are you an atheist?

well how were they supposed to know this was the wacky cult that had what it took to take over the world

altho how those texts were interpreted/put into practice is obviously a huge open question in a lot of ways

xp

well how were they supposed to know this was the wacky cult that had what it took to take over the world

I know rite? they were just like "wow, these guys really seem into being crucified/being eaten by lions/getting disemboweled. what a bunch of kooks!"

that's still basically my take

the early Xtians were waaaaaay into their martyrdom in a way that really does seem psychotic

The early response to Christians by Roman officials is that they were atheists who refused to pay homage to their cities (or Rome's) gods.

ha yes

Robert Louis Wilken's The Christians as the Romans Saw Them does a nice job of compiling all the extant discussions of the nacent cult from outsiders.

I can't remember what it was, but I recently read a book in which the author at one point argued that Christianity was the first major religion to make a big deal out of believers vs non-believers, and that questions of belief weren't really at issue before that because cultures were more homogenous. (come to think of it, it may have been Julian Jaynes, so take that for what it's worth)

the first major religion to make a big deal out of believers vs non-believers

eh sorta. Judaism makes a big deal out of this, what with the whole "chosen people" thing.

Yeah. But that for christianity belief mattered simply because anyone could be a Christian regardless of race or tribe or whatever.

right. I think Xtianity was the first religion to really consider religion as constituted primarily by adherence to a creed, as something that went beyond simple membership in a particular tribe/culture

xp Ryan - that's probably true. What was important for the Romans wasn't so much that Christians didn't believe in the pagan pantheon, but that they weren't participating in the public displays of religion that were central to the Roman conception of civilized life, and were hence antisocial and heralded cultural decline. Pagan worship was considered the glue that held society together, regardless of its truth. Hell, Seneca was writing contemporaneously that that "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

I think Xtianity was the first religion to really consider religion as constituted primarily by adherence to a creed, as something that went beyond simple membership in a particular tribe/culture

The seeds are there, starting from the Pauline epistles, but this strand in Christianity was taken to its logical conclusion in Martin Luther's credo of "sola fide" - ie., only faith matters.

How is it that belief is a new thing in Xtianity?

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Catholics and Protestants may argue about works but they both require faith. Xtianity's evagenelical bent has little to do with Roman culture imo.

Also, I can name another religion with a powerful evangelical ethos; Islam

There's also evangelism by personal example, as was practiced by Buddhist monks.

How can you separate "adherence to a creed" and the tribal/cultural experience? Can you think of examples of Christian practice arising independent of cultural precedents? I don't think it can easily be done.

All religion is both personal and cultural matter and that balance is as different for individuals as it is for societies throughout all of time imgo.

I am an atheist, an empiricist, and a materialist. I find the universe astounding, and certain things in it to be wonderful. I value ritual and community. I have no problem whatsoever with people having imaginary friends, as long as they don't get offended when you point out that their friend is imaginary, or get all up in your face because their imaginary friend hates gays. And women. And anyone who doesn't believe in 'him'.

I think "friend" is a misleading term for people's relationship with God.

i think 'imaginary' is a misleading term to use for a concept that was imposed upon you from an early age by the people tasked with educating you about the world.

sorta concur but hmmmm longish list of terrible concepts imposed upon you from an early age etc

not quibbling there, but i just think imaginary isn't the word.

no that's fair

Ok I admit that's a representation I find amusing rather than one that supports an informed debate, but there is an aspect / presentation of religion that fits the imaginary friend analogy quite neatly and is desperately irritating.

And before I get kicked for this, as I frequently do, yes, I am also using the term 'religion' very lazily.

http://www.eborg2.com/Spiritual/Destination/DSS%20Lessons%20by%20Date/DSS-2000/god-Road.jpg
http://dearingbuspix.co.uk/others/var/albums/Brandings-%26-Logos/Have%20a%20Chit%20Chat%20with%20God.jpg?m=1288541055

i guess the reason i'll defend religion is something to do with the big historical picture and nothing to do with that kind of horrible evangie bullshit

we need an insane right-wing billboards thread.

i like the ones that essentially threaten you with eternal damnation

Saying, like, "God is imaginary" is one of those statements that people love to make and act like it's somehow really profound when it's really on a level with "love is imaginary" and "money is imaginary" - it's just like, congratulations, you've figured out that concepts are conceptual.

Aw jeez, why did I click on this thread, I'd been avoiding it for a reason, but this is stuff that I'm happy to discuss in the pub but on the internet is just a giant clusterfuck waiting to happen.

it's been fine so far

Hullo MB! I still want to talk about this stuff in the pub. I only posted anything because 'lol atheists' got up my nose. And I guess because this stuff has been pootling around at the back of my mind lately.

I'm not trying to be profound, I get that for most people concepts are conceptual, the kind of thing I'm trying to send up here is that for at least some people, God is not a useful construct for relating to the vast, incomprehensible mysterious universe, but an actual, interested (if not actively *meddlesome*) being, with thoughts and motives and opinions. Who wants to invite you over for coffee and a chat on a Sunday morning and then doesn't give you any coffee.

Let's not clusterfuck! I'm going to go away and build a database now anyhow.

MB OTM

God is as useful as concept as you want it to be. If a major part of your religious path includes buying up snarking billboards, running an evangelical empire, or making sure homosexuals can't marry, then I say it isn't much of a religious path at all. This is why the Personal Friend of Jesus (groan, i know) stuff always emphasizes the Personal relationship. Religion should be a personal thing. Only _you_ are going to Heaven, or Hell, only _you_ are going to find enlightenment. Why drag this stuff into the Worldly realm? Isn't that what religion should be veering away from, worldy, mundane concerns? Otherwise yeah you may as well put your energy into supporting a football team.

The idea of God as 'an actual, interested being' is a pretty unappealing conception of God, I'm right there with ya. But I think it's also a common misconception among atheists that this is the sole (or primary) thing that people mean when they say 'God'. The old man in the cloud. However I'm sure plenty of Xtians believe that, and politically they certainly behave that way, so they aren't doing themselves or their God any favors there.

God is not a useful construct for relating to the vast, incomprehensible mysterious universe

God is the only useful construct. The key word here is incomprehensible. For the comprehensible universe we have science. Let's not get those two confused.

God is the only useful construct.

For the incomprehensible universe we have science too! We just have to do more work!

Tinkertoys also a p useful construct in my experience, you can at least make a bird out of them.

http://yoske.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/TinkerToys.jpg

otm

I'm not just an Atheist. I eat Gods

conincidence? i think not

http://www.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/nasca-lines-3.jpg

This is where I politely opine that a dogged belief in the *omnicompetence* of science is probably as irrational and unhelpful as the ~imaginary friend~ version of religions.

I'm certain of very very little, but the idea that our limited human understanding of the universe, as understood through science, includes some kind of incompleteness theorem is p p high on my 99.9% certainty scale.

MB, people understand as much of this as they can manage, up to the place where they stop developing new thoughts or else just stop trying. For some of us the limiting factor is the ability to distinguish conceptual nuances, for others it is just a matter of stopping too soon, but we all reach some kind of limit eventually.

This applies to science as much to religion. heaven knows there are a lot of people out there who believe in science, but whose understanding of science is extremely crude and lacking in detail.

The good thing about these clusterfucks is that at least we can compare notes on our stopping places.

Sam Harris interview at Tablet Magazine: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/100757/qa-sam-harris

I've got a question for atheists about something he says:

I think the God of Abraham could lose his subscribers in precisely the way that Poseidon and thousands of other dead gods did. It’s not that he needed to be replaced by something that exactly fit the same God-shaped hole in people’s lives, but the conversation can just move on. I do see it as an accident of history that the religions that are current are as well-established as they are. The Bible and the Quran are the center of literature-based cults that I view as accidents of history.

What I’m advocating is not that everyone has to become entirely responsible for their worldview, and everyone has to be a philosopher, everyone a scientist, everyone a doctor. We all rely on authority, and we all are lazy or incompetent in certain areas. The difference in science is that our reliance upon authority is cashed out by a conversation that is searching and competitive and demanding at every stage so that people do not get away with believing things merely because they want them to be true.

So, we need to instill in the next generation of human beings a desire not to be flagrantly wrong about the nature of reality and to have a different conversation around the significance of death. If human life weren’t fragile we wouldn’t be having a conversation about religion. No one would care. The crucial moment is not even so much your own death, but what do you say or what can you think that is consoling when someone close to you dies. Your child dies; what could you possibly believe about reality that’s going to make you feel better? The truth is that atheism does not have an answer to that question that connects all the emotional dots in a way that most people think they want.

Most people want to believe something that makes them feel better and most religious people actually want to believe something to make them feel so much better that death isn’t even a problem. It’s a career opportunity, if you’re a Muslim jihadist. It’s a good thing your child blew himself up. I think we just have to admit that there is nothing that’s truly rational to believe that could pay us the same kind of emotional dividends.

Isn't this exactly why the kind of atheism he's pushing for is impossible? If atheism doesn't have an answer to the question that makes religion possible, how can eliminating religion be emotionally fulfilling for human beings?

re: those billboards - it seems sort of presumptive to speak for god, no? irreverent-bordering-on-blasphemous even.

I'm a militant agnostic - I don't know / can't prove anything and neither can anyone else.

― joygoat, Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:58 AM (4 years ago) Bookmark

I think it is possible I too may be a militant agnostic.

Isn't this exactly why the kind of atheism he's pushing for is impossible? If atheism doesn't have an answer to the question that makes religion possible, how can eliminating religion be emotionally fulfilling for human beings?

― Mordy, Saturday, June 2, 2012 9:15 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark

life can be emotionally fulfilling (and usually is, for better or worse) no matter what you believe or don't believe. i mean, of course you can have a love guided by love and moral values even if they aren't god's love or god's moral values. nobody's life is 'empty' because religion isn't part of the equation, unless they decide for themselves that it is and would like religion in their life.

have a LIFE guided by love etc.

The only way in which Hitchens' didactic atheism worked for me was in reminding people that novels and poetry teach us enough about good and evil to ever need The Four Agreements or The Celestine Prophecy, let alone Romans.

exclude the rest of the Bible though. More Christians and English profs need to read the Bible.

xxp to some dude, no doubt, but Harris seems to be arguing that atheism doesn't have comfort to give somebody re the finality of death and the fear of the unknown.