Intelligence and Christianity: Oil and Water?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by secretasianman, Nov 2, 2002.

  1. joegurl13 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    I consider myself a humanist.

    Abortion: I am personally against but I am not going to go around yelling about it. The people who do, deal with it, it only makes it worse if others get invovled

    And I do community service all the time.

    I do support Euthanasia, who would want to suffer through a streched out death?

    no, you dont have to believe in god to be moral. I am moral for myself, for my personal gratifcation, so yeah i guess that might be selfish. oh well too bad for me.


    you are so sterotypical.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Secret,

    On the surface perhaps, but many such characters lived in times when it was definitely not advantageous to state they were atheist, it is even a problem for many today.

    As for Einstein, his religiosity was more about the magnificence of nature and had nothing to do with the gods of Christianity and such. He was an atheist.

    In the summer of 1945, just before the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein wrote a letter stating his position as an atheist, in response to Ensign Guy H. Raner's letter inquiring about his religious views. Four years later, Raner asked Einstein for further clarification (perhaps, he wondered, Einstein had meant, by "atheist," a non-Catholic; e.g., an orthodox Jew, or a Deist). Einstein's answer is given in a 2nd letter to Raner. He stated, "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

    To quote Acharya S from her Book the Christ Conspiracy -

    Contrary to popular belief, there was no single man at the genesis of Christianity but many characters rolled into one. The majority of these characters were personifications of the ubiquitous solar myth, whose adventures were well known, as reflected in the stories of such popular deities as Mithra, Hercules, Dionysus and many others throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. In reality, the story of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is nearly identical to that of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus. These redeemer tales are similar not because they reflect the actual exploits of a variety of men who did and said identical things, but because they represent the same extremely ancient Core of knowledge that revolved around the celestial bodies and natural forces.

    Or in other words Christianity, rather than the Greatest Story ever Told is better seen as the Greatest Story ever SOLD.

    So, no, there is no historical accuracy to any of the NT stories that have any importance.

    Cris
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Angelus Daughter Of House Ravenhearte Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    431
    Examples of athiests helping others

    example one: Gora

    Gora founded Atheist Centre and worked to end untouchability in India. He eventually met Mahatma Gandhi and they later worked together toward India's independence, which occurred in 1947. He also worked with India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, an atheist, urging him to support the formation of a secular government in the then predominantly Hindu nation of India. He later worked to establish a network of charitable organizations rivaling those in the United States, and putting to shame claims made about the allegedly wonderful work of Mother Teresa. (53)

    53: To learn about the conspicuous absence of good done by Mother Teresa's foundations, and the mountain of harm her policies caused thousands of individuals, consult The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice by Christopher Hitchens (1997). http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/mother.htm
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Woah Woah Woah... *dick-slaps muscleman for that last post*

    It's obvious that muscleman is a very frustrated guy - I don't know exactly why, but Christians historically have taken the most crap for their message (correct my wording if you'd like) than any other religious group. From the lion's den, all the way to modern times (perhaps a healthy backlash in some ways, but a backlash nonetheless).

    joegurl - you're exactly right. I've seen my share of
    non-Christians and secular people who were more moral than their Christian peers (of course, this was during high school so take that with a gram of salt). And yes, the motivation is different for Christians although I don't claim to be one. I'll try to clarify this all soon, but you'll have to bear with my "preachiness".

    Raithere - first, thank you for the thoughtful reply (or maybe you're just good with words

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), and I'll try my best to do the same.
    I'm tempted to say that this attitude is what began the Protestant split from Catholicism (of course, it didn't solve the problem but was a step in the right direction), but frankly I'm not sure. I regret having started this thread without doing more research, but there's an entire group of people with a special understanding of Christianity which I haven't seen represented anywhere. So here goes:
    If you're referring to the educational system that existed from Puritan times to the mid 20th century, I definitely see what you're saying. But I'd like to offer some perspective on human failings to live up to God's standards in the next blurb.
    That is an opinion - TO SOME it was used like that. I don't even want to touch the Crusades. I'd like to put it to you this way, and I know this might not satisfy you but Christianity, in its true incarnation, is a total relationship with God - like marriage. It's not some myth or artifact that's supposed to bring our better natures, it's not some conspiracy theory (I used to feel that way sometimes) even though it has been twisted to suit man's ends. This is the perspective that we've seen the disciples, Paul the Apostle (guy who wrote most of the New Testament) and all the *real* Christians take - so it's not just a thesis statement. God wanted our love, a relationship with us - He created Adam and Eve, put the tree of knowledge in the garden so that they could have the choice of refusing Him (because what is love without choice and free will?) and has since stood back watching man refuse Him for his own will (sin: anything that distances you from God, i.e. pride because it blinds you to God, murder because *and this in NO way authoritative* it makes you feel like you're beyond forgiving, it makes you give up hope and not seek reconciliation). In that context, the importance of choice is clear which might explain why the Bible has
    which btw ISN'T entirely up to the individual. If God were to set down the rules in stone (which he did for the newly-freed Israelis for reasons I will explain later) there would be no possibility for a relationship - just an impersonal standard, a reward system.
    Also, Christians are pursuing ONE GOD, ONE TRUTH - it isn't a "Native American" solitary approach, you don't just take to heart whatever is convenient/easy/obvious. Belonging to a church ensures that we aren't left stranded with such a monolithic work; the individual has access to a pastor and a group of intelligent people concerned with the same things, struggling with the same issues - this is the best-case scenario. And the onus is not upon YOU, the mere individual, to *crack* the Bible, to *live up to* a certain standard, or in any way to *earn* your way into heaven because
    "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast" Ephesians 2:8-9.
    It is a relationship, and if you accept it then Jesus will accept you; the definition of Heaven: Eternity with God. If you choose to refuse the relationship, then you are choosing to live a life away from God; the definition of "Hell" is "Eternal separation from God" - the images of "Fire and Brimstone" which made our Puritan ancestors soil their long-johns was IMHO a *device* used in man's spiritual childhood (the same idea from above which I will explain a little later).
    Muscleman mentions the Pharisees - now if I may, I'd like to share a minor revelation I had at a Friday Night Bible Study which came from Luke 5:27-39 - the difference between the Pharisees and Jesus was the difference between "religion and relationship": the pharisees, while living up to a rigid standard, were missing the point, were missing out on a relationship with God because they weren't committing but instead drawing a line. Jesus then uses the famous "You can't put new wine in old wineskins" analogy to make it clear that a relationship with him must be total, as in a marriage (If anyone wants the full text or a more in-depth explanation of ANYTHING I've said, PM me).
    Although that didn't address all your concerns, especially in your second contention, I think it was neccessary for you and others to see this different perspective on Christianity - in that context, you and I (and the people that will help me answer your questions) will be speaking the same language.
    The Bible as a historical document has stood the test of time; the New Testament for 2 millenia. Although I haven't personally looked into it YET, I gathered from my sister's journey in apologetics that the New Testament for example was pretty reliable - i.e. the sheer volume of surviving copies (the number of surviving copies of the New Testament or documents about Jesus's life) completely eclipsing the next best-documented piece of literature, Homer's Iliad (or was it Odyssey? I don't quite remember) - considering that colleges use literature which only has 1 or 2 known recorded copies and call them "authoritative," this isn't to be taken lightly. Also, the agreement between these surviving documents about Jesus and the fact that they were written very shortly after the actual events occured lend the New Testament even more credibility. I hear that the Dead Sea Scrolls do the same for the Old, but I'll have to see it to believe it.

    Raithere - is it the historical accuracy which bothers you or just the sheer amount of admittedly difficult material? If it's the latter, everyone feels that way too - but God sees into your heart and is pleased when Christians struggle with the message in an attempt to get to know God better (which is what the Bible does, really) - again, notice the idea of a relationship and not a standard or law.

    It had to be said - all of it. No more misunderstandings. Reading muscleman's last post, I'm not so sure he has the same understanding.

    - Ed
     
  8. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Wow, I missed a buncha posts.

    Cris - maybe I got Einstein confused with some other scientist(s) of import, but I am almost sure Einstein said something along the lines of "the evidence points to the mark of an intelligent designer". Either way, it's far from a controversial thought; I saw it mentioned on this forum, for example. And yes, I know that the old church forced Galilleo (right?) to recant his discoveries.

    Also, explain yourself more clearly:
    Have you already decided which stories are important and which ones are not?

    Angelus - that atheists can be moral isn't even a question. The difference is in the motives (which I don't claim to understand).



    ALSO, I'd like to clarify the idea of "spiritual growth" from the Old Testament people to the New. Raithere - I got a sense of this question in your second contention, but then I haven't slept for 30 hours. Anyways, for me the idea cleared up a lot of the "contradictions" between the OT and NT and began to bridge the two. Bear with me once again...

    Keep in mind that God wanted a meaningful, mature relationship with us.
    *************************************************
    When Moses led the Israelis to freedom after ~400 years of slavery to the Egyptians, they were little better than savages. These people were B.C., with no culture or sense of higher justice - so much of what we take for granted as "human." God's original laws were very clearly defined, probed deeply into the Israeli's everyday lives, and were a far cry from Jesus's message ("Eye for an eye" is much less challenging than "Turn the other cheek") - but God's intent was to take care of the people, show them how to survive, to clearly define right from wrong, and most importantly: to allow them to have the beginnings of a relationship with God. In their stage of infancy, spiritual and otherwise, the emphasis on RULES and STANDARDS allowed them to have a somewhat childlike relationship: though the child may not understand all the rules the parent sets, the child does them to please the parent. As Israel grew into a complex civilization, they grew spiritually (this part is a bit hard for me to understand as well) - when the time was right, God sent Jesus down to reveal the most perfect version of God's will - Jesus showed mankind, through his message and the example he set, how to have a mature, meaningful RELATIONSHIP with God.

    It may be a tough concept to swallow - but I hope that you feel there is some sort of consistency in the Bible, some truth to this Christian perspective.
     
  9. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    secretasianman:
    You misunderestimate me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I do not mind being vilified by Christians. In fact, I like it. If they brought back the stake and faggots, I'd be more than happy to meet the challange.

    To paraphrase Trent Rezner:

    If people think I'm an evil whore because I'm an athiest - cool!

    I love a challenge. However, I am interested as to why y'all hate us so much.
     
  10. GB-GIL Trans-global Senator Evilcheese, D-Iraq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,718
    So are you saying that nobody except Christians ever dedicate their lives to helping people in need? Just like only Christians have died for the USA? rotflmao.
     
  11. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    CHRISTIANS DO NOT HATE ATHEISTS. Who made you arrive at this conclusion? Is it really "curious" or are we all bundles of emotions posing as intellects? Sorry - just pissed that you'd think that.

    Jesus doesn't teach us to hate (he's the one who said "love your enemy", for crissake), doesn't give Christians the right to judge anyone. Where did you get the idea that Christians HATE atheists/agnostics - they may DISAGREE with you, but it ain't HATE. You're a rational guy; you should understand that much.
     
  12. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    secretasianman:
    Whoa, calm down dude. Please accept my profuse apologies and a valium.

    Actually, fuck my apologies, dude, take a valium.

    Dislike, then.

    http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/02/11/24660012.shtml?Element_ID=24660012

    http://www.thesunlink.com/news/2002/october/10312scoutsnatio.html

    http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/4392576.htm

    http://www.cyberdespot.com/home.html?jesustricks/bush.html&frames/left.html&frames/top.html

    ""So one kid says, 'I don't want to pray'. Fine, bow your head and shut
    your mouth. Let the rest of the kids pray. It's not that big a deal."
    __Ben Kinchlow (Pat Robertson's 700 Club co-host, on school prayer.)"

    Honestly, this took about two minutes with google.

    Actually, I'm not a guy at all.
     
  13. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Cris - (and remember, I am NOT a Christian - I see now that this thread has descended into another "You -vs- Them") Christianity is a very unique religion in that it is about "God coming to man" as opposed to "man's quest to find God/truth" - the way many of the world's major religions are. Sadly, I haven't studied the difference between Islam and Christianity (remember, I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN), but I find your position very hard to take seriously:

    So does it surprise you that Jesus MAY HAVE HAD QUALITIES WHICH MEN ADMIRE AND ASSIGNED TO THEIR FABRICATED HEROES AND GODS (Greek mythology? c'mon now...)? Does the fact that PEOPLE ARE OFTEN SIMILAR really debunk the "Christian lie" for you? Look, I'm not in the mood for being a smartass (something that takes precedence over the *exchange of thoughts* on this forum), so I'll not be wasting time and losing sleep (30+ hours without sleep now) much longer.

    Look at the perennial story of skeptics-turned-Christians (many of whom were, face it, probably smarter than you and I) who sold their souls (figure of speech, guys) for apologetics and really, well, insignificant details - they found that
    1) IT WOULD TAKE JESUS TO INVENT JESUS
    2) there are GOOD intellectual and emotional reasons to believe that Jesus exists - the often scoffed-at "Leap of Faith" isn't as blind as *they* would have you believe.
     
  14. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Forget valium. Dude, sleep. I did the 30+ hours thing once during midterms. I finished my last test, sat in the corner of a hallway, and giggled hysterically for a half hour.
     
  15. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Xev - I used caps to emphasize my points, I'll use bold from now on. Also, sorry for coming off as the indignant Christian. I'm absolutely sorry if I offended you.
    But that bit about "Jesus inventing Jesus" wasn't drivel; scholars who studied Jesus came to that conclusion. The signs show that if you look at what kind of a figure Jesus was, you will probably find it easier to believe that Jesus existed than to believe in some sorta conspiracy. I definitely plan to find out for myself.

    And since when was Pat Robertson the "be-all, end-all" ambassador of Christianity? I really tried to get across that yes there are poor representatives of Christianity out there, and there always will be since people are sinful, evil, and so complicated by nature. Yes, I thought what Kinchlow said was fucked up. In my naivete, brought on by sleeplessness and beer, I thought that I could show you guys that the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells, the clannish organizations - these are not all there is to Christianity.

    I'm really beginning to understand how important it is to meet such people for oneself. I thought that I, as a skeptic, could find some meaningful questions to begin with (because I want to feed my curiosity, entertain my skepticism) but this thread kinda took a turn in the wrong direction - for which I'm also guilty by defending Christianity just as readily as it was attacked (I'm NOT a Christian, for the record). It's not just "Rational Us -vs- *Fanatic* Them" - and I guess I've utterly failed at getting that across.

    EDIT: Perhaps reading books by scholars both for and against Christianity would be more fruitful for me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2002
  16. Voodoo Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
  17. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Hi Secret,

    Welcome to sciforums BTW.

    And no I never assumed you were a Christian. My tone was an attempt at clinical precision rather than confrontation. Sorry, if that did not come across as I intended.

    There is no dependable record of Jesus’ existence. The primary record claimed by Christians is that from Josephus, but all leading scholars have thrown that out as a fraud.

    Now consider that Jesus is meant to be a god, the most powerful being in the universe, and and and…. there is no record of his existence here on Earth???? Doesn’t that kinda question any credibility to such claims? Remember that it is essential that he existed as a man since he is meant to have suffered as a man and died for our sins, and was then resurrected. If he never existed physically then Christianity is total bunk.

    Acharya S shows, quite convincingly from my perspective, that all the stories surrounding the claims made for Jesus are rip-offs from much earlier mythologies. Combine that with the lack of any record of his actual existence, then it is not much of a stretch to conclude he never existed.

    The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, takes a slightly different approach but reaches the same conclusions. Jesus never existed.

    So the reference to importance was meant to indicate all those stories that mention Jesus. I think any reference to Jesus would be considered important to Christians, right? So since there is no evidence he ever existed, then all such stories should be considered highly suspect, and as Acharya and Earl can show were almost certainly myths.

    Hope that clarifies my position a little better.

    Cris
     
  18. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Secret,

    I have no sympathy with ‘there are so many others who believe so it must be true’ argument. As I have said many times here that it wasn’t long ago that nearly everyone on the planet believed it was flat. And we can argue there must have been some really bright people around at that time who believed this. Truth is not determined by a majority vote or expert opinions. If there is no evidence then their opinions aren’t worth a damn, especially when we are considering potentially the most important being in existence (or not as the case may be).

    “Good intellectual reasons” still doesn’t help unless you have some factual substance, without that all you have is conjecture. And emotional reasoning is by far the worst and most unreliable mechanism for determining truth.

    All religions have one primary basis – a desire to cheat death. Once an alleged expert has decided a personal belief that there must be more to life than just this, then they will go to any length to rationalize this wish.

    Show some facts otherwise there is no case for gods or jesus’s.

    Cris
     
  19. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Voodoo,

    Thanks for the charity link. I didn't know about that.
     
  20. Voodoo Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    Now the question becomes how can we use to organisation "TO BE A PERVERT AND SUPPORT THE MILLION DOLLAR PORN INDUSTRY"?

    I didn't know about this organisation, either. I just typed www.atheistcharity.org in and hoped.
     
  21. Voodoo Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    I'm going to talk about the steaming pile of anti-evolutionary propaganda that secretasianman posted. I suspect that he posted it with the best of intentions, not realising the complete crap that it is, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

    The first part about Darwin not providing a pathway for the evolution of the eye is not evidence against evolution. The absence of evidence is not evidence against. It could only be considered evidence against if you could actually provide a mechanism that couldn't be created by gradualistic processes. ie use the method of falsification that Darwin refers to in that quote.

    "Nor did he offer an answer as to how the most primitive light-sensitive cells (presumably the starting point of eye development) came in the first place. "

    Not so hard. Unicellular organisms have light sensitive pigments that they use for photosynthesis.

    Irreducible Complexity:

    IC is not a barrier to evolution. A simple example are feathers. If you reduce their length the bird can't fly. Therefore they couldn't have evolved, right? However, if they first grow to provide insulation they came jump the IC barrier. A very simple example that shows an IC component can evolve if it performs another function.

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evolve_irreducible.html

    provides other examples of how IC may evolve. The problem here is that Behe utterly refuses to use his imagination. This is why his work has been largely ignored except for the few cases where it has been ripped to shreds.

    Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism

    No it doesn't. Science's a priori commitment to methodological naturalism does this. The nature of science is that it can only investigate the naturalistic. This is not to say that philosophical naturalism is the case.

    No, science, by its very nature can only provide a natural explanation. Or can not provide an explanation. It has no means by which to investigate non-natural things so it must remain silent about such phenomena.

    Science can't have a bias to philsophical naturalism: to suscribe to p. naturalism would be to make a statement about non-naturalistic stuff(which science couldn't do).


    Lastly, the misquotes:

    <table><tr><td bgcolor="ffffdd">"history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo Saxon biology."
    and
    “wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin—having mistaken him… Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk.”
    </td></tr></table>

    http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/quote_margulis2.html
    says:

    "The "religious sect" line comes from American Zoologist. The article is Kingdom Animalia: The Zoological Malaise from a Microbial Perspective and it is basically an argument for a particular philosophical view. It's sort of along the lines of holistic versus reductionist. But it's mostly not about facts per se, and it claims to return "towards Darwin's original intentions" (page 861). "

    and

    "...the bit about "neo-Darwinism .. in a complete funk" refers specifically to the evolution of certain features of eukaryotes and has nothing at all to do with evolution in general. Worse, the line refers to the Theory of Evolution as it was before everyone decided that Dr. Margulis's theory was right."

    The Patterson quote(an unauthorised recording) was a hypothetical. The guy believed(he's dead) in evolution.
     
  22. Voodoo Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,296
    million dollars? jeez someone's in for a shock.
     
  23. secretasianman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    Cris, you sound different to me now that I've gotten some sleep

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Thank you and I'll try to show you the same respect.

    I think it's important to state that I'm a Freshman here at UC Berkeley, so I haven't yet had a chance to go on my "journey" into apologetics - given the courseload, my age and all.

    I had always taken for granted, as an ex-church goer, that Jesus's existence as a person was pretty well agreed upon among scholars of the subject.
    Yeah, whether or not Jesus the deity existed is, like the Big Bang and evolution, a debate - I gather (from the "general consensus"; haven't began my questioning phase yet) that when examining the events like the resurrection (the Roman Empire's inability to recover Jesus's dead body, the demonstration of which would have proved Christianity false without a doubt, is important - according to the Bible, Jesus was brought down from the cross and put into a cave-like tomb, sealed by a huge rock, which if I remember was in the neighborhood of a half-ton. This tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers, but on the third day the rock had been moved, the guards *NOT* ambushed/killed by the *crazy disciples*, and Jesus's body was nowhere to be found.) the possibility isn't ruled out: the observer has to decide, based on incomplete evidence, which is most likely. This lack of complete certainty hasn't kept people from supporting the Big Bang, Darwinism, etc. (it seems that in a way, Darwinism mereley "points out the possibility/likelihood" of evolution, requiring some *faith* if you will - but I'd need a second opinion). Do you see what I'm trying to say?

    But definitely, the question of whether Jesus existed or not is a good one for me/anyone to look into.

    Right on. It isn't proof, but it helps me put things into perspective.
    Cris - did anything I said make sense? Thanks for bringing up a good question, regardless.

    Voodoo Child - the slideshow was presented with a grain of salt; granted it barely even scratches the surface of the debate. As far as steaming pile of shit - the way it was presented (with a disclaimer) makes me doubt that it was deliberate propaganda. I'll definitely have to look more closely at the research/arguments that went into both sides of the argument - but evolution (and science, really) never really interested me outside of this context. I was always more interested in the ethics/morality/philosophical (I don't claim to be a philosopher) issues, rather than the nitty-gritty details, if you will.
    Anyways, thank you for bringing that up - time to see how deep the rabbit hole goes...
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2002

Share This Page