Is Jesus misunderstood?

Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Is Jesus misunderstood?

Do you think that it is possible that Jesus’ messages are grossly misunderstood and not wrong? I am not an Atheist nor do I support any organized religion, but I do appreciate and highly value free and intelligent thinking. Most Christians (and other people) misunderstand Jesus’ messages. They often read his teaching literarily when they were meant to be taken poetically, metaphorically, and symbolically. For example, the gates of Heaven don't really exist in the ethers. The gates (or a doorway) represent transition and heaven represents consciousness. Therefore, passing through the gates of heaven is a transition into a higher form of consciousness and not something you simply get for being a good person, a believer in the Almighty, or repenting your sins.

 

Perhaps, Heaven is not a place that we go to when we die, but a place we journey to when we are alive. To get to Heaven one must pray. Prayer is the action that changes the subconscious. One must change the subconscious to reach a higher form of consciousness or in this case Heaven. If done so properly and intelligently prayer will lead you into a higher form of consciousness.

 

Another example of Jesus’ teaching is being misunderstood, and correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus never taught about Hell. Hell was not in the original Christian message, but rather conceived of later. In the Lord's Prayer, the first two words are "Our Father". Jesus is trying to establish the nature of God; in this case that of father and child. This would rule out any possibility that God is a relentless and cruel tyrant that is often pictured in Theology. What sort of father would send their child to Hell?

 

Over thousands of years, Jesus’ message had plenty of time to be convoluted by others. He was a man before his time. His message was written with intelligence, poetry, metaphors, and symbols which can and often be easily misunderstood. Did you know that Jesus was against organized religion, since he saw the potential for power and corruption? Like many Christians, others, and the RRS who try to understand Christianity, it is unfortunate that Jesus’ teachings (the original concept of Christianity) are not being understood properly. Jesus’ teachings are not to be taken literarily. They are spiritual messages for spiritual growth.

 

I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god(s), personal spirits, or that a spiritual world exists with science and logic. These concepts are spiritual. Spiritual is the opposite of material. The material world can be explained by science and logic, but not the spiritual world. If the RRS is on a quest to scientifically and logically disprove the existence of god(s), then that in itself is irrational....and ironic.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
The RRS is not there to

The RRS is not there to disprove anything.  It is known to be logically impossible.  It's there to demonstrate that it's irrational to believe in god.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
You cannot argue  that it

You cannot argue  that it is irrational to believe in god.  Believing in god is a subjective experience.  Are all subjective experience irrational?  Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational?   I have seen love make some people very irrational but also stronger and better people. Why isn’t RSS on a crusade against love and freeing people from the irrationalities that it causes?  RRS has a vendetta against religion and perhaps some of that vendetta is deservedly so. 

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: Do you

Deviant wrote:

Do you think that it is possible that Jesus’ messages are grossly misunderstood and not wrong? I am not an Atheist nor do I support any organized religion, but I do appreciate and highly value free and intelligent thinking.  Most Christians (and other people) misunderstand Jesus’ messages.  They often read his teaching literarily when they were meant to be taken poetically, metaphorically, and symbolically.  For example, the gates of Heaven don't really exist in the ethers.  The gates (or a doorway) represent transition and heaven represents consciousness.  Therefore, passing through the gates of heaven is a transition into a higher form of consciousness and not something you simply get for being a good person, a believer in the Almighty, or repenting your sins.

What makes you think his "teachings" aren't suppose to be literarily?  You're just making a guess, probably based on the fact that you can obviously see if taken literally his teachings don't make sense.  If his teachings were meant to not be taken literally then I believe this would have been made clear. 

 

Quote:
Perhaps, Heaven is not a place that we go to when we die, but a place we journey to when we are alive.  To get to Heaven one must pray.  Prayer is the action that changes the subconscious.  One must change the subconscious to reach a higher form of consciousness or in this case Heaven.  If done so properly and intelligently prayer will lead you into a higher form of consciousness.
  According to the bible, you're only suppose to pray "The Lords Prayer" and only in your closet alone.  As far as prayer leading you into a higher form on consciousness, I believe that is a buddhist believe and in no way a christian belief. 

 

Another example of Jesus’ teaching is being misunderstood, and correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus never taught about Hell.  Hell was not in the original Christian message, but rather conceived of later.  In the Lord's Prayer, the first two words are "Our Father".  Jesus is trying to establish the nature of God; in this case that of father and child.  This would rule out any possibility that God is a relentless and cruel tyrant that is often pictured in Theology.  What sort of father would send their child to Hell?

  The same one that would ask a father to sacrifice his own child to prove he loved god more.  The same god who would slaughter the first born of an entire community, solely because he wanted to have some fun with a Pharaoh.  The same one that would wipe out the entire world save a few animals on a boat because he felt like it.  The same god who would encourage all his followers to kill his non followers.  Need I go on? 

 

Quote:
Over thousands of years, Jesus’ message had plenty of time to be convoluted by others.  He was a man before his time.  His message was written with intelligence, poetry, metaphors, and symbols which can and often be easily misunderstood.
His message wasn't written by anyone who knew him, they were written by anonymous people decades at least after his death.  Who's to say anything written is really what he taught.
Quote:
  Did you know that Jesus was against organized religion, since he saw the potential for power and corruption? 
Yes, again in the same chapters as the lords prayer, it is said those who pray in church or on the street corners on hypocrites and religion should be a personal thing.
Quote:
 Like many Christians, others, and the RRS who try to understand Christianity, it is unfortunate that Jesus’ teachings (the original concept of Christianity) are not being understood properly.  Jesus’ teachings are not to be taken literarily.  They are spiritual messages for spiritual growth.
  Again, you're just guessing.

 

Quote:
I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god(s), personal spirits, or that a spiritual world exists with science and logic.  These concepts are spiritual.  Spiritual is the opposite of material.  The material world can be explained by science and logic, but not the spiritual world.  If the RRS is on a quest to scientifically and logically disprove the existence of god(s), then that in itself is irrational....and ironic.

We're not trying to "disprove god", he was never proved in the first place.  And you're right, science has nothing to do with god, heaven, hell, unicorns, flying spaghetti monstors, dragons, fairies, and all the other things that exist only in peoples imagination.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: You cannot

Deviant wrote:
You cannot argue  that it is irrational to believe in god. Believing in god is a subjective experience. Are all subjective experience irrational?

A subjective experience can be explained rationally in ways other than religion. Theists generally don't care to do so is all. Most don't even try. The fact remains that theism is irrational.

Deviant wrote:
Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational?

Beauty and love have objective characteristics as well as subjective ones, so this is an irrelevant comparison.

Deviant wrote:
I have seen love make some people very irrational but also stronger and better people. Why isn’t RSS on a crusade against love and freeing people from the irrationalities that it causes?

Because love doesn't cause more harm than good. And a quest to eliminate an emotion without the capability to do so or a very good reason to would be irrational.

Deviant wrote:
RRS has a vendetta against religion and perhaps some of that vendetta is deservedly so.

It most assuredly is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: You cannot

Deviant wrote:

You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god. Believing in god is a subjective experience. Are all subjective experience irrational? Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational? I have seen love make some people very irrational but also stronger and better people. Why isn’t RSS on a crusade against love and freeing people from the irrationalities that it causes? RRS has a vendetta against religion and perhaps some of that vendetta is deservedly so.

You can easily argue that it's irrational to believe in god. This one is simple, too. Because there are more leaps of, for lack of a better word, faith when discussing about the existance of a God than there are with out, it becomes an irrational thought.

For example: If God created everything, what created God? If God is eternal (that would be the only answer if God was not created) then time and space, both which he created, are eternal as well... which is not the case.

It doesn't simplify the problem one bit. It makes it more complex which, in turn, makes it less likely to be the right answer which, in turn, makes it an irrational though. 


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: You can

CrimsonEdge wrote:

You can easily argue that it's irrational to believe in god. This one is simple, too. Because there are more leaps of, for lack of a better word, faith when discussing about the existance of a God than there are with out, it becomes an irrational thought.

For example: If God created everything, what created God? If God is eternal (that would be the only answer if God was not created) then time and space, both which he created, are eternal as well... which is not the case.

It doesn't simplify the problem one bit. It makes it more complex which, in turn, makes it less likely to be the right answer which, in turn, makes it an irrational though.

 

 

I would never argue that God created everything. Now that’s just silly. I will argue that god is a metaphysical and spiritual concept who manifests himself/herself in the physical world through the individual's thoughts and beliefs.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: I would

Deviant wrote:

I would never argue that God created everything. Now that’s just silly. I will argue that god is a metaphysical and spiritual concept who manifests himself/herself in the physical world through the individual's thoughts and beliefs.

If you can argue it, you can surely prove it using evidence, correct? If not, then this is just as irrational. 


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: Deviant

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Deviant wrote:

I would never argue that God created everything. Now that’s just silly. I will argue that god is a metaphysical and spiritual concept who manifests himself/herself in the physical world through the individual's thoughts and beliefs.

If you can argue it, you can surely prove it using evidence, correct? If not, then this is just as irrational.

The best argument I have now is that god is a metaphysical and spiritual concept, so it therefore its origin begins with subjective thought. Someone who believes that God created Adam and Eve, heaven and Hell in which he judges who enters which realm, a gigantic flood, The Virgin Mother Mary etc. These thoughts will manifest on to the physical plan when these people propound their faith.

 

Have you ever had anyone try to “save” you? These people are delusional and irrational and a pain in the ass. Their conception of god begins on the metaphysical and spiritual plane and when they knock on your door god is manifesting on the physical plane.

 

Now I have a grandmother who believes in God. Her son, my uncle, has been critical condition and close to dying for months. She also prays to God for inner strength to get through these tough times. Whether or not God exists, her prayers make her stronger and bring her some inner peace during these turbulent times. I am witness to that. Again this is god beginning on the metaphysical and spiritual planes and manifesting onto the physical plane. I just don’t understand why her faith in God to bring her strength during these time is considered irrational.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Arletta wrote: What makes

Arletta wrote:
What makes you think his "teachings" aren't suppose to be literarily? You're just making a guess, probably based on the fact that you can obviously see if taken literally his teachings don't make sense. If his teachings were meant to not be taken literally then I believe this would have been made clear.

You are guessing that I am guessing. Ad infinitum But one can argue on the various views on Jesus’ teachings One of the most common views is that the Hyperbole View, which argues that portions of what Jesus taught are hyperbole, and that if one is to apply the teaching to the real world, they need to be "toned down." Most “normal” people who believe in Jesus’ and what he taught agree that there is some hyperbole within his teaching, but there is disagreement over exactly which sections should not be taken literally.

Quote:
As far as prayer leading you into a higher form on consciousness, I believe that is a buddhist believe and in no way a christian belief.

Now you are guessing. It’s a Christian belief also and what Jesus emphasized.

Quote:
The same one that would ask a father to sacrifice his own child to prove he loved god more. The same god who would slaughter the first born of an entire community, solely because he wanted to have some fun with a Pharaoh. The same one that would wipe out the entire world save a few animals on a boat because he felt like it. The same god who would encourage all his followers to kill his non followers. Need I go on?

 

No need to go on. I am not taking about the same conception of god as in your examples. Nor do I believe in a god that created a universe, caused a flood, is against stem cell research, who wants people to fight and die for him, who can miraculously heal people, etc.

Quote:
His message wasn't written by anyone who knew him, they were written by anonymous people decades at least after his death. Who's to say anything written is really what he taught.

 

True enough, and this is probably a source of misunderstanding. It can be argued that Matthew gives us the most complete arranged version of the Sermon on the Mount.

 

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
to respond to your first

to respond to your first post deviant, i think it is a great say. you've posed interesting thoughts and perhaps connected a few ideas i've been trying to find words for. religion does scare me and i think a lot of people misunderstand what Jesus was trying to teach. it's that or they get a slight understanding and run completely the wrong way with it, without further growth and prayer.

LOL, i've rewrote this paragraph 3 times already and think it may be best left alone for now. too often we jump to conclusions and add in our personal "pre-defined rants". i find myself saying the same things over and over without truly listing to the questions/answers provided. i will continue to read this post and allow it to it's natural course. may God be with you in your voice, mind and heart.

i will dig deeper on the subject tonight in prayer and meditation. thank you for sharing your ideas, they pose great thought to me.

 

EDIT: took out some stuff... did not want to overkill my points nor pose ideas to be "refuted" different from what is already being discussed.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: Do you think

Deviant wrote:
Do you think that it is possible that Jesus’ messages are grossly misunderstood


Sure, assuming that there was a historical Jesus who actually had a message.

Deviant wrote:
and not wrong?


It's possible. Or he might be both misunderstood and wrong. But since no-one knows what the historical Jesus said (or if he existed at all), it seems an immaterial point.

Deviant wrote:
Jesus’ teachings are not to be taken literarily.


How do you know that? How do you even know what he said?

Deviant wrote:
If the RRS is on a quest to scientifically and logically disprove the existence of god(s)


No; what we do is expose the absurdy of religion in order to help our fellow human beings free themselves from its slavery.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: Do you think

Deviant wrote:
Do you think that it is possible that Jesus’ messages are grossly misunderstood and not wrong?

Yes, assuming that Jesus actually existed and that his words as recorded in the canonical gospels is accurate and complete (which is itself a huge, unfounded assumption), any reasonable person can read the gospels and easily see that Christians have grossly misunderstood the message these documents are communicating.

When I read the Gospels, it's clear to me that the message of the character named Jesus is something along the lines of, "These Jewish Priests need to stop exploiting people with all these silly rules--and I might be the messiah prophesied in the scriptures."  I think that's a pretty reasonable message.

Most of the misunderstanding comes from rampant equivocation--people coming along later and assuming that very different terms actually mean the same thing:

Son of Man = Son of God = Messiah = God incarnate

Kingdom of God = Kingdom of Heaven = Afterlife of eternal reward

That garbage dump outside Jerusalem ("Gehenna&quotEye-wink = Eternal Cutting off = Afterlife of eternal punishment 

 These are just the most egregious ones.  The list goes on and on.  After 30 years of study, I still don't know why anybody would think that "Son of Man" (which refers to a prophetic figure from the book of Daniel) and "Son of God" (which refers to the Roman Emperor or the Greek/Roman tradition of deifying the political head of state) would ever mean the same thing.  Yet most mainstream Protestants read them as synonymous.  

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
I have received some nice

I have received some nice feedback from all you and I would like to address a couple of questions that have been posed.

 

The first one is: How do I know that Jesus existed?

I don’t have concrete evidence. I can argue that he is one of the most influential persons in the history of mankind. I see no harm in studying him and his so-called teaching to gain a better understanding. I believe that his teachings are metaphysical and therefore open to interpretation. Many problems arise due to conflicting interpretations and intolerance.

 

The second is: How do I know that Jesus’ teaching were not supposed to be taken literarily?

Again, I do not have 100% concrete evidence, but I will argue that he was a student/teacher of metaphysics. This is a sensible argument that does not require a leap of faith. If you believe that it was possible that Jesus was student/teacher of metaphysics, then his teachings cannot be taken literarily. To convey metaphysical concepts requires allegories, symbolism, and metaphors.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Kemono wrote: No; what we

Kemono wrote:

No; what we do is expose the absurdy of religion in order to help our fellow human beings free themselves from its slavery.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you Kemono that religion contains an abundance of absurdities and people should be freed from their shackles. I hope you accomplish your goal in a productive and helpful way.

 

I hold my ground in that one can believe in a metaphysical and spiritual conception of god without all the baggage of theology, ecclesiasticism, enforcement of “the will of god” upon others, and various doctrines, especially the doctrines of eternal damnation or bliss

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote:   I hold

Deviant wrote:

 

I hold my ground in that one can believe in a metaphysical and spiritual conception of god without all the baggage of theology, ecclesiasticism, enforcement of “the will of god” upon others, and various doctrines, especially the doctrines of eternal damnation or bliss

Very true, as long as you don't believe in the bible nor the judeo-christian god. 

I would have responded to your response to my earlier post, but it's obvious that you only want to accuse others of assuming and misinterpeting even though that's all you're doing as well.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Arletta wrote: I would

Arletta wrote:

I would have responded to your response to my earlier post, but it's obvious that you only want to accuse others of assuming and misinterpeting even though that's all you're doing as well.

 

I am not solely here to accuse others of their assumptions and interpretations. I know we are going to butt heads. That’s ok, and perhaps necessary, but I hope we can agree to disagree and carry it out in a respectful manner.

 

You are right to a degree that I am partially here to accuse, but it is in the sense to find fault and disagree with others, but not to cast blame. I expect the same of others and of you. If you find fault in my statements and beliefs please let me know. Finding fault helps discover truth. Isn’t that a reason why you are here, to discover truth? I see that this site offers the opportunity for me to either strengthen or weaken my belief system.

 

Do not just state broadly and vaguely that it is obvious that I am here to make accusations. Please bring something to table like you did in your previous statement. Who knows, perhaps we can learn from one another.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


person132
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
What do you mean when you

What do you mean when you say God exists as a "metaphysical and spiritual concept"? How is this different from a regular concept? I would very much appreciate your thoughts.

If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: You cannot

Deviant wrote:

You cannot argue  that it is irrational to believe in god.  Believing in god is a subjective experience.  Are all subjective experience irrational?  Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational?   I have seen love make some people very irrational but also stronger and better people. Why isn’t RSS on a crusade against love and freeing people from the irrationalities that it causes?  RRS has a vendetta against religion and perhaps some of that vendetta is deservedly so. 

Love can be objectively studied, it is a physical phenomenon. It doesn't mean we shouldn't feel it. I've been in love, but it is possible to be in love and know scientifically that it is a release of dopemine in the brain associated with a certain person that is necessitated by evolution and the need to reproduce. Such emotions can be inescapable, but at the same time absolutely fantastic. Telling someone not to fall in love is like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

God is not a physical phenomenon, it cannot be studied objectively, there is no evidence for him/her/it. The belief can be gotten rid of, it is not inescapable.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: You cannot

Deviant wrote:

You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god.

Sure you can. Any unjustified belief, clung to through emotion, is irrational by definition.

Believing in god is a subjective experience. Are all subjective experience irrational?

They don't need to be to refute your claim: all we need to know is that some subjective experience are irrational. 

 

Quote:
 

Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational?  

 

You keep committing the same fallacy. Let me give you an example of your logic.

 

Hitler was a man.
     Are all men evil?

No.

Ergo, Hitler was a nice guy?

 

Do you see the problem with your logic? 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Jacob... i've read and

--- EDIT OUT: an unfair "jump" to conclusions, i should have held my tongue.  i do have the post saved if anyone wants to read it or if i broke any rules by taking it out... i will stand by what i said and repost it.  i think i just need a break from some of this, i am starting to take some things personal and i am truly sorry. --

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
person132 wrote: What do

person132 wrote:
What do you mean when you say God exists as a "metaphysical and spiritual concept"? How is this different from a regular concept? I would very much appreciate your thoughts.

Great Question! And I would love to explore this further. As a caveat, this is virgin territory for me and I do not have the answers. Let’s begin. What is your definition of a regular concept of God?

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Love can be objectively studied, it is a physical phenomenon. It doesn't mean we shouldn't feel it. I've been in love, but it is possible to be in love and know scientifically that it is a release of dopemine in the brain associated with a certain person that is necessitated by evolution and the need to reproduce. Such emotions can be inescapable, but at the same time absolutely fantastic. Telling someone not to fall in love is like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

I agree with you, love is both subjective and objective. You made an objective argument for love or perhaps a better word ‘attraction’? You were biological attracted to the person you say you loved, right?


I have to admit, love is a fairly new concept in out civilization. People only started to marry out of love very recently. Love has many subjective characteristics. Love is just as complex as god. So is, subjective love timeless…like a god? Or does it just boil down to biology and science? Are you not a romantic?

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
God is not a physical phenomenon, it cannot be studied objectively, there is no evidence for him/her/it. The belief can be gotten rid of, it is not inescapable.

God is not a physical phenomenon, it cannot be studied objectively, and there is no evidence for him/her’s/it. The belief can be gotten rid of, it is not inescapable.


Absolutely, 100% correct, god is not a psychical phenomenal! But, there is vast evidence that him/her/it exists. The conception of a god(s) has been around since “the dawn of man”, albeit in abstractions, allegories and symbolism. I wholeheartedly agree with you, god is not a physical concept and that where many people stray. God is a metaphysical/spiritual concept and that only.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: You cannot

Deviant wrote:

You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god.

todagnst wrote:

Sure you can. Any unjustified belief, clung to through emotion, is irrational by definition.

You do not want to continue on this path. So please answer my original question.

 

P.S. I won't touch Hitler with a ten foot pole. Provide some more fallacies of my logic.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote:

Deviant wrote:
Deviant wrote:

You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god.

todagnst wrote:

Sure you can. Any unjustified belief, clung to through emotion, is irrational by definition.

You do not want to continue on this path.

Sure I do. It's obviously a weak point in your argument, one among many. Any belief that is unjustified by reason, but clung to through emotion, is irrational by definition.

Do you wish to actually respond to the point? If your belief is unjustified, and held only through desire, it is irrational. Theistic beliefs are necessarily unjustified, as there can be no rational grounds for a supernatural belief by definition. Ergo I can easily argue that theistic belief is irrational.

There's even a valid syllogism there for you to pick out.

Quote:

So please answer my original question.

What original question? Whether or not it is irrational to believe in 'god'? I just dealt with it here.

As for whether "Jesus message is misunderstood", the claim commits the fallacy of begging the question that there is one message from a "Jesus" when the more parsimonious explanation is that various, anonymous authors, redactors and later interpreters all presented us with a myriad of competing, contradictory messages supposedly 'originating' in one man. The contradictions between the writings of Paul and the writings of James alone provide us with clear evidence that competing ideas from different sources is the culprit.

One might also ask why 'god' is choosing to communicate through a series of books.... that's a bit like the president of Verizon sending out an important message utilizing some tin cans and some string.  One should also ask why such a 'god' cannot speak in a univocal language, and avoid the problems inherent in parables and the like.... these are the sort of problems that would bother a skeptical thinker. Do they concern you at all, or are they merely hurdles to avoid for you?

Quote:

P.S. I won't touch Hitler with a ten foot pole.

Then don't. You are confusing content for process. The point isn't 'Hitler' per se, the particular content I placed in that category is not important, the point is to demonstrate how your argument can be reducted to absurdity. You could replace "hitler" with any other category, the problem with your agument remains: you do not distribute your middle term.

Quote:

Provide some more fallacies of my logic.

I just reducted your form to absurdity. This means that I've already demonstrated a formal fallacy in it.

Do you really need more? OK, I will identify the specific formal fallacy. First I must reformulate your argument in proper syllogistic form:

Some subjective experiences are rational (this is implicit, an enthymeme)

Believing in god is a subjective experience.

Ergo believing in god is rational.

This takes the following syllogistic form:

Some m are P (E, particular positive)

All S are m (A - universal, I am relying on the Classical method of evaluating a singular proposition as a universal)

All S are P (A)

The mood and figure for this syllogism are EAA-1

This is an INVALID syllogistic form.

You can check it out for yourself here:

http://www.roninabox.com/venndiagram.html

It commits the Fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Which should be obvious, given my reductio ad absurdum.

Making this all unnecesary, save for the opportunity to examine a syllogism.

Here's an explanation of the fallacy from my new logic website:

The middle term must be distributed in one of the premises, or the fallacy of the undistributed middle occurs. The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle term is never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to different parts of the M class, thus giving no common ground to relate S and P.

http://editthis.info/logic/Classical_Logic

I have no doubt that you'll try to claim that your argument does not take on this form. Please try to reformulate it, and I'll show how that will fail as well, because again, your claim simply does not distribute your middle term.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: I have

Deviant wrote:


I have to admit, love is a fairly new concept in out civilization. People only started to marry out of love very recently. Love has many subjective characteristics. Love is just as complex as god. So is, subjective love timeless…like a god? Or does it just boil down to biology and science? Are you not a romantic?

I don't think the author of the Sumerian love poem called "Istanbul 2461" (circa 3500 B.C.) would agree that romantic love is a new concept.  I know that Rougemont put forward the idea of a unique new variety of love starting in the middle ages, but I question his methodology.

Marriage customs have changed.  But I'd argue that love is more hard-wired.

Psychologists with brain scanners and hormone testers have made great strides in understanding the mechanisms of love--not just romantic love, but all the different kinds and the difference between them.  Should see a lot more solid research in this area in the next ten years or so. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


person132
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
I am an atheist.  I cannot

I am an atheist.  I cannot give a definition of God, because you are the one assertind that It exists.  Besides, you seem to have a definition of God that does not fit with normal theist thinking (i.e. organized religion).  If we are to discuss his existence, you, who makes the assertion that God exists, must define your concept of God first.

 If I were to give what I consider a common definition of God, I would say this:   "An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immaterial, supernatural being who created the universe".  Of course, this definition is unsuited to rigorous debate, as multiple arguments can be levied that are irrefutable without committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and redefining God.  So I ask you to provide your own definition of God that is less easily disproven.

If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Deviant wrote: Jacob

Deviant wrote:
Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Love can be objectively studied, it is a physical phenomenon. It doesn't mean we shouldn't feel it. I've been in love, but it is possible to be in love and know scientifically that it is a release of dopemine in the brain associated with a certain person that is necessitated by evolution and the need to reproduce. Such emotions can be inescapable, but at the same time absolutely fantastic. Telling someone not to fall in love is like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.

I agree with you, love is both subjective and objective. You made an objective argument for love or perhaps a better word ‘attraction’? You were biological attracted to the person you say you loved, right?


I have to admit, love is a fairly new concept in out civilization. People only started to marry out of love very recently. Love has many subjective characteristics. Love is just as complex as god. So is, subjective love timeless…like a god? Or does it just boil down to biology and science? Are you not a romantic?

I'm very romantic! Love is just as real to me as it is to anyone else. But despite this it doesn't mean I must accept that love is some kind of supernatural phenomenon.

How can anything subjective be timeless? Every subjective experience is limited in time, by birth and by death. A subjective experience can transcend neither boundary. Objective experiences can last for a very long time, not necessarily infintely but longer than any one person's lifetime. One person's perception of God in turn lasts only their own lifetime, or the lifetimes of those who have the same perception.

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
God is not a physical phenomenon, it cannot be studied objectively, there is no evidence for him/her/it. The belief can be gotten rid of, it is not inescapable.

God is not a physical phenomenon, it cannot be studied objectively, and there is no evidence for him/her’s/it. The belief can be gotten rid of, it is not inescapable.

Absolutely, 100% correct, god is not a psychical phenomenal! But, there is vast evidence that him/her/it exists. The conception of a god(s) has been around since “the dawn of man”, albeit in abstractions, allegories and symbolism. I wholeheartedly agree with you, god is not a physical concept and that where many people stray. God is a metaphysical/spiritual concept and that only.

Where's this vast evidence?


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

How can anything subjective be timeless? Every subjective experience is limited in time, by birth and by death. A subjective experience can transcend neither boundary. Objective experiences can last for a very long time, not necessarily infintely but longer than any one person's lifetime. One person's perception of God in turn lasts only their own lifetime, or the lifetimes of those who have the same perception.

You make a good point and I am beggining to question if I should have compared love and beauty to god. Even if love and beauty have subjective qualities like that of god, they are not responsible for the creation of the universe.


Quote:
Where's this vast evidence?

I really do not know. It is surely not grounded in empirics and therefore cannot be studied objectively.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Sure I do.

todangst wrote:

Sure I do. It's obviously a weak point in your argument, one among many. Any belief that is unjustified by reason, but clung to through emotion, is irrational by definition.


My previous response was impatient, impulsive and lack any thought and for that I apologize. I thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

I have given your question and answer more thought. You make a very sound argument on your logic, what subjective experiences are, and the fallacy that stems from believing in only “one” message from Jesus. I still have to think it through. For what its worth, I am beginning to question myself.

 

There are other arguments out there support a god such as Pascal’s Wager, The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument (including the first cause argument), The Teleological Argument, The Moral Argument, Religious Experience and The Argument from Miracles. All these arguments can be and have been refuted. Can any of these be considered rational?

 

Out of all these arguments I tend to support the cosmological argument:

 

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe exists.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

 

I am really beginning to think that if god exists, then he was only responsible for the creation of the universe: a metaphysical entity that transcended the laws of physics and matter. Anything beyond this is personalizing god and subject to interpretation and cannot be studied objectively. I openly look forward to your thoughts on this.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


Deviant
Theist
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-06-17
User is offlineOffline
person132 wrote: I am an

person132 wrote:

I am an atheist. I cannot give a definition of God, because you are the one assertind that It exists. Besides, you seem to have a definition of God that does not fit with normal theist thinking (i.e. organized religion). If we are to discuss his existence, you, who makes the assertion that God exists, must define your concept of God first.

If I were to give what I consider a common definition of God, I would say this: "An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immaterial, supernatural being who created the universe". Of course, this definition is unsuited to rigorous debate, as multiple arguments can be levied that are irrefutable without committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and redefining God. So I ask you to provide your own definition of God that is less easily disproven.

 

For most of my life I have been struggling with the concept of god. For years I was an atheist. I was an atheist out of contempt and aversion of organized religion.

Only recently have I opened backed up to the possibility of a Higher Power or Divinity or God, etc. since I came to the realization that contempt and aversion of organized religion were the wrong reason to stop believing in god. If I ever revert back to atheism, it will be for more sensible reasons.

During this time I have been trying to grasp an intelligent and sensible interpretation of Jesus and Christianity. I had a friend help me out (unfortunately our time was cut short) and turned me towards the teaching of Emmet Fox. For the first time in my life I began to make sense out of the chaos of Christianity religions. Perhaps, this it all it has done for me; to make some sense of chaos. Perhaps if what Jesus taught were principles and not God's laws. I still struggle with the conception of god and I still have my skepticism.

During these last few days, all I have been trying to get honest with myself and critically evaluate what I really believe. New questions have begun to arise and I am questioning myself.

The question posed to me is” What is my conception of a metaphysical god?

The best answer I have is that with each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.

The discovery that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning has profound metaphysical implications. For it implies that the universe is not necessary in its existence but rather has its ground in a transcendent, metaphysically necessary entity.

Now I really begin to question if my conception of god or this metaphysically necessary being should stop here. I think this a turning point for me. Even I believe in this, I still do not the true characteristics of this force. No one knows the true nature of god/entity/metaphysical being. I cannot even make the claim without skepticism that this entity is anyway intelligent or moral. Who knows if this entity is even cognizant of our existence? If it has will for me/us to follow, then it is beyond my current abilities to conceive of that will and therefore irrelevant. Even if this metaphysical force exists, its existence does not give me the right to personalize it.

I still believe that it is a phenomenon how matter evolved into life and life evolved into consciousness. It can be explained by science, but it is still a phenomenon that matter was transformed into morality.

I am seriously beginning to questioning myself. Perhaps I am more of a deist than a theist. I just don’t know.

I asked to be banned, so I was banned.


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
great say Deviant, this

great say Deviant, this poses much for thought.  you've stated a sound conclusion and i look forward to meditate on it.

 thank you for sharing.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.