Atheism and sharing the bridge to the future

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Wait so let me get this straight:

You're telling me that you believe there's no hell or heaven (at least no Heaven that humans can go to), when we're dead we're just dead?

Our deeds live on. "The evil men do lives after them." For the uninitiated that's Shakespeare, not the bible.)
People remember us. If we're lucky. Jesus has had a place for thousands of years.

Originally Posted by Despanan

As in, Jesus's suffering and death on the cross doesn't actually get anyone into heaven it just allows them a place with him in posterity?

Jesus paid a dear price for us in the future (and for those of His time).
But His example gets us into heaven, again, bear with me as I use my personal example:

I was in living hell, totally screwing up in life (and damn near killing myself).
But by following Jesus, "that our 'old man' died on the cross with Jesus" (one of the few good things Paul said), I let my old self go, and was "resurrected" as a new person, the new Humane free of alcohol and cigarettes, and man, did things ever improve! My income more than quintupled, and I became "blessed" with many material things (although friends and family are one's true treasure). So I was able to enter the kingdom of heaven by becoming like a child (trusting Jesus instead of my faulty self).

This is where you and I differ Des. I follow Jesus as a guide to living, where as you perceive me as believing the bible literally and think I am a sheep in mind as well as spirit. "Those who seek find me". The seeker makes all the difference.

You accuse me of saying everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as going to hell, but I never said that.

You are stereotyping me as a Christian, but I am a follower of Jesus. Stereotyping was wrong for gays, African-Americans, Mexicans, Democrats, et al and I am warning atheists they should not do the same to believers.

Yeah, it is the same old tired Humane saw of "can't we all get along" but don't think I am against dissection of ideas, of seeking truth, of calling a wrong a wrong, but I also allowed myself personal faith because it worked for me, I am living proof, and as you said you know you can't change my mind about that.

[Corpsey]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Creationism and being told that the earth is only 6,000 years old is what totally woke me up. Even Christians who believe in evolution have no answer for when the soul became implanted into humans. It's so funny that just 2 years ago I allowed myself to accept that as truth. Funny and scary.

It was the same for me, you just can't take the mention of time in Genesis too literally like Creationism. We know that light has been traveling for Millions of years from various stars, so we know that the Universe cannot have been created Six Thousand years ago. I take the "Day" to be reference to a period of time, much like you would say "In Caesar's Day" or "In the Day of Alexander the Great" or "In my Grandfather's Day".

As for the Soul thing, I've been doing some reading and it turns out that people skipped a few passages right at the start. It mentions in Gen 1:20-21 that Animals are living souls as well.

Originally Posted by Gen 1.20-21

20*And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21*And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.

But most Christians wouldn't like you to know that. Kind of takes meaning away from the supposed Immortal Soul thing if it turns out the Soul isn't Immortal and that Animals like Fish and Birds are considered Souls.

[Corpsey]

Hey Humane, you wouldn't mind telling me what denomination you are? I'm trying to follow your mindset but it isn't terribly clear with me. You can PM me it if you'd rather keep it private.

[HumanePain]

None. I am a follower of Jesus. He is my personal savior, not a 501(c) (3) non-profit registered brick and mortar with an address.

[Corpsey]

Its not the building I'm after, but the principles.

[HumanePain]

I am not part of any denomination as I believe any organized religion is a power grab.

I have read the bible, and have come to my own conclusions as a result. Des thinks that reading the bible (all of it I infer), would convince people to become non-believers. I say it is more like 50/50, as depending on the seeker, (what they are looking for) they may become even more deeply convinced of their faith, in addition to those who may become disillusioned.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Our deeds live on. "The evil men do lives after them." For the uninitiated that's Shakespeare, not the bible.)
People remember us. If we're lucky. Jesus has had a place for thousands of years.

I don't disagree

Jesus paid a dear price for us in the future (and for those of His time).
But His example gets us into heaven, again, bear with me as I use my personal example:

I was in living hell, totally screwing up in life (and damn near killing myself).
But by following Jesus, "that our 'old man' died on the cross with Jesus" (one of the few good things Paul said), I let my old self go, and was "resurrected" as a new person, the new Humane free of alcohol and cigarettes, and man, did things ever improve! My income more than quintupled, and I became "blessed" with many material things (although friends and family are one's true treasure). So I was able to enter the kingdom of heaven by becoming like a child (trusting Jesus instead of my faulty self).

Okay...I get this. Here's the thing though: I am 99.9% sure that Jesus has no supernatural power (and you seem to suggest this as well). So what you most likely did, in my view, was use the idea of Jesus as a savior, as a psychological tool to get over your addiction. He was your "magic feather" if you will.

And hey, that's cool, I'm glad it worked out for you.

It seems to be that you are defining "the kingdom of heaven" as living a good life. Is that correct?

This is where you and I differ Des. I follow Jesus as a guide to living, where as you perceive me as believing the bible literally and think I am a sheep in mind as well as spirit. "Those who seek find me". The seeker makes all the difference.

No, I don't think this, but I'll explain what I think about you after I get a response to this post, because I would like you to clarify.

You accuse me of saying everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as going to hell, but I never said that.

No, but Jesus himself implied it, if we define Hell as "absence from God" at least.

You are stereotyping me as a Christian, but I am a follower of Jesus. Stereotyping was wrong for gays, African-Americans, Mexicans, Democrats, et al and I am warning atheists they should not do the same to believers.

I'm actually not. My objections have been against Christians, and you haven't really struck me as a Christian (though granted I've been a bit confused since colloquially "follower of Jesus" seems to mean the same thing).

Reading these posts has me thinking you'd agree with this. Is that correct?

Yeah, it is the same old tired Humane saw of "can't we all get along" but don't think I am against dissection of ideas, of seeking truth, of calling a wrong a wrong, but I also allowed myself personal faith because it worked for me, I am living proof, and as you said you know you can't change my mind about that.

Kay...fine, but then why are you even arguing with me? Why are you trying to overrule freedom of speech with freedom of religion? Because honestly, that seems to be what you meant by "Applying the first amendment to local interactions" You never corrected me when I pointed this out.

So again I ask: Did you mean to say that I should not criticize religious faith?

[Despanan]

Still waiting for an answer.

[HumanePain]

Sorry for the delay, been busy with work and family stuff. I do follow this thread when I have time, it is an important topic that should be discussed.

Originally Posted by Despanan

It seems to be that you are defining "the kingdom of heaven" as living a good life. Is that correct?

More of a happy life. I know Christians who live a "good life" but are unhappy because they misunderstand the guide to living. The take the bible literally and then wonder why they receive criticism. Their own fault.

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm actually not. My objections have been against Christians, and you haven't really struck me as a Christian (though granted I've been a bit confused since colloquially "follower of Jesus" seems to mean the same thing).

Reading these posts has me thinking you'd agree with this. Is that correct?

Yes, that is the distinction I make between myself and Christians when I say that I am a follower of Jesus. I don't follow Jews. I don't like Paul. He was the one who asked churches to collect money and brought his pre-conversion legacy beliefs like homophobia with him into his New Testament writings. But in fairness he did have some cool things to say about love in Corinthians.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Kay...fine, but then why are you even arguing with me? Why are you trying to overrule freedom of speech with freedom of religion? Because honestly, that seems to be what you meant by "Applying the first amendment to local interactions" You never corrected me when I pointed this out.

So again I ask: Did you mean to say that I should not criticize religious faith?

I am not arguing with you, the theme of my threads is against arguing between atheists and Christians.

But yes, we should dissect religion (that is how one uncovers the wolves in sheep's clothing), one thing I am saying is that atheists apply critical thought against religion, not people.

There is a difference.

[Catch]

Seems like any religion is figuring out how to get along with people better. Frankily, the manical way of attacking Christians does not speak well of Athiests. There have been a lot of people who thought if other people went away then their problems would be solved. However, they forgot to resovle the problems producing the problems.

People don't want to be slaves working for other people all the time. People want to have freedom, love and self-respect. Tearing down another person does not create self-respect, it only takes self-respect from another person. People promoting the ideal of murder and human sacrifice are probably the biggest monsters of all time, even when their side won and wrote the history books. Despite the glorification of all their actions, we all see the are blood, gold and power hungry monsters that did not actually resolve anything.

Meanwhile, the thinkers actually making people's life better are as revered and they do not have the two-faced complex associated with those who don't care to explain their lifestyle just attack another person.

[Despanan]

You've got me a little confused here, so I'm going to ask a few more questions (I want to make sure I understand your position.)

Originally Posted by HumanePain

More of a happy life.

So, in your mind, what happens when we die? Is there an afterlife? Who goes there? How important is this afterlife to your own, personal worldview?

Yes, that is the distinction I make between myself and Christians when I say that I am a follower of Jesus. I don't follow Jews. I don't like Paul. He was the one who asked churches to collect money and brought his pre-conversion legacy beliefs like homophobia with him into his New Testament writings. But in fairness he did have some cool things to say about love in Corinthians.

Jesus's miracles: are they real? Did he actually create fish and loaves out of nowhere, or is this just a story/trickery? Did he actually heal the blind and the lame? Did he magically bring his friend Lazarus back to life? Do you believe he actually rose from the dead?

How important are these miracles to your faith? If Jesus was just a regular human cult-leader with some groovy ideas, would that be okay?

I am not arguing with you, the theme of my threads is against arguing between atheists and Christians.

But yes, we should dissect religion (that is how one uncovers the wolves in sheep's clothing), one thing I am saying is that atheists apply critical thought against religion, not people.

There is a difference.

I'm a little confused, could you please elaborate on this distinction, and exactly how it applies to interactions between Christians and atheists?

[HumanePain]

Again, sorry for the delay. Valentine's Day and work and a lot of little family things going on. Anyway, thanks for your patience.

Originally Posted by Despanan

You've got me a little confused here, so I'm going to ask a few more questions (I want to make sure I understand your position.)

So, in your mind, what happens when we die? Is there an afterlife? Who goes there? How important is this afterlife to your own, personal worldview?

What happens to us is the same thing that happens to leaves, fish and any other living creature that dies. The closest to Christianity that I am living is a Christian philosophy. Following Jesus helps me in life. In death who cares? Certainly I won't. So no, no afterlife except through those who remember me, and some corny Gnet videos.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Jesus's miracles: are they real? Did he actually create fish and loaves out of nowhere, or is this just a story/trickery? Did he actually heal the blind and the lame? Did he magically bring his friend Lazarus back to life? Do you believe he actually rose from the dead?

The short answer is trickery but not by Jesus: Here is the rub between me as a follower of Jesus using His words as a guide to living, and Christians, and these are my conclusions based on what I have read, how I have observed the way that Jesus seemed to speak to two different audiences, and of course the real world of science and physics:

Keep in mind that during those primitive years, people were ignorant of the real world, the physical world, and in the same way other primitive societies assigned a spirit to the wind, the sun, the moon etc, people in the land and time of Jesus honestly believed in devils and angels.

This belief unfortunately gave them license to get away with their behavior. "The devil made me do it" sort of thing. (There were also those who were genuinely ill with schizophrenia, epilepsy and other misunderstood illnesses but this is another issue.)

I suspect that most of the people, perhaps mostly Gentiles who were afflicted with their self made problems (again, not the truly ill), in the same way as addicts, wanted a way out of despair, out of the shame of poverty or of being ostracized by the Jews or even just relief from the day to day struggle for survival.

Now, keeping the aforementioned in mind, in Matthew 9:6 (and Mark 2:10 and elsewhere) Jesus said "So I will prove to you that the Son of Man has the authority on earth to forgive sins", prior to "healing" a paralyzed man.

The above miracle contains two important statements:

1) that He was the Son of Man and

2) He had authority to forgive sins.

Jesus was very clever, and he was always aware that there were two different audiences: ones who needed deity to believe and those who, like Him, knew psychology.

Regarding 1) above:

Jesus regarded Himself as the Son of Man. Mankind is greater than the individual. You may regard this collective (and higher) organism as God or regard it as it is, the result of the instinctive gregariousness of men, but in any event, He was the distilled result, a man in touch with ourselves and who we are, knowing what made men tick, and how to motivate us. Let's face it: like Him or not, He certainly has motivated men for thousands of years. There are many quotes of Jesus where He doesn't seem to give a straight answer; this is because He is speaking to the two different audiences at once.


Regarding 2) above:
He didn't say "heal", He said "forgive sins". In the majority of "healing" that took place I believe He was giving people a ritual, an experience, an epiphany whereby they could dramatically (and thus honestly believe) that they were transformed, leaving their old ways behind, and could wipe the slate clean and start over, with new hope, and thus new empowerment over their lives.

After His time on earth was ended, and I think long after as well in church conferences etc., these epiphanies and other experiences were exaggerated by the church. An organized religion needs miracles to justify important functions and hierarchy. The church made his psychological engineering into miracles, and if they rewrote His works to include healing leprosy, why stop there? So He raised the dead.

Originally Posted by Despanan

How important are these miracles to your faith? If Jesus was just a regular human cult-leader with some groovy ideas, would that be okay?

The miracles are important to those who need milk. I don't like the sound of "cult" as it seems to put Him in the same league as Scientology. He genuinely loved us, and proved it with sacrificing His life. You won't see A Scientologist do that. Unfortunately Jim Jones did it, but then he also took his followers with him, the bastard.
But for me? No, I could care less about His miracles. What matters most to me is what He said and did with His life. He loved us.

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm a little confused, could you please elaborate on this distinction, and exactly how it applies to interactions between Christians and atheists?

I will try. I am trying to build a bridge without a blueprint myself, but here goes:

There are many Christians who do not respect atheists.
There are many atheists who do not respect Christians.

But there are some believers who like me, are beginning to get a clue as to what Jesus was really about, reading between the lines.
Part of what this means is accepting our neighbor despite differences. So me and others are trying to reach out "across the aisle".

I have a wonderful friend. She is an atheist. But she reaches out to believers like myself, and not just me.

We are trying to provide an alternative future, with less animosity.
In this cause, we may seem to be "Benedict Arnolds". In this regard, I have been posting my two cents worth on how to slowly bring believers over the bridge to an eventually secular future, by taking baby steps", which may seem treasonous to Christians. (God I wish I could stop using metaphors! But I don't know any way to express my thoughts.)
And what I am asking for from atheists may seem treasonous to them: to tolerate believers, at least, tolerate them long enough for them to adapt.
Kind of "gathering more flies with honey than vinegar" approach.

Now, I know where you are coming from, your position is truth, straight up, and no sugar coating it for Christians or anyone else.

But we are humans. We have emotions. We have esteem. We have to be "handled" or we bolt.

What I am asking is to take a human approach to the differences, so that an alliance may be made that we can all not only benefit from, but be a model to the world, especially the Muslim world which is growing even faster than atheists! Now here is an ulterior motive I confess:

Unless things change, there will be an unpleasant conflict betwixt Muslims and atheists. If, by "practicing" on Christians, and getting the delivery right, we can convince secular and non-secular to peacefully coexist and then warm up to calm dissection of atheism, then eventually we may be able to quench the Muslim believers as well. This may in the end save millions of lives.

So yeah, plans within plans, but with good intentions. The way to Hell will come anyway, might as well try and avoid it.

[TheManWhoWouldBeDead]

I read the first post, and I think, while well-intended, it operates under the assumption that collectively atheists want to somehow move their worldview forward and eventually supplant religion. Personally I'd like to see people relinquish superstition and abandon religious beliefs, but I don't care enough to actually do anything about it. I'll settle for them not being in my face over it, and that's pretty much how things have been. I've never really encountered religious zealotry to the point where they break out the pitckforks and torches because I say I don't believe in a god. I've had people say that it's because I live in the northeast and we're more liberal here, but even in New York state there are large pockets of conservatism outside of Syracuse, NYC, and Albany. Even in those areas I've never really run across religious pressure.

If you want to talk about stamping out superstition, then you can do it by changing grade and high school curriculum. Teach logic and critical thinking, instead of the rote memorization currently pushed. You don't have to say a word about religion. Kids who are trained to think critically will eventually come across it and realize that it makes absolutely no sense.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by TheManWhoWouldBeDead

If you want to talk about stamping out superstition, then you can do it by changing grade and high school curriculum. Teach logic and critical thinking, instead of the rote memorization currently pushed. You don't have to say a word about religion. Kids who are trained to think critically will eventually come across it and realize that it makes absolutely no sense.

Not to mention teaching them actual evolution, instead of tip-toeing around the subject, terrified that you may just break their precious brains and cause them a traumatizing crisis of faith.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

What happens to us is the same thing that happens to leaves, fish and any other living creature that dies. The closest to Christianity that I am living is a Christian philosophy. Following Jesus helps me in life. In death who cares? Certainly I won't. So no, no afterlife except through those who remember me, and some corny Gnet videos.

Cool.

After His time on earth was ended, and I think long after as well in church conferences etc., these epiphanies and other experiences were exaggerated by the church. An organized religion needs miracles to justify important functions and hierarchy. The church made his psychological engineering into miracles, and if they rewrote His works to include healing leprosy, why stop there? So He raised the dead.

Gotcha.

The miracles are important to those who need milk. I don't like the sound of "cult" as it seems to put Him in the same league as Scientology. He genuinely loved us, and proved it with sacrificing His life. You won't see A Scientologist do that. Unfortunately Jim Jones did it, but then he also took his followers with him, the bastard.

While I agree that today the connotation seems harsh:

Cult

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

It certainly fit the behavior of Jesus and his followers, whether he genuinely loved us or not.

But for me? No, I could care less about His miracles. What matters most to me is what He said and did with His life. He loved us.

Kay, I really don't have any problem with this...though I AM a little surprised that you didn't point this out to me earlier. I've been posting under the impression that you believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ for weeks now. I wish you'd have just told me this sooner.

But anyway, lets get back to the argument:

Originally Posted by HP

There are many Christians who do not respect atheists.
There are many atheists who do not respect Christians.

But there are some believers who like me, are beginning to get a clue as to what Jesus was really about, reading between the lines.
Part of what this means is accepting our neighbor despite differences. So me and others are trying to reach out "across the aisle".

I have a wonderful friend. She is an atheist. But she reaches out to believers like myself, and not just me.

We are trying to provide an alternative future, with less animosity.
In this cause, we may seem to be "Benedict Arnolds". In this regard, I have been posting my two cents worth on how to slowly bring believers over the bridge to an eventually secular future, by taking baby steps", which may seem treasonous to Christians. (God I wish I could stop using metaphors! But I don't know any way to express my thoughts.)
And what I am asking for from atheists may seem treasonous to them: to tolerate believers, at least, tolerate them long enough for them to adapt.
Kind of "gathering more flies with honey than vinegar" approach.

Now, I know where you are coming from, your position is truth, straight up, and no sugar coating it for Christians or anyone else.

But we are humans. We have emotions. We have esteem. We have to be "handled" or we bolt.

What I am asking is to take a human approach to the differences, so that an alliance may be made that we can all not only benefit from, but be a model to the world, especially the Muslim world which is growing even faster than atheists! Now here is an ulterior motive I confess:

Unless things change, there will be an unpleasant conflict betwixt Muslims and atheists. If, by "practicing" on Christians, and getting the delivery right, we can convince secular and non-secular to peacefully coexist and then warm up to calm dissection of atheism, then eventually we may be able to quench the Muslim believers as well. This may in the end save millions of lives.

So yeah, plans within plans, but with good intentions. The way to Hell will come anyway, might as well try and avoid it.

Okay, now I take your point, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you for the following reason:

You assume that I want all atheists to take the same hard-line approach that Kontan and I take here on Gnet. This is incorrect. Hell, I don't even take this stance anywhere BUT online unless I find myself onstage or aggressively prompted by someone. Once again, this discourse must take place in the proper social context.

However, the hard line "straight up truth with no coddling and apologies" IS an argument that needs to be presented, because without it, the "tolerance" atheists will never be respected. You and the rest of your "baby steps" crowd will be the despised radicals - Not us.

However, if folks like Kontan and I aggressively mock, confront, and in general point out just how ridiculous, broken, and barbaric the demands made by the bible actually are, if we point out the hypocrisy inherent in the "I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay" approach the majority of the moderate Christians take where are those Christians going to go? Are they going to become radical Christians? 90% I'd say no, the vast majority will decide to be "baby steps" atheists, or "teapot agnostics" or just say: "I don't want to talk about this, religion isn't that relevant to my life".

And we win.

The ones who DO choose to be radicals, and live biblically will quickly be revealed as the anti-social cavemen fuckheads that they are, and ostracized by the community. their values will be left behind as relics of a barbaric past.

And we win.


There's already a war going on with radical fundamentalist Muslims, and treating them and their despicable, barbaric ideas with respect is not the way to end those practices, it is the way to perpetuate those practices.

Your "Lets all get along and work together" is a very nice sentiment, but it flies in the face of human behavior. The Civil Rights movement wasn't just a bunch of people deciding to get together and work together for a better future, their were RIOTS, there were lynchings, there were assassinations. Any political struggle (and make no mistake, this IS a political struggle) is going to have a great deal of conflict, and this is unavoidable. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. NEEDED people like Malcom X in order to be seen as the more palatable, moderate alternative by the mainstream.

HP, you need people like Kontan and I to be what you cannot be. You need us, and Dawkins, and George Carlin, and Bill Hicks, and Douglas Adams, and John Murdock to make the arguments that your sensibilities prevent you from making. You need us to smash the aura of sacredness that these people have wrapped themselves in. You need us to do this because after we've offended everyone, they'll come to you. Will there be conflict? Will their be violence? Unfortunately yes; There is no birth without pain, and radicals do not go quietly; but they will go, and one day their barbaric creeds will be lost to time and then we can all start killing each other for more logical reasons.

HP, Kontan and I are Batman to your commissioner Gordon, and even though we've done nothing wrong, you'll have to chase us, you'll hate us, you'll set the dogs on us, because we are the thinkers that society deserves, but not the one's it needs right now.

You're welcome.

[Despanan]

Also HP, I really don't think it's fair to consider yourself a "believer" you aren't a believer, you're someone who likes the philosophy of Jesus Christ, and bases your life around that philosophy.

Yet by virtue of the language you use you're lumping yourself in with people like Corpsey, who DO believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. That's confusing at best and outright dishonest at worst.

[Catch]

There is nothing wrong with having ethical beliefs and moral systems. It is difficult believing in something. Sometimes it is even more difficult when learning a variety of philosophies on the same subject. It is better to review information and decide over going out and doing something obnoxious because it didn't really make sense.

I believe people with Stigmata are being punished by God for worshiping Christ, because they did not understand the correct interpretation of Jesus Christ's spiritual being and it is actually God still being worshipped.

Stigmata makes people bleed out their hands and ankles. It is painful and absolutely horrible.

[TheManWhoWouldBeDead]

Originally Posted by Catch

I believe people with Stigmata are being punished by God for worshiping Christ, because they did not understand the correct interpretation of Jesus Christ's spiritual being and it is actually God still being worshipped.

Then why aren't there more people with stigmata?

[Catch]

Originally Posted by TheManWhoWouldBeDead

Then why aren't there more people with stigmata?

Because there are several interpretations all meaning God is God and Jesus is Jesus, even when Jesus is the vessel of God's Holiness, in which they remain separate and are separate entities though joined in away that Jesus may speak for God, but is God.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by TheManWhoWouldBeDead

Then why aren't there more people with stigmata?

Actually, there are people with stigmata. One of my local priests got it when I was a kid.

It's pretty easy to choose to fuck yourself up with a knife or the business end of a pencil if you think it'll get people to turn towards God and help the Church, and MAN OH MAN did the believers and the money start flowing in once homeboy started cutting on himself. They built a whole new church from scratch, on top of a hill with giant stained-glass windows and statues and an A/V system.

The old church is now a dumpy administrative building.

Also: new guy, Don't bother talking to Catch. That's like trying to talk to a brick wall, a brick wall that also happens to be retarded.

[Catch]

What people are looking for opinions and I have mine.....

[Despanan]

You certainly do Catch, you certainly do.

[HumanePain]

Sorry it has been a while, we have introduced new products at work and the caseload has skyrocketed. Lots of family visits too, but I digress.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Also HP, I really don't think it's fair to consider yourself a "believer" you aren't a believer, you're someone who likes the philosophy of Jesus Christ, and bases your life around that philosophy.

It is fair to me. I am a believer because it has worked for me. Faith is personal. As you said yourself earlier, I pray when I go to bed at night. But I won't use that as a cop out. Here is my justification:

I trust in His guidance and love. Just because I understand how prayer works (by pre-programming my subconscious prior to sleep with the thoughts to dwell on) doesn't mean that I do not believe it. I believe in accepting Jesus as a path to closeness with God because it actually worked in my life.
I replaced my "sinful" faulty personality with that of Jesus (well, yeah, I am light years away from Him, but certainly better off than I was!).

Knowing the psychology of how it works does not invalidate my belief, on the contrary it strengthens and supports my belief, to me and others who are like minded. (Side note regarding "like minded": Paul went to preach to the Stoics and Epicureans in Athens and was laughed at. Serves him right for trying to put faith in the same light as reason.)

Originally Posted by Despanan

Yet by virtue of the language you use you're lumping yourself in with people like Corpsey, who DO believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. That's confusing at best and outright dishonest at worst.

It is not dishonest to say I believe in His divinity, I simply know why divinity makes the whole thing work.

Let me use a parallel example: Solstice.
Ancient Irish (and others I believe) knew that the Solstice would come.
But they didn't know why. They assigned spiritual significance to it.
Now we know it is purely an astronomical effect. But both the ancients and us know the Solstice will come.

I am those who could be fed meat. There is no belief distinction made by the New Testament between those who are fed meat and those who are fed milk. We both belong to Christ.

As far as the Batman and Gordon metaphor, I like it on several levels:
I have been told I look like Gordon Freeman, and now you call me Commissioner Gordon! Too funny. But you are right on the debate level. You can get in the face of superstition and false idols and false prophets and mercilessly bring them down.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

It is fair to me. I am a believer because it has worked for me. Faith is personal. As you said yourself earlier, I pray when I go to bed at night. But I won't use that as a cop out. Here is my justification

Faith

1. religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

2. complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"

3. religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

4. loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

I trust in His guidance and love. Just because I understand how prayer works (by pre-programming my subconscious prior to sleep with the thoughts to dwell on) doesn't mean that I do not believe it. I believe in accepting Jesus as a path to closeness with God because it actually worked in my life.

Please define "closeness to God" because if you don't believe in a supernatural Heaven or Hell, and you don't believe in salvation through Jesus's death on the cross but instead attaining a happy life through following his practical teachings, I'm not sure how you can believe that doing so will get you closer to the Wise Beard Man in the sky.

I replaced my "sinful" faulty personality with that of Jesus (well, yeah, I am light years away from Him, but certainly better off than I was!).

You stopped drinking. I'm glad you did but seriously, no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA" in treating alcoholism. You are not statistically significant, and there are millions of other factors leading to your recovery besides Jesus. Just because you give Jesus the credit does not make you living proof.

We get over plenty of ailments without doing anything at all, or by an unforeseen factor in our treatment. Whatever is foremost in our minds is going to get the credit. AA fails 95% of those sent to it, if Jesus really was the cure those statistics would be FAR closer to 100%

Your evidence is that you got better. That's it. You have absolutely no reason to believe that it was actually Jesus. It could've been just as easily Mohamed, Buddha, or the flying Spaghetti Monster. Aliens could've blasted you with a sobriety laser while you slept.

You chose Jesus and gave him the credit for your own sobriety because you come from a western background and were indoctrinated with stories of his magical powers as a child. You projected your own sobriety onto a westernized icon and used it as something to focus on. That's not divinity, that's not grace that's a fucking magic trick.

Knowing the psychology of how it works does not invalidate my belief, on the contrary it strengthens and supports my belief, to me and others who are like minded. (Side note regarding "like minded": Paul went to preach to the Stoics and Epicureans in Athens and was laughed at. Serves him right for trying to put faith in the same light as reason.)

What precisely do you believe? I mean you said you don't believe in a supernatural Heaven or Hell, and you don't believe that Jesus actually performed any supernatural miracles. What is there to have faith in?

It is not dishonest to say I believe in His divinity, I simply know why divinity makes the whole thing work.

Let me use a parallel example: Solstice.
Ancient Irish (and others I believe) knew that the Solstice would come.
But they didn't know why. They assigned spiritual significance to it.
Now we know it is purely an astronomical effect. But both the ancients and us know the Solstice will come.

That's not divinity.

When someone says the word "divine" they mean supernatural, they mean otherworldly. If something can be understood, by definition it ceases to be divine

I am those who could be fed meat. There is no belief distinction made by the New Testament between those who are fed meat and those who are fed milk. We both belong to Christ.

Why?

As far as the Batman and Gordon metaphor, I like it on several levels:
I have been told I look like Gordon Freeman, and now you call me Commissioner Gordon! Too funny. But you are right on the debate level. You can get in the face of superstition and false idols and false prophets and mercilessly bring them down.

Yeah it's pretty awesome. try reading our posts in Bale's raspy voice.

[Despanan]

Since Kontan Ragequit, I'm going to post his here:

Originally Posted by Kontan Karite's Facebook

"My life was changed when I submitted to the wisdom of Muhammad/Christ/Buddha/Torah/Isis/Prometheus."

...Take your pick. They're all as equally likely and all of them have results.



But this argument doesn't prove divinity. It's a classic argument from those who have either been in poverty, been addicted, been in the lowest of the low, and turned their lives around.



It's not proof that your faith is actually real. It's only proof that an IDEA or something that we focus our minds on can get us to turn our lives around.



I've heard the story before. "When I was in my last drug stupor, a voice called out to me and said, 'Let go of your life and give it to me and I will carry you through this.', so it's all actually REAL."



Well... no, it's not. First, after that incident, you attached an icon to your experience. If you were white and American, it was most likely Jesus. If you were Arab, it was most likely muhammad, and if you were east asian it was most likely a buddha or some Shinto spirit.



But what about the idea that your mind or brain was simply using the last faculties it had at a very dire time to ensure your own survival? What about your own survival instinct? Could your mind concoct an experience in your last moments to endure such a trauma as a knife edged drug overdose? Your mind could easily come up with anything to give you the motivation to survive such an occurrence. It doesn't mean it's empirically REAL. It just means that your mind did the best it could do to keep you alive.



Next time someone tries to use their personal life experience to prove the divinity of their imagination or their spirituality to you, remind them that they have no empirical evidence that it was in fact their own god and that it could have just as easily been any other god or just their own mind doing anything at all to cope with the trauma of the event. Then dare them to prove that you're wrong and have them prove it to you otherwise. In the end, you can keep asking them how and why until they really have nothing left.



Even if they say, "Well I heard them say their name was Jesus/Muhammad, so therefore it is who it is!", remind them that there's also a such thing as "trickster spirits" that would lie to them to get them to believe in anything just for the lulz. Either claim is just as legitimate.



But then remind them that it's much much more plausible that their minds came up with a scenario that would kick start a much more healthy behavior. As a fellow atheist once said, "Any port in a storm will do."



If that's true, then it's possible that our minds would come up with ANYTHING for us to survive a trauma or to cope with a terrible occurrence, but it doesn't mean it's actually a REAL thing in the end. It's just the idea/inspiration that got us through that particular incident.



-Peace.