Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Asha'man · 05-15-2003, 05:34 AM

I posted this thought earlier (bottom of page 1), but it seems to have gotten passed over.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
I have already stated that I do not consider the Bible to be inerrant. I have already stated that (most of the time at least), I consider the Bible to be completely man made and man inspired to try and explain something supernatural that they think did happen and which I also thing is quite likely to have happened.

And that God stayed out of it for the most part ---or even for all of it. I have no problem with any of that and still have no problem being a cherry picking Christian.

If the Bible is man�s observation and explanation for �something supernatural that they think did happen�, how could it possibly be anywhere near correct?

By definition, the supernatural is not explainable by man. It cannot be observed normally. The only possible way to understand the supernatural is to be told. Without supernatural revelation, what we have is, at best, speculation, at worst, lies and manipulations.

Really, if you want to try to explain a preacher-man who died and came back, you could invent just about anything. Maybe it was the fallout of a war between two different tribes of demons? The magical energies that they released also happen to react positively with human bodies, causing people to be spontaneously healed or resurrected. Jesus just took credit for all this healing going around, and was resurrected due to lucky coincidence, or perhaps the perverse sense of humor of one of the warring demons. Why should we be so arrogant to think it was really a message to us from God? After all, God doesn�t seem to have ever cared to talk to us before or since.

The Other Michael · 05-15-2003, 07:15 AM

Hello Rational BAC,

You might want to browse through this thread on presupposition as I think it might give you some clues about a few of the problems some of us are having with your arguments.

cheers,
Michael

Starboy · 05-15-2003, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Lost me there Starboy------

Explain more fully.

I�m just trying to understand your assumptions. You equivocate so much it makes me think that either you don't really believe in your religion, or you are some sort of Zen Christian.

Starboy

mike_decock · 05-15-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
There is no reason not to believe a supernatural event happened 2000 years ago either--------unless you think that so many people back then were complete idiots--especially the martyrs for Christianity--of which there were very many.

I have often heard Christians claim that there were "many" Christian martyrs, including all but one of the apostles. No Christian has ever been able to provide me with evidence to support that claim. I opened up a new thread ( "Many Christian Martyrs"... Where's the evidence? ) if you care to respond to my query.

-Mike...

CaptainOfOuterSpace · 05-15-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
There is no reason not to believe a supernatural event happened 2000 years ago either--------unless you think that so many people back then were complete idiots

Compared to the knowledge we have today, of course they were complete idiots! That's exactly the point.

When you watch a magician perform magic tricks on stage, why do you not burst into prayer and start worshipping him? Because modern people have a more evolved sense of reality. Some people even know how these magic tricks work. But suppose we take the magician 2000 years into the past, and let him perform magic tricks in front of a crowd. We would have another saviour!

Code:

            | *
            |  *
            |    *
Gullibility |       *
            |            *
            |                    *
            +-----------------------
            0   500  1000  1500  2000
                    Time

Rational BAC · 05-15-2003, 10:16 AM

I think Jinto explained better what Starboy was asking. I think anyway.

Interesting question anyway. At least I think this was the question--

Could an atheist accept the moral guidelines of Jesus and attempt to practice those moral quidelines in his everyday life call himself a Christian?

I think I said before that if you call yourself a Christian and sincerely believe that, then you are one. Just like you are an atheist if you sincerely believe that. At least in my opinion. Am sure others would have a differing opinion on that.

I once got into a thread (or maybe I started it--I forget now) trying to determine what an atheist was. And what an agnostic was. I had my own opinion on that----the only problem was both atheists and agnostics had their own (and so many varying opinions on the subject that it seemed much like the varying concepts of Protestant Christianity) ------the one common thread being however was that absolutely NOBODY agreed with my definition.

I decided everyone should decide for himself what he or she is. If you are happy with your definition, then I'm happy for you too.

But, maybe it seems like I dodged the question. ------------Would I consider an atheist who believed and practiced the tenets of Jesus Christ a Christian?

Short answer ----------Sure. Why not? Hell --nobody's perfect in their belief system.

(even though I would like a Christian to believe in a Supreme Being and I would like a Christian to believe that Jesus Christ existed and I would like a Christian to believe that Jesus Christ was part man, part God.) ---who am I to say he cannot call himself a Christian? And I will call him one too.

I call atheists atheists even though I have not a clue unless they explain it to me what kind of atheist they think they are.

Chacun a son gout.

The Other Michael · 05-15-2003, 10:23 AM

Hello Rational BAC,

One problem with letting everyone define terms the way they like is it makes it pretty much impossible to have any kind of discussion, as no one knows what the other person is talking about.

If you want to discuss "why I am a Christian", and we're presuming that by Christian you mean "follower of what is in the Bible" and you actually mean "person from Mars who likes chocolate ice cream", we're not going to accomplish much.

Definitions should always come first in a discussion, unless it is a topic where the terms are being used in a manner previously defined and agreed to by the participants.

cheers,
Michael

Rational BAC · 05-15-2003, 10:41 AM

Well

It wasn't me that asked the question anyway. I was just trying to answer it in a way that makes sense to me.

I like very loose definitions. Some people don't. To each his own.

Rational BAC · 05-15-2003, 10:53 AM

I shouldn't start this again.

But here is a question.

I want as many as would like to --to define "What is an atheist?"

I know beforehand that I will get all kinds of different and varying but nevertheless very sincere answers.

And none of them will match my own definition ---if I wanted to make a strict definition. Which I don't.
-------------------------------------------------------

PS---Got to get ready to go to work

later----

mike_decock · 05-15-2003, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptainOfOuterSpace

Code:

            | *
            |  *
            |    *
Gullibility |       *
            |            *
            |                    *
            +-----------------------
            0   500  1000  1500  2000
                    Time

LOL :notworthy

-Mike...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2003, 07:15 AM	#172
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Hello Rational BAC, You might want to browse through this thread on presupposition as I think it might give you some clues about a few of the problems some of us are having with your arguments. cheers, Michael

05-15-2003, 10:16 AM	#176
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	I think Jinto explained better what Starboy was asking. I think anyway. Interesting question anyway. At least I think this was the question-- Could an atheist accept the moral guidelines of Jesus and attempt to practice those moral quidelines in his everyday life call himself a Christian? I think I said before that if you call yourself a Christian and sincerely believe that, then you are one. Just like you are an atheist if you sincerely believe that. At least in my opinion. Am sure others would have a differing opinion on that. I once got into a thread (or maybe I started it--I forget now) trying to determine what an atheist was. And what an agnostic was. I had my own opinion on that----the only problem was both atheists and agnostics had their own (and so many varying opinions on the subject that it seemed much like the varying concepts of Protestant Christianity) ------the one common thread being however was that absolutely NOBODY agreed with my definition. I decided everyone should decide for himself what he or she is. If you are happy with your definition, then I'm happy for you too. But, maybe it seems like I dodged the question. ------------Would I consider an atheist who believed and practiced the tenets of Jesus Christ a Christian? Short answer ----------Sure. Why not? Hell --nobody's perfect in their belief system. (even though I would like a Christian to believe in a Supreme Being and I would like a Christian to believe that Jesus Christ existed and I would like a Christian to believe that Jesus Christ was part man, part God.) ---who am I to say he cannot call himself a Christian? And I will call him one too. I call atheists atheists even though I have not a clue unless they explain it to me what kind of atheist they think they are. Chacun a son gout.

05-15-2003, 10:23 AM	#177
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Hello Rational BAC, One problem with letting everyone define terms the way they like is it makes it pretty much impossible to have any kind of discussion, as no one knows what the other person is talking about. If you want to discuss "why I am a Christian", and we're presuming that by Christian you mean "follower of what is in the Bible" and you actually mean "person from Mars who likes chocolate ice cream", we're not going to accomplish much. Definitions should always come first in a discussion, unless it is a topic where the terms are being used in a manner previously defined and agreed to by the participants. cheers, Michael

05-15-2003, 10:41 AM	#178
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Well It wasn't me that asked the question anyway. I was just trying to answer it in a way that makes sense to me. I like very loose definitions. Some people don't. To each his own.

05-15-2003, 10:53 AM	#179
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	I shouldn't start this again. But here is a question. I want as many as would like to --to define "What is an atheist?" I know beforehand that I will get all kinds of different and varying but nevertheless very sincere answers. And none of them will match my own definition ---if I wanted to make a strict definition. Which I don't. ------------------------------------------------------- PS---Got to get ready to go to work later----

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.