Happy Atheist Forum

There's something I don't get.

Do theists believe they're going to make atheists ashamed by telling them they're going to hell, they're stupid, disrespectful, devilish... I could go on for hours with those names. I've been called ALL of them and some other juicier words.

At the same time,

Do atheists think they're going to make theists ashamed by telling THEM they're stupid, deluded, puppets ... See, it's kind of a weird way to debate on religion.

So I don't judge anybody's intelligence because of their belief. So they shouldn't as well.

Come on. Being an atheist myself, I don't believe I'd impress any religious person by telling them I'm SOO much smarter being an atheist than them, being theists. Same thing for them.
You can think like that, consciously  or inconsciously... A lot of people do. Sadly.

But, since we can't tell who's REALLY RIGHT until we die ( or well, if there's not god, maybe we won't find out the truth after we die and we won't be able to argue anymore ! Ha ! ), so I don't think we should call each other STUPID or LESS SMART because of our beliefs.

I've being called so many stupid names, people trying to make me feel bad for not believing or trying to scare me.. I feel very confortable with my beliefs and if you're trying to scare me with all sorts of things you know I don't even believe in, I think you're the scared one. Scared of what by the way ?

It's a nice sentiment but in reality i don't think it applies. Look at it this way: with a theist you're dealing with someone who believes in the supernatural. You're dealing with someone who chooses not to think or question. You're dealing with someone who believes, the same way that children believe in Santa Clause.
Now sure, okay, let them have a nice happy life and all that, and as long as they leave me alone I really don't care, but I just can't take such a person seriously. I have to question their intelligence in the same way I'd question the intelligence of someone who believes that white people are superior to all other races or that President Obama was not born in the United States.
I just don't think that people who believe are all that intelligent, or that intelligence even matters very much to them.

Quote from: "xxMaryJane"Do theists believe they're going to make atheists ashamed by telling them they're going to hell, they're stupid, disrespectful, devilish... I could go on for hours with those names. I've been called ALL of them and some other juicier words.

Quite frankly, I don't know why some theists do this, as it is clearly counter-productive in almost every possible way. I think sometimes it has to do with pride, or maybe they say things like that to re-afirm their own beliefs in the face of doubt.

Quote from: "xxMaryJane"Come on. Being an atheist myself, I don't believe I'd impress any religious person by telling them I'm SOO much smarter being an atheist than them, being theists. Same thing for them.
You can think like that, consciously  or inconsciously... A lot of people do. Sadly.

Just about every person in the world thinks that the evidence for their belief (or disbelief) is stronger than that of opposition.

Quote from: "xxMaryJane"But, since we can't tell who's REALLY RIGHT until we die ( or well, if there's not god, maybe we won't find out the truth after we die and we won't be able to argue anymore ! Ha ! ), so I don't think we should call each other STUPID or LESS SMART because of our beliefs.

True enough. However, I think that both atheists and theists have a good reason to debate, in that the atheist thinks that being free of religion equals a better quality of life, and the Christian thinks that the atheist would be better off being a Christian.

Quote from: "xxMaryJane"I've being called so many stupid names, people trying to make me feel bad for not believing or trying to scare me.. I feel very confortable with my beliefs and if you're trying to scare me with all sorts of things you know I don't even believe in, I think you're the scared one. Scared of what by the way ?

Scared that they're not right  

Quote from: "i_am_i"You're dealing with someone who believes, the same way that children believe in Santa Clause.

Meh, I've never heard of an atheist being converted to Santa Cluaseity

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "i_am_i"You're dealing with someone who believes, the same way that children believe in Santa Clause.

Meh, I've never heard of an atheist being converted to Santa Cluaseity

Can you explain what you mean by that?

There are many examples of atheists who became Christians, Muslums, etc. on their own. I was saying that I've never heard of an atheist converted to belief in Santa Clause in the same way (or invisible pink unicorn, etc.) Basicaly, major religions cannot be simply be equated with belief in Santa Clause.

Quote from: "Reginus"Basicaly, major religions cannot be simply be equated with belief in Santa Clause.

Why not? What's the difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Clause?

Quote from: "i_am_i"Why not? What's the difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Clause?

Well, for one, Santa Clause provides an alternative answer to a question that can be naturalisticaly answered and proven (how did these presents get under the tree?), while God provides an answer to a number of meta-physical questions that cannot be naturalisticaly answered (ex. if the universe began to exist a finite time ago, and something cannot begin to exist for no reason, what caused the universe to begin to exist?)

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Why not? What's the difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Clause?

Well, for one, Santa Clause provides an alternative answer to a question that can be naturalisticaly answered and proven (how did these presents get under the tree?), while God provides an answer to a number of meta-physical questions that cannot be naturalisticaly answered (ex. if the universe began to exist a finite time ago, and something cannot begin to exist for no reason, what caused the universe to begin to exist?)

(insert random creation myth here).

<post removed by author>

Quote from: "Reginus"... secondly, we have the problem of Jesus.

That problem being....?

I do believe there's a certain ignorance involved in someone who insists on believing in something that may or may not exist, like the little green martian on my desk who is in contact every day with our congressman in order to influence his voting on issues of importance, like gay marriage and whether my little martian friend can fly his saucer in Washington airspace.

Sounds silly, doesn't it?  But that's essentially what they believe.  Bush's little green martian told him to start a war.  My mom's little green martian won't let my gay friends get married.  All of the moms at my son's school that I've debated religion with know their little green martian will save them, help them, heal them... and me, just because they silently ask him to.

They are letting an ancient myth govern not only their lives but the lives of everyone else in this country (other countries, not as much... except the Islamic ones, who have their own interpretation of the martian).  

SO yes, there is ignorance involved.  I do believe I am somewhat superior for seeing through all of that and living my life in the painful reality of this life.  It's also slightly ignorant that they need a book to tell them how to behave... I don't need that, and neither do any of my atheist friends.  We know, because we see, we learn, we explore.  They do not.

They can call me whatever they choose to... blind.  Stupid.  Silly.  They can say I'll burn.  They can say I worship satan.  Whatevs.   Matters not to me whatsoever.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Reginus"... secondly, we have the problem of Jesus.

That problem being....?

Never mind, I shouldn't have said that , as it will only serve to bring this topic way off-course.

But Currio is right. The perticular meta-physical argument I suggested tells us nothing about the god, just that some sort of meta-physical mind exists.

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Reginus"... secondly, we have the problem of Jesus.

That problem being....?

Never mind, I shouldn't have said that , as it will only serve to bring this topic way off-course.

Hell, that's okay, let it get off-course. Really, I want to know what you meant by "the problem of Jesus" in how that affects my assertion that there's no difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Clause.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Hell, that's okay, let it get off-course. Really, I want to know what you meant by "the problem of Jesus."

Hehe, well in summary (although there is a lot more to it,) it's this: How is it possible that the most influencial human ever to live never actualy existed?

If he did exist, then we have the classical problem: Jesus was either a lunitic, a worker for the devil, or the son of God (what he said he was). The first two seem increadibly unlikely, so we go with the last.

Quote from: "Reginus"Hehe, well in summary (although there is a lot more to it,) it's this: How is it possible that the most influencial human ever to live never actualy existed?

If he did exist, then we have the classical problem: Jesus was either a lunitic, a worker for the devil, or the son of God (what he said he was). The first two seem increadibly unlikely, so we have to go with the last.

How do you know that Jesus actually existed and, even if he did, what makes him the most influencial human ever to live? That's two questions, by the way. Take them in whatever order you choose!
Actually, make that three questions. What is it so incredibly unlikely about Jesus being a worker for the devil?
Now we know that reindeer exist. And we're told that Santa Clause depends on reindeer to move about. So what's the difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Clause?
FOUR questions, sorry.

To bring this back to the OP:

I have a great deal of sentiment for your position.  This is actually a topic I have been mulling around in my head for a long time, and one that I myself was going to post about eventually.  Right now I'm too busy to go in depth; I just wanted to say that I agree there is NO POINT to people on EITHER side of ANY debate being antagonistic toward each other.

More to come soon.  For now, I'll leave you with the recommendation of reading "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie.  Don't let the title fool you: it was written in the 20's and is probably the best work ever on how to properly debate.

Quote from: "HandsandDreams"I just wanted to say that I agree there is NO POINT to people on EITHER side of ANY debate being antagonistic toward each other.

Well, there's no point in anyone being antogonistic to anyone whatsoever, no matter what debate they're engaged in, agreed. But surely that doesn't mean that Christians are to be given a free pass when they make any outrageous claim, does it? This let's be nicey nice to each other is great, but it has its time and place, no?

Quote from: "Reginus"If he did exist, then we have the classical problem: Jesus was either a lunitic, a worker for the devil, or the son of God (what he said he was).

A few more options would include a charismatic Jewish preacher (of which I expect there was more than a few at the time), a compulsive liar, an ordinary guy who had all manner of fantastical things attributed to him, a space pixie, a servant of the FSM, a wisp in human form, etc.

I consider these last three to be at least as likely as him being either the son of God or a servant of the Devil.

That he might have existed (which is not certain) says sweet f a about the truth of any claims of his divinity. Plenty of others thoughout history have also claimed to be gods or children thereof. I am pretty sure none of them have been falsified either.

QuoteThe first two seem increadibly unlikely, so we go with the last.

Erm, no. You might but then you are a little biased, if you are a Christian. As for myself, I recognise this for the false trichotomy it is and that you have provided no evidence for your choice, only your personal incredulity at the other two. I choose the far more likely answer that he was a mortal man who possibly made claims of the supernatural and/or was misrepresented by later biographers.

Are there any contemporary documents that portray Jesus as the Son of God?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Are there any contemporary documents that portray Jesus as the Son of God?

Not sure what you mean. Any Christian newsletter will do that. A Ku Klux Klan flyer will do that. What sort of contemporary documents, and how contemporary?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Are there any contemporary documents that portray Jesus as the Son of God?

Not sure what you mean. Any Christian newsletter will do that. A Ku Klux Klan flyer will do that. What sort of contemporary documents, and how contemporary?

Presumably contemporaneous to Jesus himself.

Considering there are probably no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus' life at all, it is unlikely there are any declaring him to be the son of God.

Quote from: "Karras"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Are there any contemporary documents that portray Jesus as the Son of God?

Not sure what you mean. Any Christian newsletter will do that. A Ku Klux Klan flyer will do that. What sort of contemporary documents, and how contemporary?

Presumably contemporaneous to Jesus himself.

Considering there are probably no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus' life at all, it is unlikely there are any declaring him to be the son of God.

Ah, I see. No, there are none, none at all. That little detail somehow escaped anyone who was documenting current events back then.

Right.  It makes you wonder if there really was a guy running around with a huge group of followers and performing amazing miracles, or if someone just made that up.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Right.  It makes you wonder if there really was a guy running around with a huge group of followers and performing amazing miracles, or if someone just made that up.

Your comment reminded me of this.  

[youtube:1o86mcu7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc[/youtube:1o86mcu7]

Before I dive into the details, I want to point out that it is almost universaly accepted in scholarly circles that Jesus really did exist. Historicity of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). So for those who claim that there was no such person, I think the burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

Quote from: "Reginus"Before I dive into the details, I want to point out that it is almost universaly accepted in scholarly circles that Jesus really did exist. Historicity of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth). So for those who claim that there was no such person, I think the burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

No, the burden of proof remains on you. All of this is nothing more then conjecture put forth by people who want it to be so. Evidence would be great. How about that? I mean, something this important has to have left some historical evidence laying around, no?
But this is getting boring. Now could we go back to my original question, please? What's the difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Clause? Seriously, what's the difference?

Ruh roh. Wikipedia. Breaking out the big guns.  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Ruh roh. Wikipedia. Breaking out the big guns.  

I clicked on the link, and it went right to the part entitled "Jesus as a Myth."

Hmm.

Quote from: "Reginus"Before I dive into the details, I want to point out that it is almost universaly accepted in scholarly circles that Jesus really did exist. Historicity of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth). So for those who claim that there was no such person, I think the burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

Erm, yeah, there clearly is a consensus on the historicity of Jesus.    

To be honest though, I would not care if you could present his birth certificate. I responded to your post on the basis that he may very well have existed, even if I am not entirely convinced of this personally.

That being the case, demonstrating that there was a man named Jesus, maybe even one who was a preacher in 1st century Palestine, would not even begin to demonstrate his divinity.

Accounts and claims of divinity by mortal men are ten a penny throughout history. Many of them we have much more compelling evidence for their existence. Yours just ain't special, it's merely popular.

Quote from: "Reginus"Before I dive into the details, I want to point out that it is almost universaly accepted in scholarly circles that Jesus really did exist. Historicity of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth). So for those who claim that there was no such person, I think the burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

So even if Jesus did exist. It would be rather strange, would it not that an area that is known for keeping pretty good historical records would forget to mention the son of god? Someone who performed miracles, walked on water and was the leader of a great movement? As it is the first 'historical' records of Jesus don't even call him by name, they mention a vague 'Christus' figure several decades after the supposed events. And your argument that it is most likely that he is the son of god is simply an argument from incredulity, as you never even mentioned the most likely possibility: that if Jesus did exist, that he was most likely a normal guy and a preacher who had supernatural acts attributed to him. Just like thousands of other prophets and Gods have had supernatural acts attributed to them.

And Jesus is not the most important man in history, you wouldn't be living the life you do today if it wasn't for Islam (and therefore Muhammed), because without Islam the Islamic Golden Age may never have happened. This is only one example of how other religions have laid the foundations for society, but it would suggest by your reasoning, that you are rejecting valid prophets.

Since we're using the Wikipedia to prove stuff, how about this:

Would anyone say that Paul Bunyan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bunyon) was real? Of course not. How about Big Joe Mufferaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Joe_Mufferaw) or Joseph Montferrand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Montferrand)? Imagine what 2,000 years of hearsay and coercion could do to Joe if someone were to write a book claiming that he was Paul Bunyan, and then in that book the author says, "Look, I'm telling the truth. I never saw the man, but I've talked to someone who did, and he promises me that he's not lying!"

Credible?

 

Okay i'm going to touch on the Historicity of Jesus then i'm going back to the original topic.  1.) Even if there were contemporary accounts for Jesus those accounts wouldn't be enough to prove the "miracles" or "divinity" of him.  2.) Its a surprise to me that Jesus supposedly attracted such large crowds and the local newspapers (some of which we have) or other sources fail to mention him until Christians appear.  3.) There are contemporary accounts for Muhammad existing (not for any miracles he performed) but there is more evidence for the actual Muhammad existing then Jesus.

Now back on topic.  Someones intelligence isn't and shouldn't be judged whether or not that person believes in a deity or not.  For example Francis Collins was the head of the human genome project and he was a theist.  He seems to have compartmentalized his theistic beliefs, but it doesn't change the fact he is a brilliant scientist.  Theism or atheism has no bearing on some peoples intelligence.

Something to keep in mind though is that the more intelligent someone is the more likely they are to be an atheist.  Scientists overall are though are the most atheistic group of people especially when you compare them to the general population.  The opposite of this is true when it comes to unintelligent people.  The staggering majority of uneducated, lower class citizens are almost unanimously theists.  I can see where this causes confusion especially among atheists.  However we need to resist our urge to classify all people this way.  Because there are always exceptions ^_^