Fear of Atheism

[NiftyNiblick]

I see no evidence this demise is based on traditionally old school liberal economic policies.

It's clearly not, C.
It's based on very sincere cultural hatred that shows no sign of diminishing.
We're going to live with it for the remainder of our lifetimes.

And we will partition eventually. Nothing stays the same forever.
It just won't come in time to temper the current animosity.

 

[Cypress]

Nonsense. Of course it did. Marriage, divorce,

Those aren't unique to the old testament or to Judaism.

Baptism,

The Christian sacrament is based on the tradition of John the Baptist.
That's New Testament.

Do unto others, Love your neighbor, Love your god...all were part of the civil laws of the Torah.

Those are moral laws, and I specifically and repeatedly said Jesus emphasized, and taught the moral law of Torah. Universal love is not ritual or civil. It's a moral duty.

What Christianity (as it became more a device of the gentile converts) did not include were two specific things: The dietary restrictions (as indicated in Galatians...and ritual circumcision.

So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that I, atheist scholar Bart Ehrman, and the Encyclopedia Britannica all agree that Christianity has been a massive transformational and lasting influence on the history of Western ethics, culture, art, science, music.

To be clear, that's me, a well regarded atheist New Testament scholar, and a traditional mainstream encyclopedia all in agreement.

My comment is the reality.

My comment is the reality, Cypress.

You specifically cut and pasted the weirdest and most offensive civil laws and ritual laws of Torah, with the agenda of painting Jesus in a bad light.

If you're really that upset about the ritual laws of Torah, surely you have some Orthodox Jewish neighbors or Jewish peers you can go to to complain about it. Orthodox Jews are the only ones who even remotely try to keep the Mosaic dietary and ritual laws. Even Reformed Judaism doesn't follow Torah ritual law.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Those aren't unique to the old testament or to Judaism.

Did you say "unique" in the comment to which I was referring?

Hint: NO.

The Christian sacrament is based on the tradition of John the Baptist.
That's New Testament.

Baptism was a ritualistic practice of Judaism for a long time before the Christian sect occurred.

Those are moral laws, and I specifically and repeatedly said Jesus emphasized, and taught the moral law of Torah. Universal love is not ritual or civil. It's a moral duty.

So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that I, atheist scholar Bart Ehrman, and the Encyclopedia Britannica all agree that Christianity has been a massive transformational and lasting influence on the history of Western ethics, culture, art, science, music.

To be clear, that's me, a well regarded atheist New Testament scholar, and a traditional mainstream encyclopedia all in agreement.

I agree. It has been a massive transformational and lasting influence on the history of Western ethics, culture, etc.

But so was Naziism.

I am saying we do not know if we would be further along in our moral evolution if Christianity had not been adopted.

AND WE MAY BE. Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that?

You specifically cut and pasted the weirdest and most offensive civil laws and ritual laws of Torah, with the agenda of painting Jesus in a bad light.

Oh, please. I would never try to paint Jesus in a bad light.

YOU want to forget about those passages because you adore the god that promulgated them.

If you're really that upset about the ritual laws of Torah, surely you have some Orthodox Jewish neighbors or Jewish peers you can go to to complain about it. Orthodox Jews are the only ones who even remotely try to keep the Mosaic dietary and ritual laws. Even Reformed Judaism doesn't follow Torah ritual law.

I have agreed that the dietary laws do not apply.

Are you saying that this god that Jesus worshiped changed its mind and no longer cares about the things that so offended it...and is now saying that Christians can do as they please?

 

[IBDaMann]

Not believing the doctor who says you have cancer,

Nope. The consequence only comes into play if you actually have cancer and you don't get treatment, and has nothing to do with whether you believe your doctor or not. You are committing a fallacy here. You are trying to substitute "being mistaken and taking action on that misconception" in for simply "not believing something."

Go back to your question about "moral relativism." What consequence is there for not being convinced of any particular theism?

or the science community

There is no such thing. If you are going to insist that there is, then I'm in it and you are not. You lose.

who tells you the Earth is relentlessly warming has consequences.

Science is not any particular community. Science itself debunks the stupid Global Warming religion. Read my signature and let me know if you have any questions. Also, there is no The Data. Only the most naieve of scientific illiterates allow themselves to be fooled into thinking that there somehow is.

Nobody is required to believe anything.

Credit where it's due! When you're right, you're right, even if you copy-paste it from some questionable source.

Some people are happy to go though life without doing much thinking or reflection.

Some people live to think and reflect.

The most famous atheist intellectuals of the 20th century were thinkers.

Thinking and fame have a certain relationship.

And they had the integrity to face the fact that in a universe comprised of nothing but blind physical forces, there is no meaning, purpose, or objective moral agency.

You are leaving out the wisest and most educated of the thinkers who know that nobody has a complete understanding of the universe, and does not know that the universe is comprised of nothing but blind physical forces, and thus nobody knows that there is no meaning or purpose or objective.

Also, those who claim that there is nothing but blind physical forces (where did you get this term?) is making a theistic statement, thus precluding atheism, ergo they were not atheists who said those things.

 

[IBDaMann]

The Christian sacrament is based on the tradition of John the Baptist.

Nope. The word "baptism", for batismal cleansings came about during that time, but the concept of cleansing oneself and spiritually/symbolically cleansing/purifying oneself through the outward sign of physically cleansing oneself has been around one week longer than forever. Check Leviticus.

Again, if you are only talking about the word "baptism" then you are correct. If you are talking about the sacrament/act/rite then you are incorrect. Read up on "mikveh" or "mikvah". That was the word for it during Old Testament times.

That has nothing to do with the fact that I, atheist scholar Bart Ehrman, and the Encyclopedia Britannica all agree that Christianity has been a massive transformational and lasting influence on the history of Western ethics, culture, art, science, music.

Explain the science and music part.

 

[Cypress]

Are you saying that this god that Jesus worshiped changed its mind and no longer cares about the things that so offended it...and is now saying that Christians can do as they please?

^^ Again, I've learned that the anti-religous zealots are more fanatical Biblical literalists and cherry-pickers than even the right-wing fire and brimstone Evangelicals.

I'm saying the Torah-observant Jewish-Christians haven't existed for about 1,900 years.

All my posts specifically referred to Western Civilization, not to first century Palestine.

The reality is that the Christianization of Europe and the transmission of the New Testament canon did not include an obligation to follow the ritual, civil, and ceremonial laws of Torah.

All attempts to theorize and resurrect what a few Torah-observant Jewish Christ-followers were doing 1,900 years ago in Jerusalem is not reality. More importantly, it has nothing to do with my points about the influence of Western Christianity on Western Civilization.

 

[Cypress]

Nope. The word "baptism", for batismal cleansings came about during that time, but the concept of cleansing oneself and spiritually/symbolically cleansing/purifying oneself through the outward sign of physically cleansing oneself has been around one week longer than forever. Check Leviticus.

Inconsequential. This navel gazing and subatomic minutia is totally irrelevant to point I made that that Christianity was the West's most pivotal and important transformational event, hands down -- and anyone who asserts Western Civilization would have been better off without Jesus and Christianity should be careful of what they wish for.

Explain the science part

already did.

and music part.

Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp on the classical music tradition knows that the music of Bach, Mozart, Haydn, etc. were deep invested in Christian sacred music genres and traditions.

 

[Ross Dolan]

^^ Again, I've learned that the anti-religous zealots are more fanatical Biblical literalists and cherry-pickers than even the right-wing fire and brimstone Evangelicals.

I'm saying the Torah-observant Jewish-Christians haven't existed for about 1,900 years.

All my posts specifically referred to Western Civilization, not to first century Palestine.

The reality is that the Christianization of Europe and the transmission of the New Testament canon did not include an obligation to follow the ritual, civil, and ceremonial laws of Torah.

All attempts to theorize and resurrect what a few Torah-observant Jewish Christ-followers were doing 1,900 years ago in Jerusalem is not reality. More importantly, it has nothing to do with my points about the influence of Western Christianity on Western Civilization.

Cypress, either Jesus meant what he said in the Matthew quote...or he was lying. You want things both ways...and YOU are doing what you are accusing me and others of doing.

Anyone who claims to worship the god Jesus worshiped...who thinks they can simply ignore the prohibitions and proscriptions mentioned in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy...is a hypocrite, not a Christian.

The god was a vicious god...a jealous god...and demanded all sorts of things any sane person would reject. Yes, you reject them...and so do many others who call themselves Christians. But that is because that god is a cartoon.

Since you have share what you have learned about what you call anti-religious zealots...allow me to share what I have learned about "devout Christians."

One: They are in a place where defending their religion means they have to defend the indefensible...and the absurd.

Two: They should not do that defending in public if they truly treasure their (what they call) faith.

Go in peace, my friend. But if what you plan to do instead is to defend your blind guesses about a god like that thing described in the Bible...you are asking for more trouble than you can handle.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress, either Jesus meant what he said in the Matthew quote...or he was lying. You want things both ways...and YOU are doing what you are accusing me and others of doing.

Anyone who claims to worship the god Jesus worshiped...who thinks they can simply ignore the prohibitions and proscriptions mentioned in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy...is a hypocrite, not a Christian.

The god was a vicious god...a jealous god...and demanded all sorts of things any sane person would reject. Yes, you reject them...and so do many others who call themselves Christians. But that is because that god is a cartoon.

Since you have share what you have learned about what you call anti-religious zealots...allow me to share what I have learned about "devout Christians."

One: They are in a place where defending their religion means they have to defend the indefensible...and the absurd.

Two: They should not do that defending in public if they truly treasure their (what they call) faith.

Go in peace, my friend. But if what you plan to do instead is to defend your blind guesses about a god like that thing described in the Bible...you are asking for more trouble than you can handle.

Completely irrelevant to the idea I originally put forth.

Whether or not you think Christians are required to abstain from shellfish, it has nothing to to with the profound transformation Western Civilization in terms of ethics, art, science, music, philosophy and intellectual history in the context of the transmission of Christianity to the West.

As far as I'm concerned, talking about shellfish and pork is subatomic minutia and navel gazing. But it's obviously important to you, and that's fine. Feel free to teach your Christian friends and neighbors that their religion requires them to practice animal sacrifice and abstain from coven hoofed animals.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Completely irrelevant to the idea I originally put forth.

Whether or not you think Christians are required to abstain from shellfish, it has nothing to to with the profound transformation Western Civilization in terms of ethics, art, science, music, philosophy and intellectual history in the context of the transmission of Christianity to the West.

As far as I'm concerned, talking about shellfish and pork is subatomic minutia and navel gazing. But it's obviously important to you, and that's fine. Feel free to teach your Christian friends and neighbors that their religion requires them to practice animal sacrifice and abstain from coven hoofed animals.

You keep going back to dietary restrictions, Cypress....even though I, and others, conceded long ago that they do not apply to Christians.

But Christians are required to love and worship the god that Jesus loved and worshiped. And loving a god with the mindset that god has...requires a stomach stronger than most people who profess to do so.

The god requires killing for relatively minor transgressions.

And...imagine this: Sin is merely something that offends that god. Christians claim that everyone is a sinner...therefore all humans offend that god. Either there is something wrong with humans (all of whom the god supposedly made)...or therer is something wrong with a god that is offended by every goddam thing.

And the god made a deal with humans. It would forgive all the humans of all their sins (doing things that offends the god)...but only if they first torture and kill its "only begotten son."

Even Hannibal Lecter would have trouble loving a god with that kind of mindset.

Ask your minister or priest about discussing your religion on-line, Cypress. That person will give you the same advice I did. DON'T DO IT!

 

[Cypress]

You keep going back to dietary restrictions, Cypress....even though I, and others, conceded long ago that they do not apply to Christians.

But Christians are required to love and worship the god that Jesus loved and worshiped. And loving a god with the mindset that god has...requires a stomach stronger than most people who profess to do so.

The god requires killing for relatively minor transgressions.

And...imagine this: Sin is merely something that offends that god. Christians claim that everyone is a sinner...therefore all humans offend that god. Either there is something wrong with humans (all of whom the god supposedly made)...or therer is something wrong with a god that is offended by every goddam thing.

And the god made a deal with humans. It would forgive all the humans of all their sins (doing things that offends the god)...but only if they first torture and kill its "only begotten son."

Even Hannibal Lecter would have trouble loving a god with that kind of mindset.

Ask your minister or priest about discussing your religion on-line, Cypress. That person will give you the same advice I did. DON'T DO IT!

Ross, shellfish and ritual animal sacrifice is an interest of yours.

Honestly, I can't think of a more boring and irrelevant topic.

My interest on this thread has always been historical. The transmission of Christianity to Europe was probably the most transformational event in world history, with wide ranging implications for ethics, science, art, music, literacy, education, philosophy, music.

You made a statement that maybe the West would have been better off with an Eastern religion; that maybe Jesus' teachings and Christianity should never have existed.

I simply advised you should be careful what you wish for. Because almost everything about your personal zeitgeist is intertwined in one way or another with your heritage of Western and Christian tradition.

 

[gmark77]

My interest on this thread has always been historical. The transmission of Christianity to Europe was probably the most transformational event in world history, with wide ranging implications for ethics, science, art, music, literacy, education, philosophy, music.

Arguably Paul "settling" the question of whether Mosaic Law applied to new Christian converts is precisely WHY the West even heard of Christianity.

Paul was the guy who opened the doors for non-Jews. The Jerusalem Church wanted the "ritual parts" included. Without Paul's success in making the faith open to gentiles it would not have taken significant root outside of Palestine and it certainly would never have grown to power and become the central philosophy of the West for a millennia or two.

You made a statement that maybe the West would have been better off with an Eastern religion; that maybe Jesus' teachings and Christianity should never have existed.

I simply advised you should be careful what you wish for. Because almost everything about your personal zeitgeist is intertwined in one way or another with your heritage of Western and Christian tradition.

You're right: the West would be WILDLY different. Not a thing like what we see today. And arguably we all "like" living here in the West so there's a lot to be said for the "value" of Christianity to Western Thought.

But there's also a LOT in Western History which shows us that "Christianity" really doesn't apply to us as a society. Christianity was spread in Europe at the point of a sword. Christianity conducted horrible wars and murdered with aplomb (as ALL societies seem to do) and literally did whatever evil they truly wanted to do to get the profits and gains they wanted, often explicitly in the name of God. So really we didn't ACTUALLY use Christianity to create our society. We used Christianity as the "common bond" or "glue" but the nature of that glue was not quite what it seemed.

I LOVE the message of Jesus in the Gospels. I hope to live my life in that manner. And I know countless other regular people do as well. ANd I love the art that Christian faith inspired and I know Christian charity IS real for us. But to ignore how we got here and how we actually UTILIZE what you claim is our "heritage" is to fail at the one TRULY GOOD THING humans can ever do: be self-aware about our limitations.

Ironically Christianity is the PERFECT religion for that! At its core is our understanding that we are ALL flawed and fall far short of the ideals.

Maybe THAT'S the critical piece Christianity gives us in the West: an understanding that we are NOT all gods, that we are simple, flawed humans and we can do better if we try.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Ross, shellfish and ritual animal sacrifice is an interest of yours.

Not in any way. Each time you have mentioned it...I've told you that.

Honestly, I can't think of a more boring and irrelevant topic.

Neither can I.

My interest on this thread has always been historical. The transmission of Christianity to Europe was probably the most transformational event in world history, with wide ranging implications for ethics, science, art, music, literacy, education, philosophy, music.

And almost any alternative might have been better for humanity.

Just acknowledge that.

I can easily acknowledge that almost every alternative might not have gotten humanity as far.

You made a statement that maybe the West would have been better off with an Eastern religion; that maybe Jesus' teachings and Christianity should never have existed.

I said that it possible could have. AND IT COULD HAVE.

We do not know.

I simply advised you should be careful what you wish for. Because almost everything about your personal zeitgeist is intertwined in one way or another with your heritage of Western and Christian tradition.

And I have advised you not to advocate for your religion...or even discuss it on the Internet. Your priest or minister would advise you likewise. People already "at odds" with your god have nothing to lose. YOU, on the other hand, have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Or...keep on with the discussion and see where it gets you.

 

[Cypress]

And I have advised you not to advocate for your religion...or even discuss it on the Internet.

This has nothing to do with proselytizing, and everything to do with truth and historical accuracy.

The highly regarded atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has almost exactly the same position as me regarding the historically transformational nature of Christianity in Europe.

The atheist Bart Ehrman teaches this in publicly available video courses and podcasts. No one is telling him to sit down and shut up.

Sure things would have been different in Europe if Jesus never existed, and Europe adopted Shamanism, Hinduism, or Shinto. Something culturally would have happened. Undoubtedly, things would be vastly different.

But your interest in having history change like that carries enormous and unfathomable risks. More importantly, you would be unrecognizable to yourself because your personal zeitgeist is almost entirely wrapped up with the traditions, ethos, and heritage bequeathed by Western Civilization and Christianity.

 

[Cypress]

Arguably Paul "settling" the question of whether Mosaic Law applied to new Christian converts is precisely WHY the West even heard of Christianity.

Paul was the guy who opened the doors for non-Jews. The Jerusalem Church wanted the "ritual parts" included. Without Paul's success in making the faith open to gentiles it would not have taken significant root outside of Palestine and it certainly would never have grown to power and become the central philosophy of the West for a millennia or two.



You're right: the West would be WILDLY different. Not a thing like what we see today. And arguably we all "like" living here in the West so there's a lot to be said for the "value" of Christianity to Western Thought.

But there's also a LOT in Western History which shows us that "Christianity" really doesn't apply to us as a society. Christianity was spread in Europe at the point of a sword. Christianity conducted horrible wars and murdered with aplomb (as ALL societies seem to do) and literally did whatever evil they truly wanted to do to get the profits and gains they wanted, often explicitly in the name of God. So really we didn't ACTUALLY use Christianity to create our society. We used Christianity as the "common bond" or "glue" but the nature of that glue was not quite what it seemed.

I LOVE the message of Jesus in the Gospels. I hope to live my life in that manner. And I know countless other regular people do as well. ANd I love the art that Christian faith inspired and I know Christian charity IS real for us. But to ignore how we got here and how we actually UTILIZE what you claim is our "heritage" is to fail at the one TRULY GOOD THING humans can ever do: be self-aware about our limitations.

Ironically Christianity is the PERFECT religion for that! At its core is our understanding that we are ALL flawed and fall far short of the ideals.

Maybe THAT'S the critical piece Christianity gives us in the West: an understanding that we are NOT all gods, that we are simple, flawed humans and we can do better if we try.

It goes without saying some people have done horrible things in the name of religion, science, atheism, capitalism, communism, and colonialism.

That doesn't change the fact that the transmission of Christianity to Europe was so transformational it had wide ranging and lasting consequences in ethics, education, literacy, science, art, music, philosophy, literature, capitalism.

That's not proselytizing, because even the highly regarded atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman will say that.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Circumcision, dietary laws, ritual purity, shellfish prohibitions are not moral laws

You are the first person I have met in six decades who seems to be resolutely suggesting Jesus taught immorality.

I could care less if people get circumcised or avoid shellfish. Those aren't moral matters. They are ritual laws, and even Orthodox Jews practice them today, without me thinking it reflects on their morality

I never wrote anything about polytheism being inferior.

What I did was clearly state the case that Western monotheism was instrumental for why experimental science and formal logic took root in Europe, and nowhere else on the planet.

The fact that I spoke about a ying and yang specifically showed I have respect for Eastern intellectual traditions, because humans can't just be focused on the empirical, rational, and technological at the expense of other dimensions of human experience.

If I thought Eastern religions were a complete waste of time, I never would have invested the time and effort to read the Dhammapada, the Bhaghavad Gita, the Analects of Confucius, the Dao de Jing, the Zhuangzi.

so ritual laws have nothing to do with morality.

thanks for confirming.

 

[gmark77]

It goes without saying some people have done horrible things in the name of religion, science, atheism, capitalism, communism, and colonialism.

That doesn't change the fact that the transmission of Christianity to Europe was so transformational it had wide ranging and lasting consequences in ethics, education, literacy, science, art, music, philosophy, literature, capitalism.

That's not proselytizing, because even the highly regarded atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman will say that.

Yeah, not really the point I was making.

 

[Ross Dolan]

This has nothing to do with proselytizing, and everything to do with truth and historical accuracy.

Okay...continue to discuss it. But I still think you ought to speak to y our minister or priest about it. I am positive that person will suggest that it is a lousy idea.

The highly regarded atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has almost exactly the same position as me regarding the historically transformational nature of Christianity in Europe.

So what?

Does Ehrman know what would have happened if Christianity had not come along...or if something other than Christianity had?

Of course not.

The atheist Bart Ehrman teaches this in publicly available video courses and podcasts. No one is telling him to sit down and shut up.

He has absolutely nothing to lose.

Sure things would have been different in Europe if Jesus never existed, and Europe adopted Shamanism, Hinduism, or Shinto. Something culturally would have happened. Undoubtedly, things would be vastly different.

Yes they would. Would we be better off or would we not be as advanced as now?

But your interest in having history change like that carries enormous and unfathomable risks. More importantly, you would be unrecognizable to yourself because your personal zeitgeist is almost entirely wrapped up with the traditions, ethos, and heritage bequeathed by Western Civilization and Christianity.

Cypress...this kind of conversation is not for you.

But continue it if you must. f

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yeah, not really the point I was making.

Cypress goes off point so often it is almost unreasonable to expect anything else.

 

[gmark77]

Cypress goes off point so often it is almost unreasonable to expect anything else.

I think Cypress is attempting to steer the conversation into a point that might be defensible but also lacks anything of interest to a discussion.

Your "thought experiment" of what would the West be like without Christianity is very interesting. I read some study recently on brain function and how people from the Western traditions process information vs how people from Eastern traditions process information. Interestingly enough our social millieiu even affects how we process information (!)

I think Cypress is also 100% correct in that what we know of "The West" is, indeed, MASSIVELY impacted by our choice of religious tradition. And in re "Christianity" much of what we call our Western advancement came when we explicitly acted AGAINST Christianity's teachings (colonization, industrialization, wars, etc.) If we TRULY were using the tenants of the faith our actions would have been dramatically different and the West would have been dramatically different as well.

It's facile to say that Christianity is integral to The West, but the real fun comes from trying to figure out what might be DIFFERENT without it and what might be the same.

I think maybe our focus on the INDIVIDUAL is part of our Judeo-Christian society but I don't know. Could it also be an outgrowth of what Greek or Roman traditions were? Or how about where most Europeans came from: paganistic thought ways. But we do see that in the West the individual has primacy and often in the East it is the collective that has the primacy.

I don't think our "overall general morality" would shift much either way: murder wrong, lying wrong, care for the other right, etc. I think a lot of that is much more hard-wired into us as animals. So needless to say I don't think our OVERALL morality would be impacted on a base level, but the higher order things might be quite different.