God, Jesus & Thor

[Hodors Appletart]

I'm going to dispute the "from Nazareth" thing, as I beleive that the word Nazerene has been almost completely mistranslated in the Bible - there are two similar words in the original language the Bible story was written (Greek I believe) and one means "from Nazareth" and the other means "Nazorean" a sect of Judaism and later Jewish Xtians, which is more than likely the correct translation.

[Johnny Von Pintland]

Online atheism is very 2010. We get it; ya don’t believe in God. Build a bridge and walk over it. You’re not Anne Frank. Sheesh

[Peregrinus]

I'm going to dispute the "from Nazareth" thing, as I beleive that the word Nazerene has been almost completely mistranslated in the Bible - there are two similar words in the original language the Bible story was written (Greek I believe) and one means "from Nazareth" and the other means "Nazorean" a sect of Judaism and later Jewish Xtians, which is more than likely the correct translation.

This is not a popular view. Luke specifies that the Nazareth he mentions is "a town in Galilee" (Lk 1:26) and he also specifies that it was the home of Mary, Joseph and Jesus (Lk 2:39). It's impossible to read these as references to a sect or a religious movement; they are unquestionably geographical references.

The Nazorean movement was, from the beginning, a movement of Jewish Christians; there was no non-Christian or pre-Christian Nazorean movement. It seems to have been so called because Jesus himself was referred to with a Greek term which can be translated either as "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus the Nazorean". But if Jesus was known as "Jesus the Nazorean", that just raises the question of why he was so called? And one obvious explanation is that, well, he was a Nazarene. So Jesus being a Nazorean and being from Nazareth are not inconsistent; he could be a Nazorean because he was from Nazareth. If that's not the explanation, then we have to conjure up a different explanation for why he was known as "the Nazorean" for which, so far as I am aware, there will be zero evidence.

There is one further consideration that casts some light on this. According to the Isaiah prophecies which Luke and Matthew both refer to, the Messiah is supposed to come from Bethlehem. Luke and Matthew both make up (apparently independently of one another) different but equally improbable stories to locate his birth in Bethlehem (including, for Luke, the fictional census). Why?

If Jesus is fictional, this wouldn't be necessary. You could make up a fictional Jesus who came from Bethlehem, and he would be "Jesus of Bethlehem". That would suit their purpose much better. The parsimonious explanation for why they couldn't do this is that, before they wrote about him at all, he was already known to their intended readership, and he was known to have been from Nazareth. And the parsimonious explanation for that is that he really was, in fact, from Nazareth.

In short, it wasn't in anybody's interest to invent a Jesus from Nazareth; the fact that he was from Nazareth was a theological embarrassment. One of the criteria historians of the classical period use to evaluate texts is the "criterion of embarrassment". If a particular fact-claim made in a text is awkward, or problematic, or embarrassing, given the purposes of the person writing the text, then the most likely explanation is the the fact-claim was true, and the author couldn't deny it or avoid it.

And in fact this is the reason why Jesus being from Nazareth is, by the historical consensus, accepted as one of the fact we can be reasonably confident of. It's not in anybody's interest to invent a Jesus who comes from Nazareth so, by the criterion of embarrasment, the sources which say that he came from Nazareth are likely to be correct.

[Wibbs]

This debate about the historicity of Jesus emerged on the back of the Enlightenment and Reformation and increased biblical scholarship and critque in Europe. It then became quite "fashionable" in some quarters and that was revived in the 1960's and 70's. As P notes there are no contemporary accounts of Alexander the Great(Alex the only bleedin deadly as Colin Farrel played him) and no historian would doubt his existence. Islam never had a reformation and while scholarship is encouraged in that faith critique of the primary texts are most certainly not and this(along with a sniff of the European gra for orientalism) has meant historians don't doubt the historicity of Muhammed, yet the only texts that reference him are all internal to the Islamic faith and even within that framework the earliest are around a century after his death, with more detailed biography comes a century after that. Mecca, described as a major cultural and trade centre shows up on no contemporary maps of the region and it was well mapped because of trade(no matter that Mecca is so far off the trade routes it may as well be on Mars). The Eastern Roman empire who according to Islamic sources were being attacked and defeated by this new faith seem remarkably silent on that matter and they kept pretty good records. And all this was many centuries closer to the present day than Jesus.

Now do I doubt Muhammed existed? Nope. Though details of his life are up for grabs(though I suspect mostly accurate in broad terms), but someone had such a strong impact on that society that's I'd be shocked to discover he was made up. There are more direct connections with the Jesus character than most such names of that time period and more than for Muhammed and way more than for the Buddha. So yeah I'd bet the farm he existed and the broad non magical strokes of his life that were written about are likely accurate enough.

It's easy to forget how much we have lost of history, both wider and personal. Before the printing press history was remarkably delicate a thing. Take the output of the ancient Greeks; we've lost the bulk of their plays and philosophies and sciences in the interim, yet look at the impact they've had on European, Middle Eastern(through Islam having more access in the early days) and then world culture.

[316670]

For people who claim God and Jesus dont exist you sure spend a lot of time and effort on the subject, pathetic behaviour if truth be told, me thinks you are not really believing what you are saying and are trying to convince yourselves

[marhay70]

never claimed that!

I don't dispute there was a man or men called Jesus (or a version or versions of that) who's life story (or stories) have been written down by people alive decades after his own time on earth. there are no contemporary written sources (even the disputed Josephus texts are from after the supposed lifetime of Jesus) of the man, and for someone so influential, for no contemporary written records to exist, from those fastidious note-keepers the Romans, is somewhat strange.

What I do know is that there are undoubted similarities between the mythology surrounding the historical figure, his supposed works and deeds and the mythological happenings and characters of other cultures

There were probably hundreds of people called Jesus at that time, it's a diminutive form of the Hebrew name Joshua who was a hero of the Old Testament Jews and was a celebrated butcher (with god's help of course) of all those who stood in his way. Like all civilisations Jews tend call their sons after their heroes.
I have no doubt that a man called Jesus existed at that time, I have no doubt that he was an agitator and was executed for that reason as were hundreds, possibly thousands of other agitators. As the Biblical story has it, he challenged the legitimacy of the authorities and paid the price. We don't know how many more of the agitators at the time made similar claims to the biblical Jesus, except possibly John the Baptist and then only because it suits the narrative.
So, do I believe biblical Jesus was god, no; no more than I do any of the other agitators of the time. Does that mean I hate Christians? no. What I do find obnoxious is the RC church and its institutions, not because of what it believes, I couldn't give a toss about that, but because of how it conducts itself, its hypocrisy, its failure to practise what it preaches and its refusal to bring to book those with high status within its ranks accused of criminal acts
No doubt the Opus Dei refugees from Boards will be here soon to spin their usual crap but sure times can get boring.

[Jimmy Bottlehead]

For people who claim God and Jesus dont exist you sure spend a lot of time and effort on the subject, pathetic behaviour if truth be told, me thinks you are not really believing what you are saying and are trying to convince yourselves

Methinks you're reaching for a truth you'd prefer than the actual truth.

[knownunknown]

Methinks you're reaching for a truth you'd prefer than the actual truth.

I get regular visits from these atheists always trying to convert me to some form of their sect. Atheist schools trying to impose their teachings on kids, Atheist humanitarian missions trying to convert the weakest in society, the way atheism is so ingrained in every society; most countries you have to be an atheist just to stand for election! They're always so funny and pleasant though so it's not all bad.

[Memento Mori]

I get regular visits from these atheists always trying to convert me to some form of their sect. Atheist schools trying to impose their teachings on kids, Atheist humanitarian missions trying to convert the weakest in society, the way atheism is so ingrained in every society; most countries you have to be an atheist just to stand for election! They're always so funny and pleasant though so it's not all bad.

Always found it fascinating that these atheists get any traction given the fundamental implication and foundation of their world view: namely that our lives are a complete illusion and we have no free will. They don't seem to lead with that claim for some reason...

[Jimmy Bottlehead]

Always found it fascinating that these atheists get any traction given the fundamental implication and foundation of their world view: namely that our lives are a complete illusion and we have no free will. They don't seem to lead with that claim for some reason...

I don't believe there is a 'world view' of atheism. How can you have a world view based off *not* believing in one of the 4000 gods? It's too individual.

I also don't believe *not* believing in a god equates to a belief that life is an 'illusion' or that there's no free will. If anything, theists would ascribe more readily to a lack of free will, given that most gods are all-powerful. And if they're not all-powerful and can reign over humans, then why are they considered a god?

[Memento Mori]

I don't believe there is a 'world view' of atheism. How can you have a world view based off *not* believing in one of the 4000 gods? It's too individual.

I also don't believe *not* believing in a god equates to a belief that life is an 'illusion' or that there's no free will. If anything, theists would ascribe more readily to a lack of free will, given that most gods are all-powerful. And if they're not all-powerful and can reign over humans, then why are they considered a god?

Rejecting the idea of any deities and the supernatural is, in effect, a positive declaration in favor of scientific materialism. Which is a view and conception of the world incompatible with free will. Quite a number of prominent atheists admit and embrace this, I think it was Dawkins who said that when he thinks he is exercising free will, he is really deluding himself.

God is not a barrier to free will, rather, God is a contingent requirement for free will.

Many people call themselves atheists when in fact they are really agnostic as they feel they "do not know or cannot know" regarding the supernatural. Atheism is an outright rejection of it, and as such entails positive beliefs. I note a representative of "Atheist Ireland" made this point (regarding positive beliefs) recently after being invited to speak with the Lord Mayor of Dublin (who feels it as important to hear the views of the "atheist community" as it is to meet with the Archbishop and other religious leaders).

[knownunknown]

Rejecting the idea of any deities and the supernatural is, in effect, a positive declaration in favor of scientific materialism. Which is a view and conception of the world incompatible with free will. Quite a number of prominent atheists admit and embrace this, I think it was Dawkins who said that when he thinks he is exercising free will, he is really deluding himself.

God is not a barrier to free will, rather, God is a contingent requirement for free will.

Many people call themselves atheists when in fact they are really agnostic as they feel they "do not know or cannot know" regarding the supernatural. Atheism is an outright rejection of it, and as such entails positive beliefs. I note a representative of "Atheist Ireland" made this point (regarding positive beliefs) recently after being invited to speak with the Lord Mayor of Dublin (who feels it as important to hear the views of the "atheist community" as it is to meet with the Archbishop and other religious leaders).

Is not-collecting stamps a positive declaration in favour of e-mails? There are many woo woo atheists these days that believe in spiritualism and all that nonsense.

Atheism is the rejection of it as you say, but what is it? It is the rejection of the theist god. A (meaning without, absence of ) theist (theism).

You could be a deist and still an atheist. Believing in god as a creator but not actually subscribing to any theistic sect. Kind of like many of the US founders.

[Memento Mori]

Is not-collecting stamps a positive declaration in favour of e-mails? There are many woo woo atheists these days that believe in spiritualism and all that nonsense.

Atheism is the rejection of it as you say, but what is it? It is the rejection of the theist god. A (meaning without, absence of ) theist (theism).

You could be a deist and still an atheist. Believing in god as a creator but not actually subscribing to any theistic sect. Kind of like many of the US founders.

Then they are not atheists...

Atheism is a rejection of the idea that there is any God, and also of the supernatural.

[knownunknown]

Then they are not atheists...

Atheism is a rejection of the idea that there is any God, and also of the supernatural.

Ok we'll go with your definitions. Is it possible to be open to the idea of a deist type of god and still reject any theistic description of him/her? What would you call that person?

[Memento Mori]

Ok we'll go with your definitions. Is it possible to be open to the idea of a deist type of god and still reject any theistic description of him/her? What would you call that person?

What do you mean by "open"? If they are saying something like "I suppose there could be a God that we don't and can't understand or describe" they would be agnostic. If they are saying that there IS a God of some kind (albeit everyone has got it wrong so far) then they are, broadly speaking, a theist.

[knownunknown]

What do you mean by "open"? If they are saying something like "I suppose there could be a God that we don't and can't understand or describe" they would be agnostic. If they are saying that there IS a God of some kind (albeit everyone has got it wrong so far) then they are, broadly speaking, a theist.

Agnostic is exactly what I mean there yeah by open. Being agnostic doesn't describe which type of god you're open to though. I think its much fairer to be agnostic to the idea of a deist god(since it can't be proven either way), but I think it's fair to completely reject the theistic type of gods for various reasons.

I specifically want to reject the theistic part, so I'd call myself both an agnostic and and atheist(I reject all the stories about god which I'm told). In contrast you could also have an agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says, 'I do not know, but I do not believe there is any God.' The Atheist says the same.

Robert G. Ingersoll -1885

[Peregrinus]

Agnostic is exactly what I mean there yeah by open. Being agnostic doesn't describe which type of god you're open to though. I think its much fairer to be agnostic to the idea of a deist god(since it can't be proven either way), but I think it's fair to completely reject the theistic type of gods for various reasons.

I specifically want to reject the theistic part, so I'd call myself both an agnostic and and atheist(I reject all the stories about god which I'm told). In contrast you could also have an agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.


Robert G. Ingersoll -1885

I think you're making a false distinction there between knowledge and belief. Knowledge isn't the opposite of belief; it's a particular kind of belief - usually defined as a justified, true belief.

Historically, atheist didn't describe what a person believed but how they lived. A person who neglected or repudiated what the society around them regarded as their duty to God/the gods was an atheist. They might or might not believe that there was no God or gods, but what mattered is that they lived as if there were not. (Hence, e.g., classical Roman criticisms of Jews and Christians as "atheists" because they refused to offer sacrifice to the civic gods of Rome. The Romans were perfectly well aware that Jews and Christians believed in the God of Israel.)

Obviously, one possible reason - though by no means the only one - for living as if there were no god or gods is that you do, in fact, lack any belief in a god or gods. And, with the cultural rise of Christianity, and especially Protestant Christianity, with its emphasis on faith alone (rather than practice, or good works) that came to be the dominant sense of atheist - a person who lived as they did because they lacked any theistic belief.

The terms was derogatory - an atheist not only lacked belief but lived/acted in what was seen as an improper way as a result of that lack of belief.

The term agnostic was coined in the 19th century (by unbelievers themselves) in an attempt to escape or reject the derogatory implications of atheist. The focus here is not on actions or behaviour or way of living but on knowledge. Agnostics held that nothing is known (and, in most cases, held that nothing can be known) about any god or gods, or indeed about any immaterial things. But they rejected any notion that this must lead to "immoral" behaviour. Agnostics aren't "open to God", in that they believe you can't know anything about God, so what is there to be open to? They tend to put questions about God aside as unanswerable and, therefore, uninteresting and irrelevant, and possibly meaningless.

A believing or observant Christian who nevertheless is uncertain about the existence of God wouldn't normally be described as "agnostic" - they are doubting or uncertain, but they generally don't believe that nothing can be known of God, and they certainly don't reject questions about God as uninteresting, irrelevant or meaningless.