Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[redhawk23]

You said it, buddy. It was like a big red flag saying, "here is a person that you won't be able to reason with in matters of religion". I'm busy eating some sweet pasta I just made. Gonna watch some Battlestar.

...

 

[Sloth7d]

Still, does it being untrue change the values of the lessons inside?

They aren't great values and lessons without the literal interpretation of a reward from God. What is in the OT is nothing more than a lesson to fear The One True God above all else. What's in the NT is nothing more than encouragement to endure hardships to the point of letting people walk all over you and discard all material things (thus bringing on more hardships); essentially, it's an encouragement to become weak. If the Bible is false, and there is no God and no reward of Heaven then you gain nothing by turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, giving up all material things, and (in the case of a crazy rich man willing to do so) metaphorically fitting that camel through a needle. You gain nothing but self abuse.

 

[SuperFerret]

You said it, buddy. It was like a big red flag saying, "here is a person that you won't be able to reason with in matters of religion". I'm busy eating some sweet pasta I just made. Gonna watch some Battlestar.

You should relearn how to read if you think that then, because you're doing it wrong.

 

[SuperFerret]

They aren't great values and lessons without the literal interpretation of a reward from God. What is in the OT is nothing more than a lesson to fear The One True God above all else. What's in the NT is nothing more than encouragement to endure hardships to the point of letting people walk all over you and discard all material things (thus bringing on more hardships); essentially, it's an encouragement to become weak. If the Bible is false, and there is no God and no reward of Heaven then you gain nothing by turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, giving up all material things, and (in the case of a crazy rich man willing to do so) metaphorically fitting that camel through a needle. You gain nothing but self abuse.

So Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Bible isn't an admirable man who should serve as an example for others?

 

[Sloth7d]

So Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Bible isn't an admirable man who should serve as an example for others?

No, not unless you enjoy being taken advantage of.

 

[8wid]

So Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Bible isn't an admirable man who should serve as an example for others?

He wasn't even a real person, but is essentially a fictional literary protagonist written into the hero's journey story arch like Odysseus and Oedipus for the citizens of the Roman Empire that had been socially evolving into merging their many pagan gods as physical representations of one single entity. Once an individual learned of the Hebrew myth that did this wrote the New Testament and a Roman emperor got a hold of it eventually and promoted it.

Watch this full video and see:

Jesus is a myth

 

[bunk]

Some of his teachings should be studied, as they are useful enough. Admire him as a man? No.
If he wasn't a god, he was a psychopath. If he was somehow a god, well then you're not actually admiring a man anyway.

 

[Lighthouse]

I admire "Willem Defoe" Jesus. I'm not joking either. "The Last Temptation of Christ" is one of my all time favorites.

He wasn't even a real person, but is essentially a fictional literary protagonist written into the hero's journey story arch like Odysseus and Oedipus for the citizens of the Roman Empire that had been socially evolving into merging their many pagan gods as physical representations of one single entity. Once an individual learned of the Hebrew myth that did this wrote the New Testament and a Roman emperor got a hold of it eventually and promoted it.

Watch this full video and see:

Jesus is a myth

Fictional characters can still be admirable and serve as examples to others. I think we run into problems when we raise real people we admire into "heroes" "legends" "saints" or "gods". There are a lot of Paterno and Sandusky fans who have had their hearts crushed right now.

 

[Sloth7d]

Eh, I think there are better philosphers a person should spend time studying. Don't get me wrong. I think the Bible and many scholarly books about the Abarhamic religion in general should be read to understand exactly where the culture of today's Super Powers are rooted in. But to actually study Jesus' teachings as something to be usefully applied? I can't recommend that over the myriad other philosophers and scientists who better analyze reality and morals. Not unless you believe the Bible to be true that is. Though, naturally, I don't recommend that either.

 

[Saint]

Morality isn't relative.

Of course it's relative; the entire concept is based on values we assign and the particular goals we've developed for our society. We invented morality because we value ourselves and certain aspects of our lives; if we valued different things, we would make different decisions about what is right or wrong, defining a different morality. That is exactly what it means to be relative.

Bottom line, morality isn't objective because we made it up, and as such we can only understand it in relation to our own needs and values. Fortunately, we can still apply knowledge and reason to work out the best possible moral model for our species, if we try.

 

[Anubis]

Unless there's a Zombie Apocalypse. Then all that s**t goes out the window and becomes survival of the fittest.

 

[Sloth7d]

Unless there's a Zombie Apocalypse. Then all that s**t goes out the window and becomes survival of the fittest.

Someone hasn't seen Zombie Land.

 

[Anubis]

Just because the movie ended with them working together doesn't mean they didn't all die at some point because they were too focused on trying to save each other.

It's happily ever after......for a time.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

I don't have to love it or leave it. It's not my business what somebody else's belief regarding a higher power is. I don't care what someone's spiritual beliefs are. All I care about is they're a decent person or not.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Eh, I think there are better philosphers a person should spend time studying. Don't get me wrong. I think the Bible and many scholarly books about the Abarhamic religion in general should be read to understand exactly where the culture of today's Super Powers are rooted in. But to actually study Jesus' teachings as something to be usefully applied? I can't recommend that over the myriad other philosophers and scientists who better analyze reality and morals. Not unless you believe the Bible to be true that is. Though, naturally, I don't recommend that either.

I think there is a lot of good philosophy from the Abrahamic religions if you get away from the mainstream, outer part of them. They are much deeper in thought and philosophy if you examine the 'inner' parts of those faiths, the esoteric traditions. Gnosticism in Christianity, Kabbalah in Judaism and Sufism in Islam. I'm a Sufi Muslim.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

I admire "Willem Defoe" Jesus. I'm not joking either. "The Last Temptation of Christ" is one of my all time favorites.



Fictional characters can still be admirable and serve as examples to others. I think we run into problems when we raise real people we admire into "heroes" "legends" "saints" or "gods". There are a lot of Paterno and Sandusky fans who have had their hearts crushed right now.

Yes! Faith isn't science or history. It actually doesn't matter whether it's true or not. For a lot of people faith makes them feel better about their mortality. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that IMO. If I looked at faith and spiritual beliefs under a purely rationalist microscope I would be inclined to take an atheistic view. The problem is people who TREAT it as fact and science. That is fanaticism and I view it as it's own religion. There are fanatics from just about every major faith and they all have more in common with each other in their fanaticism than they would ever admit.

 

[Dr.]

I think there is a lot of good philosophy from the Abrahamic religions if you get away from the mainstream, outer part of them. They are much deeper in thought and philosophy if you examine the 'inner' parts of those faiths, the esoteric traditions.

It's too bad that those in the "esoteric traditions" weren't more outspoken critics of the mainstream. But I suppose it's difficult for one believer to criticize another's interpretation - people in glass houses... and all that.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

It's too bad that those in the "esoteric traditions" weren't more outspoken critics of the mainstream. But I suppose it's difficult for one believer to criticize another's interpretation - people in glass houses... and all that.

Excuse me but what are you talking about? Why is it that you're putting "esoteric traditions" in quotations? It seems you're questioning the existence of those traditions by putting them in quotes as if it's an idea and not something that exists. Is that your intention?

Outspoken critics of what exactly?

I'm getting a hostile and/or condescending vibe. So I'd like it if you could elaborate.

 

[Spider-Who?]

They aren't great values and lessons without the literal interpretation of a reward from God. What is in the OT is nothing more than a lesson to fear The One True God above all else. What's in the NT is nothing more than encouragement to endure hardships to the point of letting people walk all over you and discard all material things (thus bringing on more hardships); essentially, it's an encouragement to become weak. If the Bible is false, and there is no God and no reward of Heaven then you gain nothing by turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, giving up all material things, and (in the case of a crazy rich man willing to do so) metaphorically fitting that camel through a needle. You gain nothing but self abuse.

If that were even remotely true, Christianity and Judaism would have died out a long time ago.

One can dismiss the Bible as a fictional book all they want. That's cool, to each their own. I've heard all sorts of opinions on the Bible, but this one astounds me; which it really shouldn't' because you've obviously never opened the book. To summarize it as you have is not only a grossly inaccurate understanding, but also an insult to the most basic concepts of human reading comprehension. Seriously.

 

[Dr.]

Excuse me but what are you talking about? Why is it that you're putting "esoteric traditions" in quotations? It seems you're questioning the existence of those traditions by putting them in quotes as if it's an idea and not something that exists. Is that your intention?

Outspoken critics of what exactly?

I'm getting a hostile and/or condescending vibe. So I'd like it if you could elaborate.

Certainly. In addition to their secondary purpose of indicating an ironic or contentious usage, quotes are also used to quote. I put quotes around “esoteric traditions” because I was quoting your term. By it, I assumed (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you were referring to a more contemplative and philosophical tradition – as opposed to the more “mainstream” religions, which tend towards the literal and dogmatic. And from there, I lamented the fact that the “esoteric traditions” weren’t as influential in society as the “mainstream.”

 

[Sloth7d]

I think there is a lot of good philosophy from the Abrahamic religions if you get away from the mainstream, outer part of them. They are much deeper in thought and philosophy if you examine the 'inner' parts of those faiths, the esoteric traditions. Gnosticism in Christianity, Kabbalah in Judaism and Sufism in Islam. I'm a Sufi Muslim.

Most of those sects spent their time trying to define what God is, how to get to it, and/or prove to non-beleivers it exists. It's not something I found convincing, and I felt I wasted my time reading on them since I'd already heard better definitions and "proofs" of God from Desecarte, Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, and even they're reasoning is faulty, but, with the exception of Aquinas, the concept of God was a marginal detail in what those men had to say. So, it really didn't matter.

I guess if you really want a Religion without heavy emphasis on scripture, one of these sects would be ideal. Though even then I would recommend Buddhism first; really, I recommend Buddhism, period, though I'm not one of them. Perhaps even Jainism; though I say Jainism hesitantly because their pacifism is beyond ridiculous. However for the most part, I don't think there's anything interesting to learn about from Gnostics, the Sufis, or Kabbalah. At least not anything you couldn't have heard in more concise terms from Plato et al.

 

[Sloth7d]

If that were even remotely true, Christianity and Judaism would have died out a long time ago.

If Christians didn't believe in the God of the Bible it would have died out a long time ago? Uh, yeah, I agree.

One can dismiss the Bible as a fictional book all they want. That's cool, to each their own. I've heard all sorts of opinions on the Bible, but this one astounds me; which it really shouldn't' because you've obviously never opened the book. To summarize it as you have is not only a grossly inaccurate understanding, but also an insult to the most basic concepts of human reading comprehension. Seriously.

You can believe that about me all you want, but I bet you can't explain how Jesus' teachings make sense without a belief in the God of the Bible.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Certainly. In addition to their secondary purpose of indicating an ironic or contentious usage, quotes are also used to quote. I put quotes around “esoteric traditions” because I was quoting your term. By it, I assumed (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you were referring to a more contemplative and philosophical tradition – as opposed to the more “mainstream” religions, which tend towards the literal and dogmatic. And from there, I lamented the fact that the “esoteric traditions” weren’t as influential in society as the “mainstream.”

Oh alright. I suppose I should have taken you at face value. I'm more cynical than I thought I was, I suppose.

And I agree. I lament it as well.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Most of those sects spent their time trying to define what God is, how to get to it, and/or prove to non-beleivers it exists. It's not something I found convincing, and I felt I wasted my time reading on them since I'd already heard better definitions and "proofs" of God from Desecarte, Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas, and even they're reasoning is faulty, but, with the exception of Aquinas, the concept of God was a marginal detail in what those men had to say. So, it really didn't matter.

I guess if you really want a Religion without heavy emphasis on scripture, one of these sects would be ideal. Though even then I would recommend Buddhism first; really, I recommend Buddhism, period, though I'm not one of them. Perhaps even Jainism; though I say Jainism hesitantly because their pacifism is beyond ridiculous. However for the most part, I don't think there's anything interesting to learn about from Gnostics, the Sufis, or Kabbalah. At least not anything you couldn't have heard in more concise terms from Plato et al.

I understand what you're saying. You're right.

Although, I have to disagree a little in the point of those sects spending a lot of time trying to prove something to disbelievers. At least when it comes to Sufis(not familiar enough with Gnosticism and Kabbalah to say one way or the other). It's not heavy on scripture at all. Sufism is about closeness to God with no focus on scripture at all, actually. It's about trying to feel connected to God and the universe and it has many of the same practices/beliefs you find in Dharmic belief systems such as meditation, chakras(called Lataif in Sufism), astral projection etc.

You're right, though. I do think there is indeed a heavier focus on connecting to God/the spiritual realm than there is on philosophizing.

 

[Sloth7d]

I knew the Sufis didn't rely on scripture that much, but I didn't know they don't at all. I know mostly about the Sufi's through several books of Karen Armstrong and a few others where she says that the evangelical Muslims of today have lost their way from the ones of the past. Though I could have sworn that she said Sufis still did rely on text of the Quran; admitedly more for metaphorical purposes to help lay men understand than for literal purposes. But you say it is true that you don't focus on scripture at all in any sense?