Atheism

[OddTrader]

How can religion be progressively improved? You are either true to its precepts or you are straying from them. If the holy books of the various religions require changing, then who gets to change them? Wasn't God instrumental in the first draft?

1. Less fundamental interpretation.
2. Interfaith development.
3. New archaeological findings.
4. Spirituality formation.
5. Modernisation and secularisation.

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...say-abolish-it-all.296634/page-5#post-4223519

I would venture to provide my feedback for this topic. imo, there are 3 points.

1. The context and originally implied meaning.

The words may not be original. They had been changed during the process of saying-by-Jesus/ memory-by-others/writers/Greek-translation/theologically-required--modification/etc. A translation through letter by letter may not be the best approach. Just like many English idioms today, a combination of few words can produce a quite remote and different meaning against those words.

Christ-likeness is not found in the original Greek bible, AFAIK. It should be Jesus-likeness in Greek. That means we learn to be like a self-giving humble Jesus, rather than learn to be like an imaginary King-of-Kings Christ.

2. High Certainty

Some words are definitely wrong. e.g. A believer drinking poison would not be killed. I would think only some historical marketers of religions could invent this kind of words in order to attract/convince more believers.

Any publication printing this kind of statements should be banned, at least from children.

3. Criteria for authenticity

There was a voting system organised to survey/evaluate the words from Jesus. This link below provides a lot of interesting information.

Believable or not? Controversial or not? You decide!

Another 2 cents here!

Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

... ...

The first findings of the Jesus Seminar were published in 1993 as The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.[4]

The Fellows used a voting system to evaluate the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. For certain high-profile passages the votes were embodied in beads, the color of which represented the degree of confidence that a saying or act was or was not authentic:

Red beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
Pink beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
Grey beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
Black beads – indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage—it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)

A confidence value was determined from the voting using a weighted average of the points given for each bead; the text was color-coded from red to black (with the same significance as the bead colors) according to the outcome of the voting.[25]

... ...
UQ

http://www.westarinstitute.org/proj...r-the-jesus-seminar-phase-1-sayings-of-jesus/

Faith and culture are so closely tied that, in many cases, it is unclear which has hijacked the other.

In the old age, yes. Nowadays, probably not! Almost every university today has religion and social culture combined study, and many major ones has already had religion and and science combined study.

Your implication being that, given enough time and opportunity, you can educate the religion out of someone.

Correct, and agree! Enough time, until elimination of world poverty! Long long way to go, mate!

 

[OddTrader]

Yes, in the circumstances you describe, I can see why some people might have a blinding need or overwhelming desire for a benevolent super entity or an imaginary friend to cope with the hardship and uncertainty, and the lack of basic control over one's own life. But let us see it for the coping mechanism that it is.

Meanwhile, what about all of the people who are not in the kind of dire circumstances that you described? Such as your neighbors and mine? I suppose some remnants from the past linger well beyond their best-before date, eh? Not unlike the automatic fight-or-flight response, which has served our early ancestors well but presently does more harm than good to most of us.

I think spirituality, for lack of a better word, has its place in our lives. But we should be mindful of the purpose it serves and try to limit it to the realm of personal refuge and comfort, and whatever beauty it might bring to our inner lives.

I am afraid standing still, as some would insist to maintain, could not resolve many problems, just as many old laws have been outdated - well known to the legal professionals! Religion the same!

My guess is the followings would probably provide part of the answers:

- Silo vs Systemic approach.
- Short-sight vs Far-view approach.
- Gut-feel vs Econometric-model approach.

 

[ETcallhome]

Yes, in the circumstances you describe, I can see why some people might have a blinding need or overwhelming desire for a benevolent super entity or an imaginary friend to cope with the hardship and uncertainty, and the lack of basic control over one's own life. But let us see it for the coping mechanism that it is.

Meanwhile, what about all of the people who are not in the kind of dire circumstances that you described? Such as your neighbors and mine? I suppose some remnants from the past linger well beyond their best-before date, eh? Not unlike the automatic fight-or-flight response, which has served our early ancestors well but presently does more harm than good to most of us.

I think spirituality, for lack of a better word, has its place in our lives. But we should be mindful of the purpose it serves and try to limit it to the realm of personal refuge and comfort, and whatever beauty it might bring to our inner lives.

where to start? First of all, almost everybodys life is out of control. Thay are all over weight, addicted or afraid of death.

Thank you Mr. Elitist for allowing us spirituality. That's all we ever talk about. You and your atheist friends are the ones who always bring in the church god to ridicule.

On the big picture when we talk of God we are talking about the possibility of some prime mover way before the big bang. You can see how an astrophysicist who spends his whole life pondering life may come to think of the whole thing as an imaginary being.

Almost nobody goes to church anymore and religion has very little sway politically so not sure why you atheists get all bent out of shape unless you are still getting over something like a bad experience in the church. I know I am, but I don't ridicule people who still believe Jesus's mother was a virgin.

When I first became an atheist (or at least agnostic) it was really fun and solved a lot of problems. But it got very old very fast. When I found my life out of control my first prayers were something like, "God I don't believe in you anymore, but it sure does seem like I am in a mess." Overtime, the old personal relationship got restored and now it is stronger than ever. But if you already don't believe in God, I wouldn't start now.

 

[OddTrader]

Are atheists part of our God? Surely yes! AT least I myself think so! God includes All things!

 

[Frederick Foresight]

almost everybodys life is out of control.

People cope differently; some better than others.

When I first became an atheist (or at least agnostic) it was really fun and solved a lot of problems. But it got very old very fast. When I found my life out of control my first prayers were something like, "God I don't believe in you anymore, but it sure does seem like I am in a mess." Overtime, the old personal relationship got restored and now it is stronger than ever.

Whatever helps you get through the day.

Thank you Mr. Elitist for allowing us spirituality.

Don't say I never gave you anything.

 

[CaptainObvious]

You last line is a good one. Just a few observations, if I may. Atheism need not be militant; it simply does not accept as a given that which has not been meaningfully proven. Until it is meaningfully shown to exist, for all intents and purposes it does not exist. Occam's razor and all that; don't add filler that does not stand on its own two feet. It's an uncluttered way to go about life.

Some people prefer faith, which by definition means the belief and acceptance of something for which there is no evidence (otherwise there would be no need for faith). Others prefer science and logic to guide them. One approach is somewhat romanticized while the other is comparatively stark. While we sometimes tend to mix and match between the two, at the end of the day there is a choice to be made. If you were gravely ill, would you be inclined to go to a faith healer in whom many believe, or would you got to a credentialed physician?

As for the crux of the issue between theists and atheists, I yield to Stephen Hawking, who is the smartest guy in any room he finds himself. Several years ago, when asked if there was a God, Hawking replied that he didn't know, but that one wasn't needed. (He has since become somewhat more definitive in his answer.) Remember Occam?

Atheism need not be militant and most Atheists aren't. Religion need not be militant and most religious people aren't. But then we have the activists. The never ending pissing and moaning of the activist. We are made to suffer the tyranny of the few. It wears me out, which of course is exactly what the activist wants. The activist never gets tired.
What this country desperately needs is someone to stand up and say very loudly, would you all just SHUT THE FUCK UP for a minute.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Atheism need not be militant and most Atheists aren't. Religion need not be militant and most religious people aren't. But then we have the activists. The never ending pissing and moaning of the activist. We are made to suffer the tyranny of the few. It wears me out, which of course is exactly what the activist wants. The activist never gets tired.
What this country desperately needs is someone to stand up and say very loudly, would you all just SHUT THE FUCK UP for a minute.

I agree, as long as religious beliefs don't try to encroach on the teachings of science or the rule of law. Then the only small matter remaining is the animus between and among the fundamentalists of the various religions which has caused all manner of suffering throughout the ages. But that's on the theists.

As for our discussions here, this is a debate and exchange forum, so we express (vent) our views. That's how it works. Meanwhile, in the real world, I seldom don my anti-religion T-shirt.

 

[ETcallhome]

Stalin had his millions
Mao had his 10 millions
Who knows how many Jesus killed

Before embarking on any thought journey always assess the risks and know who is in charge.

 

[futurecurrents]

I knew it! Jesus killed MILLIONS !!!

I'll bet he was a climate change denier also!

Freakin' Jesus...



Pure, absolute, sure there is no god atheist here.

Seriously though, Jesus was pretty cool. I would invite him to my party.

 

[d08]

Jesus was a hippie, not this vengeful psychopath as portrayed by many religious fanatics.