The cost of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 03:28 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 03:09 PM)phil.a Wrote:  What I can't quite work out is - why it really matters who wrote the gospels? :-)

Phil

From an apologetics standpoint, it makes an enormous difference whether the gospels are eyewitness accounts or merely hearsay. That's why it matters who wrote them and when they were written.

My comment was meant as a joke ;-)

Although there was a serious side to it - can you explain what benefit the debate might possibly have?

It seems to me that people project their pre-existing beliefs (or lack of them) into whatever is written in the bible, so everyone just sees confirmation for their own pre-existing position in there.

If that's the case - any debate will go round in circles indefinitely, so the winning move is not to play.

Or perhaps I'm wrong? Are people ever debated out of their religious beliefs?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 03:53 PM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 02:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 02:32 PM)ChristianMan Wrote:  tally up insults in this thread see how the atheists come out. Anyway, by inconsistent I meant that atheists have no universal standard of right and wrong. So each does what is right in their own eyes, or that of their peer group.

Or perhaps their culture? Just like religionists. You don't get your morals from the Bible, you get them from your self and your culture.

(27-08-2014 03:37 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
Quote:Chas made a statement I agree with: Or perhaps their culture? Just like religionists. You don't get your morals from the Bible, you get them from your self and your culture.

It's not quite a given. I think this is a really important point, where morals arrive from is a function of an individual's level of psychological development.

Specifically - people at rational levels of psychological development can ethically discern (derive moral judgements from scratch to meet the situation), whereas pre-rational thinkers need an external morality authority. They can't ethically discern for themselves, they have to follow the rules.

The reason for this is a capacity for objectivity and impartiality is required to step back from subjectivity, if you can't do that, it's not really possible to look outside of your own self-interest and consider the broader ethics.


(27-08-2014 03:14 PM)Kemasyn Wrote:  Why does so many people automatically think that just because you do not buy in to the Bible that you suddenly have a skewed perspective of morality?

Simple - to someone who can't ethically discern, the bible is an essential part of their moral toolkit. It therefore appears to them that anyone who does not have such a book is "morally adrift" because that individual's potential ability to ethically discern without the rule book is out of sight to him.

You need to be able to ethically discern, before you can spot capacities of ethical discernment in others. Pre-rational thinkers have no way of seeing that rational thinkers have that capacity.

Phil

I'm not sure if this is a good place to ask this question. Per the first section, having to follow the rules. I understand the concept of the need for some to require a 'rule book' so that they know the rules and how to follow them and the bible for a great number especially here in the US is the bible. If the bible were to be proven an absolute false, no argument left to have a belief in it, what then to replace it? This is just speaking idealistically or hypothetically.

As far at the skewed perspective, I never thought of it in that way, pre-rational views vs. rational. I think if that if rational thinkers have the ability of discerning the fallacies of the bible, why would they not have the ability to discern a standard of morality. To me, being able to rationalize gives more meaning of moral standing without the need for a religious text. Then again, perhaps that is why I have removed myself from the religious, specifically Christian affiliation a long time ago. I am just now trying to connect the dots to the greater effect it has on others sometime uniquely so.

I tend to ask random questions, sometime stupid ones, but I can almost guarantee I'm smarter for asking than not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kemasyn's post
27-08-2014, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 04:20 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:46 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Hey Bucky!

Thats a bold claim that you know more about the Bible and Christianity than I do.

Try me, fool. You picked the wrong dude.

Oh shit. He's not really gonna go mano a mano with the gay atheist seminary graduate is he? Oh shit.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
27-08-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 03:44 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 03:28 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  From an apologetics standpoint, it makes an enormous difference whether the gospels are eyewitness accounts or merely hearsay. That's why it matters who wrote them and when they were written.

My comment was meant as a joke ;-)

Although there was a serious side to it - can you explain what benefit the debate might possibly have?

It seems to me that people project their pre-existing beliefs (or lack of them) into whatever is written in the bible, so everyone just sees confirmation for their own pre-existing position in there.

If that's the case - any debate will go round in circles indefinitely, so the winning move is not to play.

Or perhaps I'm wrong? Are people ever debated out of their religious beliefs?

Phil

I did see the smiley, but it's also a legitimate question. Many atheists would say that it's all bullshit anyway, so who cares who wrote it? But there's a reason why people like GWOG go to some lengths to establish that they are not eyewitness accounts. The Christian apologist's case is strengthened if he can legitimately claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts written by apostles who actually hung out with Jesus, heard his sermons, witnessed his miracles, etc. And his case is considerably weakened if he cannot make such claims. There is a connection between who wrote it (and when they wrote it) and the likelihood of it being "true" rather than just myth and/or hearsay.

People are rarely debated out of their religious beliefs, but it can happen. I've been to several talks by J.T. Eberhard (famous internet atheists), where he counters the exact argument you're making by asking how many people in the audience are atheists (every hand goes up), and then how many used to be theists (about half the hands stay up). This is direct evidence that "de-conversion" can and does happen, and I think it's more often for rational/intellectual reasons than emotional ones. I personally was deconverted largely by the arguments of Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell. Now, your average "Joe Atheist" is not going to have the debating skills of those two, but still...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
27-08-2014, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 05:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 12:37 PM)phil.a Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 11:51 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  Love that Phil, its very funny. Good luck with the Russians and the Muslims.

Thanks - good luck with the ongoing extinction of religion in the UK ;-)

If nothing else, I have been impressed with your polite behaviour in a challenging situation, and your attempts to engage sincerely with people.

Phil

Really? I find him rather smug and pretentious and disingenuous.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
27-08-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: The cost of atheism
Not sure what to think about this guy yet. What is he like compared to Walker or HBL?

I couldn't really keep up as I found this thread when it was already 16 pages old. Kinda hard to join a discussion at that point when it is already so old.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 04:45 PM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 04:34 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Not sure what to think about this guy yet. What is he like compared to Walker or HBL?

I couldn't really keep up as I found this thread when it was already 16 pages old. Kinda hard to join a discussion at that point when it is already so old.

*cough50postsperpagecough*

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 03:24 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 03:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That does seem the better option, short of droppin the whole Bible'n sin routine wholesale...

Wink

I know you're joking, but I don't want to give people the wrong idea.

I very much follow the Bible... it's just... this dude isn't following it as instructed.

I don't think he's joking. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2014 06:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 09:56 AM)ChristianMan Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:47 AM)CiderThinker Wrote:  Both

If you site the teachings of the OT - which you have - then my point stands.

In another post I explained how this works. The Bible interprets itself. There are two epochs OT and NT divided by the fulfilment of the OT by the coming of Christ.

Christians in the NT for example do not sacrifice animals, and they do eat 'unclean' food. The reason is that Christ is the fulfilment, and the new law for Christians, referred to in theology as the law of Christ. It includes and excludes things from the OT based on what the NT teaches. For example, OT says do not steel, and the NT says do not steel, so it is an abiding law. hope that makes sense.

Um, I have a question. Does the OT say anything about bronzing or nickle ? I know they invented steel in the late 19th or early 20th Century, so I'm shocked (shocked) to read about that steel forbidden in the OT or the NT, since you claimed it was written 2000 years ago. Where exactly does the NT say one must not STEAL ? Or did you really mean steel ? Wow. Lots of Christian churches made using the forbidden steel. This is just one too many grammatical/spelling errors. At somepoint one makes a judgement. This one has no education at all.

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
27-08-2014, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 07:42 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The cost of atheism
(27-08-2014 03:24 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I very much follow the Bible... it's just... this dude isn't following it as instructed.

The lesson of The Word is to be the embodiment of The Word. That is The Word. My own personal Jesus and shit. Be The Word Bubba, be The Word.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: