the OJ defense attorneys looked for this type of reasoningBusyTarpDuster2017 said:You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.BaylorJacket said:Quote:You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.Quote:Quote:There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.Quote:The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.Quote:Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?Quote:I would absolutely agree with you that we grade our own work leniently.Quote:The problem I see, BaylorJacket, is that we are all of us subjective, and very prone to grade our own work leniently. I'm not calling you names, by the way. If I start doing that I should be reminded by my own conscience of my own hypocrisy and weakness in my spiritual walk.Quote:Quote:And Judas spent years following Christ, doubtless believing he was just as much a disciple as Peter or John or any of the others.Quote:Quote:The doctrine might be better phrased as 'IF saved Always Saved'Quote:Quote:
But you are openly denying the existence of Christ..How would you then believe that your name is written in the book of life?
I was an extremely devoted Christian for about 25+ years, and my practicing denomination held the belief that once you are saved and the Holy Spirit is indwelled inside you, you will always receive eternal salvation. I'm not arguing this is a correct interpretation, but it is a pretty commonly held position in the western church.
And unfortunately, your position as an enemy of Christ parallels the faith walk, such as it was, of one Judas Iscariot.
Ah, the classic "you were never actually a Christian" argument.
While you will probably never believe me, I can tell you that I was ALL in on being a follower of Jesus Christ. I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, was baptized, felt what I believed at the time the Holy Spirit, worshiped Jesus daily, prayed daily, spent time in the word daily, was heavily involved in Church communities, went on and led mission trips both locally and foreign, led worship, and just about anything else you can think of.
Feelings do not define Reality, by the way.
If the gospels are genuinely true and Judas first hand witnesses miracles performed by Jesus, we can agree that he certainly made a poor choice stabbing Jesus in the back.
However, we find ourselves in a much different position 2000 years later where we have to look at the evidence presented to us and make a decision in what we believe in. You can call me an apostate, heretic, lunatic agnostic, or something similar (they all are valid) - but I ask you kindly to trust me when I say I was a genuine follower of Jesus for the majority of my life.
But I have been pained to see others lose their way, misled by ego, hope of an easy life or money, and of course the lure of social acceptance.
That reminds me. In an earlier post, you mentioned you were looking for 'social justice'. Can you expand on what you mean by that? What is social justice to you, and how does someone create it?
Thanks for your conversation.
Social justice to me is creating a fair and equitable society where everyone has access to opportunities and resources regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. It involves recognizing and addressing systemic barriers and injustices that may prevent certain groups of people from achieving their full potential and participating fully in society.
Now, creating social justice is obviously quite difficult and subjective. For me, this primarily involves fighting for equality for women as well as those who fall into the LGBTQ+ category. The methodology of trying to create social justice for these people has included me protesting, voting, and having conversations with people on both sides. Based on my personal experiences growing up in a southern evangelical community, I unfortunately witnessed a great deal of discrimination towards these groups. This is purely based on my experiences, as I know a lot of churches do some incredible work fighting for the oppressed and marginalized.
I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.
I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol
Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.
What's your best evidence for the existence of God?
73,022 Views |
1177 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:My once 2.6 lb. daughter gave birth yesterday to a 8 lb. 4 oz. baby boy! Two gifts from God.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
26 years ago, my daughter was born 10 weeks early and weighed 2.6 lbs. She is perfectly healthy. Next week she will give birth to her own baby.
Life is good.
Awesome! What a great reason to praise God.
The first statement suggests that a small number of slaves in the US can work for the benefit of the South, but this is unethical. Slavery inherently involves the exploitation and oppression of one group of people by another, denying them their basic human rights and dignity.LIB,MR BEARS said:A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
Similarly, the second statement proposes that millions of slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world, which is also unethical. Regardless of the scale or location, slavery is an assault on fundamental human rights and dignity, perpetuating social and economic disparities and cycles of poverty, oppression, and injustice.
Finally, the third statement discusses Iceland's practice of identifying and aborting fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome, raising ethical concerns about reproductive rights, disability rights, and eugenics. While the intention may be to reduce the suffering of individuals with disabilities, it is unethical to discriminate against them and prevent their births, and it also raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory practices based on genetic traits.
In conclusion, ethical considerations compel us to respect the basic human rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ability, or any other characteristic. We should strive to create a world free from exploitation, discrimination, and oppression, where every individual can live with dignity, respect, and equality.
BaylorJacket said:The first statement suggests that a small number of slaves in the US can work for the benefit of the South, but this is unethical. Slavery inherently involves the exploitation and oppression of one group of people by another, denying them their basic human rights and dignity.LIB,MR BEARS said:A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
Similarly, the second statement proposes that millions of slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world, which is also unethical. Regardless of the scale or location, slavery is an assault on fundamental human rights and dignity, perpetuating social and economic disparities and cycles of poverty, oppression, and injustice.
Finally, the third statement discusses Iceland's practice of identifying and aborting fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome, raising ethical concerns about reproductive rights, disability rights, and eugenics. While the intention may be to reduce the suffering of individuals with disabilities, it is unethical to discriminate against them and prevent their births, and it also raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory practices based on genetic traits.
In conclusion, ethical considerations compel us to respect the basic human rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ability, or any other characteristic. We should strive to create a world free from exploitation, discrimination, and oppression, where every individual can live with dignity, respect, and equality.
Why should I accept the idea that "dignity, respect and equality" deserve consideration in making decisions?
D. C. Bear said:BaylorJacket said:The first statement suggests that a small number of slaves in the US can work for the benefit of the South, but this is unethical. Slavery inherently involves the exploitation and oppression of one group of people by another, denying them their basic human rights and dignity.LIB,MR BEARS said:A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
Similarly, the second statement proposes that millions of slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world, which is also unethical. Regardless of the scale or location, slavery is an assault on fundamental human rights and dignity, perpetuating social and economic disparities and cycles of poverty, oppression, and injustice.
Finally, the third statement discusses Iceland's practice of identifying and aborting fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome, raising ethical concerns about reproductive rights, disability rights, and eugenics. While the intention may be to reduce the suffering of individuals with disabilities, it is unethical to discriminate against them and prevent their births, and it also raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory practices based on genetic traits.
In conclusion, ethical considerations compel us to respect the basic human rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ability, or any other characteristic. We should strive to create a world free from exploitation, discrimination, and oppression, where every individual can live with dignity, respect, and equality.
Why should I accept the idea that "dignity, respect and equality" deserve consideration in making decisions?
The concepts of dignity, respect, and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, and ensure that everyone is treated with fairness, consideration, and care.
I am hopeful that this is something both the religious and non-religious can come to an agreement on, and together build a better future.
It's nice to say that dignity, respect and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, but why should we accept the idea that individuals have inherent value in the first place?BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:BaylorJacket said:The first statement suggests that a small number of slaves in the US can work for the benefit of the South, but this is unethical. Slavery inherently involves the exploitation and oppression of one group of people by another, denying them their basic human rights and dignity.LIB,MR BEARS said:A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
Similarly, the second statement proposes that millions of slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world, which is also unethical. Regardless of the scale or location, slavery is an assault on fundamental human rights and dignity, perpetuating social and economic disparities and cycles of poverty, oppression, and injustice.
Finally, the third statement discusses Iceland's practice of identifying and aborting fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome, raising ethical concerns about reproductive rights, disability rights, and eugenics. While the intention may be to reduce the suffering of individuals with disabilities, it is unethical to discriminate against them and prevent their births, and it also raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory practices based on genetic traits.
In conclusion, ethical considerations compel us to respect the basic human rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ability, or any other characteristic. We should strive to create a world free from exploitation, discrimination, and oppression, where every individual can live with dignity, respect, and equality.
Why should I accept the idea that "dignity, respect and equality" deserve consideration in making decisions?
The concepts of dignity, respect, and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, and ensure that everyone is treated with fairness, consideration, and care.
I am hopeful that this is something both the religious and non-religious can come to an agreement on, and together build a better future.
Well, usually the beatings stop once morale improves...D. C. Bear said:BaylorJacket said:The first statement suggests that a small number of slaves in the US can work for the benefit of the South, but this is unethical. Slavery inherently involves the exploitation and oppression of one group of people by another, denying them their basic human rights and dignity.LIB,MR BEARS said:A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
Similarly, the second statement proposes that millions of slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world, which is also unethical. Regardless of the scale or location, slavery is an assault on fundamental human rights and dignity, perpetuating social and economic disparities and cycles of poverty, oppression, and injustice.
Finally, the third statement discusses Iceland's practice of identifying and aborting fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome, raising ethical concerns about reproductive rights, disability rights, and eugenics. While the intention may be to reduce the suffering of individuals with disabilities, it is unethical to discriminate against them and prevent their births, and it also raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory practices based on genetic traits.
In conclusion, ethical considerations compel us to respect the basic human rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ability, or any other characteristic. We should strive to create a world free from exploitation, discrimination, and oppression, where every individual can live with dignity, respect, and equality.
Why should I accept the idea that "dignity, respect and equality" deserve consideration in making decisions?
D. C. Bear said:It's nice to say that dignity, respect and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, but why should we accept the idea that individuals have inherent value in the first place?BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:BaylorJacket said:The first statement suggests that a small number of slaves in the US can work for the benefit of the South, but this is unethical. Slavery inherently involves the exploitation and oppression of one group of people by another, denying them their basic human rights and dignity.LIB,MR BEARS said:A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
Similarly, the second statement proposes that millions of slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world, which is also unethical. Regardless of the scale or location, slavery is an assault on fundamental human rights and dignity, perpetuating social and economic disparities and cycles of poverty, oppression, and injustice.
Finally, the third statement discusses Iceland's practice of identifying and aborting fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome, raising ethical concerns about reproductive rights, disability rights, and eugenics. While the intention may be to reduce the suffering of individuals with disabilities, it is unethical to discriminate against them and prevent their births, and it also raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory practices based on genetic traits.
In conclusion, ethical considerations compel us to respect the basic human rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ability, or any other characteristic. We should strive to create a world free from exploitation, discrimination, and oppression, where every individual can live with dignity, respect, and equality.
Why should I accept the idea that "dignity, respect and equality" deserve consideration in making decisions?
The concepts of dignity, respect, and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, and ensure that everyone is treated with fairness, consideration, and care.
I am hopeful that this is something both the religious and non-religious can come to an agreement on, and together build a better future.
I appreciate the question DC, you definitely make me think haha. I believe all life is valuable, whether human or not, and I have attempted to do a better job respecting all forms of life (the environment/animals/fellow peers).
Personal anecdote aside, the question of why life has inherent value is a difficult question to answer, nor do I believe there is an objective answer. However, there are two philosophical arguments for the value of all life that I like.
One argument is based on the principle of universal respect for persons, which suggests that any beings capable of feeling pleasure or pain deserve respect and consideration. This includes not only humans but also animals, plants, and other organisms that possess some degree of consciousness or awareness.
The second argument is rooted in the concept of the interconnectedness of all things. This perspective holds that all living beings are part of a larger ecosystem and have a role to play in maintaining the balance and harmony of the natural world. Thus, it stresses the importance of respecting and preserving all forms of life to ensure the sustainability and health of the planet.
These are probably quite unconvincing for you though, which I understand.
BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:It's nice to say that dignity, respect and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, but why should we accept the idea that individuals have inherent value in the first place?BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:BaylorJacket said:The first statement suggests that a small number of slaves in the US can work for the benefit of the South, but this is unethical. Slavery inherently involves the exploitation and oppression of one group of people by another, denying them their basic human rights and dignity.LIB,MR BEARS said:A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
Similarly, the second statement proposes that millions of slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world, which is also unethical. Regardless of the scale or location, slavery is an assault on fundamental human rights and dignity, perpetuating social and economic disparities and cycles of poverty, oppression, and injustice.
Finally, the third statement discusses Iceland's practice of identifying and aborting fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome, raising ethical concerns about reproductive rights, disability rights, and eugenics. While the intention may be to reduce the suffering of individuals with disabilities, it is unethical to discriminate against them and prevent their births, and it also raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory practices based on genetic traits.
In conclusion, ethical considerations compel us to respect the basic human rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ability, or any other characteristic. We should strive to create a world free from exploitation, discrimination, and oppression, where every individual can live with dignity, respect, and equality.
Why should I accept the idea that "dignity, respect and equality" deserve consideration in making decisions?
The concepts of dignity, respect, and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, and ensure that everyone is treated with fairness, consideration, and care.
I am hopeful that this is something both the religious and non-religious can come to an agreement on, and together build a better future.
I appreciate the question DC, you definitely make me think haha. I believe all life is valuable, whether human or not, and I have attempted to do a better job respecting all forms of life (the environment/animals/fellow peers).
Personal anecdote aside, the question of why life has inherent value is a difficult question to answer, nor do I believe there is an objective answer. However, there are two philosophical arguments for the value of all life that I like.
One argument is based on the principle of universal respect for persons, which suggests that any beings capable of feeling pleasure or pain deserve respect and consideration. This includes not only humans but also animals, plants, and other organisms that possess some degree of consciousness or awareness.
The second argument is rooted in the concept of the interconnectedness of all things. This perspective holds that all living beings are part of a larger ecosystem and have a role to play in maintaining the balance and harmony of the natural world. Thus, it stresses the importance of respecting and preserving all forms of life to ensure the sustainability and health of the planet.
These are probably quite unconvincing for you though, which I understand.
The principle of universal respect for persons is great, and even respect for non persons, both living and non living as you second argument implies being part of a system.
However, both of these justifications only restate the assertions that persons and nature have worth but do not provide a satisfactory justification for why persons and nature have worth.
The question of what makes life inherently valuable is not actually difficult to answer. Humans are inherently valuable because they are valued by God and are created in the image of God. Likewise the natural world should be respected because it was created by God and has purpose.
To many people, Christians and anti Christians alike, look at the creation narrative of Genesis and miss the point(s) entirely. They mistake the literary for the literal and race off to argue about nonsensical issues leaving truth to languish by the side of the road.
1. God created by us in his image and we are responsible to care for his creation.
2. Humans are separated by their sin from God, and this is not what God desires for us.
3. God will (and now has) made a way to obliterate that separation.
D. C. Bear said:BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:It's nice to say that dignity, respect and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, but why should we accept the idea that individuals have inherent value in the first place?BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:BaylorJacket said:The first statement suggests that a small number of slaves in the US can work for the benefit of the South, but this is unethical. Slavery inherently involves the exploitation and oppression of one group of people by another, denying them their basic human rights and dignity.LIB,MR BEARS said:A few thousand slaves in the US can work for the greater good of the south. A few million slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world. Iceland has virtually eliminated Downs Syndrome by testing for it in the womb and aborting almost 100% of those positive test fetuses.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Which of these 3 is ethical? Which is not? Why
Similarly, the second statement proposes that millions of slaves in China can work for the greater good of the world, which is also unethical. Regardless of the scale or location, slavery is an assault on fundamental human rights and dignity, perpetuating social and economic disparities and cycles of poverty, oppression, and injustice.
Finally, the third statement discusses Iceland's practice of identifying and aborting fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome, raising ethical concerns about reproductive rights, disability rights, and eugenics. While the intention may be to reduce the suffering of individuals with disabilities, it is unethical to discriminate against them and prevent their births, and it also raises concerns about the potential for discriminatory practices based on genetic traits.
In conclusion, ethical considerations compel us to respect the basic human rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, ability, or any other characteristic. We should strive to create a world free from exploitation, discrimination, and oppression, where every individual can live with dignity, respect, and equality.
Why should I accept the idea that "dignity, respect and equality" deserve consideration in making decisions?
The concepts of dignity, respect, and equality are important because they help us acknowledge and prioritize the inherent value and worth of all individuals, and ensure that everyone is treated with fairness, consideration, and care.
I am hopeful that this is something both the religious and non-religious can come to an agreement on, and together build a better future.
I appreciate the question DC, you definitely make me think haha. I believe all life is valuable, whether human or not, and I have attempted to do a better job respecting all forms of life (the environment/animals/fellow peers).
Personal anecdote aside, the question of why life has inherent value is a difficult question to answer, nor do I believe there is an objective answer. However, there are two philosophical arguments for the value of all life that I like.
One argument is based on the principle of universal respect for persons, which suggests that any beings capable of feeling pleasure or pain deserve respect and consideration. This includes not only humans but also animals, plants, and other organisms that possess some degree of consciousness or awareness.
The second argument is rooted in the concept of the interconnectedness of all things. This perspective holds that all living beings are part of a larger ecosystem and have a role to play in maintaining the balance and harmony of the natural world. Thus, it stresses the importance of respecting and preserving all forms of life to ensure the sustainability and health of the planet.
These are probably quite unconvincing for you though, which I understand.
The principle of universal respect for persons is great, and even respect for non persons, both living and non living as you second argument implies being part of a system.
However, both of these justifications only restate the assertions that persons and nature have worth but do not provide a satisfactory justification for why persons and nature have worth.
The question of what makes life inherently valuable is not actually difficult to answer. Humans are inherently valuable because they are valued by God and are created in the image of God. Likewise the natural world should be respected because it was created by God and has purpose.
To many people, Christians and anti Christians alike, look at the creation narrative of Genesis and miss the point(s) entirely. They mistake the literary for the literal and race off to argue about nonsensical issues leaving truth to languish by the side of the road.
1. God created by us in his image and we are responsible to care for his creation.
2. Humans are separated by their sin from God, and this is not what God desires for us.
3. God will (and now has) made a way to obliterate that separation.
Thanks for providing your perspective on this. While the mechanism we use to conclude life has value is different, I am happy we both can come to the same conclusion.
Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?BaylorJacket said:
Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?Quote:You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.Quote:Quote:You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.Quote:Quote:There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.Quote:
The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.
I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.
I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol
Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.
There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.
Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.
As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.
This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?BaylorJacket said:
Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?Quote:You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.Quote:Quote:You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.Quote:Quote:There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.Quote:
The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.
I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.
I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol
Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.
There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.
Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.
As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.
This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.
Here is a summary of the points that I brought up that, from my perspective, give the myth argument ground to stand on:
1. The lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus (yes you can yell Paul from the rooftops - but I disagree Paul provides a convincing contemporary account for earlier stated reasons. Chop it up to my intellectual dishonesty)
2. The only legit 1st century text for Jesus' historicity is Josephus, and we surprisingly both agreed the first mention of Jesus is a forgery. The "so-called-Christ" in the second section being an interpolation is not an ad hoc attempt to explain things, but a common position held by Josephus scholars. I encourage you to research the topic. I don't know if this bit is authentic or not, and I am not going to pretend that I know.
3. The poor Historical reliability of the gospels - if we cannot separate myth from history in these stories, it is impossible to conclude a historical Jesus existed due to oral stories being written into a narrative.
A historical 1st century Jesus is not required to explain the rise of Christianity, as well as the writings we find in the 3rd century & later. I believe the most likely explanation is that he did exist and his life and teachings became later mythified into the gospels we have today, but I am not convinced concretely nor would I claim to. However, I understand your confidence in your position as it's absolutely a rational belief to have.
If you are going to continue to question my intelligence or reason, this is a fruitless endeavor. I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge on the topic and will continue to research and listen to the respective leaders of the fields. If there is concrete proof unearthed one day, I will confidently change my mind.
D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
Agreed. Thank you for stating this better than I've managed.
1. Argument from silence, and there isn't even silence. Your attempt to exclude and explain away Paul IS intellectually dishonesty and incredibly biased, and an ad hoc argument. A foolish argument, which even Bart Ehrman would characterize as such.BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?BaylorJacket said:
Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?Quote:You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.Quote:Quote:You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.Quote:Quote:There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.Quote:
The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.
I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.
I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol
Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.
There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.
Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.
As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.
This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.
Here is a summary of the points that I brought up that, from my perspective, give the myth argument ground to stand on:
1. The lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus (yes you can yell Paul from the rooftops - but I disagree Paul provides a convincing contemporary account for earlier stated reasons. Chop it up to my intellectual dishonesty)
2. The only legit 1st century text for Jesus' historicity is Josephus, and we surprisingly both agreed the first mention of Jesus is a forgery. The "so-called-Christ" in the second section being an interpolation is not an ad hoc attempt to explain things, but a common position held by Josephus scholars. I encourage you to research the topic. I don't know if this bit is authentic or not, and I am not going to pretend that I know.
3. The poor Historical reliability of the gospels - if we cannot separate myth from history in these stories, it is impossible to conclude a historical Jesus existed due to oral stories being written into a narrative.
A historical 1st century Jesus is not required to explain the rise of Christianity, as well as the writings we find in the 3rd century & later. I believe the most likely explanation is that he did exist and his life and teachings became later mythified into the gospels we have today, but I am not convinced concretely nor would I claim to. However, I understand your confidence in your position as it's absolutely a rational belief to have.
If you are going to continue to question my intelligence or reason, this is a fruitless endeavor. I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge on the topic and will continue to research and listen to the respective leaders of the fields. If there is concrete proof unearthed one day, I will confidently change my mind.
2. Didn't agree that it was a forgery. Not surprised you weren't able to interpret correctly. The point was even if we eliminate that one, there was a second reference to Jesus by Josephus. The only way you could maintain your argument was by doing away with the second reference by engaging in ridiculous ad hoc reach (yes, it was.) And we aren't even getting into Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, Clement, etc.
3. Luke, "a historian of first rate" whose prologue CLEARLY indicates he approaches his Gospel as history rather than myth, who was giving his readers "an orderly account" based on the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events. Paul, a first century contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who wrote within a decade of Jesus' death, who knew the disciples, who knew James the "brother of Jesus", who clearly indicates a real, historical Jesus.
Now, I never questioned your intelligence directly. What I said was that it is either that, or it is dishonesty. It is your attempts and methods to explain the above away, that bring your honesty and/or intelligence into question. And it's not just me who thinks this, remember? Let's revisit these quotes from highly qualified and relevant scholars regarding the view which you believe to have credence:
-- "the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.." - Bart Ehrman
-- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end." - Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
-- "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts." - Joseph Hoffman
If you deny there was a historical Jesus, please explain why his first-generation followers all died rather than deny him.
Explain why there was such a determined effort to wipe out Christianity spanning multiple centuries, and why did that effort utterly fail?
Explain why so many cultures cast Christ as a man of their own kind, so that every love-based faith system demonstrates affinity with or a connection to Christian principles?
Explain why there was such a determined effort to wipe out Christianity spanning multiple centuries, and why did that effort utterly fail?
Explain why so many cultures cast Christ as a man of their own kind, so that every love-based faith system demonstrates affinity with or a connection to Christian principles?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Let me start a new point:BaylorJacket said:
I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.
I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?
Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Do you believe that we have free will/choice? If so, from where does it originate?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Argument from silence, and there isn't even silence. Your attempt to exclude and explain away Paul IS intellectually dishonesty and incredibly biased, and an ad hoc argument. A foolish argument, which even Bart Ehrman would characterize as such.BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?BaylorJacket said:
Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?Quote:You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.Quote:Quote:You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.Quote:Quote:There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.Quote:
The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.
I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.
I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol
Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.
There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.
Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.
As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.
This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.
Here is a summary of the points that I brought up that, from my perspective, give the myth argument ground to stand on:
1. The lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus (yes you can yell Paul from the rooftops - but I disagree Paul provides a convincing contemporary account for earlier stated reasons. Chop it up to my intellectual dishonesty)
2. The only legit 1st century text for Jesus' historicity is Josephus, and we surprisingly both agreed the first mention of Jesus is a forgery. The "so-called-Christ" in the second section being an interpolation is not an ad hoc attempt to explain things, but a common position held by Josephus scholars. I encourage you to research the topic. I don't know if this bit is authentic or not, and I am not going to pretend that I know.
3. The poor Historical reliability of the gospels - if we cannot separate myth from history in these stories, it is impossible to conclude a historical Jesus existed due to oral stories being written into a narrative.
A historical 1st century Jesus is not required to explain the rise of Christianity, as well as the writings we find in the 3rd century & later. I believe the most likely explanation is that he did exist and his life and teachings became later mythified into the gospels we have today, but I am not convinced concretely nor would I claim to. However, I understand your confidence in your position as it's absolutely a rational belief to have.
If you are going to continue to question my intelligence or reason, this is a fruitless endeavor. I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge on the topic and will continue to research and listen to the respective leaders of the fields. If there is concrete proof unearthed one day, I will confidently change my mind.
2. Didn't agree that it was a forgery. Not surprised you weren't able to interpret correctly. The point was even if we eliminate that one, there was a second reference to Jesus by Josephus. The only way you could maintain your argument was by doing away with the second reference by engaging in ridiculous ad hoc reach (yes, it was.) And we aren't even getting into Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, Clement, etc.
3. Luke, "a historian of first rate" whose prologue CLEARLY indicates he approaches his Gospel as history rather than myth, who was giving his readers "an orderly account" based on the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events. Paul, a first century contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who wrote within a decade of Jesus' death, who knew the disciples, who knew James the "brother of Jesus", who clearly indicates a real, historical Jesus.
Now, I never questioned your intelligence directly. What I said was that it is either that, or it is dishonesty. It is your attempts and methods to explain the above away, that bring your honesty and/or intelligence into question. And it's not just me who thinks this, remember? Let's revisit these quotes from highly qualified and relevant scholars regarding the view which you believe to have credence:
-- "the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.." - Bart Ehrman
-- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end." - Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
-- "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts." - Joseph Hoffman
1. Let me clarify my stance on this matter. I am not asserting that there was never a faith healer named Yeshua in the 1st century who was unknown or had only a small following - there were likely many of those, possibly even hundreds. My argument is that there is enough evidence to question the existence of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (excluding the miracles) - the one who attracted large crowds and was a popular speaker. During the time Jesus supposedly lived, there were numerous well-known historians in Jerusalem who wrote about lesser-known false prophets and mundane figures, yet there is silence on the topic of Jesus, which I find intriguing.
2. As I mentioned previously, the earliest reference to Jesus is clearly a forgery, and the reference to the Christ is not conclusive and may have been inserted later.
3. Although Luke claimed to be a historian in his Gospel, there is evidence to suggest that he was a historical novelist, not a reporter of facts. The author included historical details that are questionable or events that occurred long after the time he claimed they did. Additionally, the author demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic Judaism and Palestinian geography, and contradicted information presented in Paul's epistles
Oldbear83 said:
If you deny there was a historical Jesus, please explain why his first-generation followers all died rather than deny him.
Explain why there was such a determined effort to wipe out Christianity spanning multiple centuries, and why did that effort utterly fail?
Explain why so many cultures cast Christ as a man of their own kind, so that every love-based faith system demonstrates affinity with or a connection to Christian principles?
If there was no Jesus why does Tacitus and Josephus mention him?
Oldbear83 said:
If you deny there was a historical Jesus, please explain why his first-generation followers all died rather than deny him.
Explain why there was such a determined effort to wipe out Christianity spanning multiple centuries, and why did that effort utterly fail?
Explain why so many cultures cast Christ as a man of their own kind, so that every love-based faith system demonstrates affinity with or a connection to Christian principles?
Many people have died for their beliefs throughout history, including those who followed leaders who are now recognized as mythical or legendary figures. Additionally, the historical records available to us do not provide a clear picture of what happened to Jesus' followers after his death. Some scholars suggest that the martyrdom stories may have been exaggerated over time.
It is true that there were large efforts to suppress Christianity in its early years, highlighted by the persecution by the Roman Empire. However, I don't see how this makes it unique. Once it got rolling, Christianity spread incredibly fast - persecution is expected. Just look throughout history at nearly every time a group of people made some noise.
As for your third point - I can't comment too much on it. I haven't researched Christ figures in other religions/faiths. The only one I somewhat know about is the similarities between Christianity and Ancient Egyptian beliefs
BaylorJacket: "Many people have died for their beliefs throughout history, including those who followed leaders who are now recognized as mythical or legendary figures."
Can you give me a few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist? I cannot think of any which fit the parameters, only a few violent cults who murdered or commited suicide, not peaceful groups which advocated noble ideals.
Can you give me a few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist? I cannot think of any which fit the parameters, only a few violent cults who murdered or commited suicide, not peaceful groups which advocated noble ideals.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Let me start a new point:BaylorJacket said:
I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.
I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?
Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Do you believe that we have free will/choice? If so, from where does it originate?
I haven't spent much time thinking about this, so I can't give you a confident answer. My novice philosophical take is free will at a technical level is an illusion (determinism), but what we experience in conciousness is the manifestation of the physical system itself. We don't have free will of the system, but we are the system (takes a bong rip lol)
Oldbear83 said:
BaylorJacket: "Many people have died for their beliefs throughout history, including those who followed leaders who are now recognized as mythical or legendary figures."
Can you give me a few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist? I cannot think of any which fit the parameters, only a few violent cults who murdered or commited suicide, not peaceful groups which advocated noble ideals.
I mean across the world we have extreme denominations of Muslims committing suicide attacks, dying for their beliefs. I understand in your eyes this is awful (because it is), but these people truly believe in the Prophet Mohammed and are extremely religious. They aren't committing suicide in their eyes, they are martyrs of the faith.
Specifically, here are 5 non-Christian's martyrs:
1) Imam Hussein: He was a grandson of Prophet Muhammad and one of the most important figures in Shia Islam. He was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE.
2) Guru Tegh Bahadur: He was the ninth Guru of Sikhism and was executed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1675 CE for refusing to convert to Islam.
3) Rabbi Akiva: He was a prominent Jewish rabbi who lived in the first century CE and was executed by the Romans for teaching Torah after it had been banned.
4) Guru Arjan: He was the fifth Guru of Sikhism and was tortured to death by the Mughal emperor Jahangir in 1606 CE for refusing to remove certain passages from the Sikh scripture.
5) Hypatia: She was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer in ancient Alexandria who was killed by a Christian mob in 415 CE for her perceived pagan beliefs and teachings.
BaylorJacket said:Oldbear83 said:
BaylorJacket: "Many people have died for their beliefs throughout history, including those who followed leaders who are now recognized as mythical or legendary figures."
Can you give me a few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist? I cannot think of any which fit the parameters, only a few violent cults who murdered or commited suicide, not peaceful groups which advocated noble ideals.
I mean across the world we have extreme denominations of Muslims committing suicide attacks, dying for their beliefs. I understand in your eyes this is awful (because it is), but these people truly believe in the Prophet Mohammed and are extremely religious. They aren't committing suicide in their eyes, they are martyrs of the faith.
Specifically, here are 5 non-Christian's martyrs:
1) Imam Hussein: He was a grandson of Prophet Muhammad and one of the most important figures in Shia Islam. He was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE.
2) Guru Tegh Bahadur: He was the ninth Guru of Sikhism and was executed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1675 CE for refusing to convert to Islam.
3) Rabbi Akiva: He was a prominent Jewish rabbi who lived in the first century CE and was executed by the Romans for teaching Torah after it had been banned.
4) Guru Arjan: He was the fifth Guru of Sikhism and was tortured to death by the Mughal emperor Jahangir in 1606 CE for refusing to remove certain passages from the Sikh scripture.
5) Hypatia: She was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer in ancient Alexandria who was killed by a Christian mob in 415 CE for her perceived pagan beliefs and teachings.
Was Mohammed a fictional person?
Was Guru Nanak a fictional person?
Neither of the Josephus passages is clearly a forgery. One or both may contain interpolations. They still confirm that Josephus was aware of the basic facts of Jesus' life and ministry. The main difference between Jesus and Julius Caesar isn't a lack of evidence. It's the fact that believing in Jesus forces one to deal with the demands he makes on us. The stakes are a bit higher than in most ancient texts. Otherwise he wouldn't be a controversial figure. By ordinary standards, there is plentiful evidence.
There are some scholars who have studied this and have come to differing conclusions. I don't know very much about ancient Islam, so I'm not sure.D. C. Bear said:
Was Mohammed a fictional person?
I have absolutely no ideaD. C. Bear said:
Was Guru Nanak a fictional person?
BaylorJacket said:There are some scholars who have studied this and have come to differing conclusions. I don't know very much about ancient Islam, so I'm not sure.D. C. Bear said:
Was Mohammed a fictional person?I have absolutely no ideaD. C. Bear said:
Was Guru Nanak a fictional person?
Then why did you list some of his followers when asked to provide a "few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist?"
Shouldn't you have an idea if you are going to include those people in your list?
D. C. Bear said:BaylorJacket said:There are some scholars who have studied this and have come to differing conclusions. I don't know very much about ancient Islam, so I'm not sure.D. C. Bear said:
Was Mohammed a fictional person?I have absolutely no ideaD. C. Bear said:
Was Guru Nanak a fictional person?
Then why did you list some of his followers when asked to provide a "few examples of significant movement leaders who died rather than admit a fictitious person did not really exist?"
Shouldn't you have an idea if you are going to include those people in your list?
I see what you mean. Mohammad and the Guru are considered to be historically real people by the general consensus, yes. For the sake of the conversation I believe they are fair examples. I'm saying I can not confirm my position on their existence due to the lack of knowledge. The evidence may be extremely concrete for them, no clue.
My original point was that a historical person is not required to result in passionate religious and spiritual martyrs. The ones I posted are considered to be historically real martyrs (with evidence at least on par or better than the early Christian ), but their death has nothing to do with the truth of their beliefs.
So far as I can tell, none of those individuals was killed for refusing to admit that their teacher was not a real person.
So, still waiting here.
So, still waiting here.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:
So far as I can tell, none of those individuals was killed for refusing to admit that their teacher was not a real person.
So, still waiting here.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your original question. I'd imagine that is a pretty common reason people become martyrs across multiple cultures (renounce your belief/faith in X or die), but I'm not familiar enough with Martyrs to know the specific reasonings.
Sorry, but I think that Christianity is distinct in its unique character.BaylorJacket said:Oldbear83 said:
So far as I can tell, none of those individuals was killed for refusing to admit that their teacher was not a real person.
So, still waiting here.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your original question. I'd imagine that is a pretty common reason people become martyrs across multiple cultures (renounce your belief/faith in X or die), but I'm not familiar enough with Martyrs to know the specific reasonings.
- Non-violent, non-rebellion
- Based on rejection of normal human desires, like wealth, power, comfort
- Open to all races and both sexes
- Christ had no known, or even implied, political motive - Christianity was notably apolitical until Constantine co-opted it for his purposes
- Spread in spite of massive efforts to wipe it out, and no clear personal gain for its apostles
Literally nothing else in human history compares.
You brought up Islam, but come on, Mohamed made a lot of political agreements and his followers quickly gained power and wealth through conquest. Mo had more in common with Genghis Khan than Christ.
You might make a case for Buddhism, except that most Buddhists consider the Buddha to be a spiritual avatar and not a real person. Even those who believe the founder existed consider him to be just that, a founder who was followed by many who were morally his equal.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
When you disengage from the divine your value and purpose is not relative to your fellow humans or living creatures, or even societal structure or planet. It is relative to the vastness of the universe and the physical forces within it. And under that comparative there is literally no value to humanity. We are simply an elevated ant hill organizing and reorganizing in pursuit of comfort, dominance, and endorphic drive.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Put simply, when you have no relationship to or with the divine, your value or purpose becomes infinitesimally tiny. To believe otherwise is simply human arrogance.
Oldbear83 said:Sorry, but I think that Christianity is distinct in its unique character.BaylorJacket said:Oldbear83 said:
So far as I can tell, none of those individuals was killed for refusing to admit that their teacher was not a real person.
So, still waiting here.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your original question. I'd imagine that is a pretty common reason people become martyrs across multiple cultures (renounce your belief/faith in X or die), but I'm not familiar enough with Martyrs to know the specific reasonings.
- Non-violent, non-rebellion
- Based on rejection of normal human desires, like wealth, power, comfort
- Open to all races and both sexes
- Christ had no known, or even implied, political motive - Christianity was notably apolitical until Constantine co-opted it for his purposes
- Spread in spite of massive efforts to wipe it out, and no clear personal gain for its apostles
Literally nothing else in human history compares.
You brought up Islam, but come on, Mohamed made a lot of political agreements and his followers quickly gained power and wealth through conquest. Mo had more in common with Genghis Khan than Christ.
You might make a case for Buddhism, except that most Buddhists consider the Buddha to be a spiritual avatar and not a real person. Even those who believe the founder existed consider him to be just that, a founder who was followed by many who were morally his equal.
I'd say it's definitely a fair conclusion that early Christianity has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other religions and belief systems. A lot of good characteristics for it's time (like you listed), some bad.
ATL Bear said:When you disengage from the divine your value and purpose is not relative to your fellow humans or living creatures, or even societal structure or planet. It is relative to the vastness of the universe and the physical forces within it. And under that comparative there is literally no value to humanity. We are simply an elevated ant hill organizing and reorganizing in pursuit of comfort, dominance, and endorphic drive.BaylorJacket said:D. C. Bear said:That's nice, but the question of whether "it matters" is not pointless to any of us. If we are living in a world created by a loving God who places a high value on people, your experience-based conclusion is congruent with a deeper reality and can justifiably form the basis for organizing society. If we are living in a Godless universe where humans value is determined only by their own individual feelings, then it is fine for you or decide you will lessen the suffering of others and experience joy with your family etc., but we would have no rational argument against the person who looks another human in the eyes and decides to eat him. It really is that stark.BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:If there is no soul, no spirit, no God, we just simply cease to be. If we all go together, there's not even a memory.BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Perhaps it is my disposition that leads me away from nihilism. I went down that philosophical rabbit trail for some time, but at the end of the day my optimistic core leads me to find purpose in the face of cynicism.curtpenn said:BaylorJacket said:Doc Holliday said:Has that made your life better? Has losing faith improved any aspect of your life?BaylorJacket said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
"I believe Jesus Christ was absolutely a real man, it seems silly to deem otherwise with a mountain of evidence." Baylorjacket 4/19/22
Do you really have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to parse through my old posts from nearly a year ago on a football forum?
Yes - about a year ago I would have said that it is silly to not concretely believe that a historical Jesus existed. However, like I have already said, I have read many books on the topic, engaged and reflected on the subject, and this confidence has dropped over the past year.
You continuing to post my old quotes is not going to change anything.
Thanks for the question Doc. In many ways, yes, aspects of my life has improved after losing faith. My mental and physical health have both improved as I've focused more on the present than eternity. My heart for social justice and ability to love others has also increased.
But don't get me wrong, it hasn't been a walk in the park. Losing my church community was very difficult, and as my close family are all believers, this has affected my relationship with them some as well. There have also been periods of loneliness that I have had to overcome.
Interesting you have found it easier to love others and seek social justice. When I'm in the valley, I tend toward the opposite and lean into nihilism. If all species are headed to oblivion and are the products of mere time and chance, then there is no inherent value in the cosmos or anything in it. Will to power is all.
Why do you believe your life has purpose?
I'm still pursing the answer to this very question, but in that pursuit I find meaning.
For the atheist/materialist, I believe the inescapable conclusion is that life has no inherent meaning. Most people are not able to embrace the brutal logic that life is meaningless even as they reject a Creator. That you feel compelled to find meaning is interesting.
Hmm, that's interesting - I can't comment on that too much as I haven't dove into the topic with many atheists. I certainly understand though how somehow could find no meaning, especially after leaving religion
Bernie Madoff did it right, at least up until he got caught. Why not just aspire to be a brighter Bernie Madoff?
The idea of not having life after death is strangely peaceful to me. I personally found I have valued and cherished this present life even more so after considering it a possibility.
I was not familiar with Bernie Madoff beforehand, but after a quick google search I think I get the general idea. I have no desire to wrong people or harm people, so I'm not going to start doing it after shedding religion. The philosophical question if "it matters" is a bit pointless to me, as I can tactically feel and express love, and I can feel and understand other's suffering. It's a fun thought experiment, but I find it's not really applicable for me personally when looking another human in the eyes.
I believe the vast majority of humans are good in nature, but unfortunately get f****d over by the circumstances of life. While enjoying this life, I hope to lessen the suffering of others, and experience love & joy with my wife, family, friends, and any who will break bread. Hopefully, after my time is over, the butterfly effect of my actions produces more good than bad fruit.
I respectfully disagree with this. Regardless of one's belief system, it is evident that humans are social creatures who depend on each other for survival and wellbeing. We have evolved to feel empathy and connection with others, and this has enabled us to form communities, share resources, and create cultures. In every culture, there are norms and values that guide behavior, and these are based on shared understandings of what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust.
It is true that some people may choose to act in ways that are harmful to others, and this can happen in any society, regardless of its religious or moral foundations. However, it is also true that societies that prioritize empathy and compassion are more likely to create conditions of safety, prosperity, and dignity for their members.
Therefore, it is not necessary to appeal to a divine authority to justify ethical behavior or the organization of society. Rather, we can recognize the value of empathy and compassion as fundamental human traits that allow us to create a better world for ourselves and each other.
Put simply, when you have no relationship to or with the divine, your value or purpose becomes infinitesimally tiny. To believe otherwise is simply human arrogance.
The notion that human worth and purpose are meaningless without a divine relationship is subjective, as it presupposes that human value can only be assessed in the context of the vast universe. Nonetheless, other individuals, cultures, and societies have diverse perspectives on what gives meaning and value to their lives. Some find significance in everyday moments and interactions.
1. The Jesus in the Gospels is precisely who those scholars are talking about. THEY DON'T believe in his divinity either. They may or may not believe that he attracted large crowds EITHER. They, like you, have dismissed all the supernatural stuff as myth. But despite this, they insist that the person who is the Christ-figure as depicted in the Gospels is NOT a myth, that it is based on a REAL, HISTORICAL person. You can believe or not believe the miracles, or his public ministry all you want. You can keep arguing from silence all you want, it will always be a logical fallacy that your view is built on. You are not bringing anything new that these scholars have not considered. Bottom line, with all these things considered, they are all saying that your view is utterly false, "completely spurious", "foolish", and is promoted by "incompetent and unqualified people" and "ignorant buggers". Keep flailing. You can never escape this.BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:1. Argument from silence, and there isn't even silence. Your attempt to exclude and explain away Paul IS intellectually dishonesty and incredibly biased, and an ad hoc argument. A foolish argument, which even Bart Ehrman would characterize as such.BaylorJacket said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Your position was well understood. And regardless of your ostensibly agreeable position in the beginning, it was quite revealing how firmly you were asserting the myth argument. Again, my interest was in WHY you hedge your bet, why you believe the myth view has merit. You even said that there was a "decent chance" that the myth view was correct! So what evidence leads you in the direction that virtually ALL reputable scholars think isn't just wrong, but a stupid view? You offered forth two things: 1) Lack of mentions of Jesus by mainline historians of the time, and 2) Josephus' first reference to Jesus was a "forgery". The first is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, as explained. The second is a complete logical failure as explained. Both are intellectually dishonest. And of course, your newest argument, that "the so-called Christ" was a later addition, is just another late, flimsy, ad hoc reach - the "go to" when all else fails. How can any reasonable, honest, intelligent person think that these arguments justify the view that Jesus is a myth, even in the slightest?BaylorJacket said:
Was it the Christ you used to believe in failing or the church members failing?Quote:You find solace and reassurance in holding to something that's been shown to be a complete failure of logic? You fail to realize that it's not ME that you're differing with, it's intellectually honesty and common sense you are departing from.Quote:Quote:You're very welcome for my time. It was well worth the effort bringing a skeptic into the light to be exposed.Quote:Quote:There are a lot of failings of the church, that is undeniable. But might I suggest you point the finger at yourself? We've revealed quite a lot about how you think about all this, and it just isn't very honest, objective, and sound. That might be your greater impediment. After all, it has led you away completely from a belief in God. That isn't the church's doing. That's your doing.Quote:
The church failing. I'm not trying to blanket statement all Christians - there are some incredible Christ followers out there who do indeed live out the teachings and messages of Jesus (I am sure you are one yourself), but from my personal experience it is far too common for the western church to either promote discrimination/marginalization or turn a blind eye to it.
I think you are correct here, as my mere minuscule intelligence is unable to have an honest and objective conversation with a genius like yourself. We have identified the impediment - thank you for your time.
I derive a sense of solace and reassurance from the fact that I hold a differing opinion from you. Thank you for "bringing me into the light" lol
Arguing that Jesus could be a myth because ONE of TWO references to Jesus by Josephus could be a "forgery" (a failure of logic) and then trying to explain away Josephus' second reference to Jesus by saying that "Jesus, the so-called Christ" was NOT talking about Jesus CHRIST -- that is about the most blatant display of intellectual dishonesty that I've witnessed on these forums, on par with Waco1947, quash, and TXScientist. Truthfully, it makes me sad. Sad, that people will go to such lengths just so they can justify the beliefs that they WANT, instead of going honestly where the truth takes them. It isn't really that hard to be objective and honest, and say to yourself, "Yeah, Josephus is likely talking about Jesus, the Christ figure behind the early Christian movement" and go from there. Why anyone would rather lie to themself by resorting to a ridiculously faulty ad hoc explanation (even when they know it to be so) in order to explain away the logically obvious, is very puzzling to me. But such is the nature of the hard of heart.
There are ancient text historians who study Josephus and have concluded that the "so-called Christ" bit is an interpolation. Not as an act of forgery, but a scribe simply taking notes. There are also many who believe it's authentic.
Regardless, it doesn't matter. From the beginning of this conversation, you have not understood my position nor do you seem interested in it. I'm sure I haven't done a great job explaining it, but I am not expressing "this is a forgery therefore Jesus didn't exist". Absolutely, Josephus might have actually penned the words himself and believed Jesus existed - this is a very real possibility. However, I also see possibility in the alternative as well.
As a recap from the beginning of our conversation, I believe that the most likely explanation for the current evidence we have is that Jesus existed.
This is the central point I'm raising. I'm bringing in to question whether we're dealing with an honest skeptic, or not. If we're gonna discuss arguments or "proofs" of God's existence in this thread, that is a very relevant question to begin with.
Here is a summary of the points that I brought up that, from my perspective, give the myth argument ground to stand on:
1. The lack of contemporary accounts of Jesus (yes you can yell Paul from the rooftops - but I disagree Paul provides a convincing contemporary account for earlier stated reasons. Chop it up to my intellectual dishonesty)
2. The only legit 1st century text for Jesus' historicity is Josephus, and we surprisingly both agreed the first mention of Jesus is a forgery. The "so-called-Christ" in the second section being an interpolation is not an ad hoc attempt to explain things, but a common position held by Josephus scholars. I encourage you to research the topic. I don't know if this bit is authentic or not, and I am not going to pretend that I know.
3. The poor Historical reliability of the gospels - if we cannot separate myth from history in these stories, it is impossible to conclude a historical Jesus existed due to oral stories being written into a narrative.
A historical 1st century Jesus is not required to explain the rise of Christianity, as well as the writings we find in the 3rd century & later. I believe the most likely explanation is that he did exist and his life and teachings became later mythified into the gospels we have today, but I am not convinced concretely nor would I claim to. However, I understand your confidence in your position as it's absolutely a rational belief to have.
If you are going to continue to question my intelligence or reason, this is a fruitless endeavor. I am well aware of the gaps in my knowledge on the topic and will continue to research and listen to the respective leaders of the fields. If there is concrete proof unearthed one day, I will confidently change my mind.
2. Didn't agree that it was a forgery. Not surprised you weren't able to interpret correctly. The point was even if we eliminate that one, there was a second reference to Jesus by Josephus. The only way you could maintain your argument was by doing away with the second reference by engaging in ridiculous ad hoc reach (yes, it was.) And we aren't even getting into Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, Clement, etc.
3. Luke, "a historian of first rate" whose prologue CLEARLY indicates he approaches his Gospel as history rather than myth, who was giving his readers "an orderly account" based on the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events. Paul, a first century contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who wrote within a decade of Jesus' death, who knew the disciples, who knew James the "brother of Jesus", who clearly indicates a real, historical Jesus.
Now, I never questioned your intelligence directly. What I said was that it is either that, or it is dishonesty. It is your attempts and methods to explain the above away, that bring your honesty and/or intelligence into question. And it's not just me who thinks this, remember? Let's revisit these quotes from highly qualified and relevant scholars regarding the view which you believe to have credence:
-- "the mythicist view does not have a foothold, or even have a toehold, among modern critical scholars of the bible"..."if that's what you're gonna believe, it just makes you look foolish.." - Bart Ehrman
-- "I therefore conclude that the mythicist arguments are completely spurious from beginning to end. They have been mainly put forward by incompetent and unqualified people....the mythicist view should therefore be regarded as verifiably false from beginning to end." - Maurice Casey, emeritus professor of New Testament and theology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
-- "the disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense; they are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism to the calm and considered academic study of religion...while there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts." - Joseph Hoffman
1. Let me clarify my stance on this matter. I am not asserting that there was never a faith healer named Yeshua in the 1st century who was unknown or had only a small following - there were likely many of those, possibly even hundreds. My argument is that there is enough evidence to question the existence of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels (excluding the miracles) - the one who attracted large crowds and was a popular speaker. During the time Jesus supposedly lived, there were numerous well-known historians in Jerusalem who wrote about lesser-known false prophets and mundane figures, yet there is silence on the topic of Jesus, which I find intriguing.
2. As I mentioned previously, the earliest reference to Jesus is clearly a forgery, and the reference to the Christ is not conclusive and may have been inserted later.
3. Although Luke claimed to be a historian in his Gospel, there is evidence to suggest that he was a historical novelist, not a reporter of facts. The author included historical details that are questionable or events that occurred long after the time he claimed they did. Additionally, the author demonstrated a lack of knowledge of basic Judaism and Palestinian geography, and contradicted information presented in Paul's epistles
2. Not a forgery, at worst just an interpolation.
3. You can reach, stretch, whatever to find all the "evidence to suggest" that Luke is not attempting to faithfully report facts from eyewitnesses, even when that was his stated purpose in his prologue. None of what you are saying diminishes the historical value of his work, if they are even true. One of the world's famous archaelogists called Luke a "historian of first rank" when he verified through archaelogy the accuracy of Luke's gospel.