How to tell a real freethinker

[radorth]

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).

[Minimalist]

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.

Yeah, yeah....whereas the men who invented EVERY OTHER FUCKING GOD that humanity has come up with had no such lack of imagination, right?

Special pleading, pal. Your fucking god is as phony as all the others.

[Foxaèr]

(A historic fact).

Hardly.

[Esquilax]

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).

Really? Really?

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?

If calling people deluded or dishonest requires proof... then do you not also have to provide proof that your shit it true before you can call us atheists deluded or dishonest, like you're doing right now? Especially when we atheists have nothing to gain but persecution (which is an actual fact, unlike your "historic one" that is still true today, also unlike yours.)

You seem to be saying that the burden of proof is circular: everyone has to prove everyone else wrong conclusively or else nobody can just call anyone else wrong. Why is it you feel that your religion is suddenly exempt from your own (flawed, insipid) logic?

[Angrboda]

Are your people ever going to come up with some new material?

We're getting bored of all the same old shit day after day.

[radorth]

Really? Really?

The "historic fact" refers to the fact that the early Christians were persecuted, in case you were confused about that. The Romans, et al, recorded their own widespread persecutions of Christians, until Constantine put an end to it.

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.

If calling people deluded or dishonest requires proof... then do you not also have to provide proof that your shit it true before you can call us atheists deluded or dishonest, like you're doing right now?

I did? You aren't one of those conspiracy theorists are you?

Especially when we atheists have nothing to gain but persecution (which is an actual fact, unlike your "historic one"

True to some degree, but an excellent reason to stay away from Muslim countries. In fact it was Protestants like Locke and other students of Jesus' wisdom who were 98% responsible for the freedoms unbelievers do have. It's kind of sad you don't realize that. BTW at the same time Voltaire was justifying slavery, the Bible-addicted Wesley was calling it "the scourge of the earth." I guess he read Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4 or something.

You seem to be saying that the burden of proof is circular:

Not at all. The law requires that any statement of defamation be proved, for good reason. It is assuming innocence until guilt is proved, you see.

[EGross]

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.

If you take it from a point of fact, the holy books tell us that God loved being the center of attention. You pissed off a prophet, and he would open up the ground and swallow you and your followers whole. You questioned his word and a magic plague would show up, requiring magical intervention. You tried to kill his people and he turned your water into blood. You got lost, pillers of cloud or fire. You kill his son, zombies march on Jerusalem. The list goes on and on.

Ok, granted, nobody saw any of that, for real, but that's what those magic books tell us. And then some have the chutzpah to say "Well, he doesn't like to be the center of attention anymore". What, he got sullen? You say he got pissed off and won't talk anymore because some of his best friends got killed? What, is he bi-polar? You say he talks to grandmothers. What, are those old ladies hearing voices? Or, are they just imagining shit?

That's the problem with believing in those books - the stuff they talk about, well, God got whiney and left. Planes flying into buildings? God was eating popcorn and having the time of his life. After all, those were very religious people. Suicide bombing daily in the middle east, which used to be his home address. Why those are just silly comedies to him! Public blasphemies? Nah, not worth it.

In fact, He stopped being Mr. "Hey, look at what I can do" once people started evolving into rational thinkers.

Imaging that!

[Esquilax]

The "historic fact" refers to the fact that the early Christians were persecuted, in case you were confused about that. The Romans, et al, recorded their own widespread persecutions of Christians, until Constantine put an end to it.

Yeah, and the moment christians get into power they hardly do better.

It's on you for reasons given below.

What, because you say so and you can find some smart people in the past who believed? Your entire argument for why the burden of proof is on we nonbelievers is the argument from authority? So, an already refuted argument that is a non sequitur given what we're discussing? Great, I'll get right on that...

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.

Egross answered this better than I could.

I did? You aren't one of those conspiracy theorists are you?

No, you listed a bunch of names and then decided that because those certain intelligent people were theists, your god is proven. And this is wrong, because even the smartest of individuals can be wrong, and just because a belief is held by a certain group of smart people, does not make it true.

True to some degree, but an excellent reason to stay away from Muslim countries. In fact it was Protestants like Locke and other students of Jesus' wisdom who were 98% responsible for the freedoms unbelievers do have. It's kind of sad you don't realize that. BTW at the same time Voltaire was justifying slavery, the Bible-addicted Wesley was calling it "the scourge of the earth." I guess he read Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4 or something.

Given that the bible has some very clear rules regarding how one should keep their slaves, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that ol' Wesley probably didn't derive his position on slavery from biblical sources. Just saying.

Not at all. The law requires that any statement of defamation be proved, for good reason. It is assuming innocence until guilt is proved, you see.

The law also requires that something be proved to have happened before it's even entered into the record as factual. For example, I can't be sued for defamation if I say something defamatory about a fictional character. See where I'm going with this? Before you can say my lack of belief is "defamatory" then you must prove the thing I have defamed exists.

And if you want to go that route, then fine: your bible calls us nonbelievers fools, and also calls for us to be killed. All terribly defamatory; now prove that there is a god, because otherwise all those calls to murder are utterly unjustified.

[radorth]

If you take it from a point of fact, the holy books tell us that God loved being the center of attention. You pissed off a prophet, and he would open up the ground and swallow you and your followers whole. You questioned his word and a magic plague would show up, requiring magical intervention. You tried to kill his people and he turned your water into blood. You got lost, pillers of cloud or fire. You kill his son, zombies march on Jerusalem. The list goes on and on.

Ok, granted, nobody saw any of that, for real, but that's what those magic books tell us. And then some have the chutzpah to say "Well, he doesn't like to be the center of attention anymore". What, he got sullen? You say he got pissed off and won't talk anymore because some of his best friends got killed? What, is he bi-polar? You say he talks to grandmothers. What, are those old ladies hearing voices? Or, are they just imagining shit?

That's the problem with believing in those books - the stuff they talk about, well, God got whiney and left. Planes flying into buildings? God was eating popcorn and having the time of his life. After all, those were very religious people. Suicide bombing daily in the middle east, which used to be his home address. Why those are just silly comedies to him! Public blasphemies? Nah, not worth it.

In fact, He stopped being Mr. "Hey, look at what I can do" once people started evolving into rational thinkers.

Imaging that!

I am merely arguing that a rational God has no reason to speak to or help any but those who humbly come to him for help, admitting they are part of a race that generally ignores him, including 90% of those calling themselves Christians. I can make a good argument that only a small fraction of the world has ever even tried Christianity. I.e, what person has ever lived as the Sermon on the Mount says we must? If none, then who has any right to complain? Jesus promised to make things right one day. It is fair to assume that if he does, your arguments will look like impatient, foolish rants, will they not?

But in fact he did enlighten and help the world, including yourself, through men like John Locke, Charles Wesley who geleaned their wisdom and benevolence from Jesus, as did Jefferson, by his own assertion.

If anybody is whining or self-absorbed, it's those who didn't do anything God said, then bitch because he let something bad happen. They further don't even admit to the fact that Jesus (if not the church) had a powerful influence in creating the Democratic spirit. (Read Nancey Ruttenberg, on George Whitefield) It's absurd.

[Esquilax]

I am merely arguing that a rational God has no reason to speak to or help any but those who humbly come to him for help, admitting they are part of a race that generally ignores him, including 90% of those calling themselves Christians.

Interesting! Your god is all good all the time, but he has no reason to help people unless they grovel? Isn't it amazing how such a hyper-benevolent being apparently needs either a reason or abasement in order to help people, and yet I, a flawed and less moral being, am going to do charity work tomorrow for no reason other than to help people? Wow, what a great god you have!

As for the rest... can you say No True Scotsman, everyone?