Inconsistencies with Atheism

[Rick 67]

39 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Last year, I read the Bible from cover to cover.  This was pretty surprising to me because one of the central elements of Christianity is the hope that we are immediately taken to heaven at the moment of death.

didn't Jesus tell the dude on the other cross "today you will be with me in paradise"?

[kallend 1,621]

12 minutes ago, Rick said:

didn't Jesus tell the dude on the other cross "today you will be with me in paradise"?

IF he said anything, it would most likely have been in Aramaic and has been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and deliberately changed for political reasons many times over before  entering any bible in the English language.

[billvon 2,384]

1 hour ago, NewGuy2005 said:

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates the existence of a human soul.  The only form of life after death that is mentioned in the Bible is the resurrection of the body when God or Jesus returns to reclaim the earth.  The only exception to this is Jesus, who existed for a period of time as a spirit.  

Last year, I read the Bible from cover to cover.  This was pretty surprising to me because one of the central elements of Christianity is the hope that we are immediately taken to heaven at the moment of death.  There's nothing in the Bible that indicates that this is the case.  Where did this come from?  Is it a construct of the church?  Did I completely miss something important?

I'm no Bible scholar and I'm open to other opinions on this.  I really am puzzled by it.

With regards to a basis for morality, God help us if we rely on the Bible.  With the exception of some of the teachings of Jesus, the Bible is a horror show.

?? References to heaven are all over the place in the Bible.  Are you referring to the idea that people go there at the instant of death?  In that case, Luke 23: "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."   I guess you could argue that that was a special pass for being crucified with Christ - but it suggests that some people _do_ go there pretty close to the moment of death.

And the Bible makes a pretty clear statement on the existence of the soul.  Ecclesiastes 12: "The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." (referring to the dust that humans were created from in ver 2 of Genesis.)

[NewGuy2005 51]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

 Are you referring to the idea that people go there at the instant of death? 

Correct.  That's what I'm talking about, or rather, the soul leaves the body at the time of death and goes to Heaven.

[NewGuy2005 51]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

didn't Jesus tell the dude on the other cross "today you will be with me in paradise"?

 

1 hour ago, billvon said:

And the Bible makes a pretty clear statement on the existence of the soul.  Ecclesiastes 12: "The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." (referring to the dust that humans were created from in ver 2 of Genesis.)

Those are the only counterpoints I have heard, but it seems like something so central to a religion would be stated more explicitly and repeatedly.  Compare this to the admonitions regarding virginity or working on the sabbath.  No one argues about what our instructions are about that.

[billvon 2,384]

3 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Those are the only counterpoints I have heard, but it seems like something so central to a religion would be stated more explicitly and repeatedly.  Compare this to the admonitions regarding virginity or working on the sabbath.  No one argues about what our instructions are about that.

Right, and almost no one follows them.  There's a big difference between what the Bible says and what people who use it as their holy book do.

[normiss 620]

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

Right, and almost no one follows them.  There's a big difference between what the Bible says and what people who use it as their holy book do.

Christians always say they will be forgiven. Some think it's a hall pass to do as they please.

There's also a very thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

One of the 'fun' parts about atheistic morality vs religious morality that I haven't seen mentioned is the enforcement angle. 

The religious idea that only religious people can be moral because God gave them the laws is a load of crap. 
The basic 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' doesn't require any divine inspiration. 
It's the basic idea of treating others as you would like to be treated. 

However, there are a lot of people who are selfish and uncaring enough that they would do anything they could get away with if it benefited them. 

So, for people who are smart or sneaky enough to get away with all sorts of things, yet not have any sort of conscience bothering them, there's the "God" angle. 

The societal 'brake' of having someone or something 'know when you are sleeping, know when you're awake, know if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake' is a pretty good way of making people obey the law.
And the idea of having an 'immortal soul' that can and will suffer punishment after death is just a 'cherry on the top' for that entire concept. 

The "God Concept" has a variety of benefits along similar lines. 
Dietary laws are another example. It's a convenient & effective way of keeping people from eating tasty foods that have a strong potential of being dangerous. 
Take pork for example. Bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good. But pigs are filthy animals. They have all sorts of nasty parasites & pathogens running through them. 
Before those things were fully understood, before people understood that pork had to be fully cooked to be eaten safely, saying that "God said not to eat that" was an effective way of stopping people from sneaking in the odd side of back bacon when nobody was looking. The fact that those who did have a ham sandwich here and there stood a much better chance of dying just reinforced that idea.

And for individuals, the idea that someone is 'watching over them' is helpful. Ron himself made that claim a while back. He was in an accident, and he felt that when an ambulance was close by, when passersby stopped and prayed with him, that he wasn't hurt and his wife wasn't killed, all those were signs that God was taking care of him.
There was a similar situation after a tornado last spring. A woman was interviewed on the news. Some of her neighbors were dead, others were injured. Her house was demolished. Yet, because she was unhurt and her kids only had minor injuries, then she was absolutely certain (and said it multiple times) that God was watching over her. 
The idea that if God was really looking out, then maybe the accident/tornado wouldn't have happened in the first place seems to not occur to them.

[turtlespeed 212]

9 hours ago, skycatcher68 said:

Agnostics (asmurftics) believe that there is no way to ever know whether or not smurfs actually exist.

Atheists (asmurfiests) don't have a belief that smurfs are real because there is not enough evidence to prove their existence, but don't claim that there is no possibility that smurfs exist.

 

Agnostics - I are one - are simply unsure if a God exists.  There is a profound lack of proof, until you add belief into the mix.

For instance - I do not know if it is possible or not that God as is believed in, doesn't reside in the realm of dark matter.  Thus I am agnostic.

[riggerrob 558]

On 1/8/2020 at 10:57 AM, gowlerk said:

Just because I can not prove something, or understand something, does not make it non-physical. My feeling is that everything is physical, but we are not capable of understand it all. If there were a heaven and a hell they would both be physical in nature. However, I don't believe in either, so in my mind they are not physical. Anymore than unicorns are.

Not being able to prove - that something is physical - has been a problem for most of humankind's existence. It is only within the last few hundred years that we have developed instruments to measure the smallest things and the largest things. Even so, scientists still speculate on things smaller than we can prove/see/measure.

For example, I can understand Newtonian physics, but Quantum Physics are too bizarre for me to grasp.

 

Heaven is a human invention to ease their fears of death and the fear that friends and family will forget them as soon as they die. Telling people that if they live a good life, they will go to heaven is a way of moderating their behaviour on earth. Initially "good behaviour" only needed to include your own immediate family and extended family. If you were to stupid to share and cooperate, your genetic line died out after a few generations. As clans and tribes and villages and kingdoms grew larger, it became increasingly important for everyone to behave the same way (e.g. not pissing in the public fountain that provided drinking water for the entire village). Initially these morals/standards/ethics were imposed by the village leader. To ensure some continuity when the old leader/king, etc. died off, his son inherited the kingdom and also inherited the same set of behavioural expectations. After a few generations, these shared behaviours became central to the family, clan, tribe, village, kingdom, etc.

To simplify the process of passing these shared behaviours on to successive generations, stories about these behaviours were retold around the fire every night. Rhyming schemes helped ensure consistency over the generations. Then these epic poems were put to music, another step in ensuring consistency.

Then travelling poets/musicians/entertainers spread these poems/origin stories to other villages. Eventually the wisest poets started to claim that they could predict the weather, etc. When they could not point out clear evidence/prove a theory, they used God to fill in the gaps. That was the origin of organized religions.

It is possible to absorb these behaviours without ever attending church, just by listening to your neighbours. But it is not possible for a single generation to learn all these behaviours, ergo humans retell stories from their grandparents. Grandparents hold the collective knowledge of a tribe. Eventually those shared stories about good behaviours get written into books. Even later, those good behaviours are codified in holy books. After many more centuries, those good behaviours become the "law of the land." These days, if commit most of the sins (bad behaviours) mentioned on the Ten Stone Tablets given to Moses, you will  be arrested, tried and punished. 

Origin stories do not have to be 100 percent accurate as long as they are easy to remember and encourage good behaviour. Hence: organized religions.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by riggerrob

[riggerrob 558]

Dear Gowlerk,

"Turtle Island" was the best guess explanation that native Americans could come up with based on their limited knowledge of geology/astronomy/cosmology, etc. When they lacked measurable knowledge of plate tectonics, that used the "Great Spirit" to fill in the gaps.

As human knowledge increases, those gaps get progressively smaller, ergo less need for "God in the gaps."

The danger is when a religion/shared world view stagnates and clings to an old belief after that climate/society, etc. have changed around them. Organized religions tend to stagnate, while scientists are constantly challenging old views, peer reviewing and testing new theories.

For example, modern surgeons perform operations that were considered "miracles" only a few decades ago.

[skycatcher68 7]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Agnostics - I are one - are simply unsure if a God exists.  There is a profound lack of proof, until you add belief into the mix.

For instance - I do not know if it is possible or not that God as is believed in, doesn't reside in the realm of dark matter.  Thus I am agnostic.

A theist has a belief that a god exists.

If you are not a theist then you are an atheist.  If you are unsure that a god exists, and therefore don't believe that a god exists, then you are an athiest.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether or not you have a belief in a god.  An agnostic could either be an athiest or a theist depending on whether or not they believe a god exists.  

An agnostic theist believes that a god exists, and also believes that the existence of the god cannot be knowable or proven, and takes the existence of the god purely on faith or wishful thinking.

An agnostic atheist believes that the existence of a god cannot be knowable or proven, and chooses not to believe in something that cannot be known.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

19 minutes ago, skycatcher68 said:

A theist has a belief that a god exists.

If you are not a theist then you are an atheist.  If you are unsure that a god exists, and therefore don't believe that a god exists, then you are an athiest.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether or not you have a belief in a god.  An agnostic could either be an athiest or a theist depending on whether or not they believe a god exists.  

An agnostic theist believes that a god exists, and also believes that the existence of the god cannot be knowable or proven, and takes the existence of the god purely on faith or wishful thinking.

An agnostic atheist believes that the existence of a god cannot be knowable or proven, and chooses not to believe in something that cannot be known.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK - if that is true - what does that make me - 

I am simply unsure if there is a god or could be a god, but I'm open to either possibility.

Hint: Every theologian I have ever discussed this with, ranging from professors and Deans from Christian Universities, to Imams, to Rabbi's etc. etc. Have all clearly defined my particular mindset as agnostic.

[billvon 2,384]

1 hour ago, skycatcher68 said:

A theist has a belief that a god exists.

If you are not a theist then you are an atheist.  If you are unsure that a god exists, and therefore don't believe that a god exists, then you are an athiest.

And if you think there is probably something that's a lot like a god, but we don't know what it is - what does that make you?

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

16 minutes ago, billvon said:

And if you think there is probably something that's a lot like a god, but we don't know what it is - what does that make you?

 

Oh fer god’s sake, someone just please tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Stumpy 256]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Oh fer god’s sake, someone just please tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Or if a plane can take off on a treadmill?

[skycatcher68 7]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

OK - if that is true - what does that make me - 

I am simply unsure if there is a god or could be a god, but I'm open to either possibility.

Hint: Every theologian I have ever discussed this with, ranging from professors and Deans from Christian Universities, to Imams, to Rabbi's etc. etc. Have all clearly defined my particular mindset as agnostic.

Why do theologians get to define the meanings of particular words when they have a particular bias?  Have you tried looking in a dictionary?  

Agnostic and atheist are two different things; knowledge and belief, respectively.  

Do you believe in the existence of a god?  Yes, you are a theist. No, you are an atheist.

An agnostic believes that the knowledge or existence of a god cannot be proven one way or another.  It has nothing to do with whether or not the agnostic believes in a god.

 

[skycatcher68 7]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

And if you think there is probably something that's a lot like a god, but we don't know what it is - what does that make you?

 

A really confused theist.  Zeus is a lot like a god.

If you go into a restaurant because you're hungry, but can't decide what to order from the menu does that mean you're not hungry?

Edited January 10, 2020 by skycatcher68

[normiss 620]

2 hours ago, skycatcher68 said:

A really confused theist.  Zeus is a lot like a god.

If you go into a restaurant because you're hungry, but can't decide what to order from the menu does that mean you're not hungry?

Zeus is also a lot like Mary Poppins or Old Mother Hubbard.

[timski 80]

On 1/8/2020 at 2:58 PM, jakee said:

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the rest of your post.

I disagree, it makes PERFECT sense, to me at least.

[DJL 232]

3 hours ago, skycatcher68 said:

If you go into a restaurant because you're hungry, but can't decide what to order from the menu does that mean you're not hungry?

It's means you're my girlfriend and I'm going to go ahead with an appetizer while you think about it for another 5 fucking hours.

[turtlespeed 212]

9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Oh fer god’s sake, someone just please tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

All of them!!!

But you knew that.

[kallend 1,621]

Instead of joining this argument about semantics, I though I'd post a link about an inconsistency in Christian doctrine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/opinion/sunday/christianity-religion-hell-bible.html?te=1&nl=david-leonhardt&emc=edit_ty_20200110?campaign_id=39&instance_id=15096&segment_id=20213&user_id=ca24d8cbef60603e22e6b56f4ff89857&regi_id=8944282520200110

[billvon 2,384]

13 hours ago, kallend said:

Instead of joining this argument about semantics, I though I'd post a link about an inconsistency in Christian doctrine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/opinion/sunday/christianity-religion-hell-bible.html?te=1&nl=david-leonhardt&emc=edit_ty_20200110?campaign_id=39&instance_id=15096&segment_id=20213&user_id=ca24d8cbef60603e22e6b56f4ff89857&regi_id=8944282520200110

His premise is that the Bible doesn't really mention Hell.  But that's not correct.

Matthew 5: But whoever says "you fool!" [to his brother] shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 10: And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  But rather fear Him [Beelzebub] who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 18: If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire

Mark 9 (similar):  It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched, where: Their worm does not die / And the fire is not quenched.

Matthew 23: Therefore you [naughty Pharisees] are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.  Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers!   How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

Luke 16: The rich man [who was bad] also died and was buried.  And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

That seems pretty clear.  You can argue with the concept of heaven and hell, of course, but there's no question that both are there in the Bible.

[NewGuy2005 51]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

His premise is that the Bible doesn't really mention Hell.  But that's not correct.

Agreed, but the vengeful sentiment of the believers is spot on.