Hey guys. I was an Atheist for many years. I've read Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris, and many others. I find their work very compelling when arguing against the God of the Old Testament specifically.
For example, the argument that if Yahweh exists, then he is immoral seems logical. He orders the slaughter of the canaanites and the stoning of adulterers (I know there are more examples, but we will leave that aside for the time being).
What does an Atheist say to the Christian that says the following: "Well, God warned the canaanites for 400 years to stop their immoral behavior. They were sacrificing their babies to their gods on a scolding hot altar, Fathers were marrying their daughters, and committing bestiality; They had to be destroyed because of this".
I haven't heard a good argument from Christians defending stoning for adultery. If there are any Christians reading this, please feel free to respond.
One other thing I would like an Atheist to respond to. If the Apostles lied about witnessing the risen Christ, why would they literally stake their lives on preaching it? Most of them were martyred, suffering unthinkable deaths. No one would willingly forfeit their life for something they know to be a lie. Also, take into account the incredible piety of the Jews. They valued their religion immensely and the Law of Moses (this is why they crucified Jesus - for blasphemy). These Apostles threw everything that they held most dear away for a lie? Are you willing to just say they were all insane?
I should mention that I have heard of the idea that the Apostles all believed in Christs divinity so much, that they were under some kind of illusion that held so much sway in their minds, that they were consequently credulous to it. I think this to be very improbable that all 12 were equally dillusional, and would be surprised if any of you held this to be a good position to take. So please just address my problem in the previous paragraph.
It should be noted, I'm leaving aside the thousands of converts to Christianity in the following decades that suffered the death penalty from Jews and Romans alike. These people were equally pious to the Jewish religion, and knew if they believed in Christ they would be committing societal suicide and would likely be killed for it. Why would they believe in Christ if "something" didn't happen? Something so incredible they were willing to stake their lives on it?
Thanks guys.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
There is a significant amount of evidence in the bible itself that shows Jesus survived his relatively gentle crucifixion with the help of fast thinking Nicodemus and J.Aramithea.
In all 3 gospels, Jesus is clearly not in shock. Patient is coherent, able to walk and speak, and is situationally aware. Also, no signs of suffocation on cross - is able to make lengthy orations well into the evening. Showed no signs of confusion. Was not irritable or combative. Thus, blood loss is very minimal - surface lesions only. A class 1 hemorrhage at most.
Soldier did not break legs - survival rate guaranteed. Can live for 7 more days in this condition. Even Pilate knows this for he is surprised to hear that he is ''dead so soon''. So surprised that he sends a sentry to confirm as he is in total disbelief.
The flowage of blood from the wound - a sign the body is still alive - it is not yet dead. Also flowage of water - most likely urine from stabbing the kidney - another sign that the nervous system is still intact. In quick succession, Aramithea pleads with Pilate for Jesus's body shortly after losing consciousness and moves him briskly to a tomb upon which we see Nicodemus arrive to treat the body with a peculiar mix of myrrh and aloe - a salve that stops mortal bleeding. But thats not all that was peculiar - the sheer amount of it was extraordinary - about 100 pounds was used. And he did it during the night of the Sabbath when no work was to be performed. John 19:39. The only work allowed on the sabbath was saving a person's life (pikuach nefesh).
After his resuscitation, we see Mary not recognizing him - most likely from all the bandages and edema (swelling of body tissues after trauma). She also mistakes him for a lowly garden caretaker which suggests he was clothed in something that hid his face and injuries like a hooded lacerna or paenula. And then we see Jesus in hiding as he walks incognito to Emmaus alongside Cloepas who is unaware of the "stranger's" identity and appears to be spotted for very brief moments in spurious locations by some disciples. When he finally does visit, doors and windows are shut out of fear and trepidation rather than rejoicing. In Luke 24:39, he tells the stunned apostles that he is not a ghost but is a real human with flesh and bones. He then tells them he is hungry and promptly asks for food upon which he is given some leftovers. Luke 24:41-43.
This clandestine-like activity recorded in the gospels is typical of a fugitive who is attempting to evade recapture.
His actual survival of crucifixion - unheard of in 1st century Rome - became the basis for the legend celebrated on Easter and influenced a great deal of people - one in particular named Paul of Tarsus who may have actually met Jesus in person on the road to Damascus - complete with holes in both hands and feet and a large gaping scar under his ribs.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Thanks for the feedback. This prompted me to watch a BBC documentary tonight at work (where I do nothing) about how Christ could have survived the Crucifixion. The aloe, the legs left unbroken, hmm...
Thanks for your time. I'll look into the crucifixion more.
Genocide and ethnic cleansing are barbaric by any human standard. For a deity with limitless choice it would unspeakably evil.
Religious apologists can't claim perfectly objective morals for their deity then give it a pass when it commits acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing, or murder.
Don't forget According to the bible this deity tortured a new born baby to death over 7 days because it was angered at the parents adulterous affair.
The bible endorses slavery, rapine, incest, sex trafficking of female prisoners and much more besides.
If such a deity were real I'd want nothing to do with it. Luckily there is no more objective evidence for the Abrahamic deities than all the rest.
Thanks for the response Sheldon. Would you happen to remember what chapter/verse the Bible speaks of this torture of the baby? I can't help but think of psalm 137:9 talking about being happy to dash little ones against rocks. I know man, I don't know how to reconcile these Bible verses with Christian values.
Jordan "Thanks for the response Sheldon. Would you happen to remember what chapter/verse the Bible speaks of this torture of the baby? I can't help but think of psalm 137:9 talking about being happy to dash little ones against rocks. I know man, I don't know how to reconcile these Bible verses with Christian values."
Hi Jordan, you're looking for Samuel 12...
Start from vs 13 below
13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”
Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
15 After Nathan had gone home, ****the Lord struck the child**** that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth[b] on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 ***On the seventh day the child died.***
The text clearly states that god, angered by King David's adultery, murdered the child, and it took 7 days of the newborn baby being very sick before it died. How anyone could worship a being that sadistic I have no idea, but luckily there is no evidence it is any more real than Zeus. Which is just as well given the way the bible depicts it's proclivity for sadistic and barbaric violence and murder.
Objective morality indeed...
"I can't help but think of psalm 137:9 talking about being happy to dash little ones against rocks. I know man, I don't know how to reconcile these Bible verses with Christian values."
It's not possible, at least not in any rational objective way, usually it involves apologists tap dancing and misrepresenting what the text quite literally says for something it doesn't remotely say. A kind of Orwellian doublethink.
Sheldon,
"The text clearly states that god, angered by King David's adultery, murdered the child, and it took 7 days of the newborn baby being very sick before it died. How anyone could worship a being that sadistic I have no idea, but luckily there is no evidence it is any more real than Zeus. Which is just as well given the way the bible depicts it's proclivity for sadistic and barbaric violence and murder."
That story illustrates the passage from Wisdom 3:16-17 (CEB) = "16 The children of adulterers, however, will come to nothing. The seed of people who have sex with others in violation of the Law will dry up. 17 Even if they live to old age, their lives won’t amount to anything. In their old age they will have no honor."
It also illustrates the 4th Commandment , Exodus 34:19-20 (CEB) = "19 Every first offspring is mine. That includes all your male livestock, the oldest offspring of cows and sheep. 20 But a donkey’s oldest offspring you may ransom with a sheep. Or if you don’t ransom it, you must break its neck. You should ransom all of your oldest sons.
No one should appear before me empty-handed."
*****
Objective morality indeed...
"I can't help but think of psalm 137:9 talking about being happy to dash little ones against rocks. I know man, I don't know how to reconcile these Bible verses with Christian values."
It's not possible, at least not in any rational objective way, usually it involves apologists tap dancing and misrepresenting what the text quite literally says for something it doesn't remotely say. A kind of Orwellian doublethink."
Psalm 137:9 (CEB) = "9 A blessing on the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock!" is a classic imprecatory prayer against the Babylonians for the mistreatment they had inflicted upon the Israelites. The Bible has a ton of such curses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprecatory_Psalms.
It's also related to the First Commandment from Exodus 34:11-16 (CEB) = "11 Be sure to obey what I command you today. I’m about to drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 12 Be careful that you don’t make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a dangerous trap for you. 13 You must tear down their altars, smash their sacred stone pillars, and cut down their sacred poles. 14 You must not bow down to another god, because the Lord is passionate: the Lord’s name means “a passionate God.” 15 Don’t make a covenant with those who live in the land. When they prostitute themselves with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, they may invite you and you may end up eating some of the sacrifice. 16 Then you might go and choose their daughters as wives for your sons. And their daughters who prostitute themselves with their gods might lead your sons to prostitute themselves with their gods."
@the OP
"One other thing I would like an Atheist to respond to. If the Apostles lied about witnessing the risen Christ, why would they literally stake their lives on preaching it? Most of them were martyred, suffering unthinkable deaths. No one would willingly forfeit their life for something they know to be a lie. Also, take into account the incredible piety of the Jews. They valued their religion immensely and the Law of Moses (this is why they crucified Jesus - for blasphemy). These Apostles threw everything that they held most dear away for a lie? Are you willing to just say they were all insane?"
Why, and on what authority do you think that any 'apostle' witnessed any of the events you worship? The earliest fragment of a written record dates at the earliest to 150CE. The three synoptic gospels were all based on "mark" but no proof is given that a "mark" actually authored or was the inspiration for this text and no dates are available.. John was written by at least three persons over at least a 25 year period and the earliest fragment is 150CE.. Paul/Sauls a epistles are marked by the fact that only 6 are by the same author, 4 are arguable and three definitely not by the same hand.
In fact the only verifiable early gospel is that of Thomas from the Nag Hammadi find. And that does not confirm anything of the synoptics or John, and paints a very mortal picture of the young man later identified as the Christ.
I thought most secular historians believed the earliest manuscripts to be written 60-100 years after the death of Christ? No matter.
It bothers me too that the extant manuscripts reveal that multiple additions were made, etc.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
@ Jordan
"I thought most secular historians believed the earliest manuscripts to be written 60-100 years after the death of Christ?"
Textual analysis and comparisons of later texts give approximate dating of those you mention to the original manuscripts (none of which survive).
The earliest surviving fragment is of "john" (the Rylands fragment) dated to the earliest point at 150CE (approx 120 years from the events it purportedly describes) and other scholars maintaining its writing at approx 250CE to 300CE.
"Paul/Sauls" ( We actually cannot identify the author) first epistle (again the originals do not survive) has been dated by textual analysis to approx 60 CE but it does not contain any reference to miracles or resurrections.
The Gospel of Thomas (declared heretic) and rediscovered in the Nag Hamaddi scrolls is textually dated to about 40CE but that is arguable. The scroll itself dates from between 250 and 350CE It does contain a very human viewpoint of a Jesus, but again does not contain any notion of his divinity as far as I have read.
That is all the evidence we have at present. Hardly convincing proofs of a resurrected god, especially when you figure in the Roman interference and sponsorship, the melding with other traditions like Mithraism and the Logos of Philo to name but two! Then the destruction of any competing gospels and oral traditions from 350 CE and once more in 492CE.
(Edit: response line added)
Jordan: I am an atheist. I do not have to explain this tripe. Maybe if you could explain it better I would not be an atheist. As of now, I am not compelled by your argument.
I know you don't have to explain it. I was just asking. I thought I explained it pretty clearly? I'm not trying to convince you to be a theist either lol Just trying to get some info my dude.
I was simply saying that some Christians (not me) say the conquest of the canaanites was justified because they were incredibly evil people. Anyway thanks for your response Chimp.
Christians persecuted Jews for centuries. One thing the Jews were accused of was kidnapping and sacrificing Christian babies. Perhaps the Jews did the same to the Canaanites. The conquerers write the histories.
' What does an Atheist say to the Christian that says the following: "Well, God warned the canaanites for 400 years to stop their immoral behavior. They were sacrificing their babies to their gods on a scolding hot altar, Fathers were marrying their daughters, and committing bestiality; They had to be destroyed because of this".'
I would say an omniscient god knew they wouldn't stop, an omnibenevolent god would have stopped them and an omnipotent god could have stopped them without interfering with their Free Will: if god can fine tune the Universe, he can certainly fine tune human altruism without making us robots, particularly since the Free Will argument really seems to be about choosing god or not, when you get down to brass tacks. Altruism doesn't require choosing god- this forum's members are living proof of that, Jordan. So are all the people who live by the Golden Rule, but worship the 'wrong' god.
' One other thing I would like an Atheist to respond to. If the Apostles lied about witnessing the risen Christ, why would they literally stake their lives on preaching it? Most of them were martyred, suffering unthinkable deaths. No one would willingly forfeit their life for something they know to be a lie. Also, take into account the incredible piety of the Jews. They valued their religion immensely and the Law of Moses (this is why they crucified Jesus - for blasphemy). These Apostles threw everything that they held most dear away for a lie? Are you willing to just say they were all insane?'
There are a lot of questions in that section. The first thing I thought when I read " Most of them were martyred, suffering unthinkable deaths. " was were they really? It's my understanding there is quite a lot of dispute about this. Quite a few contradictory reports and no small amount of exaggeration. But it's not an area I have any knowledge in, so I'll leave it to forum members who do and generalise from history and the current day.
All over India, Hindus are lynching Muslims and lower caste Hindus because the lynched kill cows for food or leather. Why? Because cows are sacred to Hindus. You can accurately call the lynched martyrs. Why don't they stop killing cows and save their own lives? Because their livelihoods depend on killing cows.
All over Africa, the elderly and the poor are being burned alive as witches. Most of them are women. Why don't they renounce witchcraft and save their lives? Because they were never witches to begin with, they just had the great misfortune to live in cultures populated by superstitious Christians who believe in witches.
On September 11th, 2001, 19 Islamists killed 2,996 people and injured over 6,000 others in the US. Why? Because they believed the US was the Great Satan and had to be punished. The Islamists died for those beliefs. They martyred themselves.
My point is that people will believe, kill and die for all kinds of things. They don't think these things are lies, they believe they are the Truth. Are they insane? Nope.They are surrounded by others who believe exactly the same things. Never underestimate the effect of group thinking and identification on an individual's behaviour, Jordan. It is both our greatest asset and deepest flaw. The theist who gives charity to the poor is acting on exactly the same impulse that allowed those men to fly planes into the World Trade Center: it is the Right thing to do.
We honour this human characteristic all the time. Americans thank servicemen for their service, for risking their lives for freedom. Australians honour it every Anzac Day. We talk about young men sacrificing their lives for freedom, never for Empire. We mouth John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." in suitably pious tones. Why would ancient people be any different? We all die. Why die in obscurity, forgotten, when you can die a martyr, venerated forever by many? I can see the attraction. An eternal 15 minutes of fame.
Thanks for the response my friend. I hope I didn't mislead you into thinking I was saying you can't be altruistic without God. Although I feel like we run into problems when making ethical statements without an objective standard from which to make our judgments. Maybe you want to talk more about that?
I liked your argument about God's omniscience, benevolence and omnipotence. If he knows everything, he knows there is evil. If he is all powerful, he has the power to defeat it. If he is benevolent, he would want to. Yet there is evil - therefore God doesn't exist. I guess I would just need to talk more with you about his omnipotence, because I"m not sure he could defeat it without compromising free will.
I don't have any references to support the claim that many were executed either. So perhaps I made a mistake in judgement and I take full responsibility. And maybe someone else in the forum could clarify this for us, because I was under the impression that the early Christians were all persecuted by the Roman Empire until Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the state religion.
You mentioned that the theist giving to the poor is acting on the same impulse that gave impetus to the terrorists from 9/11. Namely, they thought they were doing the right thing. I wonder, what does an atheist think determines right from wrong if not from an objective standard (e.g. God)?
Thanks for your response!
@Jordan
Re: . I wonder, what does an atheist think determines right from wrong if not from an objective standard (e.g. God)?
I take my morality from the Law of Reciprocity aka the Golden Rule. It's universal: you'll find it in all religions and codes of ethics- polytheist, monotheist and atheist. Christians use the positive version- do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - but I actually prefer the negative version - DON'T do unto others what you wouldn’t want them to do unto you- because it forces you to realise that what's good for you might not be good for others. In fact, it might be utterly and categorically bad for them. That 'DON'T' reminds me to pause and consider what other people want before I blunder in presuming I know what's best for them.
Society's morals come from society itself. Morality's dynamic. You can see this in action if you look at history. Slavery used to be moral, now it isn’t. Women and children as a man's property used to be moral, now it isn't. Swathes of the population used to be disenfranchised, now they’re not. In the 80s/90s, groups of straight young Australian men were murdering gays by literally throwing them off cliffs in Sydney: Australia voted "yes" to legalise same sex marriage last November and it was legalised the following month. Society's morals change and society itself changes. If morality truly were objective, that wouldn't happen. Morality would be set in stone, like the fabled Ten Commandments.
If you look back through history, you'll find lots of seemingly sound, moral arguments for the examples for slavery, women/children being chattel, disenfranchised citizens and persecution of LGBTIQ folk. Lots and lots of them. People really believed all that stuff was morally righteous.
This is so fascinating to think about. I'm majoring in Philosophy so I love talking about this stuff lol. If you don't mind I'll push this morality issue a little.
It seems to me that if morality is mutable, and its axioms change with the times or this society or that society, we're going to be faced with some problems. You might say "I believe it is good to live our lives according to the law of reciprocity". Or you might object to that by saying you don't want to make any universal ethical claim. Which is fine for what I'm going to point out, so lets just say you decide it is good for you to follow the law of reciprocity regardless of others ethical paradigm.
But I might disagree and say I believe in some Nietzsche code of ethics that says "I've decided it is good to live my life according to my own will, and both truth and morality is decided by the strongest, the most daring, the most brave and most cunning".
Due to no objective standard from which to base our code of ethics upon, I am no less correct - indeed moral - than you are. We just hold different opinions about what morality looks like. I guess you call this moral relativism. Morality is conditioned relative to those that hold this or that ethic or virtue. Do you see my problem? Even worse, no one can claim "Well my ethical code produces the greater good for the greatest number at the least cost to others than yours". No one can say anything about how their ethical code does anything at all, because there is no objective standard - morality would be subjective. Everything would just be conjectures and one would be as good as the next.
To be sure, an old testament divine command theory would have us slaying each other and owning slaves. I readily admit that lol But you see my point. I don't know what the solution is. Any ideas?
Also, just to bring things full circle. I was raised Catholic. I began doubting at the age of 16, and was an Atheist until last year when I began believing again based on the argument from contingency, the fine tuning argument (don't talk about multi-verse thats an ad hoc) and other arguments. But when I read the Bible for the first time this past year, all of the old testament rules about stoning people, God burning people alive for performing an animal sacrifice wrong, conquests, the death penalty for x, y, z, I starting doubting again. Any advice man? Thanks...
@Jordan
Visit the University of Tel Aviv archeology department site...all the "history" of the OT is blown out the water.
Try and find ONE just one contemporary account that bears out any of the miraculous events in the NT. (hint: you will not)
Find one independent contemporary Roman reference to Paul or Peter (hint: strike 2)
Read the history of the early Roman church which is full of pogroms, declared heresies , murder, more pogroms, burnings et al and reconcile that with the "church of love and forgiveness and redemption" message they give out. (Hint: nope, not possible. )
There you are studying an advanced course at university, you hardly need an old fart like me to lead you by the hand and start your research? You should be teaching me!
@Jordan
It’s taken me awhile to reply to you because I wanted to make my meaning as clear as I could. Unfortunately, that means my reply's more like an essay than a comment. :-(
“Morality is conditioned relative to those that hold this or that ethic or virtue. Do you see my problem?”
Absolutely! And if you look around the world, it’s plainly evident that this is exactly the situation and problem we have. Groups of people- tribes, basically- with their own moral codes. Incidentally, you nailed the inherent flaw in liberalism with your example of the two individuals. Who decides which individual has the higher claim? And what does this elevation of the individual mean for society as a collective? Liberalism’s mirror, socialism, tries to redress this, but it just manages to reverse the issue: what does the elevation of society as a collective mean for the individual and minorities? Ideally, liberalism and socialism would work as each other’s brake, each correcting the other’s blind spot, but one’s lauded and the other’s demonised. One allows private capitalism to dominate, the other tries to curb its excesses. Most amusing to me is how the two terms are now used interchangeably.
“ No one can say anything about how their ethical code does anything at all, because there is no objective standard - morality would be subjective. Everything would just be conjectures and one would be as good as the next.”
It’s not quite so grim, because this is where the positive aspects of our being a social ( tribal) species comes in. We have to make a concerted effort to work for group consensus and we already have our starting point- The Golden Rule. First thing we need to decide is which version to adopt- the positive (DO unto others) or the negative ( DON’T do unto others): I prefer the negative, because I think the positive encourages people to march in boots and all, and...I dunno...give others what WE think is good for them ( like Humanitarian Interventions) instead of asking them how we can best be of service. It makes us a trifle arrogant, this turning up in our neighbour’s house uninvited to “do good”, unasked.
The one institution I see little role for in our search for consensus is religion. It just has too much baggage. It has that Objective Morality given to us by the Word of God thing going on, which might be workable if they all had the same god who said the same words, but alas! They don’t. They all argue amongst themselves about who’s got the One True God and the Righteous morals. They can’t even agree with their own co-religionists! Take my African witch burning example. The people doing the burning are Christians. Catholicism is the fastest growing religion in Africa, so it’s reasonable to assume the burners are Catholics. I was raised Catholic. You were raised Catholic. But nobody ever suggested to either of us it was a good idea to burn witches, did they? So. Religion doesn’t get a seat at the table. We work towards a universal moral code. We do it in the secular world- above and beyond religion. It will be subjective, but that’s OK- morality is, was and always will be subjective. Our laws are subjective, too. And it won’t be easy and it won’t be quick. It will take time. Lots and lots of time. And we have to decide if our universal moral code only applies to how we treat our own species, or if it applies to how we treat everything else, too.
“I starting doubting again. Any advice man?”
I suggest you put what you believe to one side for awhile and ask yourself why you WANT to believe it, instead. Everyone I know who believes in a Higher Power -whether they call it God, karma or the Universe- wants to believe in it for one main reason: they look around and see an unjust, unfair world and they want their Higher Power to redress the balance. They feel the job’s too big for humanity to take on, but the fact is, every bit of social progress, every triumph over immorality, was achieved by us. Think about it. We ended slavery, it was all our own work. All of it- all the progress- it’s always been us. An exceptional mind or two comes to the realisation that something is just plain wrong, their thoughts strike a chord in other parts of society, it filters down to the grassroots and it resonates, more and more people embrace it, a groundswell of support and feeling goes from the bottom to the top, the top can’t resist it- they can’t turn back the tide- and society changes. That’s how it’s done. That’s how we’ve always done it. So if the thought of a world without Divine Justice makes you feel a little bleak and you need something to pin your hopes on, go into the bathroom and look at yourself in the mirror: you’re it, Jordan. You're the hope. So am I. We all are. That’s how it’s done. That’s how we’ve always done it. So get busy ;-)
Thank you for all the thought put into your responses. I'll look into the sources you mentioned.
If you have the time, I'd like your thoughts about something. The reason I want to believe, or feel inclined to, is simply the fear of hell dude. You and I were both raised Catholic, so I presume our conditioning as children and young adults were similar. But honestly I can't remember ever being told the "believe this or burn in hell" scenario. Perhaps the fear of hell is a symptom of the indoctrination into the faith in general. And that's really what I believe serves as an impetus for my inability to leave the faith.
If there is no hell, and Jesus Christ was really either a myth or a real person but no messiah, then feeling incomprehensibly guilty for sin and fearing eternal damnation would be the biggest waste of energy I've ever had - and that's about the only thing that makes me feel confident to just suspend judgement like Bertrand Russel. I feel like there's a possibility I've been had. But I just can't shake the fear. Really sad. I don't know man...
@Jordan
" The reason I want to believe, or feel inclined to, is simply the fear of hell dude..."
Aha! Hellfire and damnation fear- now I get you!
My son's sort of a born-again Catholic. His take on Hell is that only thoroughly wicked people go to Hell. He believes atheists just stay dead- they don’t go to Hell. My mother's 70 odd and she believes everyone but the truly wicked go to Heaven- including atheists. Pope Francis apparently shares my mother's belief- he believes once you meet god, you choose god- and you go to Heaven:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/pope-francis-and-hell
I actually think the hellfire and damnation thing came from Protestants, rather than Catholics. Catholicism allows you all kinds of escape cards: death bed confessions, buying indulgences. You could slaughter an entire village of men and boys, rape the women and girls, slaughter them, turn up in church afterwards with a handful of gold coins and a sincere desire to repent and abracadabra! Total absolution! Say 10 Hail Marys and sin no more til next time. It's stuff like that that made Martin Luther a little irate.
Hell is a peculiarly Christian belief. It was unheard of in Judaism. It only appears in the NT, and there's some dispute( quite a lot,actually) that Christ meant what people believe he meant- because he only ever seemed to talk about Hell when he was talking about rich, greedy bastards. It seems Christ saw the Koch brothers going to Hell, but the rest of us? Not so much. :-)
"If there is no hell, and Jesus Christ was really either a myth or a real person but no messiah, then feeling incomprehensibly guilty for sin and fearing eternal damnation would be the biggest waste of energy I've ever had..."
Nope. Not even close to the biggest waste of energy. We're born into cultures steeped in it. We're immersed in it and its ideas- its notion of an eternal fight between good and evil is THE reason people swallow war to stop war ( aka Humanitarian Interventions). Knowing where it's come from is an asset, not a liability. Letting go of it is an even greater asset.
Edit: Additional suggestion
You're studying philosophy, so you're clearly interested in the history of human thought. Study Catholicism's history, Jordan. It's fascinating. The RCC is so old, you can see humanity's social evolution in the RCC's history. You can watch dynamic morality evolve in its pages.I have a fondness for the old girl for that reason alone.
Look up Pascal's wager Jordan, and also look up why Pascal's wager is a terrible argument/point. That should solve your fear of hell/damnation neatly.
@Jordan Re: " But I just can't shake the fear. Really sad. I don't know man..."
Hey there, Jordan. From what I have read so far it seems you have a quite a few active/functioning brain cells up there in that clump of gray matter. *chuckle* So maybe this will help...
Despite growing up in a fairly religious family in the middle of the Bible Belt, I spent a majority of my life always questioning and wondering about the whole God/Jesus/heaven/hell thing. Even as a kid and later on in my adult life there were just too many things about it that never made much sense to me. However, just like you, I was always too worried about that threat of burning forever in hell to pursue my doubts or question too much. Therefore, I was one of those folks who figured, "Well, better to believe and go to heaven rather than not believe and take a chance of going to hell." (aka: Pascal's Wager) Even that, though, never really settled very well with me, but I could never figure out why and I still had my doubts. Then, like a lightning bolt out of the blue one day, it finally struck me. Simple logic. Goes something like this:
Supposedly, the god of the bible is ALL-KNOWING and Omnipresent, right? The way I was taught is that God knows EVERYTHING about you. Knows every thought/feeling you have ever had and every thought/feeling you will ever have before you even have them. He knew all of these things about you even before you ever existed. Therefore, it stands to reason that such a god would definitely know whether or not my belief in it is real/genuine, or whether it is only half-assed as a way of hedging my bets. In which case, I would be screwed and might as well have not gone through the trouble of attempting to believe. And if that god was not able to determine my true thoughts/feelings and I am able to trick it, then it obviously is not as ALL-KNOWING as the bible claims. Therefore, it is not worth believing in (much less worshipping) that god in the first place. And if that god somehow manages to be proven as real and wants to punish me for being honest with myself in not believing in a being for which there is no proof, then there is absolutely nothing I can do about that. So why worry about it? Either way, I refuse to worship the bastard. I have slept quite soundly ever since coming to that conclusion. Hope that helps you a little.
Well, God warned the canaanites.. And then God had the Jews do all the exact same things in his name. God is completely immoral.
If the Apostles lied about witnessing the risen Christ,..... What apostles? We have nothing written from any apostles. What in the hell are you talking about? How can they lie when they are completely silent. Paul is the first biblical author and he never met an apostle or Jesus.
I'm leaving aside the thousands of converts to Christianity.... People believe in stupid shit/ The earth is flat, Zeus, Baal, Thor, Stars are holes in the sky, The earth is the center of the universe. (Argumentum ad populum) When you assert something is true because a lot of people believe it. This is a logical fallacy. Lots of people believe in Buddhism, Islam, Shinto and their belief does nothing to make them true.
I would say: "Nice story bro." "Unsubstantiated claims belong in the fiction section."
Pretty much the same applies. We have no proof these people staked their lives on it. And if they did, what does it matter? Plenty of people staked their lives on various religions, plenty of those religions are pretty much gone today. Even now this occurs. Ask a religious nut that straps himself to a bomb and blows himself up at the nearest crowd of people he disagrees with over religion matters, "why do you stake your life on being correct?"
In short speculating why people did things ~2000 years ago, of which there is no real evidence for that it even occured, is an exercise in futility and a waste of time.
All you need to read is Darwin. Explains it all.....
@Jordan
"One other thing I would like an Atheist to respond to. If the Apostles lied about witnessing the risen Christ, why would they literally stake their lives on preaching it? Most of them were martyred, suffering unthinkable deaths..."
This book might interest you:
The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom Paperback – May 13, 2014
by Candida Moss (Author)
In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.
According to cherished church tradition and popular belief, before the Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the fourth century, early Christians were systematically persecuted by a brutal Roman Empire intent on their destruction. As the story goes, vast numbers of believers were thrown to the lions, tortured, or burned alive because they refused to renounce Christ. These saints, Christianity’s inspirational heroes, are still venerated today.
Moss, however, exposes that the “Age of Martyrs” is a fiction—there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. Instead, these stories were pious exaggerations; highly stylized rewritings of Jewish, Greek, and Roman noble death traditions; and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches.
The traditional story of persecution is still taught in Sunday school classes, celebrated in sermons, and employed by church leaders, politicians, and media pundits who insist that Christians were—and always will be—persecuted by a hostile, secular world. Moss urges modern Christians to abandon the conspiratorial assumption that the world is out to get Christians and, rather, embrace the consolation, moral instruction, and spiritual guidance that these martyrdom stories provide.
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Persecution-Christians-Invented-Martyrdom/dp...
I too recommend the book "The Myth of Persecution" by Candida Moss.....
Not to give too much away...but the stories of thousands or tens of thousands of early Christian martyrs are just that...... stories...
Apparently the actual number is closer to ...... 9 (yup...that's nine)
"We know that Christians weren't persecuted empire-wide until the middle of the 3rd century.
Until then, persecution was “sporadic and local,” and Christians greatly exaggerated the extent of the persecution.
In fact, it seems that the myth of a constantly persecuted early church didn't fully develop until after Constantine converted the empire to Christianity.
The myth was also driven in part by competing Christian factions who would use stories of martyrs to bolster their authority, by claiming the martyrs had supported their side."
link :http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/03/review-candida-moss-the-myth-...
Further it would seem that some early Christians actually colluded in their own destruction.... or at least tried to....
"In a famous episode in Asia Minor around 185, a mob of Christians marched to the home of C. Arrius Antoninus, the governor of Asia, and demanded to be executed. The governor, no doubt irritated by the interruption, sent the Christians away, telling them that if they wanted to die, they had cliffs to leap off and ropes with which to hang themselves"
So...martyrdom.?......just another myth. as it seems it always was.
@Watchman
Re: The Myth of Persecution
I haven't read it yet, but I downloaded it yesterday. I hadn't really come up against the power of the persecution myth over Christians' minds until I spoke to Jordan, so I'd never given it much thought. It's funny. I asked my Catholic mother if she believed it, and she doesn't. She said she certainly believed it all through school ( she was taught by nuns), but it just stopped ringing true to her when she was in her 20s or 30s- she's not sure why. She's in her 70s, now.
Some xtians claim persecution is happening on a grand scale today.
@Cyber
They are, indeed. You should have heard/read them in the run up to the same sex marriage postal vote- you'd have sworn we were throwing them to the lions at Taronga Park Zoo.
Pages