundamentalist any more than a ‘convert’ story. They wriggle and twist in excitement like a pup looking for a place to piss on the floor.
LikeLike
She hauls out Wood on a fairly regular basis whenever she and her side splitting, hilariously hysterical funny father embark on yet another objective morality trip.
LikeLike
Is that an atheist or religious fundamentalist? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, since the definition of fundamentalism only applies to religious people, what do you think? 😉
LikeLike
The word originated in religious settings, but like all language, it has evolved. It now encompasses anyone who shares similar characteristics. Dictionary definition: “A person who adheres strictly to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.”
LikeLike
You obviously have a different dictionary than mine. Sorry, violet wisp, but in my books there’s no such thing as an atheist fundamentalist. An atheist has one definition, which I’m sure you know.
LikeLike
P.S. And no, Tildeb is not an atheist fundamentalist, if that’s what you’re trying to ascertain. 🙂
LikeLike
Atheist has one simple definition. But atheist fundamentalist is a term in development that many people recognise. As I say, language evolves to give labels to shared experiences as society changes. You can deny it if you want.
LikeLike
I think I’ll be diplomatic (for a change) and choose to disagree. 🙂
LikeLike
Ark, has anyone ever corroborated Wood’s story about his dad?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someone tried to, one of my visitors, I apologise but I forget who, but could not track down any data.
Even if it is a sham … and that would be a Pearler of Christian deceit would it not? – Amanda thinks the moral sunshine streams out of his backside as a shining example of how the ever-present make-beleive Yahweh … sorry, Frank …is the only source of morality saving Wood fr0m a life of living out Trini Lopez’s famous song.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol. “If I had a hammer…”
LikeLike
That’s the one!
Only people of a certain age would have understood the reference!
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I think wood’s story is embellished fabrication to make himself look ‘good’. Christian ministers sometimes try to ‘one up’ their testimonies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably. And what’s one more lump of bullshit, right?
God works in mysterious .. and despicable ways, dontcha know?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And who’s David Wood?
LikeLike
If you can stomach the entire video…. here it is. Delete it too, no probs.
LikeLike
Oh dear, couldn’t bear the whole thing. Really messed up guy from the bits I saw – I guess that’s a common feature of the ‘born again’ variety. I think that’s a benefit of religion, it gives some desperate people hope, something that values them, and a framework. Maybe therapy isn’t at the point where it can provide that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it any wonder people like Tildeb spit feathers when otherwise intelligent people write things as you just have?
The man is a farking psychopath and he is awarded legitimacy because he is now a minister in a church. And he has a licence to preach morality and ethics and his own brand of hate as he also runs a anti -Islamic program ( as if his religion is any better)
And you truly think religion is the answer?
Sometimes I wonder if you write such posts just to garner traffic.
I cannot honestly fathom that you really do believe some of the things you write, and I would understand if this was a huge wind up …. I mean it.
LikeLike
What do you think he would be doing if he hadn’t converted? He’s found value in himself and his life. If he is doing the things you say, then maybe the harm is outweighing the good in this case, but for other people it does provide comfort and they don’t go on to harm others.
LikeLike
Oh dear… Cooees! Does this flight provide barf bags?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Man in his natural state is morally illiterate. So without religion man is morally illiterate.
Just as man has to devote many years of life to painstakingly learn alpha-numeric literacy, it is through the life-time learning of religion that man achieves moral literacy.
All the atheist can do is parrot the values of the surrounding religious culture.
And we know from history that once a civilization loses its religious culture, the civilization itself, collapses.
Western Civilization is collapsing because Christendom has disappeared from the face of the earth.
LikeLike
Are dogs in their natural state morally illiterate? I see so many of them working together and co-operating to find comfort in company and protections in numbers (street dogs in Argentina). They don’t have the benefit of spoken and written language and look what they’ve achieved without religion!
LikeLike
I think you are barking up the wrong tree engaging SOM on any topic that includes dogs.
LikeLike
Interesting, I don’t remember it featuring in any set phrases.
LikeLike
Violet,
The dog does not need morals because they are in harmony with nature, even as pets.
Man is not in harmony with himself, his neighbor or nature.
Man is completely empty when he is born and has to be taught everything.
LikeLike
Dogs still sin. They fight with each other and randomly attack people. There are ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ in doggy behaviour – they aren’t robots. And yet, overall, they know they need to work together to survive.
LikeLike
Violet,
Who are you to judge the dog?
Right and wrong are determined by the dog’s mommy and daddy human being.
LikeLike
@Som
And yet we are currently living in what some consider to be one of the most peaceful periods in human history.
In what areas of Western civilization do you see imminent collapse, Som?
LikeLike
Ark,
Pax Americana, as like to call it didn’t happen all by itself.
It happened because Christian Western Civilization bombed fascists German and Imperial Japan back to the Stone Age.
And Christian Ronald Reagan and Catholic Pope John Paul II destroyed the atheist Soviet Union.
LikeLike
And Germany and Japan are two countries now among the top nations that are slowly but surely doing away with religion, aside from Muslim immigrants,of course.
Meanwhile, republican Christian right wing fundamentalism US eh? is now metaphorically climbing in bed with Russia. How ironic!
I wonder who will be screwed this time around?
As a staunch Catholic, Som will you advise Trump and Putin to wear condoms?
With Violet’s leave … this should be right up your steet Som.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark,
Japan is dying. And Japan does not allow Muslim immigration.
Clearly, the “migration crisis” is another attack on Western Civilization by the Islamic Jihad.
In Londonistan, Islam has become the major religion, replacing Christianity.
The Islamic Jihad has less use for atheists than it does Christians.
LikeLike
Japan is dying? Citation? Reliable data, please. I tire of you blowing smoke out your arse.
So we have the demise of one religion … xianity and an influx of Islam.
And you cannot see that religion is the problem?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Silence of Mind, you have such a strange view on history and the current situation in the world. I do not know if it is because you are a deeply religious person, or for some other reason. How have you obtained it and do you think your view represents a more widely accepted version of history within your society? Or is this just your own personal idea?
However, in reality, German Fascists very much saw themselves as the protectors of Christian values against the atheist communists of Soviet Union. It was mainly the effort of the Soviet Union to make the German Fascistic empire to fall. They did most of the “heavy lifiting”. Yes, the first in the world to be declared officially secular nation – USA helped a lot, as did the largest empire on the planet at the time – Great Britain. Great Britain was after all engaged in a sort of mortal combat, in wich they prevailed, but as a result lost their Empire. Imperial Japan entered the war because they were already competing for limited natural resources in the Far-East with those two latter giants and the USA and also because they felt humiliated by colonial attitudes towards them before the war, while they themselves were a colonial empire. As Germany had engaged the British Empire and abolished the French Empire, Japan saw an opportunity, what they did not expect, was the Soviet Union to defeat Germany.
Christianity played a rather minor role in the entire debacle, unless you count the fact that it made the Germans all too eager to accept the racist Nazi propaganda about Jews being the cause of Germany’s problems in WWI and the Western propaganda about the atheistic Soviet socialist society being economically, militarily and socially so weak, that it would fall under an outside attak in a matter of couple of years. (God would surely have stood on the Christian side in any war against the Soviets – right? Got mit unz – and all that.) It did not. It fell decades later as a result of lack of democracy. I do not need to remind you that democracy is not a Christian value, but far more older secular value in the Western world, do I?
As for the refugee problem, modern day Jihadism is very much a product of western capitalism exploiting the deeply religious and as a result ignorant and weak Muslim societies of the Near-East. As is the Muslim immigration. Jihadism is not the cause of Muslim immigration not to mention the goal of it.
People who emigrate from Muslim countries try to escape powerty, war and religious persicution. Much like the early immigrants from Europe to the Americas. They are not sent by the Jihadists. The Jihadists fear, that the Muslims who escape to the West shall find peace, prosperity and secularism from the West. That is why they resort to terrorism. To create a wall of hatred between western and Islamic people. Did you really not know this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rautakky,
The history I cite so patiently for you, Violet and others is part of the public record.
General Douglas McArthur created a new Japan in the image of Christian Western Civilization.
Japan, like Europe, is dying because they lost their religion.
LikeLike
Indeed, Silenceofmind, as you say, you seem to have a very narrow partial view on the public record of history. That is OK, you will learn more, if you are interrested. Most people have somewhat limited view on it and nobody has the entire picture, as we are so rich in our record of history.
I am assuming that you agree with my previous assesment of events, since you are so “patiently” citing to us history, but did not bother to disagree with me on any particular point I made at my previous comment on this thread. Do I read you right? Do you realize that those points of mine debunked your previous claims? It would seem so much more coherent, if you simply stated that you agreed with me, than that you leave me guessing wether or not this is the case.
If you are referring to general Douglas MacArthur, he did not create Japan, not some old, nor any new ones. It was mostly done by the Japanese. No one man has that much influence on any nation. Douglas Mac Arthur was thought by his contemporaries to be a bit of an exentric and an egomaniac. A perfect Christian role model to build nations into Christian image, do you think? Did you know he wanted to drop atom bombs on China to end the Korean war when the US forces were getting their asses kicked by the Koreans? Do you know why this was not carried out?
You are continuously confusing Western civlization and Christianity. I can see why someone could come to that quite simplistic view, but it is indeed a very limited partial vision and a bit of a mistake as such.
Neither Japan, nor Europe are dying at all. What are you on about?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
Actually, Amazon Prime has a vast visual library of World War II history.
It’s available absolutely free for Amazon Prime customers.
Douglas McArthur acted under the orders of the President of the United States and Secretary of State George Marshall.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe was a protégé of McArthur.
LikeLike
Thanks for the hint Silenceofmind, I am not familiar with the Amazon Prime, nor of their visual library of World War II. What is a “visual library”? I have been quite content in the use of the traditional library. Is it that you are the progressive one and I the conservative in this issue?
Are you actually now saying, that Douglas Mac Arthur was actually not the person who “created the new Japan”, but just an intermediary between a higher political office acting not so much indipendently, rather under instructions, or what? How is this even relevant?
What made you think Japan, or Europe are dying? Why did you not answer this?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
You must understand that before the 1960’s most of America’s leaders, especially military leaders, were educated in the Christian Western Heritage. I studied that tradition too, as an adult and express it here to post-modern atheists.
President Truman and Secretary of State Marshall did not want a repeat of the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War I and set the stage for World War II.
Consequently, the German and Japanese survivors of the war were incorporated into Christian Western Civilization.
General McArthur lived in the Philippines for many years and came to also understand the cultures of China and Japan.
With respect to recreating Japan, he was definitely the man for the job.
By the way, the Amazon Prime archive contains works created right after the war by the Brits, the Americans and the Russians. The Russian archives were opened to the public after the fall of the Soviet Union.
All the footage comes from the times and places where the war took place.
LikeLike
Thank you Silence of mind for explaining me what the Amazon Prime visual library is. I really do appriciate that. I might some day, when I have the time, study that myself. It seems like an interresting source. Now, to return you the favour, I would like to give you an advice on historical research, of wich I am not sure wether or not you are familiar with (based on that you seem to think that the Bible represents a reliable historical source on miraculous unnatural events). Contemporary sources are not a foolproof way of knowing what exactly happened. One has to put them into the cultural context, and understand that people in history were just as culpable of lying or more often being mistaken about issues. Looking at contemporary sources of any given period is best done by comparing the various different sources and views the contemporary people left between each other and what else is known about the said historical period.
I have never had any doubts that the US military and political leadership have been raised in a cultural climate, that is both Christian and Western Civilization in it’s traditions. But to conflate the two as a one inseparable ideological entity is a mistake on your part just as much as it may have been on their part.
First of all, the US was founded on the principles of secularism, not Christianity and especially not any particular sect of Christianity, despite the obvious Christian cultural heritage the mostly Deist “Founding Fathers” had. They had ample reason to see the harm religion causes in politics. Did they not?
Second, the modern Western ideals like Democracy, human rights and equal opportunity, education and the scientific method, are not derived from Christianity. Are they? For centuries the Christian church had much more political power in the Western world, and it did not support any of those ideals. Did it? On the contrary it was supporting kings and emperors as having their power handed to them directly from your god. Was it not? It was set opposed to and still is on many fields to what education and science have achieved. Is it not Christians who oppose evolution, even today, when the scientific research on many fields from geology to biology support it and the scientific research on many fields from medicine to sociology and psychology are based on it? The Pope may have yielded to evolution being true, but Christianity at large seems to have trouble with it. Does it not? Why is this? When the Roman Catholic church had their political power at it’s peak in the Western Civilization did they demand for human rights? No, they violated any such as they pleased, tortured and burned people alive. Did they not? When the Protestant Churches gained political power did they demand for the torture, or the burning of people alive the Roman Catholic church had engaged in, to stop? On the contrary they exelled in it as well. All the actual reasons why we have abandoned such practices are secular. Not guesses on wether your version of god, or that of the next man would want it or not, though that has been a method to appeal to simpletons who did not understand the secular reasoning and could only be influenced by what they might guess their version of a god would want, based on our mutual ability for empathy as mammals that we are. Are we not?
There is no doubt, wether or not Christianity has left a significant imprint on the Western Civilization. Roman Empire has left a significant imprint, though it has not existed for several hundred years. Wether how much of this influence, be it from the Roman Empire or Christianity, that still has effects on the Western Civilization, is actually positive in terms of how beneficial, or harmfull this influence has been is debatable. No doubt there may have been both negative and positive effects. But to claim only positive at least is a silly position as I already demonstrated abowe. Is it not?
The globalization process has been ongoing for generations, as it had been before the WWII. It had already included Japan long before that. Japan lost it’s military might and much of the Fascistic ideals it had held high in politics at approximately the same time Italy – a deeply Christian Roman Catholic country – lost a lot of it’s Fascistic right-wing ideals and pretty much for the same reason wich had very little if anything to do with Christianity per se. You see, the Japanese form of political Fascism was very much influenced by Western Civilization and the Fascistic ideals produced by it. If you claim that the Western Civilization is thoroughly Christian, then you can not escape the conclusion, that Fascism at least, was also a product of Christian culture. I would even argue it was very much so, though I do not think all of Western Civilization is thoroughly Christian. Far from it. Most of the Fascists thought themselves as Christians and saw Fascism as some sort of culmination of Christianity. Not much different from the modern day idealist Capitalists who think that the markets are some form of natural (or perhaps even somewhat divinely directed) way for happiness and human wellbeing. Are they right about their other (undoubtedly Western) ideals being Christian? To them they were and are, because Christianity is an ideology based on subjective rather than on even an attempt at an objective world view. Is it not?
It is interresting that you would choose to say, the Russians instead of the Soviets, when referring to the historical record of the war effort against the nazies. It kind of highlights what you seem to have gotten wrong about history. Would you say, in accordance to that, that it was the Russians who fought the nazies, but that it was the Soviets who sent people into prison camps in Siberia? I trust you see the contradiction, and would never go there. Russia is a multicultural country with various different religions even today, not to mention how it was during the days of the Orthodox Christian tsars (who by the way started the tradition of sending people to camps in Siberia). Soviet Union was indeed a Union of several nation states, that have since become indipendent of the union. The Russians might have been able to win the nazies alone, but they certainly did not.
The nazies were defeated in a conjoined effort by the US, the British, and the Soviets, who did bear the brunt of the war. Many of the Soviets were Russians, but many were also Ukranians, Uzbeks, Armenians, Azers, Turkmen, Georgians and a good number of other nationalities, still today part of Russia or not. This is why we do not say it was just the English who fought the Battle of Britain, because there were Welsh, Scots, Irish, and even Polish and Tzech pilots in it. Equally we do not say the Texans fought in Europe in WWII, if we are trying to refer to the entire US army fighting there. It is inconvinient and it might represent a strange bias on what actually happened. Not only did the Soviets bear the brunt of the war, but they had effectively defeated the German armies before the Western Allied forces even opened the so called second front in continental Europe. Germany’s armies had lost their ability to go on offensive in the battle of Kursk, almost a year before the invasion of Normandy.
Remember I come from Finland, that used to be a part of Russia during the days of the tsars. That does not by far mean that the Finns ever were Russians. Perhaps this issue is clouded to you, because you come from such a multicultural Union of States, that the ethnicities are more evenly divided geographically. Could that be the case? None of this however changes the fact, that the nazies mostly percieved themselves as Christians fighting against the abominable atheists of the Soviet Union and indeed the Slavs and other ethnic groups they percieved to represent some sub-human races. Their perception of these other groups of people was very much influenced by what they sincerely thought as Christian values, and no gods ever appeared to tell them they were wrong. Why? Because they were right? Because what happened was part of some divine plan, that shows either sickly disinterrest in human suffering, or perhaps some divine joy of such suffering? Or is it simply more likely, that no gods even exist? After all, no gods have ever met any burden of proof. On the contrary, they are being adverstized as being beyond research, and that it is even a “sin” to question their existance. Now, why would that be? Rather convinient for anyone making claims of gods to exist, that you are not even supposed to question, or demand evidence for them. Is it not? Why would you believe in such a god?
However, you are awoiding my question to your bold assertion, that Europe and Japan are dying. Why? Because you never had any substance to back up that claim? Or what? Why did you even make such a nonsensical claim?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
It’s not so much about the research as it is about making the connections.
People who don’t understand how Western Civilization was put together are going to make the wrong connections if they make any connections at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Silenceofmind, I agree with you on that one. In making the connections there lies a danger of overreaching. That is why the research methodology is there to help us not to jump to conclusions, like that the Western Civilization and Christianity are the one and the same, even though both have obviously affected the other.
Now, are you eventually going to explain what you meant by claiming that Japan and Europe are dying? I am curious as I live in Europe and I see no signs of it dying any more than I see signs of Japan dying.
LikeLike
Rautakky,
Your leftist way of thought rejects “research methodology.”
You simply make things up as you go along in order to make atheism work out for you.
LikeLike
“You simply make things up as you go along in order to make atheism work out for you.”
I cannot believe YOU said that, SoM.
s.m.h. . .
LikeLike
Why Silenceofmind? Why would I make up things for atheism to “work for me”? What have I made up, that you can actually point to? What do you think justifies that sort of accusation, or are you just lashing out because you can not answer any of my questions?
What do you mean by claiming that Japan and Europe are dying? Did you just make up that claim to make Christianity to “work for you”, or did you actually have something to back it up? By awoiding that question over and over again you make it seem like you did make it up. Do you not?
LikeLike
People want rules and guidance. Religious organisations should not issue rules and guidance for others- my acceptance of any rules or guidance is voluntary.
Some accept the rules from social pressure, and escaping that can be liberating yet leave lasting scars- here is a recent testimony about that-
Perhaps atheists could support those who leave the more controlling religions, who could then support their former co-religionists to escape.
People also want a spiritual path to discover their spiritual nature. It works for me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Generally speaking the Theists seem to feel the mere existance of atheists as a theat to their own deeply held beliefs about a specific supernatural guess. The threat seems to come from the realization, that anyone could even challenge what they believe. The difference from a representative of a nother specific belief in the supernatural is dramatic in the sense, that two sets of beliefs in the supernatural are equally badly based on a guess. Logically both of them have to accomodate the other as much as they do their own version. However, that is as far as the logic of the issue carries them. The atheist mostly only questions wether there is any logic behind such beliefs in the first place and since there is none, the question is causing a sensation of threat to the identity of the Theist.
For centuries the atheists have hidden their logical questions, but as the societies have grown more secular by the necessity of accomodating the other beliefs of other believers, it has become possible for the atheist also to make the question about the burden of proof public. For centuries people have also had a series of other equally wonky views of the world, as those of their beliefs in gods, like for example beliefs about medicine. Many ancient and more recent religious texts give perfect examples of such “alternative cures”, from how lepracy should be treated in the Bible to the Thetans of the soul in the teachings of the Scientology. One would think that these should be enough to convince anyone of sound mind, that these alledgedly divine messages are nothing but the work of vivid imaginations. Obviously they are not. That is to say, religious people are not insane, they are simply mistaken about an issue.
The atheist should be able to see the Theist as a victim of their cultural heritage. A victim whose ability to asses reality has been damaged in at least this one issue. We can hand them the critical tools of assessing reality, but we can not force anyone to give up their identity. Not unless that identity causes undeniable and direct harm to others. The next question is what is undeniable and direct harm and how to combat it, if it is a part of someones or even a society’s social and taboo structure? By making people see what the harm is, is my answer.
Recently in a previous post on this blog I made a joke about the Biblical instructions on altars and men of the historical period, when a god alledgedly set the rules on altars, wearing miniskirts. I bet, that if a deeply religious person who holds the Bible in high esteem, but did not know about the fashion of the times when the book was written, ever read my joke, they could feel extremely insulted. Did they have the right to feel insulted by my remarcks? How could they help themselves for what they felt? However, nothing I said was untrue. It is not just religions that make people blind to cultural evolution, but it is funny how often they are a part of misconceptions about it. They encourage a deep form of conservatism, where people blindly believe, that the values they now have, are somehow absolute. Even to the limits of ridiculous, like about fashion. Of course they are seen as absolute since an immutable god gave orders about them and since people have tied their identities both on to their beliefs about their gods, but also on to their beliefs about fashion.
The job of the secularist wether they are religious or atheist, is to guard the rights of people to be free to believe as they please, and to provide a society where they have access to enough information and the means to deal with it critically, that they themselves are able to define what is plausible and what is not. Without this protection, access to information and tools to deal with it, even democracy is nothing much more than a way for the populist and the demagogue to set arbitrary rules and not deal with people in any equal terms. This is, because what the religions have traditionally been doing about this same issue is completely the opposite. When ever possible without the constraints of secular rules, they have oppressed any who did not share their beliefs to the letter, they have limited the access to information and denied it especially if it had ever challenged their superstitiously formed world views, and they have taught people that critical thinking is a vice, especially concerning the doctrines and gods of the religion. We can not predict the future, but we should be able to learn from history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The atheist should be able to see the Theist as a victim of their cultural heritage. ” Agreed, we have to. But I think for the sake of no falling into arrogance traps, we have to leave open the possibility that they have greater understanding of certain things than we do. As evangelical atheists we have a tendency to meet the conversation by shutting it down with phrases like “deserve no respect”, “poison everything it touches” etc. You don’t, I have to add. And you’re one of my role models for how to connect meaningfully with people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why, thank you Violetwisp. I do not see myself as an “evangelical atheist”. Being atheist only defines my identity in as much as it differs from some other people in more or less significant way. I do not define myself nor identify any more as a non-believer in UFO abductions, or in pixies, while I think those are equally ridiculous suggestions as gods. The difference between the beliefs in deities and pixies is on the level of harm these nonsensical beliefs cause in the wider world. A person who believes in pixies is not likely to cause much harm, just like the individual believer in gods. The main problem is that there are so many who believe in gods, that they feel justified in causing harm by letting such beliefs affect their actions. Both the belief in pixies and in gods could cause some beneficial behaviour, but I do not think there are any forms of beneficial behaviour, that could not be achieved by some other motive, than by believing in gods or pixies. The beliefs in supernatural are not really needed for people to do good, even if they are used to motivate people to do good.
How to engage the person who believes in pixies or/and gods is a nother matter. I think it much depends on the individual believer. Different approaches affect different people. I have been called stupid on a matter, that I actually was being stupid about, and though my initial reflex was to go into agressive denial about the facts, I got over myself and the shock effect worked for me, in a matter that I possibly would not have come to my senses about, without the shock effect of being called stupid. But maybe that is just me? I would not see myself as such an extraordinary individual…
I do not recommed myself as any sort of role model in engaging the religious. First of all, I am by far too wordy. That is partly because I want to use the opportunity to give them food for thought, but it seems to lead some Theists into a complete mindlock, or on a strange path of evasions, or both. I do believe, that you who have had the experience of having been a religious person once, have a much better insider view on what works or not, than me. I have no experience of ever being a religious person or even believing in anything supernatural. I find such things simply nonsensical, even when I do understand where they come from. I am constantly confused about the nature of religious thought. It often seems “stupid” and at times simply childish, very much like racist or nationalist thought patterns, and all too often equally arbitrary, segragational and ultimately harmfull. How should we engage the racist? They think they are on the good side defending all that is good and doing good work for the people they care for and themselves. Should we not tell them they are mistaken and wrong? Or even that their ideals “deserve no respect”? They do not, do they?
All human beings deserve a level of respect, if not for any other reason, but for them to provide us the same amount of respect. That is where human value and dignity come from, not from some metaphysical, or divine inspiration. It is hard to offer respect when the other individual offers no respect to you, or others based on some funky beliefs they have (on race or religion). I think that often the best we can expect is that if a person is even ready to engage in a dialogue with someone who sees things differently then that person may learn something from the other person. Sometimes even if the other person is completely and utterly wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So you think that people should give up their deeply held convictions in favor of what you see as most pragmatic? You do realize that’s what happened in Nazi Germany, right? People might have had deeply held convictions that killing the disabled, homosexuals, Jews and Gypsies was wrong – but hey, it certainly was more pragmatic (and popular) to do so.
Furthermore, it is quite condescending to say that other people should give up their most deeply held beliefs simply because you don’t believe them. Essentially you are standing above them saying that they are less-enlightened than you, and if they were on your level they would see the error of their ways. That’s a quite judgmental point of view.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment. Given the thousands of religions, thousands of interpretations within each religion and thousands of individual variations within each interpretation of each religion, can you really say that it makes sense to give other people rules from gods? What I’m suggesting is that religious people take a really good look at the picture of god belief around the world and throughout history. There is freedom in individual expression of the personal relationship with whatever god you follow – I’m not suggesting people give anything up, I’m suggesting people free themselves from the chains of clearly incorrect structures and claim ownership of their relationships, discuss possibilities openly. For example, assuming you’re a Christian, do you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church? If you do, do you accept the teachings of Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses? All from the same Bible, the same religious tradition. Already most Christians are recognising they have to accept they aren’t following the only Truth. Why not accept that the Truth is open to individual interpretation and that makings blocks of belief with fixed rules isn’t working for anyone? If it was, Christians would still have slaves and regularly beat their children with rods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OR, we can all conclude that man made gods – THAT’s pragmatic. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
What actually happened in Nazi-Germany? By far most of the Nazies were sincere Christians of one, or another denomination. Certainly they were not Jews, or atheistic Communists. Hitler promised publicly and on several occasion to protect the sanctity and position of both Catholic and Protestant faith in the Reich. He himself told to have had direct command from his god (he was a Catholic) to go and conquer. People did not accept killing Jews and Communists because they thought it was “practical”, but because they thought it served them right for not being good Christian Nazies. They thought killing homosexuals was justified because the Christian god hates homosexuality. They even thought they were being Christian and mercifull in killing the disabled.
The first concentration camps were set on the premise, that the Communists and atheists should be re-educated to become better members of the society of the Reich. The holocaust set up by the nazies was not by far the first violent attack by Christians in Germany or the rest of Europe against the Jews, and never before was it ever excused as being “pragmatic”. It was perfectly OK by all Christians who allowed or engaded in such, by the virtue of them not being Christians. It was not even excused by the nazies to the general public for being “pragmatic”. The Nazi leaders thought it was pragmatic, but they also did not hold any deep convictions about killing of the Jews as wrong. Did they?
Besides, there was very little pragmatic about the Nazies, they were hopeless romantics who sincerely believed not only that they were protecting the Western Civilization by attacking the godless communists of the Soviet Union, but also that they were some sort of super human race. How much more unpragmatic can you get, than to attack Russia or believe you are super human?
I agree, that it is condescending to tell people, that they should give up their most deeply held beliefs. However, what else is there to say for people who have foul false beliefs, like the Nazies, or the KuKluxKlan, as just for couple of examples? Have their beliefs earned respect? What about the Jihadist terrorist? Where do you draw the line, in not telling people they are wrong, if you think they are? How are people who are wrong supposed to ever know about it, if nobody ever tells them so? I have been both annoyed and relieved, when someone has explained to me, that I am wrong and why was it that I was wrong. I prefer the truth, over any comfort of lies or false beliefs, even from an annoying, or condescending person telling me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like what you’re saying here. Essentially you are asking for institutions to stop trying to enforce their morality on those not within that institution for starters.
What’s ironic is that this is exactly how The Christian church started. It was a Jew who was speaking to other Jews about their own religion, and that Jew claimed authority because he claimed to be God. After he proved this to his followers by rising from the dead, the Jews following Him began to run around acting like him. Doing things one on one, interpersonally. Their movement caught on but it was never an institution early on, and every “congregation” looked radically different. It was only later that this got turned into an institution of power and control.
So basically, as a Christian I agree with much of what you are saying. I too think we should be busy living like Jesus and actually doing the things he did, such as miracles, healing the sick, caring for the poor, etc, rather than trying to control other people.
Thats actually what the Bible itself tells us to do in the last book. It says to allow others to keep doing what they are doing, not to try to change them. This is largely ignored by Christians today, but hey, who ever said that Christians actually follow what Jesus taught them to do anyway right? 😉
LikeLike
So how’s it going with the miracles?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate you asking. Miracles tend to be something many people are curious about. I get why. I used to think they didn’t exist.
Anyway, In my experience things that science would currently classify as miraculous happen about 50-70% of the time. There are many reasons why they don’t happen every time of course, and that would take a lot of writing to work through all of that, but the thing that matters to me personally is just how much God loves positively impacting the lives of his kids. Its a big reason why I enjoy engaging people without trying to convert them, because God tends to prefer to prove Himself first so that they know he exists and cares. Then people tend to seek Him on their own from there, and I can partner with whatever they may ask for.
LikeLike
Ahh. . . so you’re saying that when a miracle doesn’t happen, that’s when (your) god decides he doesn’t want the impact to be positive. . . (?) . . .or something like that. . .
LikeLike
No, not at all. 🙂 If you look at my previous comment, you’ll see that I said there are many, many reasons why sometimes a miracle doesn’t happen. I could reccommend 5 or so books that would help explain a few of those reasons, but that still probably wouldn’t cover it. The problem with Truth is that it is complicated, and staw man versions just don’t ever cut it.
It would be like asking me why a light bulb usually turns on but sometimes doesn’t. I could give you a fee basic reasons, but there are reasons beyond that too. It could be simple, like the bulb burnt out. Could be the power is down. Could be the wiring in the house, or a breaker got flipped, or any of a handful of other reasons. To try to take anything true and involving multiple entities and simplify into a one dimensional statement about only one element of that situation is going to leave you coming up short.
All that being said, you can rest assured that Jesus is constant in his Character. He doesn’t suddenly stop loving or suddenly not want to bring the world and those in it closer to wholeness. Whether or not a miracle happens, He still is who He always is. Hope that helps. ☺
LikeLike
To be clear, science does not “currently classify” anything at all as a miracle. Exept, in religion studies, where it is used as a term for something people think is so extraordinary, that they think it is a result of some supernatural influence. That does not mean anything actually happened because of any supernatural influence, only that people think it did. The thing is, that for science it is impossible to research anything super- or otherwise unnatural, but science can research claims about supernatural influencing the natural world. The honest scientist comes to the conclusion, that a cause can not be defined, when it can not be defined within the natural material universe, instead of making the guess that any particular super- or otherwise unnatural entity or causality was behind the event, that people would lable as a miracle.
I agree with you, that it does not, and should not really, matter wether a Christian, or any other sort of Theist any more than an atheist has the right to define what other people believe or try to force their actions because of relgious reasons. The problem being, that religious and supernatural experiences people have, are impossible to actually verify to other people through the scientific method. Hence, they are ultimately subjective reasons for anyone to do anything. This is why the secular states have arisen and why it is forbidden to use supernatural witness in courts of law for most civilized nations. I mean to say, we are on the same page with the important issues, like how we should treat other people and why, even if we might disagree about the likelyhood of anything being a supernaturally induced miracle. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha, yes! And as I was saying, at least for Christianity, religion is spread through interpersonal subjective experience. Now if you believe the biblical accounts of Moses and the Jewish Theocracy, obviously that was governmental, but according to those accounts, God was a pretty tangible face to face sort of entity for those people, so a theocracy made some level of sense. According to Revelation, if you take a literal interpretation, there will eventually be something similar again. But again, God will be just as physically present to rule as someone like Donald Trump. (Although for half the Conservatives out there trump might as well be God already. Lol).
I meet with a group of free thinking atheists and agnostics to talk deep topics, and I’ve come to realize something rather profound. God, at least the one of the Bible, doesn’t seem to have any interest in being “proven.” I live talking this stuff and growing as a human being, but God has always been about personally relating to people, especially once Jesus comes on the scene.
You’re 100% right, the supernatural is pretty difficult to replicate in a lab. Thats because if this stuff actually is real, then we are talking about actual entities with sentience and therefore with an agenda of their own. clearly, they are not this far very interested in proving their existence empirically.
I will say, however, that an iindividual can use logic, reason, and evidence to develop beliefs that most accurately reflect the evidence they have been presented with. Thats the biggest reason why I am Christian. The miracles, and a fee other “impossible” things that I experience on a regular basis make it so that based on the evidence and all available explanations, I would be an absolute fool to not believe. I’d have to deny my sense of reason, which just isn’t something I’m willing to do.
Last thing. I completely agree that science doesn’t really call anything a miracle in a lab. I only meant things that according to our current understanding of the world are either impossible or unexplainable. Which in the case of myself and many friends I know, are the things that take place in the lives of those that know Christ intimately on a regular basis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How odd. I came to the conclusion that there most likely is no god, based on logic, reason, and the lack of evidence. Obviously, I must be an absolute fool. I certainly don’t experience ‘Christ intimately on a regular basis’ and would see that as being completely subjective. The evidence for that would be . . . ? . . .smh. ..
LikeLike
Carmen, it doesn’t seem that you are having much luck with following these posts. As we have established, the evidence for faith IS subjective, and is MEANT to be. For example, I can say with confidence that in spite of your current situation, God does in fact care about you and is actively working within your life to bring you into as much of His goodness and life as you will allow Him to.
But that isn’t evidence, and it isn’t me trying to convert you. I just know Him, so I know what He’s like.
I’m sorry if you feel you are an absolute fool. I dont think of you that way at all. You probably have never seen a limb grow out, or atrophied muscle tissue instantaneously regrow in someone’s leg, or a broken bone instantly restored. More than likely you have never had God share with you a secret about someone’s life when they were 5 years old along with what God was up to in that situation and why that person wasn’t alone even when they felt they were, or had God give a friend of yours the exact address of someone’s old church just so your friend could demonstrate to that person that God is paying attention and He values them. I have. And much more than that as well, but it would take pages of text to list everything I have actively been a part of. Heck, I could even send u some of the x-rays if I just got them from a few of my friends.
Anyway, my point is that your experience is different from mine. I can tell you my experience, and you can either dismiss it as a lie, pretend I’m delusional, let it open you to thinking in new ways about the world, or really do whatever else you like. God wants to know you, but neither of us is interested in forcing Him on you. It is your journey, and you have to walk it. My only encouragement would be to never give up in your pursuit of Truth, and to never hide behind what has become comfortable to you. Because there is always more out there, and the truth is always bigger than what we hold to in this current moment of our story.
Subjective evidence isn’t how you prove something in a lab, but that doesn’t invalidate it as a form of evidence. I know my friend Doug exists, because I’ve met him. You Haven’t, so you dont know he exists. My subjective experience is how I know of his existence, and nearly every price of evidence I have for him has been subjectivity gathered. That doesn’t invalidate his existence, it just means that the easiest way to show you he exists would be to have you meet him in some way. Thats how God works. He wants relationship with people, so demanding he prove himself objectively is actually pretty counter to his entire Goal. Because if he is objectively proven, we would have no choice but to follow Him. Its pretty hard to rebel against a divine being thats all powerful. Lol. Objective proof would remove the opportunity to freely choose Him, and since thats basically his entire goal here, the situation demands subjective experience. Does that help clear it up? I know that with your “smh” comment you may no longer be thinking critically and instead may be engaging this in an emotionally flippant way, so maybe none of this will help. But since you are in this thread, I figured you deserved the respect I was hoping you would show others. The respect of listening, and engaging with an open heart, rather than being dismissive or oversimplifying things.
If you are actively listening and want to continue to engage, I’ll be glad to keep replying.
LikeLike
. . . emotionally flippant. . . got it. Oh, my.
LikeLike
KarstenKaczmar, indeed. My field of research is history and pre-history, so I agree, that not all that we can come to a conclusion to be true is something we are able to replicate in a laboratory environment. The study of history is very much about observations people have had about what they think has happened. Indeed the scientific method has a completely different usage in the study of past events, than it has in repeatable test situations of for example chemistry. Yet, it is no less scientific, when the method is applied properly. One of the major things in historical research is the attempt to discern the most likely events from fables and false impressions of some contemporary sources. That is why I think, not only that we have very little reason to take the Biblical accounts at face value, but also that the early Hebrew theocracy makes perfect sense in the cultural context as a means of a small group of people holding a political power base and using this notion of a singular tribal god to segragate the tribes they led from as much outside influence as they possibly could. The actual reasons are thus completely secular, though covered in religious authoritarianism and tribal moralism. Good number of the Mosaic laws are simply rules against major cultural influences in the Levant area, either from local urban culture, Egyptian or eastern empires. Not some universal and practical moral code for all people through all ages, even though some people seem to think at least some of them are.
I agree, that there are inexplainable things and even some that seem impossible, but I myself am not ready to make the jump to the conclusion, that any particular folklore about super- or otherwise unnatural causation was a likely explanation. Therefore the lable miracle is a representation of jumping to conclusions, or if you prefer, a leap of faith. The problem is, that it is easy enough to come up with a sufficient supernatural explanation to just about any inexplainable, or seemingly impossible event, just as it is with explainable and seemingly possible events. Guesses and made up explanations usually have that property. For example is the lightning a manifestation of some supernatural agency, or a completely natural and random event? If we can agree, that it is the latter, then why was it for so long to so many people a reasonable reason to think the supernatural affected the material reality in this fashion? Are the supernatural forces unable, or unwilling to controll it? What about earthquakes? The trouble that follows from leaping to conclusions is, that based on a tradition of guesses and made up explanations, people are liable to jump into a series of sincere false beliefs and as a result often also to very harmfull actions. As to my knowledge, when people do something harmfull, based on their sincerely held relgious convictions, no gods tend to involve themselves at any level in explaining to people, this to be the case. On the contrary, people report all sorts personal experiences of gods as having provided them the justification to act in the most harmfull ways. This would seem to make the gods, either rather immoral, impotent, or most likely (according to Occam’s razor) quite unlikely. Who knows, but for not finding faith in them might just be a reason for me to suffer for an eternity in this or that sort of hell, or simply vanish, instead of being able to endlessly continue in the everafter, simply because all claims about any sort of afterlife seem to me not to hold any evidence at all to bear the burden of proof.
I salute you for the descision to use logic. Logic is the best tool we humans have come up with. Logic, however requires facts. It is only logical to admit, that if you do not have all the facts, then you do not know what happened, instead of leaping to a conclusion, that an inexplainable or seemingly impossible event was caused by an agent outside time and space. You seem like a reasonable person to me, so I have no reason to assume you did not have a reasonable reason to believe as you do about gods. I do not have any similar reason, nor have I ever had. Many of my very reasonable friends have had a reasonable reason to belive in this or that god, but they have come to a conclusion that what they thought was a reasonable reason to belive as they did, was after all not so reasonable. We all have reasons we percieve something reasonable to belive, that are not necessarily objectively so reasonable. The most important thing is that we allow those beliefs to one another, as we also understand, that our rights end where the rights of the other begin. To me it seems you and I see the world this way, and that in my book makes you one of the good guys, despite wether or not one of us (or possibly both) believe false things about gods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha, thank you my friend. And I really appreciate the thought out response. You are definitely the kind of atheist who would have a lot of fun in the discussion group I’m a part of. (I’m the only person of faith in it actually)
I live that you bring up history, and I think thats a great place to start. Especially related to the tribal war god we see within ancient Hebrew culture. Have you ever read anything by Peter Enns by the way? Guarantee you would enjoy him a lot. “The Bible Tells Me So” is one of my favorite ones by him. He digs into a lot of what you bring up here actually.
The thing is, science has advanced massively since the time of lightning gods, yet Jesus still has a hell of a lot of presence in the world, and people are still converting to him en mass. From an outside perspective, there are about 1,000 good reasons for this that have nothing to do with a deity existing, as I’m sure you and I both are aware of. But even so, I’ve seen a tremendous amount of “impossible” facts that verify the theory of Jesus being God. Any of them by itself isn’t sufficient, much like any one piece of evidence Darwin found wouldn’t be sufficient to demonstrate the theory of evolution. But combined, the faith I hold to becomes the most reasonable theory I could possibly hold to. I’m sure if we sat down and you heard my story, you might feel similarly that logic dictates that my theory of Christianity be held to. However, God is telling his own unique story with each person. I can share Him with you in tangible ways, I can talk about stuff or share my story, but I can’t convert you, and frankly I don’t want to try. God (if He is there) is the only one in charge of bringing you to Him. So I’d rather learn from you, and share with you. Hopefully. you get something from me too. Because I’m from a world where the impossible is normal, and it really is a tremendous amount of fun. So far, I haven’t found another context where so many “miraculous” things happen and so many lives get radically changed for the better than I have in the expression of Christianity within the communities I’m a part of.
As a historian, you know I have reason to believe Jesus existed. I even have reason in terms of witness testimony and historical evidence to consider that there is a possibility that if in fact he was God as his followers claim, that maybe he could have been resurrected. Again, this by itself? Weak. Kinda dumb. But given the God that I know, and what I’ve seen, and what I’ve directly been the one to pray for and see happen? Its the only thing that makes sense.
All that being said, I walked away from all of it for 4 years. Not because I ever stopped loving God in my heart, but because emotions aren’t evidence. I needed to spend some serious time studying how the brain deceives us, and going deep into opposing perspectives to my own. And I did. The problem is, after 4 years of walking away from my faith and considering every angle, the evidence finally demanded that I return to my original theory. Feel free to contact me on my blog if you want to talk beyond this thread by the way. I’m always down for good conversation.🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the invitation, and by all means, you are equally welcome to join me in my blog The World’s Pain.
No, I have never read anything from Peter Enns, nor from other theologians, unless they were historical sources. Theology is not very interresting, because it is not productive, as it is a pseudo-science, that has an historical position in the history of sciences, as a result of wich it enjoys respect, that it does not really deserve. It starts from a premise, that the predecided conclusion must be true on the power of faith. The scientific method is impossible to employ in this fashion. It teaches nothing new, nor reliable about the tangible reality around us. At best theology gives an angle of understanding to the society contemporary of the individual theologian. I thank you for your recommendation however, though at the moment I have a rather long to-read-list in front of me to labour through. 🙂
I only presented the lightning as an example we could most likely both agree, that it is a superstitious to see it is a manifestation of the supernatural, even though a lot of reasonable people thought it perfectly acceptable and reliable means to interprete it as a supernatural force, simply because they did not know what caused it. Can we agree as much?
Most Christians for the majority of Christendom’s history have thought lightning as some form of divine power. In reality they did not know what it was, nor were they in any way justified or warranted to jump to the conlusion, that it is divine. Were they? However, if there is some maximally powerfull divine force, that could prevent a lightning strike when it pleases to, but does not stop it from hitting a person, then that is not different from a person who could prevent an accident, but chooses not to. Especially as we do know, lightning does not select whom it strikes. Does it?
Yes, I think it is quite likely there was an actual person behind the stories about the Biblical Jesus character. We have good historical reasons to belive there were several such nazarines active prior to the Jewish rebellion against the Roman empire. Much of the story seems like a sort of rationalization of the events and emotions, that led to the rebellion, the Jews could not possibly have won against the predominant military force in the Mediterranean world at the time. However, we have no evidence at all, that the miraculous events in the story are true on any level. It should be remembered, that the most important miracle he supposedly performed, happened in a situation where there were absolutely no eye-witnesses to it. Most of the rest of the story seems like an inference on this one superstitious interpretation of an event emotionally moving to the survivors and a later embellishment of the importance of the singular event, the superstitious contemporaries and the followers of this ascet, who had been condemned to die on the cross, came up with when they already had tied their reputations and identities on him and their interpretation of the event, wich was shamefull to many of them.
Further more, if I told you that it was aliens from a nother planet that resurrected Jesus in the tomb, when nobody was looking, my claim would be far more likely (according to Occam’s Razor) as it did not require a deity from outside the material universe to be involved. We do not know of any aliens from other planets, but as such do not need to come from beyond the observable material universe, their involvement in the Jesus incident is a less extraordinary claim. Despite the fact, that we have a long tradition of peole believing a divinity was involved and to my knowledge absolutely nobody who really thought it was aliens. Extraordinary claims, be they aliens from a nother world, or divine entities from beyond time and space require extraordinary evidence. Yes?
However, if we take the Gospels as an historical source, it is much more likely it was a small scale “conspiracy” orchestrated by Joseph of Arimathea, who according to the Gospels, was a rich Jew who had taken a liking to Jesus and in his position could have easily bribed the Roman soldiers (whose commander in chief had already distanced himself from the execution) to save the carpenter gone nazarene from death. This would explain not only the alledged resurrection, but also why Jesus – according to the story – alledgedly died on the cross faster than most people despite being a young carpenter and an ascet. In any case it is an anecdotal story, with several contradicting versions of it. How many angels were there at the tomb, when the women came to embalm Jesus? Was there a big stone and Roman guards at the door, and if there was, how did the women think they could possibly embalm the body of Jesus?
You wrote to Carmen, that: “You probably have never seen a limb grow out, or atrophied muscle tissue instantaneously regrow in someone’s leg, or a broken bone instantly restored. More than likely you have never had God share with you a secret about someone’s life when they were 5 years old along with what God was up to in that situation and why that person wasn’t alone even when they felt they were, or had God give a friend of yours the exact address of someone’s old church just so your friend could demonstrate to that person that God is paying attention and He values them. I have.” I have no doubt that Carmen is quite capable of addressing this series of very extraordinary claims on her own. I have learned she is not at all “emotionally flippant”, even if she is sometimes far better than I am to simplify things to be more suited to this format of discussion.
Yet, what you said sounds interresting to me too. You have actually seen these physical regrowth situations you refer to? You must understand, that this sounds unbelievable. How do you know, the bone was broken if it was instantly restored? Where did these incidents happen, that the medical marvel was not world widely reported? Why did this only happen to those particular people, but not to all people who pray for health? I could throw a number of other reasons why I am not willing to simply take your word for it, but instead it might be more fruitfull to address this from a nother angle. How do you know you can attribute such implausible events to any particular divinity? Or that you have any notion on what the causal reason behind them was? Or would it be more honest to admit you do not know what that was? Or did you only refer to yourself in the last experience about the church address on your list?
While the medical restoration events you describe sound “miraculous”, or let us be honest – implausible, your story about the secret some god shared whith someone when they were 5 and the story about the address of the church being distributed by a god when the person who recieved the address seemed to need such reinforcement of their faith are not in the same league with the medical events. While the medical events would require – even to be considered as remotely plausible, and if they were real, would have – the confirmation, from a number of medical professionals, the stories of coincidences and divine communication within the head of a person are not very impressive at all. People take all sorts of coincidences as reinforcing their religious faith all the time (regardless of their particular religion), but that does not make them any less coincidential nor does it make those religions more plausible. The part this god character plays in such stories is often rather obscure. How does a person know that the information recieved is from a particular god, and not simply something they have previously recieved from some mundane source, forgotten and drawn later from their subconsciousness?
It seems when people refer to communication with their gods, it is very hard, if not impossible to discern the divine communication from the inner monologue, or the subconscious, nor from intuitive or instinctive behaviour models of the persons involved. Most often such bear the distinctive mark of the cultural heritage of the person. Again, according to the Occam’s Razor as a god is a far more complicated suggestion, than the trick of a mind, the latter is by far more likely explanation, even if we thought both could serve as an explanation. We know our minds trick us from time to time, while we know nothing of gods. Especially so, when people who belive in various different and mutually exclusive gods report similar experiences with their different gods.
I must say, that I am curious about what evidence did you find that convinced you and how. Was it the event with a god possibly leading a person to a church, when they needed the reinforcing of their faith? Maybe I shall take up on your offer and visit your blog, when I have the time to spare. Meanwhile I also recommend you read this exellent blog by Violetwisp, and make what you think of it. 😉
LikeLike
Karsten,
I’m sure you can see why I appreciate and admire rautakky’s comments so much. He tends to break down his rebuttals into logical, sensible components and spends time analyzing others’ comments thoroughly. Always diplomatic, he nevertheless exposes the gaping holes in someone’s argument and thoroughly debunks their assertions, as anyone following this thread can clearly see — he’s done the same with yours.
Your preposterous claims (Rautakky used the word ‘extraordinary’ but, as I mentioned, he’s much more tactful than I am) are an indication of your delusion (your word, and it fits) and I am wondering why – since you’ve seen a limb grow back – that skill wasn’t shared at the local hospital . .. I’m sure there are millions of people who would love to have had that particular ‘miracle’ performed on them. But I have learned that the people who say such things are convinced that their god meant for them – and them alone – to witness this sort of thing. You must feel very special. Let’s face it; that’s what it’s all about, eh? It is surprising, since you spent all that time learning about how our brains can convince us about many things, that you would have missed this crucial fact; that you wanted so desperately to believe in an invisible friend that you are convinced you witnessed a ‘miracle’. Speaking of simplifying things, I’m calling this what it is – bullshit. I think you’re full of it.
LikeLike
Religion is so personal… yet so public. Please read my experience
https://readbetweenthelines.blog
LikeLike
Pingback: The Field is the World #3 Germans leaving the State Church | Bijbelvorser = Bible Researcher
Pingback: The Field is the World #4 Many who leave the church | Bijbelvorser = Bible Researcher
I couldn’t agree more. Attacking someone or someone’s beliefs dirctly will only cause them to become defensive and shut down. Instead give them a different perspective that will cause them to stop and think about what they believe and why they believe it. Thanks for the post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
God is simply an abstract concept and as such EVERYTHING we think about God is then about God. But, due to the subjective nature of abstract concepts. My concept of God, Beauty, Love, Justice, Goodness, etc is different from your concept of these abstract ideas or anyone else’s, therefore no one is actually speaking of these concepts in and of themselves.
Religion is the doctrines and rituals put in place in attempt to conform other people’s abstract concept of God to their own or own agenda.
LikeLike
Oh boy 🙂
Can anybody say:
LikeLike