Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 09:31 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 09:20 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I never said you weren't born into cultural Christianity. This doesn't grant knowledge of theology or exegesis.

No it does not.

Many of us here began our path to atheism by questioning.
(You would know this if you'd asked.)

Many of us could not find the answers within religion and began researching outside sources. Secular scholars, other religions. History.

Once you do that, once you compare things from a variety of viewpoints, rather than a single one, the fallacies become blatantly clear.

Religion tells you that it has all the answers and you don't need to ask the questions.

Religion tells you that the discrepancies and inconsistencies don't matter, instead of resolving them and explaining the mystery.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 09:35 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 09:28 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  To use another example Paul's epistles are thought by some to teach specific ideas on God's grace that flow out of second temple Judaism.

Which ones? The letters written by "Paul" or the forgeries?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 09:39 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 09:31 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 09:20 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I never said you weren't born into cultural Christianity. This doesn't grant knowledge of theology or exegesis.

No it does not.

Many of us here began our path to atheism by questioning.
(You would know this if you'd asked.)

Many of us could not find the answers within religion and began researching outside sources. Secular scholars, other religions. History.

Once you do that, once you compare things from a variety of viewpoints, rather than a single one, the fallacies become blatantly clear.

Religion tells you that it has all the answers and you don't need to ask the questions.

Religion tells you that the discrepancies and inconsistencies don't matter, instead of resolving them and explaining the mystery.

I didn't need to ask. I already know this. I questioned my cultural Christianity and I became an atheist. But the questioning took place under a cloud of scientism and materialist dogma. Philosophy was ignored.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 09:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 11:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 09:28 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Secondly, I reject the historicity of your claims. While this is not the debate and I will not bring this further, the Jewish reclamation of Jesus is completely underway, and scholars almost always classify this with First Century Judaism.

Your "whole paragraph" is MIA.
References required, and they do not.
Acts 1 :"Wilt Thou O Lord, at THIS TIME restore the kingdom to Israel". Even his followers thought that was what he was going to do.
Judaism was not about a "messiah" until the apocalyptic period, and even THEN he didn't get the job done. If what you say were true, JEWS would accept him. For the most part they don't.

Quote:Not a single teaching scholar in the western world rejects this. For example, Matthew is literally working with apocalyptic imagery to convey the point of Christ's power over death. This only works within a near eastern context. To use another example Paul's epistles are thought by some to teach specific ideas on God's grace that flow out of second temple Judaism.


False. 100 percent. Obviously you know very few scholars. Let's see your poll of scholars. (Near Eastern is capitalized, BTW). Your nonsense about Paul is irrelevant. Paul also was an apocalyptic and everything he said makes sense in the apocalyptic Jewish context, NOT how Christians have twisted his words.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look
You obviously have read very few scholars. Messianism was never an important part of Hebrew culture until the apocalyptic period.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-Look
"In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."


I do have to agree with the "First Century Judaism" part, tho. The gospels reflect the concerns of LATE 1st Century Rabbinic Judaism, (the Golden Rule etc)., not early First Century.
It's one of the good reasons to question the historicity of Jesus, as these concerns did not arise until after the destruction of the temple, and the Diaspora was underway.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-02-2017, 09:42 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 09:35 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 09:28 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  To use another example Paul's epistles are thought by some to teach specific ideas on God's grace that flow out of second temple Judaism.

Which ones? The letters written by "Paul" or the forgeries?

Sorry. There's no way to know.



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
03-02-2017, 10:17 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 01:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm an agnostic theist. What do you mean I'm unwilling to admit it? That issue never came up.

What's the difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:21 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 10:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 01:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm an agnostic theist. What do you mean I'm unwilling to admit it? That issue never came up.

What's the difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist ?

What is the difference? Seems like agnostic renders the other two irrelevant.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:22 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 10:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 11:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I thought I already addressed this. The flying spaghetti monster isn't coherent. The first cause can't be material.

The First Cause is incoherent.
A First Cause can't *cause* unless Causality is already in place, a priori.
How did that happen ? It "found itself" in a ready-made Reality ?
Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:24 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 10:27 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:49 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 02:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Answer: if you can't detect it, even in theory, it isn't true.

This is nonsense. You're suggesting gravitational waves didn't exist until we could detect them.


(03-02-2017 02:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Answer: if you can't detect it, even in theory, it isn't true.

Read before responding. A hint: "undetectable" and "has not been detected" are not equivalent.

I also not the lack of response to the other points raised.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 10:35 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 08:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  What ways have been proven reliable?

Any method that produces repeatable, verifiable results is reliable. That is what "reliable" means.

And before you ask, yes, we can know that something is repeatable and verifiable. Solipsism is incoherent. We know that the universe exists; from there, the only thing necessary to gain knowledge of said universe is consistency.

It doesn't matter if we're in an illusion as long as the illusion works consistently.

(03-02-2017 08:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  How can you prove anything?

Intellectual solipsism is no more tenable than existential solipsism. See above.

Both positions are nothing more than tedious semantic games, and boil down to "yes, but what if it was really-"

No one cares. If we're studying an illusion, so be it; we're still figuring out how it works, and it makes no difference in the end. Science still provably functions.

(03-02-2017 08:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The materialists and pragmatists that infest the scientific community just assume science works and they move on.

No. They conclude that science works via observing all the ways in which it demonstrably does.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: