David B

Well, that puts you a notch or two above a lot of the cut and paste merchants who come here to tell us why we believe as we do.

So what leads you to think that there is a god, then?

David B

NightmareHero

I pulled that essay down because it was a piece of shit. I admit I'm not the best writer out there, but I try to think outside of the box to find answers to life's mysteries. You'll notice that essay isn't on my website.

NightmareHero

Ahh... no.

NightmareHero

Because I understand him.

DancesWithCoffeeCups

I think this is one of the reasons I dislike most christians (not christianity which has a billion different meanings). Vague answers. Or non-answers. I find it insulting to my intelligence as well as evasive.

David B

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

So how did god come into existence, then?

By what mechanism did he (sic) create life the universe and everything?

Why did he (again sic) have to sacrifice himself to himself in order to save his own creation from his own wrath? Or is this not what happened?

David B

Julian

Okay, since Amin actually came back to discuss this, I will take a few minutes to dissect the first couple of paragraphs. I don't have time to do the whole thing but the first few sections are indicative of how the whole could be demolished.
It has already been pointed out that it is not a unique perspective. Also, a unique perspective is not necessarily interesting or useful. I realize that you don't say this, it is merely my general observation.
Anyone who has read this far has been introduced to him. Who are these many people you speak of?
People who have not been introduced to Christianity? On planet Earth? You are creating a fictitious group of people to make your point. This can be done in rhetoric but it is not really working here.
Your fictitious group of people is becoming less and less believable. You honestly think that people reject god because of the proselytizers?
Poisoning the well. You are indicating that our dislike is a problem. It is not a problem. It is your acceptance or religion that causes all the problems.
The fact that it is monotheistic is completely irrelevant.
This forum speaks of Jesus. I speak of Jesus. I have known some drywallers who were named Jesus. This is not a problem. Hint: It's that religion thing.
The laws? Right, it's the laws that causes us to reject religion. It wouldn't at all be the fact that religion makes no sense whatsoever. You set up a feeble strawman and then, when you move to knock it down, you miss and break the china cabinet, instead.
One more logical fallacy, here we have the No True Scotsman fallacy. You really should check up on logical fallacies. Try google.
Isn't that practical. So, the rule apply when you decide it does and only then. So one could do without the rule and achieve the same result except without the attitude.
That's fine since I know many things that I want you to know before you continue writing. Start by studying logical fallacies, basic science, reason, early christian history, and many other fields.
How do you know? What is your evidence for this claim?
That's nice. How come that most of his followers are not just idiotic but also interpret his laws in as many ways as there are followers? He seems a bit impotent. Maybe he is just an idiot?
Again, quite a few Christians have moved beyond the childish notion of literal interpretation.
No worries on that score.
At what time was the 'Bible' created? How do you define the 'Bible?' It is a serious question. Are we talking Greek? Are we talking Canon? Surely, you know the history of the formation of the canon.

And on and on.

Julian

dlawbailey

And in that thread I come to the (provisional) conclusion that Jesus (or whoever wrote the Sermon On The Mount) is the author of an extremely important piece of humanist ethics:

"Love your enemies."

As a piece of humanist ethics, I find it incredibly important. It suggests a faith in the social bonding between humans that should inform all humanist ethics.

However, it's not a piece of humanist ethics, except de facto. De jure, it is an affirmation of the existence of an immortal and redeemable soul and a God, understood to be the Magic King in the sky who bends the moral arc of the Universe towards justice. These are lovely ideas, but there's just not any reason to believe that they're true, any more than there is a reason to believe any literary conceit, no matter how beautiful.

Textually, the connection of "love your enemies" to some assertion that Jesus was an unbelieving Jew is thin at best. Rabbis argued controversial things all the time.

It's a bit like Paul trying to extend the Abrahamic covenant on the strength of a few lines of Habukuk.

I don't think Atheists hate Christianity at all, but I think that we are tremendously frustrated and outraged that for a few graceful lines of humanism we would be forced to accept chapter after chapter of nonsense.

Amedeo

Re. to # 1:

In some threads, we have discussed the famous injunction about the love of enemies, and now I will not discuss it again. What I wish to discuss is the fact that your see a clear contradiction between certain Biblical moral teachings, but, instead of delving into the nature of this contradiction, you justify the contradiction by the idea that the moral norms accomodate the types of people to whom they were given -- that it is morally right for primitive and rude people to live by "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but the same rule is wrong for people who are intellectually and emotionally evolved, who are capable of and, therefore, ought to not only forgo retribution, but also positively love {submit to} their enemies -- asking for more of what they dish out.

And now I say this unto you that, aside from the mesochism of "the love of enemies" and aside from the fact the people Jesus was preaching to were not one ounce different than the people Moses was preaching to (aside from some superficial learning), that he who "loves" his enemies is not more morally perfect than he operates by retribution -- which you take for granted to be the case.

In Gentile or objectivistic morality, the goodness or the wrongness of an act is measured by what is done unto others [how they are treated -- generously, justly (respectful of their lives, rights, and properties), honestly, etc.]. In Semitic or subjectivistic morality, what determines morally good behavior is good intentions toward or lack of HATE of others. A man's LOVE of another which involves approving of or being an accomplice of a wrongdoer unto (or an oppressor of) him is the greatest love possible, since the lover is the very victim of the criminal.

So, if we stay within the real of Semitic morality, Jesus preached a higher morality than the old one, without being in contradiction to it. Indeed, as some theologians have put it, the morality of the old order is correct, but Jesus taught "heroic morality", which not every man can follow, but represents perfect morality. (Thus, what I pointed out in my writings, is that there is a contradiction between this morality and the morality practiced by God or by Jesus at the last judgment... for they do not even forgive wrongdoers, nevemind "loving" them.) So, if you stay within Semitic morality, there is really no contradiction between the two types of morality. If you step in the realm of objectivity, the Christic moral ideal is wrong, and the retribution norm is conceptually inadequate (not possibly universal in value, etc.) What Is objectively Right (Just) is the subject of historical Roman jurisprudence [books, rather than one normative sentence], which is not concerned with good intentions or becoming virtuous by submission to wrongdoers. And, in Roman behavior, forgiving an enemy has always been held as a noble deed or heroic virtue.

Minimalist

Actually, Julian, I sort of disagree with you. I do judge theists on their willingness to believe the unbelievable as well as their actions....which in most cases do not live up to the banalities incorporated in their so-called "Holy" books.

To put it bluntly, if I meet a five year old who believes in the tooth fairy I will think it cute.

If I meet a 25 year old who believes in the tooth fairy I will look to have him/her institutionalized for their own good.