Also, btw, the Bible is reportedly the first publication to have been produced by a printing press. I don't recognize how this represents conquest or social coercion, either.
Err.. David, do you treat everybody you debate with like an idiot? You're making up NEW elements to MY argument so that you can refute it? Gimme a break, for chrissakes.. I have no interest in discussing the topic if you can't resist the temptation to play those silly girly games.
How do you measure how you felt the moment you first kissed a girl? How do you scientifically prove you are in love? What equations of quantum mechanics explain the way a mother with a son in Iraq feels when she sees two somber looking soldiers at her doorstep?
When you insist on only believing only in what can be proven scientifically, then not only does God not exist but human beings don't exist either.
I believe there is a God because I see human beings as first class entities and whatever our source it must be something like us (God) and not unthinking unconscious matter. Materialism basically says that human beings are a type of phenomenon--they are a swarm of particles behaving in complex ways. I and the overwhelming majority of people (including Descartes, Leibniz, and Newton) reject this idea.
We don't believe that you can "explain" human beings completely in terms of physics. Simply, because if you could then there really wouldn't be any human beings but rather this one overarching explanation--particles, physics, randomness or whatever.
As we've made more and more scientific progress and begun explaining more and more physical phenomena some have jumped to the conclusing that EVERYTHING can be explained--including the explainer.
How can you convince me that my belief in God is unreasonble if indeed the ULTIMATE reason for my belief is the laws of physics and the ultimate reason for your belief is the laws of physics. Aren't we both two puppets arguing? You can't convince me through the strength of your arguments anymore than one puppet can convince another.
If everything is the laws of physics then people are just puppets controlled by the same puppet master (natural laws).
Ok, so if life is a puppet show then who is in the audience?
I have not asserted (and wouldn't even try to assert) that Christianity has not been spread by conquest and/or social coercion. However, that it HAS been spread by these methods, is not a basis for supposing that this is "everywhere" how it spread. Yours is, at best, an overstatement. And more to the point, it does not address the subject of my original question (although this does not, btw, constitute a statement that you are not permitted to say what you want about the subject). I posed the question, because it is interesting and because I wanted to understand something. In response, I have gotten a few comments, including yours, that are not really relevant to the question that I asked.
These are similarly interesting questions. The earliest archeological findings show arguable evidence of religious beliefs (the one that particularly comes to mind, is careful burials of corpses along with artifacts that seem to include articles of value to the deceased, and representations of events pertaining to his life). The existence of religious beliefs seems to be a more complicated question than can be answered with an acknowledgement that there are uncertainties pertaining to life.
So has Protestantism: many of the pioneers of the Reformation were persecuted, some (e.g. Jan Hus) were burnt at the stake. And so has Islam: Muhammad and his first followers had to flee Mecca to save their lives.
This seems to be standard procedure for the early stages of a religion. The powers that be don't like the new stuff, because it's usually the reformers/discontents who join the new faith. The revolutionaries are oppressed, but sometimes they win.
I think it does. As I read your post, you claim that Christianity must have something special, based on the facts that you mention. My view is that the history of Christianity fits in the normal course of action.
It certainly isn't a simple subject. But there has been some scientific work that attempts to explain how religion came about. For example, "Darwin's cathedral" by David Sloan Wilson.
Just a quick point about something said earlier - there is no evidence that Christians (or any other religious group) were thrown to the lions. At least, if they were, it had nothing to do with their religion.
Thanks for the reference. I have not read the book, but I googled it to see if I could get the general idea, and I found some reviews that I'm reading, now. It's given me some things to think about.
That's a purely subjective point. Many would say he has as much credibility as the bibles does.
If you want to discuss the bibles influential status then lets decide whether we mean influential or coercive.
The Beatles, the Sex Pistols, Mozart, Bach, Da Vinci, Monet, Picasso. To my mind the works of these people were influential on a global scale. You could argue that the works of Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler were also influential on a global scale. But lets face it, they used manipulation, propaganda, fear, terror, coercion and the prospect of great rewards if obeyed. If you think the bible doesn't use these tactics, then i have to ask which version are you reading ?
Maybe not, but the bible is offering a global salvation, not just a salvation for westerners. If we dismiss the rest of the worlds cultures, religion and political status then we become nothing more than self righteous bigots, something the bible is very much against. The new testament is very big on preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth. But it would appear the ends of the earth arn't taken by the bible. Maybe we should also be asking, why not ?
This could get very indepth, and very sticky being such a huge and emotive subject, but i'll try to be brief.
Although it's difficult to separate the ancient Hebrew culture from Judaism, (being so intrinsically linked) We have to. From the beginning of the Hebrew people/nation/culture to the inception of Judaism as a recognised active religion, we have a time period of over 1,000yrs approx (although this is a rough estimate given the bibles rather poetic license with chronology) As i'm sure you'll know Judaism brought about the belief of one god and only one god. Unfortunately, if you search the scriptures you'll discover the ancient Hebrews didn't, they had many gods, and apparently these changed from generation from generation, usually depending upon which part of the world they had drifted into (remember they were essentially a nomadic nation, we call them pikeys over here
) Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that Judaism began as soon as Moses came down from the mountain after his 'encounter' with the 'all mighty'. The fleeing Israelites quickly went back to worshiping many gods shortly after entering 'the promised land' (although that's not strictly accurate, as there was no exodus). Anyway, it wasn't until the reign of King Josiah in i believe the 6th century BC that all the books of the torah were 're-discovered' after being lost for many many years. Then Josiah decided his people would now follow only one god and the laws and statutes written in the torah, and also decided to write six more books himself that would feature in the old testament.
So Orthodox Jewish culture has remained. yes. But Ancient Hebrew culture, no.
I could go on with this, and go into much greater detail, but i'm even beginning to bore myself now, to be honest...
Sorry, when i say it's easy, i mean the mechanics of the religion are relatively easy to understand and follow (on the surface at least)
However, I think you answered the question yourself a few posts above. The early church was greatly persecuted because it was a challenge to long held beliefs and religious practices. Something the men in power, wealth and positions of authority don't like.
As far as Emperor Constantine's 'conversion' is concerned. Maybe he did have a real awakening to christianity. Or maybe he began to see the groundswell of support for this new religion within his own subjects, and realising the Roman Empire was in terminal decay, he decided it would be best to join them, rather than fight against them. Did he have a kick up the arse from god, or was it for political reasons, was he simply trying to save his own skin ? I guess that's something we may never truly know
Why are you asking a load of unbelievers why the world at large has accepted christianity ?. We don't care. We're smart enough not to get sucked into it, and hope others can see the inherent 'problems' within christianity. We only argue about this because we want christians to start asking those difficult questions about their own religion, those questions they've always been discouraged from asking, and too damn afraid to asked. Plus, we really like to argue in here, you may have noticed
If you are a believer then you should have a real communicative relationship with his holiness. Go ask him why christianity is number one, he's the one with all the answers, apparently. Then come back here and tell us, we'd all love to hear what he has to say on the subject !
Is that what you call irrefutable evidence? A crappy flash article? If I write "Jesus once sang a lulliby to a chicken", but make it so that the speakers go "Boing" when you move the mouse over icons, does that make it real?
I thought you said you don't care.
Anyway, I do; I think that it's an interesting question; and it was not a rhetorical question.
I do note that many persons here are not merely unbelievers who don't care, but are so passionately anti-Christian that they jump at any chance to make their points, in that regard. Also, it seems to me that, before one becomes too eager to eliminate what many persons evidently regard as very valuable, it would be a good idea to know why they value it.
Why does the fact that your feelings are ultimately caused by electrical signals whizzing though your brain make them any less real? You are real. Proven fact. You have feelings. Proven fact. Losing someone close to you hurts. Proven fact. Kissing a girl makes your naughty bits tingle. Proven fact. It's all real. Why does the ultimate cause of all these feeling make any difference whatsoever?
Lol, i'd just deleated that line, clicked on save, then saw you're post
That'll teach me to go make a cuppa between edits.
Anyway
Point a) Many people in here, myself included are ex-christians. But we were brave enough to ask those difficult questions, and, we simply didn't get acceptable answers.
Point b) Just because the masses value something doesn't mean to say it's correct, or even good. Just look at Pop Idol !!
Point c) It's part of the human mind/psyche/spirit/emotion to want to believe in something, anything, if it's something that promises nice things then even better. Religion gives people hope, and without hope, you're lost, without hope there's no point in even being alive. Ask anyone who's done time in prison, they'll tell you how important hope is. Hope springs eternal.
So tell us why YOU think the Western world has embraced christianity to such a fervent level when the rest of the world can take it or leave it ?
Psychology has a very simple answer to religion:
1. Religion is a way of explaining the unknown. Since human beings have a strange phobia for the unknown, we feel a need to explain everything. For example, back then, why did thunder exist? Is someone or something angry with us? Is it going to kill us? What exactly is it? Religion also serves to explain natural anomilies that we have absolutely no idea what is why it's happening.
In psychology it's a mix of chemicals that determine emotion. Your rglands that release material determine your mood and mindset.
This doesn't make sense. But addressing you argument, blind faith and belief is not much better. In fact, history has proven that reason should be held above faith. It is unfortunate that sometimes reason counters religion
Consider that we are a result of development. Animals are not unconscious matter, and yet they are made of it. We are not animals and yet we trace our genes to it.
2. A need to explain what happens after the material world decays. Humans tend to want to believe that their lives meant something and will not just rot away after death. This is a very "pessimistic" view and can very possibly result in suicide. Therefore, religion explains EXACTLY what happens after the physical world.
3. A need for justice. We want to believe that those who get away with crimes in the material world will be punished eventually. While this is a very good psychological need, reason defeats any idea of "justice" in the afterlife. The concept of this is basically things will eventually even out. "the equation will balance" so to speak. But there's absolutly no evidence that nature balances itself. Believing that everything will balance is similar to "recieving a box full of oranges and seeing the top majority rotten then believing that the bottom half of the box would be ripe because it must balance out."
First you shout me down for saying there could be "Little green men" (Your words not mine BTW) and now you do a complete backtrack and admit that given the size of the universe there could be life on other planets.
As you say, evolution and positive mutations take ages to occur and take hold. But then as the universe has existed for ages what is the problem. It has exissted long enough for a number of different life forms to occur, rise and then fail and die out.
BTW there will be planets that might have started life and then conditions change and it all died. Some planets might be changing to conditions that will support life etc.
The thing is that FAR FAR to many people instantly think visits from another world as soon as you mention life on other planets. This is just pure stupidity. If another lifeform managed and wanted to move outside its planet space the huge distances between galaxies etc is such that on the whole it will not be possible anyway. At least with any tech we know about.
No you are too hung up on the human perspective of life and what that means. Why would another race neeed fire, why do we need it. OMG what would happen if they didnt know how to make TV sets or dishwashers, what would that mean for their species
Humans are not that high up the scale, whatever the scale might be.
Take away the under pinning of our lifestyle.... Electricity, gas and money and huge chunks of the human race would die out VERY VERY quickly.
We are too tightly packed in and too many of us do not have the skills required to hunt, kill, gut and process our own food let alone the other skills to live without the modern luxuries we all take for granted.
That is if we could manage and farm enough to feed ourselves while protecting ourselves from others want any food we did have etc. lol
You can measure the effects of telling a lie and determine if it is a lie or not. Every emotion etc has an effect on the human body. You are just another person that has mixed up emotions and what they are.
One persons love is another persons hate. One persons fear is another excitement. One persons view on loving sex might repulse anothers. Emotions are not black and white states that can be boxed. Emotions are just names humans have tried to put on phyisilogical effects on the body caused by stimuli, nothing more.
How does this work then?
I KNOW there are human beings. I see them EVERY SINGLE day of my life. I know they are born, grow through various stages of life and then die when the body reaches its limits and can no longer repair itself. Some are part of my day to day life while others are just sharing the same planet as me.
So how do humans not exist if God does not exist exactly? I fail to see any logic in that statement. Just saying it does not make it so .
Lets turn this on its head then and see how you answer this one?
Let's argue that God does exist for a moment. He created earth and populated it with us. What about all the bones of older creatures that lived on earth before us? I know, they are just a test because they are not in the bible or were they his earlier mistakes?
Why is it that if there is no god do we have to be puppets?
By your own words that means if we are puppets to science then we are gods puppets if he exists. So given that we are gods puppets that means when a human kills a another creature (human or other), that is gods will.
Does god get off on killing them?
He must do because there is lots of killing in the world by his puppets. Also as we are his puppets it must be god that told us how to create better weapons to allow us to kill in more interesting ways. What a nice god!
BTW: The brain is such that it can think, decide and adapt for itself. It constantly forms new connections when confronted with new situations. This is how we learn and adapt. We are not all the same, we are infact just a sum of our experences to date. They are what shape us mentally. This is obvious to anybody that watches people and animals long enough.
Even "lower" creatures as you would call them "think" for themselves. I guess you have never kept a pet and made it part of your "family". Open your eyes to the world around you lol.
Nope; it's what I could call reason to regard your statement as misleading, although possibly accurate in itself. That's why I posted the website as a response (and with no comment from myself).
I wanted also to paste the relevant paragraph, but since it's a flash, that seems to be not possible. Anyway, quoted from the website:
"Were Christians really thrown to the lions here [the Colosseum]? Well, there don't seem to be any sources that put it exactly that way. But sources do tell us that Roman criminals were killed by wild beasts here. Other ancient historians tell us of countless places in the Roman empire where Christians and Jews alike were executed for entertainment, because they were considered enemies of the state."
My interpretation of this, is that the website's author thinks that it is likely (for the reasons that he describes) that Christians were, indeed, thrown to the lions in the Colosseum, for causes that did not have "nothing to do with their religion" - notwithstanding the absence of direct, "irrefutable evidence." Other persons may have different confidence in that likelihood.
This is not a good analogy, since there are no similarities (except, I suppose, your having somehow involved "Jesus," in your question).
Good question. One puppet says to the other, "Why does the fact that I claim we are both controlled by a puppet master make us any less real?"
The claim the puppet is making is nonsense. You intuitively understand it to be incoherent but explaining why it is incoherent is more difficult.
The problem you intuitively sense is that once the puppet claims his words are controlled by the puppet master he can no longer claim to make any objective statement about the puppet master. Hidden in his claim is the claim that we cannot know anything other than what the puppet master allows us to know. The puppet master can just as easily make him say, "There is no puppet master."
The problem here is you need some kind of dualism. Matter is not enough to explain everything. You need matter and beings who perceive and can make objective judgments about matter. The two cannot be the same without creating an incoherent world view.
It baffles me how rational people can seriously believe that the reason they think, feel, and believe what they do ultimately boils down to physics.
This still leaves the question of why any particular explanation - especially one that would seem to be incredible.
Well, not quite, I daresay. Reason has come to be regarded, in western culture, as more valuable than the pronouncements of "authorities." But Godel proved that no system of reasoning, can be internally sufficient; it always requires some presumed axioms as a basis from which one reasons; and reliance upon reason, therefore requires faith in those axioms.
And Christians have jumped to the conclusion that everything--including the explainer can be explained by the bible..An ancient text that has great difficulty in backing up it's claims.
The bible claims that God created everything, including the various scientific laws of physics and our natural environment. Surely then, any claims the bible makes will be able to be proven within these laws of physics and the natural history of the planet. So why is there no geological proof whatsoever that supports a global flood and a supernaturally quick re-population of the entire planet only 4,500 yrs ago ? Or has god hidden the evidence in order to confound the wise and retain his air of mystery ?
From the time Noah and his family stepped from the ark to the destruction of the tower of babel was about 250yrs. If you're claiming a re-population exercise began with only 3 couples, what would the worlds population be in a mere 250yrs. And please lets be realistic here, lets not have any crazy plucked out of thin air population rates. The average rates today are 0.1% to 3% annually. Anyone fancy doing the maths on this ? it's beyond me
Because the different glands you have in your body contributes to what people feel. In fact, a change in this might completely alter another's mindset.
And it's not physics. It's chemistry and psychology. Dont confused the three.
It doesn't because human's tendency is basically the need to know the unknown and a phobia of the unknown (as I explained earlier).
True, but would you choose faith in an authority figure or faith in your own ability to critically analyze the situation?
You know... the same can be said about religion. Is the Bible, not a dictation from God? After all, it is the "word of the lord" that guides the Bible and in this concept wouldn't any objective comment FROM a religious person be invalid based on your theory?
In my opinion, religion is there as a moral compass AND THAT IS ALL THEY SHOULD BE. The Bible makes no reference to Dinosaurs and yet they existed. The Bible makes no direct symbolic reference to the Universe and everything that the universe contains and yet...they exists. Does the Bible holds the answer to everything? I certainly believe not. But it does hold the answer to human morality if it weren't so twisted around by those who want power?....yes
Great, back on the puppet thing again now. Right, lets clear this up because you appear to refuse to answer my question earlier....
By your own words and logic you state that god controls us all like puppets. That means all the killing, horror and evil in the world is gods doing. It can't be anything else because we are puppets...
So is god some sick twisted individual that sits watching and making his creations kill so he can get off on it? If not why all the killing, there are thousands killed EVERY day by his puppets so it leads us to believe that god is no better than some sick and twisted serial killer.
I believe we have free will in that if I chose to do something then I can do it. Fear and other "emotions" might trigger reactions in my brain designed to temper my actions but I have the ability to fight those and do the action anyway.
I feel sorry for you in a way. Sat their believing that EVERYTHING you do and say is under the control of a sick and twisted evil entity that kills and destroys on a whim. As we are puppets that means he even made his puppets kill his own son to make a point. Yep one sick puppy your god lol
Or is that not what you mean?
Do you take the Bible as literal where the world is only 4000 years old, there were no dinosaurs and everything created in 7 days and if not why do you not believe it? If you pick and choose what you believe then that means you think parts of gods writing are just rubbish no?
BTW: We are not controlled by physics or any of the other science. These are all just tools we use to try and describe the physical world about us, NOT the other way around. All are just theories that have been proven within our current understanding. When understanding changes and theories are proven wrong then fall away to the new theory. Science is NOT afriad to question itself and correct iteslf when required while religion appears to want to hold onto teachings that are 1000s of years old and no longer matter in our current world.
Good response Woz. What you describe is actually how most Christians sees God. They dont see God as a puppet master, because Christians believe humans have the free will to make decisions. Based on the Christian ideology, this enables us to love and be loved by God. This also gives us responsibilities when we sin.
I never said God controls us. Like you, I believe in "free will." But I recognize that free will MUST be supernatural for it to be truly free. If a man's choice to pull a trigger and murder is just the same sort of complex physics that causes a tornado to destroy a home then why get angry? Everything is physics and we are, I guess, observers of murders and tornados--totally helpless to change any of it.
Like you I believe I am a free being. Which necessarily means that there is something about me that is supernatural.
The overwhelming majority of human beings believe that there is something supernatural about man. Call it a soul or a spirit or whatever. So, it makes sense to believe that these supernatural qualities have always existed. It makes sense that we came from something that is very much like us. Something that can make free choices, something conscious--God.
Most people spend so much energy criticizing the idea of God--and there are many valid questions and criticism--but they spend little time questioning materialism.
Of course you can believe that a number of free beings have always existed. But to me the idea of a single free being from wich all other free beings came to be makes more sense.
The alternative is to believe that we are puppets and physics (quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology, chaos theory, etc...) is the puppet master.
...and please don't respond by criticizing the idea of God without first explaining how free beings can exist in a world view without god(s).
But I find that most atheistic intellectuals would rather jump down the rabbit hole by denying that they are free agents. To which I respond, "What is the point of you trying to convince me that we have no free will if I don't have the free will to change my mind and agree with you?"
Why? What's rational about believing god just stepped in and made use think and feel? That's more or less the polar opposite of rational. How do you reason your way to such a conclusion when there's absolutely no evidence to support it. You're taking it on faith alone. That's not rational.
My Moment Of Clarity - Religious Debate
(295 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG