Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christianity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christianity

Post #1

Post by Tart »

To say someones beliefs is just "wishful thinking" and in the imagination is an accusation that suggest people are creating things in their mind, that they are creating beliefs that might not necessarily be true or have any evidence supporting them, but declaring it as truth...

This is actually a very common criticism against those who hold beliefs in a God.

But what I am coming to realize is that my beliefs in Christianity, seem to be based and rooted in the evidence, and are subject to change accordingly to the evidence. The only reason I ever believed in God was because Jesus Christ was shown to support that idea. That I had no idea what something like "salvation" was until it was logically explained, and made sense of by the witnesses. That my hope and faith are byproducts of the testimony of the witnesses, and the reasonable ideas that they gave for the belief in the God of Christianity... My belief is dependent on the evidence, and subject to change according to the evidence.

Indeed, it seems to me that my beliefs are not something I created, from wishful thinking and the imagination. But are instead founded in the evidences of Christianity...


On the other hand, I see nonbelievers and atheist come to conclusions about Christianity that there is no supporting evidences of. That their conclusions arent support by evidence, but instead by their own reasoning in their imagination, and their "wishful thinking" of a Godless Christianity.

There are many examples, and its easy to spot them. All you have to do is ask for evidence. For years i have been asking atheists for evidence to back up their beliefs about Jesus and Christianity.. And many have tried, but have given no solid evidence or reasoning that there was no Jesus, or he didnt meet the prophecies of the Messiah, or the witnesses made the entire story up, or that people lied about the entire religion. It seems like there is just no solid evidence supporting any of these things..

For example, one user recently claimed that there was probably 2 Jesus's, but had no supporting evidence of that (like this was created in his imagination). Another claimed that Jesus was created by the Romans in 300AD, but when pressed it turned out the only evidence for this claim was a pronunciation problem he thought up in his head from a language he never spoke (many may recognize this claim). Or another example is that Jesus was a creation from other myths, like the movie zeitgeist claims, but this has been totally discredited by scholars, and it turned out that people just thought this up in the early 1900's in their imaginations.

Granted, some of these claims are rooted in atheism, and may be atheist siting other atheist. Like if someone sited zeitgeist (where zeitgeist is a totally imagined up, created, explanation of Christianity not supported by any evidence), that would mean they are siting evidence, but its still just rooted in the imagination. It seems like the roots of all these claims are people creating beliefs in their heads of who Jesus was, how Christianity came to be, and the where it came from, and not basing it off the evidence or letting the evidence lead to their conclusions... (if they did, i believe they would be Christians (like Lee Strobel for example))

I mean, atheists and non believers cant even agree with themselves here... All these beliefs are all over the place, like Paul hallucinated his encounter with Christ, or Paul didnt even exist. Or Rome created Jesus and Jesus didnt exist, or Jesus was really a man but not the Son of God... I mean we see all of these claims, and they dont even support themselves...

It seems to me that, not only the best explanation is the one given in the scriptures by the prophets and the witnesses, but it is the only reasonable explanation...

But the Bottom line here is... Who is creating a belief here? My belief are simply observations of Christianity. I certainly did not create Christianity in any sense. I simply observe is claims as true... And it seems like all these other claims are things people are thinking up in their heads, like for example "Jesus is a myth".... The "wishful thinking" of a Godless Christianity.

Here is a supporting quote from an Agnostic New Testament Scholar.

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"~Bart Ehrman

Don McIntosh
Apprentice
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am

Re: Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christia

Post #161

Post by Don McIntosh »

Divine Insight wrote:
Don McIntosh wrote: Moral evil is when someone does something harmful that should not be done.
Natural evil is when something harmful happens that should not happen.
But then who decides what "should not happen"? That alone is necessarily a subjective opinion. And this is true even if we could obtain a 100% consensus among all humans. This would then still be a subjective opinion of humans in general.
No, it's not "necessarily" a subjective opinion. Objective morality, i.e., a source of moral authority existing outside ourselves, remains a serious and viable possibility despite your own, well, subjective opinion that for some undisclosed reason morality cannot and must not be objective.

Anyway I think you're throwing out the baby with the bath water here. When I say "objective" morality I'm talking about what, in principle, might ground our perceptions of morality, not the various ways morality is perceived. Consider the external world around us, presumably a real, tangible world of objects like planets and trees and so forth. Each of us "necessarily" perceives that world differently. But the fact that there are differences in our perceptions hardly entails that there simply is no external world.

Again, who's to say that raping a child "should not happen"?

Even though I, as a human, will offer my opinion to support this ideal, it's still just a human opinion. And clearly there exists some humans who apparently do not agree, for if they did agree then no child would ever be raped.

If you honestly think there's no objective reason child rape should not happen (e.g., because it's a self-evident truth that child rape is morally wrong), then I won't try to convince you otherwise. For the majority of observers, though, I think there is a simple but powerful reductio that can be run from this:

1. There is no objective right or wrong, only subjective opinion.
2. There is nothing objectively wrong with raping children.

While (2) follows from (1), there is clearly something very wrong with raping children (quite regardless of your or anyone else's moral philosophy). To put it another way, the belief that all moral judgments are subjective appears much less likely to be true than the belief that raping children is objectively wrong. So (2) is probably false.

As for disagreement: you quite often tell others on this board that they are "wrong" for various reasons. But others (like me) just as often disagree with you. Given your own stated belief that disagreement itself signals a lack of objective criteria for recognizing what is right or wrong, true or false, you have no grounds for telling other people they are wrong about anything.

And yet, here you are...
Well, clearly Plato was wrong, as was the Bible. We can't claim that this is a departure from the original harmony of the world at large since many things that we consider to be "evil" are actually natural events that occur within the world at large via natural disasters, disease, and the natural behavior of animals.

Therefore clearly Plato was wrong. The world never had any natural harmony.
What a strange argument. We could summarize it as follows:

1. We currently observe phenomenon X and we call it natural.
2. Therefore there was never a time when X was not observable or was not natural.

Again this is a simple non sequitur. For the argument to be valid you would need a second premise, such as "All phenomena are timeless and unchanging." But of course that second premise would be manifestly false.

And keep in mind, the Bible is a theology that tries to pin the blame for a the disharmony of the world onto humans. Perhaps Plato had accepted this theological premise? Even if doing so via a purely philosophical idealized view of what Plato thought the world "should" be like?

---

So where does Plato come up with the philosophical ideal that the world ever had, or "should" have a harmonious nature?

I think you need to exam the premises that these ancient philosophers were willing to embrace without any evidence at all. Obviously Plato couldn't have known what we know today about the history of our planet.

---

In this last post you were talking about Plato believing that "evil" is disharmony with the natural world which Plato believed to be otherwise naturally harmonious (i.e. naturally without evil).

But evidently that was never anything but an idealized philosophical dream. Wishful thinking devoid of any actual evidence.

Today we now know the world was never "naturally harmonious" (i.e. containing nothing we would consider to be bad or evil)

So Plato never had anything more than wishful thinking to offer as a premise to his philosophical pondering.

Does the no preaching rule apply only to believers? Seriously, I can't decide whether you're trying to bludgeon me into submission with the sheer volume of your assertions or simply lull me to sleep. I mentioned Plato once, in passing. I'm not his disciple and I’m not committed to everything he ever said.

Maybe I can address some of this later. In the meantime, understand that your repeated references to "what we know" (a certain scientific-evolutionary view of earth history) does not apply to everyone, particularly those of us who have come to learn that scientific theories often turn out to be wrong.

And I must say, you have a regrettable habit of invoking highly dubious personal opinions as premises to advance conclusions (like "Plato never had anything to offer but wishful thinking") that are little short of asinine.

"You've heard of Plato? Socrates? Aristotle? Morons!" LOL

Then you want to argue that anyone who doesn't believe the Bible is the intelligent instructions from an all-wise all-intelligent God must have ulterior motives.

No, that's not what I "want to argue." What I actually do argue is that false dilemmas are fallacious. Remember, you proposed that unbelief can only be the result of two factors: either failure on the part of God to effectively communicate or failure on the part of humans to understand him. But humans refuse the truth of what others tell them for lots of other reasons (they enjoy being defiant, they don't like being told what to do, they're proud, etc.), all of which render your proposed dilemma false.

And now you're trying to justify an imagined "Perfect Heaven" by suggesting that Godel's incompleteness theorem could somehow make moral freedom and perfect goodness reconcilable?

Obviously this is something you must do if you want to continue to believe in a perfect heaven where people would still retain "Free Will".
Wrong again. I’m not suggesting that "Godel's incompleteness theorem could somehow make moral freedom and perfect goodness reconcilable." I explained at length in my article why I think incompleteness provides an interesting and valid parallel to freely chosen moral goodness in God's kingdom, but apparently you'd rather just flail at strawmen.

There's another interesting parallel to this "free will in heaven" situation, in the Old Testament:

"If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you [a]send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the Lord your God has blessed you with, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today. And if it happens that he says to you, ‘I will not go away from you,’ because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your female servant you shall do likewise" (Deut. 15:12-17).

Here the bondservant is permitted to go his way, but is allowed opportunity to make a conscious decision to serve his master "forever" because he loves the master and trusts the master to bless him and look out for his best interests.

That's sort of where Christians stand with respect to Christ. Having sown our wild oats, so to speak, we no longer even want to be free to sin, because we love our Messiah and the life, joy, peace, etc., that we experience in his presence. So while on earth we freely, continually express our preference for eternal life in the kingdom, where sin (and the death and pain that results from it) will no longer be possible.

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #162

Post by Tart »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Tart wrote:
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Tart wrote: Great, so first off, let me tell you what i believe ToN... I believe Jesus is historical. That not just some sources, but every single source we have from antiquity tell us Jesus really existed... We have no source that questions if Jesus existed until the 1800's... As far as we know, everyone in the Gospels is historical. The Kings mentioned, the leaders, the rulers, the chief of priests, the groups of people (like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, etc...) the Jewish leaders mentioned (like Nicodemus), the disciples... As far as we know, everyone is historical in the Gospels.. And i see no reason to assume anyone ISNT historical....
I have never denied that Jesus existed as real person. At the same time, I am offering no firm assurance that Jesus is anything other than a myth. It is simply a fact that there are no references made about Jesus during the time when he was supposed to have lived. ALL of the references made about Jesus are taken from years after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, by individuals who either clearly never knew Jesus, or who cannot be accurately identified. I am personally of the opinion that the story of the crucified carpenter arouse too abruptly to have been based entirely on a myth. Those that subscribe to the "Jesus was a myth" explanation make their own case.

Ok, i was just simply stating what I believe, not stating it goes against what you believe...

However... Jesus was known publicly for 3 years of his life... So 3 years, in the public eye, living with mostly illiterate people... Is it any surprise we dont have a source which we know about? (Note*, perhaps there are sources we dont know about).. I dont find this unreasonable at all...
[references to Jesus were written] by individuals who either clearly never knew Jesus, or who cannot be accurately identified.
Ok, so we have people identified that know Jesus. That is, Peter, James, John, just to name a few... All of these people are claimed to have known Jesus, and are accurately identified...

What you are asserting here, doesnt seem to be accurate.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Tart wrote: We then have people writing letters about Jesus, and Christian theology, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Book of Acts... Who mention real people, real places, and they mention events that happened... Now, out of all the historical people we have in these books, we have no one speaking out against it saying these things didnt happen (like the life of Jesus, the crucifixion, etc...)... Did Pontius Pilate object to anything? Not that we know of. Did Nicodemus object to anything? Not that we know of. Did Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, James, Peter... Did any of these people speak up and say "NO! Thats NOT what happened!"... No... We have no objections from any of these historical people who were depicted in the Gospels and book of Acts, and Epistles...
We do indeed have a great number of people, followers of Jesus during rise of Christianity, writing about Jesus. There are the 27 books of the canonical NT of course. Here is is a more complete list.

1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Gospel of Thomas
Oxyrhynchus Gospels
Egerton Gospel
Fayyum Fragment
Dialogue of the Saviour
The Gospel of the Ebionites ("GE") – 7 quotations by Epiphanius.
The Gospel of the Hebrews ("GH") – 1 quotation ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem, plus GH 2–7 quotations by Clement, Origen, and Jerome.
The Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazoraeans
Secret Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Descent of Mary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

It is possible to cherry pick just about any view of Jesus that one might find appealing from the existing documents written about Jesus. Which, not really coincidentally, is exactly what the Catholic church did when they selected the current canon of 27 books.
Well there can be lots of claims about anything... In the court of law, we might admit some claims as credible in any case, and reject some claims as not credible... So if Jesus actually existed, and was Crucified (which I think you confess) .. There is an objective nature to the claim...

So maybe we should "cherry pick" that which we think accurately depicts Jesus... Right?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Tart wrote: So any objections are silent... On top of that, we have dozens of people confirming these things.. Every source we have confirms Jesus actually existed. We have people confirming the crucifixion, historians. And we have dozens of Disciples and witnesses confirming the Resurrection.... So thats the evidence..
Consider the above list of documents that I provided. They are not exactly silent. They have been effectively silenced by official church dogma. Notice that you were never told of their existence in catiscm, or in Sunday school. Catiscism and Sunday school are tools that Christians use to indoctrinate successive generations of Christian believers. Contradictory information has no place in catiscism or Sunday school classes.

The Catholic church had the physical and political power to declare just what official dogma would be for many centuries. Many of those who subscribed to alternate beliefs were eradicated in cruel ways.
Ok, so I believe the evidence reasonably supports Jesus really existed, was crucified, and resurrected...

You listed a bunch of documents... Of all the documents you listed.. Do you think they ALL are total fiction? Or do you believe ALL of them are historical? Or do you believe some of them may be historical and some of them may not be historical? (like the catholic church)?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Tart wrote: Now this is what Christianity believes... That there is a God, all knowing and all powerful, that can fulfill destiny. This is key in Christianity. That there is prophecy that is revealed by God, that will or has been fulfilled... That means, Christianity believes, that Jesus came and fulfilled His destiny as the Son of God... So Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecy of the Messiah (which, who knows, perhaps Jesus fulfilled Magi Prophecy). We have Jesus fulfilling the "law", and its requirements. We even have Jesus fulfilling other cultural ideas of God, like "logos" from the Greeks. Jesus was said to have even fulfilled the ideas the Greeks had for reasoning from pure and absolute truth, that could only be from God (Logos)... What we have is Jesus fulfilled all the prophecy and understandings of God, as he came as God in the Flesh. We have people like Justine Martyr who commented on Paganism, saying and Paganism is the one that is the poor imitation of Christianity, and not the other-way around.
What exactly is the difference in the declarations of Christian beliefs as you have just established... And pure make believe? If we define "make believe" as the tendency to make up solutions to questions by first imagining and then declaring them to be true?
What are you suggesting is "Make believe' here? And who are you suggesting created it in their imagination?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Tart wrote: As noted: "[Justin] further showed that Christianity is superior to paganism, that Christ is prophecy fulfilled, and that paganism is actually a poor imitation of the true religion."
https://www.christianitytoday.com/histo ... sts/justin...
It would be a poor religion that didn't declare itself to be, not only fully true, but superior to all other religious beliefs.
Tart wrote: So Christianity believes Jesus fulfilled all the ideas we know about God, in the destiny of Gods will... That is actually the reason many believers in the first and second century converted. Because Jesus was actually a man in the flesh that became the Cornerstone of the Temple, and literally displayed the power of God.
Christianity declares that Christian claims are the fulfillment of Christian claims concerning the fulfillment of what Christians claim are God's purposes. (See my statement above).
Tart wrote: So how does that work with your beliefs? Out of everything I have said, how do your beliefs support or contradict these things i have said?
As an atheist I have no religious beliefs. I consider all religious claims to be completely equal in obvious nonsense.
Tart wrote: Also.. Some of the quotes you have quoted from scholars are supporting zeitgeist... Here is what William Lane Craig said about this... Do you believe Jesus was a rip off from paganism? If how would you respond to the video below?
Christianity is just ancient pagan superstition reworked and reformed into an attractive package that has served to offer the widest appeal to the most people.

As you are quoted saying "Christianity is just ancient pagan superstition reworked and reformed into an attractive package that has served to offer the widest appeal to the most people."

I mentioned a video, that you didnt respond to... What evidence do you have that the above quote is true? Did you watch the video of William Lane Craig? And have any thoughts?
Tart wrote: Well there can be lots of claims about anything... In the court of law, we might admit some claims as credible in any case, and reject some claims as not credible... So if Jesus actually existed, and was Crucified (which I think you confess) .. There is an objective nature to the claim...
Did Jesus actually exist? Jesus left no historical record of his existence while he was alive. But then, most people who ever lived left no record of their existence. So that objection is not a definitive objection. Was Jesus crucified? There is much historical record concerning the use of crucifixion as a means of execution in ancient times, so there is no reason to discredit the story of Jesus' crucifixion. So far, I am with you.
Tart wrote: Ok, so I believe the evidence reasonably supports Jesus really existed, was crucified, and resurrected...
You believe that the evidence indicates that the corpse of Jesus returned to life and subsequently flew off up into the sky? Is that a reasonable thing to believe? That is a frankly silly thing to believe! On a par with believing a story of flying reindeer. But does the "evidence" reasonably indicate that just such an event took place? Well, let's look at the "evidence."

As already noted, none of what you believe occurred was recorded by anyone at the time it was supposed to have occurred. The long list of alternate claims made about Jesus that I provided is largely considered obvious make believe by just about everyone. That only leaves the NT as a possible source of information about Jesus. What do the Gospels tell us?

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.


Exactly what the priests expected is exactly what occurred. The Gospels uniformly indicate that Joseph's tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. A few weeks later, The disciples of Jesus began spreading the rumor that Jesus had returned from the dead.

Who claimed to have seen the "risen" Jesus? His disciples and only his disciples. And where was the "risen" man now?

Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.


His disciples and ONLY his disciples.

Are all of the non canonical documents listed total fiction? I have no way of knowing which portions MAY have been based on historically accurate information. There is a tried and true method for discounting certain claims however. Claims which contradict all common observation and common experience are excluded for cause. Such as stories of a flying reanimated corpse. In other words, exactly the same cause most grown adults employ when dismissing stories of flying reindeer.
Your right ToN, it was the disciples of Jesus who reported His Resurrection, and ONLY His Disciples. And why? Because everyone who encountered Jesus's resurrection, turned Christian... The Resurrection is the causation of discipleship, and not the other way around.. We have disciples of Jesus, who were never disciples of His until they encountered the Resurrection, like Paul for example, and i know atheists who likewise say they would believe if they encountered the Risen Christ (or something like that). We have evidence telling us that EVERYONE rejected Christ upon His death, including his most bold Disciples (namely Peter). The evidence tells us that not a single soul believed in Jesus when he was on the cross. And this makes sense to, because a Messiah was not suppose to come and die.. The Messiah was suppose to come and rule as king over His enemies. But they put Jesus to death, precisely to show that he wasnt the Messiah... But unknown to them, this was exactly God's plan the entire time. The evidence shows us that this was a fulfillment of prophecy and of the law. The Death of Christ, unknowing to everyone, was Gods will and His destiny for Jesus...

The evidence makes sense of the Resurrection. It is a piece of the puzzle that falls into place... In fact the entire puzzle is dependent of Jesus as the Christ. Jesus is the "Cornerstone" of the temple... And without Jesus as the Christ, the puzzle doesnt make any sense.. There is no good explanation for the evidence without a God behind the destiny of Jesus... And this is why i press atheist to come up with reasonable, and valid explanations of Christianity... Because this is needed in order to make sense out of Christianity as coming from one of non belief, and of no God behind it...

I mean you may not be able to logically make sense out of the miracles in the Bible, like Jesus resurrection.. You may think this defies what nature details... But how do you know this isnt a component of our reality? That God exists, and that we are created in His image, and that these are natural (but perhaps "natural" is not the right word) construct of the universe we live in? That Jesus, and a Messiah isnt a reality of a human conection with an All Powerful God? How do you know that isnt a component of a reality that we live in, and a revealed truth from an all knowing God?

I mean, for example, we know Gravity exists, yet have we been able to explain why matter has a drawing power, or why it bend space-time? No... As far as we know, matter could just have some kind of magical powers (for lack of a better word) that makes it behave this way. Why matter has this power to it, we dont know, but we know it is just a part of our reality.

How do you know that Jesus, revealed as the Christ, isnt simply a reality of humanity and our connection with God?

I sure think Jesus is proof of that claim... And I am asking anyone and everyone what they believe about Christianity, and why they believe it... How do you make sense of a Godless Christianity?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christia

Post #163

Post by Divine Insight »

Don McIntosh wrote: No, it's not "necessarily" a subjective opinion. Objective morality, i.e., a source of moral authority existing outside ourselves, remains a serious and viable possibility despite your own, well, subjective opinion that for some undisclosed reason morality cannot and must not be objective.
We have prove that morality is not objective. It's all around us.

Is it immoral to kill a human baby and eat it?

Most humans would subjectively agree that it is indeed immoral.

An alligator would obviously disagree. :D

So is human subjective moral opinion just coincidentally aligned with some higher absolute objective morality?

Nope, that's not possible.

Why not, you may ask?

Well, who created alligators?

If you say that God created alligators, then you must necessarily concede that God is an immoral creator who creates objectively immoral creatures.

That's never going to work in your theology.

So the argument that morality is objective is utter nonsense.

Especially if you are going to take the position that the world was created by an objectively moral creator.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christia

Post #164

Post by Divine Insight »

Don McIntosh wrote: While (2) follows from (1), there is clearly something very wrong with raping children (quite regardless of your or anyone else's moral philosophy).
How can you say that?

The very idea that humans think that anything that happens in the universe is "wrong" is nothing but their own subjective moral philosophy.

How could it be wrong in any objective sense when the very notion of "right or wrong" is a human philosophical concept.

Obviously the objective world doesn't give a hoot about human's philosophical ponderings. It will spew molten volcanic lava onto you and your babies with no thought about morality at all. It will drown in a tsunami without any philosophical thoughts about morality. It will bake you to death in a drought without any thought of whether or not you might think this is "right or wrong".

There is no such thing as "objective morality".

All that exists is human subjective morality. We are the ones who invented the entire concept. Sure, we may value this concept, but that doesn't make it objective.

For you to say that anything is "objectively wrong" outside of human opinion you would need to demonstrate the source of that objective morality.

Good luck with that.

And ironically even the idea of a God wouldn't help you. Because even if their was a creator God who proclaimed that something is "immoral" that too would be nothing more than the subjective opinion of that God.

And if you want to argue that the God is restrained by some higher "Objective Morality" then where are you going to come up with a source for that?

I think what you need to realize that humans create subjective ideas of morality based on what they would not like to have happen to themselves or their loved ones.

And then they carry this idea WAY TOO FAR and start arrogantly telling other people who they should love, marry, or have sex with. :roll:

The very idea that anyone could hold in their hands some objective morality that must be applied to everyone is actually a quite arrogant and dangerous idea.

And you are most certainly going to lose my respect if you dare to point to Hebrew Mythology as a guide to morality. That book doesn't even contain subjective moral values that most people hold today, even Christianity.

In fact, when someone behaves in the manner the Biblical God instructed men to behave we call them "terrorists". People like the Taliban & ISIS. Those people are actually behaving according to Biblical morality. And most decent people reject that kind of behavior as being extremely immoral.

So please don't point to the Bible as a source of morality whatever you do.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Guy Threepwood
Sage
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Re: Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christia

Post #165

Post by Guy Threepwood »

[Replying to post 163 by Divine Insight]
Is it immoral to kill a human baby and eat it?

Most humans would subjectively agree that it is indeed immoral.
In this day and age... in a culture heavily influenced by Christianity, thankfully yes.

But before Christianity was introduced to many parts of the world, 'having family over for dinner' meant something else entirely!

The thing is that Christianity, among some other religions, of course, were so successful in spreading the message; 'do unto others...' that we take it entirely for granted today, it's difficult for us to imagine when this was a truly novel concept, and we are very lucky to enjoy this naivete.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Wishful thinking and the imagination: A Godless Christia

Post #166

Post by Divine Insight »

Guy Threepwood wrote: [Replying to post 163 by Divine Insight]
Is it immoral to kill a human baby and eat it?

Most humans would subjectively agree that it is indeed immoral.
In this day and age... in a culture heavily influenced by Christianity, thankfully yes.

But before Christianity was introduced to many parts of the world, 'having family over for dinner' meant something else entirely!

The thing is that Christianity, among some other religions, of course, were so successful in spreading the message; 'do unto others...' that we take it entirely for granted today, it's difficult for us to imagine when this was a truly novel concept, and we are very lucky to enjoy this naivete.
Any attempt to give Christianity credit for today's moral standards is pretty silly actually. Christianity was actually used to support many behaviors that are today considered to be subjectively immoral even by secularists. Slavery is the most obvious behavior that Christianity not only supported but even had a lot to say concerning how God instructs men on how to keep their slaves. :roll:

Christianity is in no position to try to lay claim to being a leader of morality.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply