Thought for the day

Sure you aren't talking about yourself as well?

Positive. I openly admit that it is possible that I am wrong. TY for letting me clarify.

Ur, Billy... did you just say that you admit that it is possible that there is no God?

Billy, I get the distinct impression that you either don't read my posts or don't fully understand them. I don't say that to be mean spirited, it's just the way I see it. I do leave open the possibility that Jesus was the Son of God, in the same way I leave open the possibility that any unproven thing may possibly be true. I just see the odds as so remote that it would be dishonest of me to claim to be agnostic on the issue. I've tried to make that clear numerous times in this thread.

I find it interesting that you and Paolo have on numerous occasions labeled me as arrogant, insulting, narrow minded, insensitive, intolerant, bigoted, and so on. Nowhere in this thread have I made similar remarks about either of you. I hope you can see the irony in that. I shouldn't have to spell out to you that all of those remarks are ad hominen attacks and insults. That doesn't exactly put you in a position to claim the high ground.

In fairness Chip, most of my comments to that effect were not directed at you personally, and taken in context, they weren't labeling persons but calling out behaviors.

1. You-all really didn't expect to convince each other, did you? For as long as you were discussing your own points of view and refuting each others, this discussion was fascinating and fruitful. I'm starting to worry that a corner has been turned, and it seems to have been based on charges of mischaracterization of meanings. Such micharacterizations often occur when the stakes rise dramatically for the debaters. There's no reason why this should have happened except for (a) egos, and/or (b) the sensed possibility that the debate could be won.

2. I don't believe anyone in this debate has an ego problem. Except perhaps me. So let's admit that neither side is going to win the debate, and move back toward making good cases.

3. Chip is right; the historical evidence for the existence of Christ is slim. However, Jesus was not part of the upper class elite, that group that normally generates historical documents and artifacts. As a member of the "peasantry", which does not, by definition, generate evidence, Jesus is extremely well-defined and historically documented. That is why the majority of historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists accept the probability of his existence.

4. Can anyone, or does anyone want to, speak to the apocryphal texts and what they might reveal about the questions raised here?

Thanks Paolo. I didn't really take any of it personally. I just found Billy's statement a tad ironic

Yes, good points, Seth. Go back to page 9 of this thread, and I think you'll find the turning point to which you refer, above. Start about half way down, and read forward from there.

As for mischaracterizations of meaning, that's an inherent part of any written discourse. No non-verbal cues to help decode the senders intended meaning. It is, of course, further complicated when the subject matter is as volatile as the topics covered, herein.

Further, it was never my personal goal to convince Chip (or anyone else), in definitive and final terms, that a god or spirit realm exists. My personal desire, however, was to engage in a non-combative discussion regarding the possibilties of a spiritual plain of existence. My personal frustration was really more a product of an insistence on debating only from the purest empirical sense, knowing full well that matters of faith are quite difficult to prove. Having established, early on, that there is no current method by which to validate such, I had hoped that we could enjoy a more esoteric discussion without it becoming a right/wrong-fest.

Finally, I think we need to establish a decorum for these types of debates. Rules of engagement, if you will. One recommendation I would make to improve the civility of such debates/discussions would be to focus on a situation, issue or behavior without calling a person's character or value into question.

I think Chip and I, at least, have both said the same things many times in different ways. None of us have been entirely guiltless when it comes to taking things personally or to making statements that might be considered offensive to debate challengers. I think that, to a degree, we need to allow for a measure of human reactivity without making that the focal point of our rebuttals.

Excellent observation. I hadn't previously considered that point.

I have had very little exposure to them, outside of the Maccabees. Perhaps others could offer more than I.

Nice post Seth. Do you have a specific question about the apocryphal scriptures?

I've been busy replying to Billy and Paolo and haven't taken the time to acknowledge any of the other posters. Thanks Gene, Seth, and others for their excellent contributions.

I'm not sure I know how to approach this topic in a non debate style. I see it as substantially different than a topic about subjective tastes, like say "which is the best cheese?" If religion were just a personal preference and a subjective taste it wouldn't inspire in me a desire to knock it down. Religion is the justification for many of the worst things humanity has to offer... violence, war, intolerance, bigotry, discrimination, terrorism, and more irrational laws than you can shake an idol at. It greatly affects all of us whether we want it to or not. That's why I don't see it as simply a topic of polite conversation. Instead I view it as a dangerous, destructive, and obtrusive social force that needs to be justified, and deserves to be humbled. I'm going to try and bring this back around full circle to where we started.

Religion has a lot of good things to offer. Much of its moral code and philosophy are valid, useful, and constructive... like the sentiments expressed in the devotional that started this thread. The problem I have is that none of those moral or philosophical maxims in any way depend on religion or belief in God. None. Religion simply appropriated them.

It probably started innocently enough through well intentioned people trying to encourage those desirable behaviors (love, charity, forgiveness, pacifism, honesty, etc.)... or perhaps it started with somewhat less well intentioned people trying to scare others into exhibiting those behaviors. The behaviors themselves are not part of religion (meaning they exist just as readily without the influence of religion, so they don't depend on religion to exist). For thousands of years now, rather than simply promoting good behavior, religion has claimed to be the source of all those good things. It rides around on the back of our innate desire for peace and harmony like a big parasite. For thousands of years it has actively promoted the idea that the best things within us depend on God and religious belief. It has actively promoted the belief that those desirable behaviors are somehow invalid if they aren't tied to religious adherence. For example, in Christian teachings an atheist could be the salt of the earth and beyond reproach in every possible way, and yet he or she would still be a sinner and a blasphemer and get a severe punishment from God. That's a parasitic relationship. It says literally that being a wonderful person isn't what's most important. If you want to be wonderful and receive wonderfulness, you have to accept religion. You have to swallow the tapeworm and accept what comes with it.

Religion has baggage. You can't just be a wonderful person, you must also abandon logic and reason if it poses a danger to the parasite. You must accept what you are told even though it can't be demonstrated that there's any benefit to it, and even when it causes demonstrable harm. You must accept guilt and shame for things that are natural (in some cases, even the guilt and shame of simply being born). You must accept that even if everyone was wonderful, half of them would still be "wrong" because they accepted a different parasite and must be pacified, converted, or conquered. You must accept that all of those things you've just accepted are to be considered more important than any pride you may have felt simply for being wonderful and above reproach, because you've been taught that those things religion is supposed to promote, actually don't matter. If they did matter, failure to swallow the worm would not invalidate them.

What I've been trying to say through all of this lengthy discussion and debate is that the good things we seek in ourselves and in others... love, understanding, peace, kindness, charity, tolerance and all the rest... they exist on their own. They're what actually matter. We have the ability to reason, rationalize, apply logic, and learn. Every truly beneficial invention of mankind that extends our lives or improves its quality are products of utilizing those cognitive abilities. Our understanding of the universe and its structure all derive from our hunger for knowledge and our ability to observe and quantify. None of it has come from blind faith. Why then does religion ask us to suppress those things? Why, given our incredible achievements, are we taught to feel ashamed of ourselves (no matter how good you are), helpless, and dependent? Like the devotional that started this thread, religion doesn't promote the best things within us... it uses them to promote itself.

Here lies the problem Chip. You just do not seem to even realize or worse yet care how offensive your words are. You could phrase your side of things in a much kinder way yet choose not to. The fact that you feel the need to express yourself this way is a sad testament to your character Chip and a poor reflection on who you are. To be so arrogant as to feel it is your place to “knock us down” or that it is up to you to “humble” Christians is petty and intolerant.

No wonder you conduct yourself the way that you do. I can see that having any kind of meaningful discussion without having you attempt to verbally slap me down is not possible. I had thought better than that of you. Guess I was wrong. Take your bigotry somewhere else. I will reply to this garbage when I get the time but after that I am done with you.

Reading the rest of your post btw, you demonstrate an incredible amount of ignorance as to what Christianity stands for and what Christians believe. However, you do a nice job of regurgitating the liberal stereotype of Christianity. Just quit pretending that you have it all figured out. I have news for you, you don’t.

Billy. I am not a bigot. A bigot believes that someone different than them, with different beliefs, is a bad person simply on the basis of being different. I think bigotry is a more apt description of your own demeaner in this thread.

I'm sorry that my words offend you, though I'm not at all surprised. It was not my intent. I accept that there is no way for me to fully express my thoughts about religion without offending religious people. That offense, in my opinion, is a social contrivance. One of the negative side effects of religion is how we are taught to take personal offense at ideas that contradict religious belief. My last post was about religion itself, not about religious people. The belief is not the person. The person is not the belief. That's a big part of the whole point I've been trying to make. I'm able to seperate the two. You apparantly are not. You are labeling me as a bad person simply because my ideas contradict yours. That's the definition of bigotry. I don't particularly resent you for it because I know it's what you've been taught and I honestly don't believe you can step outside of it and see it in any objective way. You can counter my point of view all that you like, and I encourage you to do so. That's the nature of good debate. Unfortunately you seem unable to hear my views without taking them as personal attacks (they are not) and attacking my character for them. I have not made a personal attack against you anywhere in this thread. I've lost count now of how many you've made against me. You exhibit exactly the type of negative religious baggage that I'm talking about... intolerance to ideas that threaten belief. In purely rational terms those ideas in themselves should not be offensive. We are taught what to be offended by and what not to. Who taught you to feel that way, and to what purpose? Who taught you that someone who strongly disagrees with your religion is inherently a bad person, and why? I wish those were questions more people would ask themselves and follow them all the way to honest answers.

If two scientists are debating competing theories there is no social pressure for either to concede that the other theory might be correct. Neither would be labeled a bigot, or petty. Each would argue and seek to prove his position. If they didn't, progress would grind to a halt. When it comes to religion we are taught that it's bad to draw a conclusion if it contradicts belief. It's even worse to tell anyone else. A believer can trumpet his beliefs and it's seen as laudable... in fact, it's so encouraged that a word was invented for it... evangelism. If an atheist does it, it's seen as mean spirited, offensive, bigoted... in fact, it's so discouraged that they invented a word for that too... blasphemy. It's a kind of intellectual tyranny enforced by learned intolerance. All that's happened here is that I've challenged ideas with competing ones and supported them through reasoning, evidence, and analogy (albeit sometimes unflattering ones). I've not in any way attacked anyone in a personal way. In exchange I've gotten some good debate and food for thought... but I've also gotten a lot of people applying social pressure on me to be silent and not directly contradict religious belief, and a lot of attacks against my personal character. I wish you could appreciate the irony in that Billy. I truly do.

Can we all just get along?

I had a somewhat different take on Chip's last post. No doubt, he and I can agree on much. That's what's so funny -- I think Chip and I share much more in common than either of us fully realizes. As my forum record will attest, I am no fan of organized religion. In my case, I have decided not to throw out the baby of spirituality with the bathwater of religion. I suppose that statement could imply that I think Chip is wrong for doing just that, but in reality, that's just not how my mind works. I respect Chip's implicit and inherent right to be who he is, and to think how he thinks. I am open to the possibility that everything he has proclaimed is 100% right on (or not). I just don't want to be forced into making declarations of fact when discussing issues of philosophy.

For me, it boils down to this: I am very comfortable operating in the realm of the abstract and the ethereal. Although I do place value upon empirical validity, it is far less important to me on a values scale than I believe it is for Chip. I tend to think in hypothetical terms moreso than in scientific/analytic terms, and I don't tend to make such decisions quickly or lightly.

As a final thought, if we can find a way to appreciate those distinctives between us, I have no doubt that the produce of our debates will be far greater than the sum of our individual thoughts.

PS: I actually was composing this before post #236 was submitted. When I refer to Chip's "last" post, I am referring to #234.

Thousands of years of documented human history would seem to indicate not.

We're definitely a lot more alike than different Paolo I think your characterization is right on the money. I'm not as comfortable outside the realm of empirical knowledge with anything that has so great an affect on everyone's lives. I'm very comfortable with abstraction and flights of fancy, but not with in any way using them as part of the foundation for my relationship with whatever "reality" is. And anything that people would use as justification for laws I'm asked to live by or for limiting my freedom of speech had better make rational sense and have some empirical data to back it up Between the two of us it usually comes down to matters of semantics. I'm not completely atheistic on all things that might be considered supernatural, but I reject "sprituality" and the "spiritual realm" because they're religious concepts that amount to supposition about the nature of that unseen realm without anything I consider adequate justification. To use it as the basis for laws, behavior, or social norms seems crazy to me. That's an awful lot of power to hand over to something that can't even be proven to exist, especially since they're not carried out or enforced by an unseen hand, but by fallable mortals like us. I'd prefer our social norms, rules, and freedom of expression be defined by nice neutral boring objective fact. I'd like for people to be loving, tolerant, and peaceful just for the sake of others without there needing to be an offered reward or threatened punishment.