How to tell a real freethinker

[radorth]

My point was never that "it doesn't matter even if it's true." My point is that "Jesus was a good person," is a very different claim to "Jesus was literally god." "Jesus was a good person," is a fairly mundane claim, and though still debatable, is one that can be resolved without saying a thing about the truth of the christian religion or the gospel accounts of Jesus. It says essentially nothing, because fictional characters can still be good people within the context of their fictional world.

Now, I figured that you were trying to assert that Jesus was the son of god, but if you're just trying to say that he was a nice guy,

I don't get it. You seem to be assuming a great deal about what I am saying. You have created a false dichotomy, i.e it's either he was a nice guy or divine. But I am saying, answer Durant's logic for taking the Gospels at face value, including what he believes is the honest reporting of the resurrection. (There he suggests they were merely mistaken. Jesus only swooned, a huge stretch IMO but possible I guess).

Funnily enough, I've never been able to ascertain which of the thousands of christian denominations really follows the teachings of the bible. I mean, they all claim to with utter conviction, but they can't all be right, now can they? And strangely, each of them believes that all the others aren't doing it quite right either, so...

Which has nothing to do with your making an independent judgement, which you strangely and suddenly find too hard. I once thought that's what you guys were all about. I found out otherwise.

Well, if you're making room to allow for the fact that some of the gospels might be incorrect, why not just go whole hog and make room for the possibility that all of it is? And if all of it could be incorrect, why follow it as a religion?

Because to do that I would have to commit a primary logical fallacy which is "False in one part, therefore false in all." Like I said, juries don't do that either. It's not an acceptable way to arrive at truth.

Similarly, I'd strenuously object to this talk of "sublime and benevolent" morality, given that the bible features some of the most immoral stuff I've ever read, made so because it passes it all off as divine command.

Those are Jefferson's words, and he added "...code of morals ever recorded." So shall we assume you do not consider him a free-thinker and that you have a superior intellect?

And I'm rather puzzled by your inability to grasp the motives of the gospel writers: given that there are plenty of religions you don't follow, it seems you're very capable of ascribing motivations to people who've developed false religions, why not extend those to the gospel authors? It's essentially the same stuff.

Not at all the same, I realized when I first started looking at all the religions, as an atheist. The early Christians suffered enormous, bloody and painful persecutions because of their certainty, their inability to disbelieve, based not only on the Gospel record but their personal experience of what Jesus promised, the testimony of the apostles, such as spiritual gifts and "rivers of living water" Jesus said would "flow from his innermost being."

Well, okay, let me amend that: lying or mistaken. And I figure the burden of proving that has already been fulfilled, given just how much of the bible has been revealed to be false by science, or to be immoral by simple logic. For a book purporting to be inspired by a constantly correct creator deity, it certainly has a lot of mistakes in it.

Science has it's own problems with explaining origins, which problems only grow in number and are hypocritical anyway. "What evolutionary or other force created the big bang?" they don't bother to ask or answer. They suggest theories which can NEVER be proven, like string theory. (Not that it's wrong, just that it can't be proven) The only theory that explains all evolutionary conundrums and all problems with origins at the moment is God assisted evolution, which Augustine seems to have postulated in the 5th century.

[Ryantology]

The only theory that explains all evolutionary conundrums and all problems with origins at the moment is God assisted evolution, which Augustine postulated in the 5th century BTW

This word theory, I don't think you know what it means to a scientist.

[Esquilax]

I don't get it. You seem to be assuming a great deal about what I am saying. You have created a false dichotomy, i.e it's either he was a nice guy or divine. But I am saying, answer Durant's logic for taking the Gospels at face value, including what he believes is the honest reporting of the resurrection. (There he suggests they were merely mistaken. Jesus only swooned, a huge stretch IMO but possible I guess).

Well, all that is fine. My issue is that one can't take the fact that certain mundane claims were- possibly- true, and expand that out to "every religious claim including miraculous or divine ones are honest reporting." It's entirely possible for all the normal stuff to be true without saying anything about Jesus' divinity, and that's the only claim that matters.

Nobody is justified in following a religion purporting to be based around these divine claims because the non-divine ones might be true.

Which has nothing to do with your making an independent judgement, which you strangely and suddenly find too hard. I once thought that's what you guys were all about. I found out otherwise.

My independent judgement is that all religions are a crock. I am an atheist, after all.

Because to do that I would have to commit a primary logical fallacy which is "False in one part, therefore false in all." Like I said, juries don't do that either. It's not an acceptable way to arrive at truth.

I was only talking about accepting the possibility. Not leaping to the conclusion that it's all necessarily false, just that the possibility exists that it could all be wrong. It's the first step to freeing yourself; accepting the idea that the book isn't some inviolable correct thing regardless of its mistakes.

Those are Jefferson's words, and he added "...code of morals ever recorded." So shall we assume you do not consider him a free-thinker and that you have a superior intellect?

No, I just think that Jefferson was wrong on this count. Am I not allowed to make judgement calls about a person's individual positions?

Not at all the same, I realized when I first started looking at all the religions, as an atheist. The early Christians suffered enormous, bloody and painful persecutions because of their certainty, their inability to disbelieve, based not only on the Gospel record but their personal experience of what Jesus promised, the testimony of the apostles, such as spiritual gifts and "rivers of living water" Jesus said would "flow from his innermost being."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecuti...0062104527

Also, suffering doesn't denote truth. People can suffer for misplaced beliefs, you know. Nazis suffer some pretty heavy persecution today, that doesn't give their claims or beliefs any kind of accuracy.

Science has it's own problems with explaining origins, which problems only grow in number and are hypocritical anyway. "What evolutionary or other force created the big bang?" they don't bother to ask or answer.

So, first of all, trying to connect evolution and the big bang kind of betrays your ignorance about this subject. Second of all, the answer is "we don't know, but we're looking." Not knowing doesn't justify one to just stick god in there and call it a day, you know.

They suggest theories which can NEVER be proven, like string theory. (Not that it's wrong, just that it can't be proven) The only theory that explains all evolutionary conundrums and all problems with origins at the moment is God assisted evolution, which Augustine seems to have postulated in the 5th century.

That "at the moment," is a bit of a hint; once again, when we don't know, that is the answer, it doesn't follow that it must be god. It follows that we must keep searching.

Also, what "evolutionary conundrums" are you talking about? Just because you don't know doesn't mean there isn't a currently available answer. Mayhap you can be educated.

[Zen Badger]

Real freethinkers don't have a problem with Jesus himself. Their issues are generally with the church and behavior of Christians.

The agnostic historian Durant called the critiques of the Gospels "minutae" and said that for a few simple men to have invented Jesus in one generation would be a miracle more incredible than anything recorded in the Gospels. He questioned the resurrection, but not the accounts of it, suggesting with Schonfield that Jesus swooned and did not himself know that he was not raised by God.

Einstein, at least as a young man, asked who could not feel close to "the Nazarene" of the Gospels, although he later distanced himself. Of course we all know he did his best thinking as a youth.

Franklin went the other direction, quoting the New Testament more as he grew older, and while not a Christian by most definitions, he promoted George Whitefield's preaching by building him a place to preach out of the rain, at his own expense.

Jefferson called Jesus' teachings "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals ever recorded." He did not believe the miracles, but his hero, John Locke, did believe them, all of them. Locke also calls Jesus "our Lord." (See The Reasonableness of Christianity by Locke)

Ghandi called the crucifixion a "perfect act" of love. His problems were with Christians, not Jesus. It is foolish, not to mention irrational, to make decisions about a founder because workers are corrupt, dumb or irrational.

I could go on, but the point is that real freethinkers include many highly intelligent and skeptical people who became Christians. They believe partly because they are skeptical of mindless skepticism, of the simplistic, illogical and gratuitous arguments that the Gospels are false records. They realize that the burden is on the critic to prove they are false. Calling people deluded or dishonest requires proof, especially when they had nothing to gain but persecution. (A historic fact).

And when you trot out some actual evidence for his existence you will have won the argument.......

So when you're ready......

[CleanShavenJesus]

Despite the fact that everything we know about the universe around us points to the conclusion that space magic is impossible and that god has been remarkably silent since the invention of any kind of effective recording device, the burden of proof is on us?

It's on you for reasons given below. As for the silence of God, if the Christian God does exist, then he is a billion times smarter than you or I, and has no reason to talk to a race which ignored his commandments, killed his prophets, knocked off his son and who by the billions, prefer to worship men, like the Pope or Mao. I mean what rational God would bother? Would you stop compalining about him if he did speak to you? No. And he knows that. Which is why he mostly talks to praying grandmothers I assume.

Actually, the true Gods are the X-Men. They're real, but since everyone is worshipping the Christian God, what's the rationale in revealing themselves to ungrateful humans?

(this may seem like a pointless jab, but there's a point)

[jstrodel]

A real free thinker would be someone who demands that science in the 21st century as it is present observed is "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" and religion is "A FUCKING FAIRY TALE"

[Darkstar]

A real free thinker would be someone who demands that science in the 21st century as it is present observed is "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" and religion is "A FUCKING FAIRY TALE"

Was this strawman just built for effect, or do you actually believe it?

[KichigaiNeko]

So now we have the religious dictating on what constitutes science, truth and free thought??

amazing

[Zen Badger]

A real free thinker would be someone who demands that science in the 21st century as it is present observed is "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" and religion is "A FUCKING FAIRY TALE"

And yet again you demonstrate your lack of understanding.

Science is not "ABSOLUTE TRUTH"

It is the tool we use to understand the universe and how it works.

A task that is in its earliest stages.

I think it was Arthur C Clarke that said something along the lines that we are like small children collecting pretty stones on the beach while all around us the universe waits to be discovered.

No rational person claims that science is the absolute truth.

[KichigaiNeko]

No rational person claims that science is the absolute truth.

Or rational freethinker for that matter........................




Next?