Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 08:57 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 09:04 PM by Chas.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 08:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 08:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, so fuck off and die.

You are so fickle.

On one hand you say I determine what is right and on the other you get mad when I determine to be dismissive and non-responsive.

But if I determine what is meaningful and what is right and in doing so decide to be dismissive and non-responsive you throw your toys down and run away crying.

You are the type that adheres to the whole "whatever floats your boat" garbage until someone offends you. Then you cry foul. Its ok as long as it is done to someone else but when you are dismissed you seem strangely upset.

You are not quite right in the head.

I haven't run away - you are the one being non-responsive.

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
03-05-2014, 08:59 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 07:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 07:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  You really, really need to stop telling us what we do and do not believe. Your arrogance and stupidity are colossal.

We derive morality by reason and emotion. The 'lawgiver' is us.

Who or what did the Nazis derive their morality from? Themselves no?

Who or what did Jeffrey Dahmer derive his morality from? Himself no?

Your view is not even one you hold, at least not actually. For in order to hold it consistently you would have to confess that everyone determines what is right and what is wrong based on their reasons and emotions.

People, collectively, determine ethics, mores, and morality. You will note that they differ from society to society, from era to era.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-05-2014, 08:59 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 08:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 08:36 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I said the question of god's existence is key... not god's existence. You didn't answer what I said. (Sound familiar?) Drinking Beverage

Because you have your head in the sand regarding what kind of beast it really is that you are worshiping.

Let me grant what you say is true for a moment.

What is your point?

I like worshiping beasts.

You like pizza.

I like spaghetti.

You die, I die.

You decompose, I do too.

So what?

What is your point?
All points were started by you. I've just been pointing out the errors in them. You said the question of existence doesn't matter and I pointed out why it does. You said even if god exists, atheists wouldn't follow him as though that was some kind of trump card. I pointed out that the issue isn't with following a god per se, but with following your god because he is a beast. And why does that matter if you worship a beast? It doesn't. What matters is what is done due to that worship by the religious community in general; namely great harm in the world.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 09:04 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 08:59 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 08:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Let me grant what you say is true for a moment.

What is your point?

I like worshiping beasts.

You like pizza.

I like spaghetti.

You die, I die.

You decompose, I do too.

So what?

What is your point?
All points were started by you. I've just been pointing out the errors in them. You said the question of existence doesn't matter and I pointed out why it does. You said even if god exists, atheists wouldn't follow him as though that was some kind of trump card. I pointed out that the issue isn't with following a god per se, but with following your god because he is a beast. And why does that matter if you worship a beast? It doesn't. What matters is what is done due to that worship by the religious community in general; namely great harm in the world.

you think it great harm.

so what?

you think people should not be harmed.

some make a living harming others.

so what?

who are you to say people should not harm others? who are you to decide what is harmful?

You sound like a Christian always trying to enforce their views on others .....Gasp

why are you not more tolerant and accepting and understanding?

who are you to tell someone they cannot do something or live the way they choose?

who died and made you God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 09:07 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 09:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 08:59 PM)Impulse Wrote:  All points were started by you. I've just been pointing out the errors in them. You said the question of existence doesn't matter and I pointed out why it does. You said even if god exists, atheists wouldn't follow him as though that was some kind of trump card. I pointed out that the issue isn't with following a god per se, but with following your god because he is a beast. And why does that matter if you worship a beast? It doesn't. What matters is what is done due to that worship by the religious community in general; namely great harm in the world.

you think it great harm.

so what?

you think people should not be harmed.

some make a living harming others.

so what?

who are you to say people should not harm others? who are you to decide what is harmful?

You sound like a Christian always trying to enforce their views on others .....Gasp

why are you not more tolerant and accepting and understanding?

who are you to tell someone they cannot do something or live the way they choose?

who died and made you God?
If you even need to ask those questions, you're hopeless.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
03-05-2014, 09:09 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 09:07 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 09:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you think it great harm.

so what?

you think people should not be harmed.

some make a living harming others.

so what?

who are you to say people should not harm others? who are you to decide what is harmful?

You sound like a Christian always trying to enforce their views on others .....Gasp

why are you not more tolerant and accepting and understanding?

who are you to tell someone they cannot do something or live the way they choose?

who died and made you God?
If you even need to ask those questions, you're hopeless.

you sound like a Christian telling an atheist they are hopeless if they have to ask certain questions.

not everybody thinks like you pal. you have to be more accepting and understanding and tolerant of everybody's views since we all have our own path and determine our own destiny.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 09:14 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 09:55 PM by djhall.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 07:43 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  When asked for evidence of God's existence, I weed out the insincere questioner by asking him what his response would be if indeed he was given evidence he felt was sufficient to prove God existed. If said person admits they would do nothing with the evidence, I do not waste my time in presenting it. If someone asks me for ten dollars and in order to discern if I should give it to them I ask what they would do with and they said they would do nothing with it then I will not give them the ten dollars.

The majority of atheists I have spoken with admit they would do nothing with the evidence but continue on living the way they are living. So in those cases, I simply bid them farewell.

I see your point, but I think there is also a valid point on the other side. Proving the existence of a god doesn't prove anything about the nature of that god or whether or not that god is worthy of respect or worship. If I prove I exist, will you worship me? Should you? Am I worthy of it?

Suppose I am your mother. I created you. I brought you into this world. I gave you life. Will you worship me now? Does that mean whatever your mother says is good and bad is automatically correct? Probably not. We have no problem accepting that someone's mother can be evil or crazy or childish. Yet, somehow, proving the existence of a god is supposed to preclude the possibility of an evil or crazy or childish god and creator?

To answer your question as honestly as possible, I think the inescapable conclusion is that everyone who becomes convinced in the possible existence of a god must ultimately judge that god and determine on their own if that god is good or bad and worthy of love, respect and deference, or perhaps merely indifference, or perhaps outright opposition and defiance.

Perhaps our free will, our capacity for abstract thought and reason, and our innate sense of morality, fairness, and right and wrong doesn't come from god. If it does, why did he give it to us if he didn't intend for us to use it? If he gave it to us, and we use it to judge him, shouldn't his gifts find him worthy in our eyes? If he gave it to use, and we use it, and we find him not worthy, why shouldn't that be evidence that something is wrong? Perhaps the god is an impostor? Perhaps the narrative is wrong?

The alternative is to simply accept "god", abandon our capacity to reason, abandon our innate senses of fairness and justice and morality and value, the most special and valuable and unique parts that separate us from the animal world, and deny them in favor of blind trust and obedience on faith. David Copperfield can make a 747 disappear right in front of my own eyes. Regardless, I don't think he is god, I won't worship him, and I won't kill anyone even if he tells me to. A super advanced alien intelligence with mental telekinetic abilities and extremely advanced intelligence could come to earth, do crazy miracles, exist without a body, cure people, convert matter into other forms, maybe even re-animate dead people. I don't know that I could differentiate them from god. I'm not sure the distinction really matters, to be honest. God is just something sufficiently more powerful than we are. I would have to decide if I wanted to join them and ally with them or just try to have a little to do with them as possible, or oppose them on principle, even if only to preserve my sense of integrity and morality. And if you prove god exists to my satisfaction, I would have to do the same with him. Even if I am convinced that entity is god, if that god tells me black skin is the mark of sin and it is right and correct to kill and or enslave those people, that doesn't make it right, god or not. Then we are faced with the most horrific choice possible.... do we obey god and do evil and destroy our own decency, or defy god in order to do what is moral and right, even if that means paying a potentially unimaginable price?

I don't particularly like that answer by the way. It really sucks if a god exists and is psychotic or evil or the immature equivalent of an all powerful child with a temper. That is pretty much the worst possible outcome for humanity that I can think of. I desperately don't want that to be true. But I find the possibility impossible to deny, and consequently the obligation to use our own powers of reason and morality to judge any being that may be placed in candidacy for the term "god".

The best possible outcome would be for there to be a god and for that god to turn out to be good and fair and loving and sane in both reality and in our judgment, and somehow have a way to salvage a good thing from a bad start. Unfortunately, everything I have seen so far of life, humanity, science, and the universe firmly points to the conclusion that nothing short of a miracle makes that outcome even a remote possibility.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 09:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 09:07 PM)Impulse Wrote:  If you even need to ask those questions, you're hopeless.

you sound like a Christian telling an atheist they are hopeless if they have to ask certain questions.

not everybody thinks like you pal. you have to be more accepting and understanding and tolerant of everybody's views since we all have our own path and determine our own destiny.

No, we do not have to respect nonsense.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
03-05-2014, 09:23 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 09:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 09:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  you sound like a Christian telling an atheist they are hopeless if they have to ask certain questions.

not everybody thinks like you pal. you have to be more accepting and understanding and tolerant of everybody's views since we all have our own path and determine our own destiny.

No, we do not have to respect nonsense.

but yet you would have Christians respect the wishes of homosexuals even if they think it nonsense for two men to marry and be afforded all of the benefits that come with it.

You would have others respect you and your wishes even if they thought it nonsense, but you do not respect those whose views you deem nonsense.

Advocacy of a double standard is common to people who think like you. Take the time to actually think through what you are saying before you say it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 09:24 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-05-2014 09:14 PM)djhall Wrote:  The best possible outcome would be for there to be a god and for that god to turn out to be good and fair and loving and sane in both reality and in our judgment, and somehow have a way to salvage a good thing from a bad start. Unfortunately, everything I have seen so far of life, humanity, science, and the universe firmly points to the conclusion that nothing short of a miracle makes that outcome even a remote possibility.

You are not far from the Kingdom of God my friend.

I encourage you to keep seeking and searching. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: