Christians and Atheists are 99.99% in agreement

[Tank]

Personally if somebody told me they had spoken to God I would consider that prima-facia evidence that they were mad. Sorry about that as it implies that I think you are 'touched' and there is no two ways about it, I think you are. 

But in a day-to-day sense you are perfectly functional and represent no threat to those around you so in that sense I'd treat you as a harmless eccentric. A good person with an odd world view because it's your actions that you should be judged by not your thoughts.

I realise what I wrote was blunt, but I see not good reason to lie about what I think, any more than you should.

Agreed, one should not lie. To be blunt, I think that atheists are spiritually autistic.  They don't see the "face" or the "person" in all the sensory input they are receiving. Since they limit themselves to one particular method of receiving information (adopting a purely empirical epistemology), they are not capable of detecting the patterns that reveal the face of God.  An autistic person sees the other person in front of him, but does not detect the "person", so to speak.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth what you are paying for it. But since we are being brutally honest.....

Nothing wrong with honesty 

You raise an interesting point particularly in light of the research described here Is atheism linked to autism?

It could be that in the past superstition was important to human survival, I put my thought down about that in Why God?. But as we move from superstition to science to answer questions about reality could it be that an autistic view is more valued than a superstitious one? A subject for a different thread.

[Attila]

Nothing wrong with honesty 

You raise an interesting point particularly in light of the research described here Is atheism linked to autism?

It could be that in the past superstition was important to human survival, I put my thought down about that in Why God?. But as we move from superstition to science to answer questions about reality could it be that an autistic view is more valued than a superstitious one? A subject for a different thread.

Arrrggghhh! Tank, Tank! Tank? The Daily fucking Mail!!!!!!!!!! Gimme a break! What would Ben Goldacre say? I was a rationalist in my mother's womb and never have shown the lightest hint of autism. Don't let my total absence of friends or relationships mislead you. 
Ciao,
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

Jesus may not have killed anyone in the canonical gospels, but he did kill quite a few people in the infancy gospels, for doing nothing more than just getting in his way in the street or telling him off.

He did also claim in the gospels that he was immanently going to destroy the Earth in a huge conflagration and kill all non-believers (eg Luke 17.26-30), so I don't feel it would be all that inconsistent. Obviously not all Christians have thought that would be an inconsistent message, otherwise why have countless thousands been murdered in the name of Jesus over the past 1700 years?

I think the best scholarship concludes that the infancy gospels are at least 2nd century, Gnostic, and not originating with the apostles.  Anyone can write a gospel.  Mark seems to me to be the most authentic, but that's just me.  Jesus was rejected by his own and crucified.  He knew what was coming for himself, and I think that colored his apocalyptic teachings.  He was, after all, human as well as divine. But he did one thing that I think was admirable in particular - he committed the ultimate judgment of the world to his own disciples, as Paul and even parts of the gospels explain. Rather than even trust himself to judge the world that rejected and crucified him, he committed it to those who would live in it, in each culture, in each age. When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell.  I sort of see it like the end of Braveheart, with even the bloodthirsty crowd crying "mercy." In the end, I think we all make it into the kingdom.

The infancy gospels are dated to the early second century, which is no later than the earliest evidence for the canonical gospels that you view as being historical and base your religious beliefs on. They weren't remotely Gnostic, the Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus was born and grew up as a normal child / man, they thought that Jesus had descended from the pleroma and realm of light into this dark world of matter.

As for the rest of your you're reading a mythological (in my view), or at least fully or partly non-historical, book and reporting it as historical events.  I don't think that's any different from stating that Jesus killed people as a child because it says so in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Like you said, anyone can write a gospel, and no-one knows by who, when or where the four canonical gospels were written. They're not eyewitness accounts of historical events.

Outside of the NT / early Christian writings there is no evidence that Jesus ever lived, never mind that he 'was rejected by his own and crucified' or 'committed the ultimate judgment of the world to his own disciples'. You're choosing to read those words and believe that they are real and historical things of a truly cosmic proportion.

Personally I seriously question in reality whether the Jews would have crucified someone for blasphemy, even more so over the Passover festival. But I don't know enough about Jewish law in the first century. I think they possibly used to stone or strangle people for it, but that had been ended some time before Jesus' supposed lifetime. The Roman's certainly wouldn't have, they were famously liberal in the interpretation of religion.

As to your other point, I think there are plenty of Christians who would sentence all non-believers (or even all Christians who aren't members of their particular sect) to eternal hellfire and torture. I'm glad for you that they're not the sort of Christians you hang around with. But I didn't actually mention hell, Jesus claims in the gospels that he is going to set fire to the Earth and destroy it (and all non-believers) in a great conflagration. I think the idea of heaven and hell and eternal torture is a later accretion to Christian doctrine, they're not in Jesus' teachings in the gospels.

I think Jesus and Paul are very clear in the NT that non-believers are not going to make it into the kingdom, and you're not towing the party line or following their teachings in believing otherwise. Obviously none of us would want to make it into that mythical kingdom anyway if it were to exist. Personally I'll be happy rotting in the ground, or maybe frolicking in the Elysian Fields, or getting drunk with a few valkyries in Valhalla.
You like reading Paul's epistles. I think this is pretty clear in 2 Thessalonians 1.7-9;

'When the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and those who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus.  They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the lord and from the glory of his power'

Or do you interpret that allegorically? 

[Too Few Lions]

You raise an interesting point particularly in light of the research described here Is atheism linked to autism?

It could be that in the past superstition was important to human survival, I put my thought down about that in Why God?. But as we move from superstition to science to answer questions about reality could it be that an autistic view is more valued than a superstitious one? A subject for a different thread.

interesting link Tank, but typical the way the scummy right wing Christian Daily Mail slant the information into an inaccurate headline claiming it shows there may be a link between atheism and autism. The study merely suggests that people with higher functioning autism are more likely to be atheists, which is something very differnet from suggesting that atheism and autism are somehow linked (which as a two way link implies that atheists are somehow slightly autistic). People with HF autism are also often highly intelligent (I have a few as very good friends), and that might also lead them to more likely be atheists. Plus in my experience, they're generally not very sociable, so I'm sure they'd avoid social situations like churches like the plague.

[Tank]

@ Attilla and TFL

Go down the thread a bit and you'll find a link to the original research, it makes interesting reading.

[Too Few Lions]

@ Attilla and TFL

Go down the thread a bit and you'll find a link to the original research, it makes interesting reading.

thanks Tank, I've just been reading the PDF. It's great that people are researching religiosity through cognitive science. As I expected, the researchers concluded that HFA individuals appear more likely to be atheistic or agnostic, NOT that there is a link between atheism and autism as the Daily Heil's headline claimed. I really hate the way journalists twist things to suit their own political or religious agenda. Just found this quote online that sums up the Daily Mail rather nicely;

"I've always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper"

[BullyforBronto]

@ Attilla and TFL

Go down the thread a bit and you'll find a link to the original research, it makes interesting reading.

thanks Tank, I've just been reading the PDF. It's great that people are researching religiosity through cognitive science. As I expected, the researchers concluded that HFA individuals appear more likely to be atheistic or agnostic, NOT that there is a link between atheism and autism as the Daily Heil's headline claimed. I really hate the way journalists twist things to suit their own political or religious agenda. Just found this quote online that sums up the Daily Mail rather nicely;

"I've always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper"

Sorry about the link to the Daily Mail. As part of my job, I receive a ton of articles via news feeds and this one popped up.

[Too Few Lions]

@ Attilla and TFL

Go down the thread a bit and you'll find a link to the original research, it makes interesting reading.

thanks Tank, I've just been reading the PDF. It's great that people are researching religiosity through cognitive science. As I expected, the researchers concluded that HFA individuals appear more likely to be atheistic or agnostic, NOT that there is a link between atheism and autism as the Daily Heil's headline claimed. I really hate the way journalists twist things to suit their own political or religious agenda. Just found this quote online that sums up the Daily Mail rather nicely;

"I've always been a Daily Mail reader. I prefer it to a newspaper"

Sorry about the link to the Daily Mail. As part of my job, I receive a ton of articles via news feeds and this one popped up.

It's the Daily Mail that should be sorry, they truly are a horrible rag. It's easily done, I've done exactly the same thing before, posted a link from a story I'd found from the DM on a friend's FB wall and they jokingly berated me for polluting their wall with such filth!

[Davin]

Personally if somebody told me they had spoken to God I would consider that prima-facia evidence that they were mad. Sorry about that as it implies that I think you are 'touched' and there is no two ways about it, I think you are. 

But in a day-to-day sense you are perfectly functional and represent no threat to those around you so in that sense I'd treat you as a harmless eccentric. A good person with an odd world view because it's your actions that you should be judged by not your thoughts.

I realise what I wrote was blunt, but I see not good reason to lie about what I think, any more than you should.

Agreed, one should not lie. To be blunt, I think that atheists are spiritually autistic.  They don't see the "face" or the "person" in all the sensory input they are receiving. Since they limit themselves to one particular method of receiving information (adopting a purely empirical epistemology), they are not capable of detecting the patterns that reveal the face of God.  An autistic person sees the other person in front of him, but does not detect the "person", so to speak.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and it's worth what you are paying for it. But since we are being brutally honest.....

Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.

[Cforcerunner]

When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell.  I sort of see it like the end of Braveheart, with even the bloodthirsty crowd crying "mercy." In the end, I think we all make it into the kingdom.

As a Christian, that last statement is of terrible doctrine and has absolutely no justification within scripture.

To your former statement, Christians don't have too. It is best to plead ignorance, as we have no place to tell anyone with full assurance who is going to hell. Jesus  stated that those who are least will inherit the Kingdom, while those who are called great in the world will not. What Jesus is implying is that many whom the world would never expect are to be held up highly in the Kingdom and many who are celebrated in this world will not. Therefore we have little to say as of who is/should/shouldn't be saved, but we do know that this life we have been given is in every facet meaningful, and we will be held responsible for the life we had lead.  

The Christian's view on God's forgiveness is really something that would be better suited for another thread of discussion. But from my understanding, Christ's forgiveness is of equal opportunity, and that God desires no one to be lost, but searches like shepherd not wanting to loose a single flock. If there was one thing on earth Jesus enjoyed most, it was pouring out towards the foulest corners of society and showing grace to those who least deserved it. It may not be by saying "Jesus, Jesus!" three times straight or calling yourself a saved Christian that saves, because such people He does not know. But those who come to Him like the daughter pouring forth for a tug of His cloak, they will be saved. Nothing gives God more satisfaction than those who are true in their pursuit of Him, for God's wide open arms have long awaited them. 

[Stevil]

That's a lovely story Cforcerunner.

But I am still keen to find the subtle knife, its destiny must be fulfilled. Problem is, I am having some troubles finding it. But I have heard that there is a young wizard who hangs out at Hogwarts who might be able to help me find the knife. Although I don't quite know how to get to Hogwarts.

[OldGit]

many whom the world would never expect are to be held up highly in the Kingdom and many who are celebrated in this world will not.

So being saved is basically a lottery, and nobody knows how to get there? Sounds as logical and reasonable as the rest of that delusion-system.  

[Attila]

Back to the atheist-autism connection: the report seems to indicate that autistic people are more likely to be atheists/agnostics than non-autistic people. This is not to say that atheists/agnostics are more likely to be autistic than theists. Since theism rates seems to be a function of social pressure it is not surprising that people who are autistic hence least subject to such pressure are less likely to be theists.
Ciao,
Attila

[BullyforBronto]

Since theism rates seems to be a function of social pressure it is not surprising that people who are autistic hence least subject to such pressure are less likely to be theists.

I think this is part of what's happening. I also think that many on the high functioning end of the autism spectrum may just find theology totally irrelevant to everyday life. You'd think it would be difficult enough for a neurotypical individual to see the point of sitting, standing, kneeling and cannibalizing for a few hours every Sunday. I suspect that if I asked my son (who probably falls on the moderate part of the spectrum) to go through this every week, he would think something like "Nah, I'd rather sit here and take apart all of the remote controls in the house for the next 8 hours."

[Cforcerunner]

That's a lovely story Cforcerunner.

But I am still keen to find the subtle knife, its destiny must be fulfilled. Problem is, I am having some troubles finding it. But I have heard that there is a young wizard who hangs out at Hogwarts who might be able to help me find the knife. Although I don't quite know how to get to Hogwarts.

many whom the world would never expect are to be held up highly in the Kingdom and many who are celebrated in this world will not.

So being saved is basically a lottery, and nobody knows how to get there? Sounds as logical and reasonable as the rest of that delusion-system.  

This is simply taken from a worldview that differs from your own, no need to be childish in how one reacts towards it.