Atheists 4 Jesus

[Jagella]

...and I'm an atheist!

I've read the above phrase many times in online forums. The context of this quotation is very often a response to some tough scrutiny I have made of Christianity. For example, years ago I was discussing the reality of death and that nobody, including Christians, can escape it. Another member there reprimanded me saying I must allow Christians to believe what they wish. He finished his tirade with, you guessed it, "...and I'm an atheist!" His response to my criticism of Christianity is a bit off-base considering that I was not forcing anybody to give up their cherished beliefs. I was just telling the truth.

Much more recently I was reading Robert Price's The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems. Price discusses the phenomenon of atheists reacting very negatively to the notion that Jesus did not exist. On page 421 he says:

Atheists, I very much suspect, want to keep a liberal Protestant or a Reform Jewish Jesus, not so much for an icon of their own as a cane to use to whip, at least to twit, orthodox Christians. "You know, your Jesus was more like us than like you."

He writes on page 422:

Atheists must simply reject Jesus as they reject Jehovah, and for the same reasons. Even as the same imaginary entity. There is no Jesus left over for humanists to respect. That's "a bit of a blow" even for many who thought they were over religion...

...A second group of Atheists for whom the Christ Myth is a shocker would be those who, never having closely examined the theory, assume it is a crackpot idea like Holocaust Denial or disbelief in the moon landing. They don't want to associate the Atheist or Humanist cause with hare-brained schemes of this kind, as its apparent lack of credibility will then be seen to bleed over into Atheism per se, and Atheism's detractors will be happy to dismiss the one along with the other, though in fact they are quite different.

I think Price might be right. I'd add that many atheists might find a "real" Jesus to be very useful for other reasons. Accepting a Jesus divested of his divinity and magical powers allows one to fit in with the consensus. In so doing, one's ideas about Jesus may be more readily accepted than completely rejecting his hoped-for reality. (It appears to be a case of group think.) After all, it's tough enough from a social perspective to reject the god of Christianity. To reject even the hope of a real Jesus makes acceptance that much tougher.

So what are some other reasons that atheists might want Jesus?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

...and I'm an atheist!

I've read the above phrase many times in online forums. The context of this quotation is very often a response to some tough scrutiny I have made of Christianity. For example, years ago I was discussing the reality of death and that nobody, including Christians, can escape it. Another member there reprimanded me saying I must allow Christians to believe what they wish. He finished his tirade with, you guessed it, "...and I'm an atheist!" His response to my criticism of Christianity is a bit off-base considering that I was not forcing anybody to give up their cherished beliefs. I was just telling the truth.

Much more recently I was reading Robert Price's The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems. Price discusses the phenomenon of atheists reacting very negatively to the notion that Jesus did not exist. On page 421 he says:

Atheists, I very much suspect, want to keep a liberal Protestant or a Reform Jewish Jesus, not so much for an icon of their own as a cane to use to whip, at least to twit, orthodox Christians. "You know, your Jesus was more like us than like you."

He writes on page 422:

Atheists must simply reject Jesus as they reject Jehovah, and for the same reasons. Even as the same imaginary entity. There is no Jesus left over for humanists to respect. That's "a bit of a blow" even for many who thought they were over religion...

...A second group of Atheists for whom the Christ Myth is a shocker would be those who, never having closely examined the theory, assume it is a crackpot idea like Holocaust Denial or disbelief in the moon landing. They don't want to associate the Atheist or Humanist cause with hare-brained schemes of this kind, as its apparent lack of credibility will then be seen to bleed over into Atheism per se, and Atheism's detractors will be happy to dismiss the one along with the other, though in fact they are quite different.

I think Price might be right. I'd add that many atheists might find a "real" Jesus to be very useful for other reasons. Accepting a Jesus divested of his divinity and magical powers allows one to fit in with the consensus. In so doing, one's ideas about Jesus may be more readily accepted than completely rejecting his hoped-for reality. (It appears to be a case of group think.) After all, it's tough enough from a social perspective to reject the god of Christianity. To reject even the hope of a real Jesus makes acceptance that much tougher.

So what are some other reasons that atheists might want Jesus?

Matt.22
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mark.12
[30] And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Luke.10
[27] And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

I am an atheist. I subscribe to no religious or supernatural beliefs.

The Jesus of the NT commanded that the God of the OT should be loved. Whether Jesus himself actually said these things is an open question, but this is the Jesus portrayed the NT that people follow and worship. The God of the OT supported slavery. The God of the OT ordered that thousands of helpless man and women, children and babies should be butchered with swords. The God of the OT once drowned every living thing on the planet in a fit of anger. I hold no grudge against the God of the OT for these things because I don't for a moment suppose that such an ogre ever really existed. If I did suppose that such a monster existed, I might live in fear of Him, but I certainly would not love him. Genuine Love cannot be commanded.

And yet Jesus in the NT commands that this heartless monster should be LOVED. So I have no use for Jesus either. I subscribe to the golden rule when it comes to developing my personal moral standards. I have never needed ogres, or those who command that ogres be worshiped, to develop an understanding of what is right and what is wrong. And to act accordingly.

Atheists can do better than Jesus when it comes to moral standards. We all can in fact.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 11 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Matt.22
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mark.12
[30] And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Luke.10
[27] And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Genuine Love cannot be commanded.

Well, love can be commanded, but God is unlikely to get it that way. I've often thought that if God is so lovable, then he wouldn't need to command anybody to love him. It seems that Jesus, by commanding love for God, tacitly admits that "such an ogre" cannot earn our love.

I subscribe to the golden rule when it comes to developing my personal moral standards.

You don't even need Jesus for that. Here's an excerpt from my forthcoming book, Jesus: Human, Hoax, or God?:

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not originate The Golden Rule. For example, from Zoroastrianism.- circa 600 BCE: “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.� And from even further back in history: Ancient Egypt.- circa 2000 BCE “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.� 50 It should come as no surprise that this rule of conduct is so old and has originated from so many different cultures. Considering one's own preferences is a good guideline for how we decide to treat others. If we like being treated in a particular way, then chances are good that other people like being treated that way too. If we dislike other ways of being treated, then others may also dislike being treated that way as well.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 11 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Matt.22
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mark.12
[30] And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Luke.10
[27] And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Genuine Love cannot be commanded.

Well, love can be commanded, but God is unlikely to get it that way. I've often thought that if God is so lovable, then he wouldn't need to command anybody to love him. It seems that Jesus, by commanding love for God, tacitly admits that "such an ogre" cannot earn our love.

I subscribe to the golden rule when it comes to developing my personal moral standards.

You don't even need Jesus for that. Here's an excerpt from my forthcoming book, Jesus: Human, Hoax, or God?:

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not originate The Golden Rule. For example, from Zoroastrianism.- circa 600 BCE: “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.� And from even further back in history: Ancient Egypt.- circa 2000 BCE “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.� 50 It should come as no surprise that this rule of conduct is so old and has originated from so many different cultures. Considering one's own preferences is a good guideline for how we decide to treat others. If we like being treated in a particular way, then chances are good that other people like being treated that way too. If we dislike other ways of being treated, then others may also dislike being treated that way as well.

You don't even need Jesus for that.

Christians like to claim the golden rule for their own, but the concept is far older than Jesus. A concept of the golden rule is a necessary requirement for any society to survive and prosper. It's very simple. It doesn't require ten rules. It only requires that you not do to another what you wouldn't want another to do to you. And in practice, that really covers most everything.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 13 by Tired of the Nonsense]

A concept of the golden rule is a necessary requirement for any society to survive and prosper. It's very simple. It doesn't require ten rules. It only requires that you not do to another what you wouldn't want another to do to you. And in practice, that really covers most everything.

Here's another excerpt from my book:

The Golden Rule is a bit tarnished in some ways, however. Since it rests on the assumption that our preferences are shared by others, we might treat others in ways they don't like. If a man likes to be hugged, for example, then he might hug an attractive woman. That woman might not have the same preference and is offended at his display of affection. Perhaps a better rule might go something like this: do to others what you know they like or want done to them assuming no harm results to either others or yourself; avoid doing to others what you know they don't like being done to them.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]

But if we did see those notions around like the (almost as fringe) Christ Myth, we really wouldn't feel compelled to invoke ulterior motives on the part of people who simply accept the status quo, would we?

I'm not sure how I might feel about people who accept a historical Pythagoras or Socrates in the face of evidence against their historicity. If their reaction was as angry and abusive as the historical-Jesus crowd, then I might well think they have ulterior motives in insisting those figures were real people. I'm sure there was a real Martin Luther, but I would never angrily attack those who might doubt him. At worst I might find their doubt to be peculiar, and I might put forth some effort to convince them that there was a Martin Luther. If they remain skeptical, then I would just shrug my shoulders and let the doubters doubt. So why does the Jesus-history crowd not react to mythicism as dispassionately as I'd react to Luther mythicism? There just seems that something strange is going on among historicists in the face of mythicism.

Off the top of my head I can't say I recall seeing any noteworthy examples of that, on the forum or elsewhere. Quite the opposite if anything - for example Richard Carrier headlines one of his pages On the Gullibility of Bart Ehrman & the Asscrankery of Tim O’Neil - though I'm sure there are people holding both views who are rude at times. Much like disagreements over evolution, homeopathic medicine or climate change, there's a situation where a few experts (and many amateurs) challenging the widely-held 'consensus' view must necessarily explain the fact of the consensus largely as some combination of groupthink, traditionalism and so on - which partly seems to be what Price is doing here - while those holding the standard view will likewise necessarily question how their critics can promote views based on what they consider such dubious grounds. For example some proponents of climate science are truly vicious in their rhetoric against 'sceptics' precisely because they consider the evidence so overwhelmingly in their favour that their opponents' recalcitrance becomes extremely frustrating; and vice versa. Most likely the same was true when both evolution was a new theory, and remains true when creationism has become the fringe. Unlike more open-ended, balanced controversies wherein its easier to see that most folk with different views are still likely to hold them for intelligent and objective reasons, in the case of such lop-sided disagreements it's likely to be more difficult for either 'side' to view the others in a fair light.

So unless you have some reasonable basis to suggest that "something strange is going on among historicists" in particular, this really seems to be just more ad hominem of your own.

[William]

Here's another excerpt from my book:


The Golden Rule is a bit tarnished in some ways, however. Since it rests on the assumption that our preferences are shared by others, we might treat others in ways they don't like. If a man likes to be hugged, for example, then he might hug an attractive woman. That woman might not have the same preference and is offended at his display of affection. Perhaps a better rule might go something like this: do to others what you know they like or want done to them assuming no harm results to either others or yourself; avoid doing to others what you know they don't like being done to them.

I think you may be over-extending here.

The generic idea of The Golden Rule has more to do with expressions of obvious help as opposed to obvious harm, to do with individuals and subsequently, groups. It is about Help. Not Harm.

"Help others as you would like to be helped."

One has to be observant, and respectful. You may be a 'hugger' but you also require social skills in realizing that you will respond to the situation accordingly. Treat everyone's personal space as sacred to them and do not broach it without invite.

In that situation, The Golden Rule assists by helping one to ask themselves "will my actions be helpful or harmful?"

I am a hugger myself. Normally I do not hug women if I do not know them unless they make the move. Normally hugging occurs after people get to know each other and it become the most appropriate way to say hello or goodbye. They are familiars. Family, as it were.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 16 by William]

I am a hugger myself. Normally I do not hug women if I do not know them unless they make the move. Normally hugging occurs after people get to know each other and it become the most appropriate way to say hello or goodbye. They are familiars. Family, as it were.

A few years ago, around Christmas, a very attractive young woman accosted me on the street. I must have looked needy because she offered me $20 as a gift. After accepting the gift I took her into my arms and hugged her, then I kissed her on the cheek. She didn't seem to mind it because she initiated the contact and didn't complain.

In any case, the ethics of actions like these depend on the individuals involved. If she had run from me screaming "hug!," then I would have assumed I did the "wrong" thing.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 15 by Mithrae]

Off the top of my head I can't say I recall seeing any noteworthy examples of that, on the forum or elsewhere. Quite the opposite if anything - for example Richard Carrier headlines one of his pages On the Gullibility of Bart Ehrman & the Asscrankery of Tim O’Neil...

I am familiar with that blog entry, and I have engaged Mr. O'Neill in debate on another forum. Below is an example of his approach to dialogue:

I'm making about Jesus' small time "fame", yet you're not answering him either. Why is that, troll?

Unlike this forum, Mr. O'Neill gets away with a lot on the James Hannom boards. I have reported his insulting posts twice, and it appears he gets away with his boorish tactics, nevertheless. As I hope you can see, I do have reasons to suspect that some people's "wanting Jesus" is emotionally based. Otherwise, where is all this acrimony coming from?

...though I'm sure there are people holding both views who are rude at times.

That's true. To be fair, I told Mr. O'Neill that I do not approve of Richard Carrier's use of profanity against him.

Much like disagreements over evolution, homeopathic medicine or climate change, there's a situation where a few experts (and many amateurs) challenging the widely-held 'consensus' view must necessarily explain the fact of the consensus largely as some combination of groupthink, traditionalism and so on - which partly seems to be what Price is doing here - while those holding the standard view will likewise necessarily question how their critics can promote views based on what they consider such dubious grounds.

Either camp might be so biased that they cannot fairly and objectively assess the evidence for Jesus. Bias and emotion characterize all people. My own approach to overcoming this bias is to try to falsify whatever point of view I might have.

For example some proponents of climate science are truly vicious in their rhetoric against 'sceptics' precisely because they consider the evidence so overwhelmingly in their favour that their opponents' recalcitrance becomes extremely frustrating; and vice versa. Most likely the same was true when both evolution was a new theory, and remains true when creationism has become the fringe. Unlike more open-ended, balanced controversies wherein its easier to see that most folk with different views are still likely to hold them for intelligent and objective reasons, in the case of such lop-sided disagreements it's likely to be more difficult for either 'side' to view the others in a fair light.

I do not believe it's quite fair to compare The Theory of Evolution to Jesus historicism. The former is based on scientific observation and experimentation while the latter is based on a "scholarly consensus." History and Biblical scholarship are not sciences. In the latter two there is considerably more "wiggle room" than in science. Biblical scholarship in almost all cases leads to conclusions that cannot be demonstrated. Bible scholars use their relevant knowledge to arrive at conclusions that, at best, may survive peer review.

So unless you have some reasonable basis to suggest that "something strange is going on among historicists" in particular, this really seems to be just more ad hominem of your own.

Ad hominem arguments are not necessarily fallacious. If the topic of a debate was "Jagella wants Jesus to be a myth," then it would be appropriate to attack me as perhaps having an ax to grind in my skepticism that Jesus was a "real" guy. In a debate like that it is very relevant and logical to makes arguments "against the man" (against Jagella). We are currently discussing why some atheists may "want Jesus" for whatever reasons. That's the topic of the debate. So if I argue that somebody like Tim O'Neill has an emotional basis in his "wanting Jesus," then my argument relates to the topic and is appropriate and logical.

In any case, I have examined my own conscious for some bias that may be blinding me to any good reason to believe that Jesus existed. I'm busy reading books that promote either a historicist view or a mythicist view of Jesus. So far I simply cannot see any good reason to believe Jesus existed. I have to go with my own way of thinking because I have no other way of thinking!'

Finally, I have fantasized that I'm an Indiana-Jones-type archaeologist digging in the dirt near Jerusalem. I find a tomb with the inscription: "Here lies Joseph of Arimathea." The tomb is dated by two laboratories to 30 CE. And, to the delight of Christians all around the world, the tomb is empty save for traces of blood and a thorny plant. Finally, we have some solid evidence for Jesus! Such a discovery might be every bit as troubling to historicists as to mythicists. I would definitely let the historical-Jesus people know that this is the way to do history.

[JP Cusick]

Well, love can be commanded, but God is unlikely to get it that way. I've often thought that if God is so lovable, then he wouldn't need to command anybody to love him. It seems that Jesus, by commanding love for God, tacitly admits that "such an ogre" cannot earn our love.

The truth of the Gospel and of the entire Bible is that it puts a definition to love and what it means to love God, and it is not the meaning of love given by ignorant humanity.

See what Jesus said here = John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And Deuteronomy 11:
22 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him;

And this 1 John 5:
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
-

It is not talking about some touchy feely or romantic kind of love - the Bible says that to have love then keep the commandments.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Atheists might want Jesus as a club to bash Christians with, "WWJD?"