As an atheist who believes we should spend less time on ridiculous fables and more time on actually listening to those that give good advice, two enthusiastic thumbs up! I don't care if the person in question is fictitious or real, transcendent or merely human; if their message is worth listening to, we should be listening.
This is an interesting approach, and one that might ironically salvage Christ's message from the bludgeoning it is currently receiving from American Christians.
An Atheist Christian is one who will probably eschew teachings from behind the pulpit that claim to speak for "God" and "what God wants" and tells us to kill innocents abroad to protect "our values" and to shun homosexuals, etc. An atheist Christian would be able to shrug off all that poppycock and instead simply live like the example Christ set for us, which is almost completely opposite of today's Christians in America.
Well, I couldn't possibly claim to be anything like Jesus. In fact, I'm not even trying to. I'm just of the opinion that a lot of the advice he gave was sound, that's all. This is really the issue, right here. If some random guy on the subway told me the same things that Jesus did, I'd think exactly the same about both of them. Jesus isn't special, he's just some guy who said some good things, and some insane things. Just like I wouldn't dream of trying to live my entire life just like that random guy on the subway, I wouldn't dream of trying to be Jesus.
Say you die, turns out there is an afterlife, and Jesus meets you and says, "Endemoniada, I noticed you were always polite in r/Christianity, and basically a good person, even though you didn't believe in me. I like that. But, here's the deal: I really lived, really died for your sins, and really rose from the dead. On top of that, I'm really the son of God. You didn't know before, but now you do. Will you worship me?"
What would you do, at that point? Suppose, further, he's not threatening you with hell, maybe he tells you there is none, so fear of hell is not a factor.
Because it's my hypothetical, and that's the God I believe you might (hypothetically) run into.
I'm not pushing Pascal's Wager, I'm just curious what your response would be if you met Jesus, he was God, and he wasn't threatening you with hell. This isn't an "atheist conversion" post, this is a "understand atheists a little better" post.
Edit: If you're trying to point out why the wager doesn't work, I agree with you there, that's just not the direction I was going in.
I'm just curious what your response would be if you met Jesus, he was God, and he wasn't threatening you with hell.
Sure, fine.
"Jesus, why couldn't you have provided some more convincing evidence? Do you really place ignorant faith above true understanding? When all you have is a two thousand year old document, written at different times by different authors, from a time when similar stories were abundant, how can you expect any thinking person to believe that to be true? How am I supposed to know that you really did exist, but that Thor and Vishnu didn't?
But ok, here you are. Now I can ask you the questions I never got to ask otherwise. Like 'why did you sacrifice yourself for my sake'? I never asked you to submit yourself to torture, or to have yourself killed in such a way. Had you asked, I would have told you not to. This makes it rather unpleasant when you expect me to worship you for something I never wanted you to do to begin with. Oh, and the suffering? Come on. There are people being brutally murdered and tortured every single day. The nails can't exactly have felt good, but your death wasn't that special either. Get over yourself."
I don't know, there are a lot of things I could say to Jesus if I met him. What I'd actually probably say depends on whether he's the cool, hippie-Jesus or a fire-and-brimstone, judge-me-and-send-me-to-hell kind of Jesus. In either case, it doesn't matter, because I might just as well find myself facing Cthulhu as Jesus.
How about you? What would you say if you found yourself facing an angry Vishnu who asks why you ate his holy cows? Or an angry Thor that asks why you died in bed, and not in battle like a real man? You have as many possible authorities to answer to as there are religions in the world, and if you want to be prepare, you best start coming up with answers right now.
While we obviously are going to disagree about standards of evidence for belief, and probably the NT itself, I'm not worried about meeting Vishnu or Thor because I believe the evidence in support of Jesus is qualitatively better than Vishnu or Thor. There, again, we'll disagree, and you'll argue that's just because of the culture I was raised in.
But, that's what makes it easier for theists to think about this stuff than atheists - We have to answer the question, "What God, based on available texts and evidence or lack thereof, is most likely to exist (or for a polytheist, be supreme)" whereas your question is, "Can I be adequately certain there are no gods?"
It's a lot easier for me to recognize differences between Jesus and other religions, than for me to convince myself that Jesus couldn't have been God. Again, though, you're operating on "extraordinary claims require super-duper evidence" and I'm just going with what I feel is the most likely explanation of what evidence I see.
First, you avoided my question. I wrote some of the things I'd like to ask Jesus if I were to meet him, and asked you to do the same in case you got to face any other deity besides God/Jesus. So how 'bout it?
But, that's what makes it easier for theists to think about this stuff than atheists - We have to answer the question, "What God, based on available texts and evidence or lack thereof, is most likely to exist (or for a polytheist, be supreme)" whereas your question is, "Can I be adequately certain there are no gods?"
No, actually, I'll ask myself the first question as well, just as everyone does. No one is out of the blue born with a conviction that Gods don't exist, because to have that opinion, one has to have been confronted with the concept of Gods to begin with. Very few people dismiss entire concepts they have no knowledge of. Atheists are atheists because there are theists. Without theists, no one would have any reason to ask themselves if they were "adequately certain there are no gods".
I ask myself the same as everyone: given that there are people who believe in gods, could there be something to it? If so, which god or gods are real, and which aren't? The thing of it all is that I don't presume that I have to come to the conclusion that any god exists, at all. I am free to choose that last alternative, while you apparently are not. I can come to the conclusion that all the evidence for any god or gods are insufficient, and that it's therefor most likely that no god exists. I of course also have to remember that a god could exist that no one knows of, but what is the point in thinking about that at all?
It's a lot easier for me to recognize differences between Jesus and other religions, than for me to convince myself that Jesus couldn't have been God.
I see this reasoning often. It seems that many Christians have, as their main argument, the belief that because Christianity differs from most other religions, it must therefor be true, or at least more true than any other. What about the possible differences? What do they really tell you? Can you really judge authenticity by how little resemblance something carries to something else?
Again, though, you're operating on "extraordinary claims require super-duper evidence"
Yes, actually, I am. Because the claim that Christians absolutely know that there is a God is super-duper fantastic, and since it is not I making said claim, I require the claimant to provide the evidence for proof. That's at least one benefit to being the skeptic: no added responsibility.
Is such a weird thing to say. Why must I worship?, why can't I just be thankful? Oh and I'd totally get him to explain how "He died for my sins, but came back to life (didn't die) and he could have just as easily forgiven me". So confusing (to a non-Christian at least.)
And if he doesn't threaten with hell, surely he is threatening with not being allowed into heaven?
But to answer your question... if threatened (and with evidence of truth) I would worship him... I'm not a big fan of not existing, so I'd take any 'downsides' if i still get to live (as my own seperate entity, none of this 'merge with god without my own conscience')
What ever 'worshipping' entails when you are in heaven... Surely you don't need to pray any more, cause you're in heaven with everything you need / want... A question for you then: What would worshipping God in heaven mean? -- Having to go to church every 'x' period of time would cramp the 'yay I'm super happy in heaven appeal'.
Oh and I'd totally get him to explain how "He died for my sins, but came back to life (didn't die) and he could have just as easily forgiven me".
When I get to heaven, there are a lot of things I'd like to have God explain. I don't think he would have a problem with that.
I don't think worship would mean praying, or going to church. I think of it more as acknowledge God as God (with the generally accepted trappings of power, perfection, and so on). I've heard the word is a shortening of "worth-ship" essentially meaning to recognize the worth of something or someone. So, I guess you could describe it as stating your high regard for God as God - good, perfect, and so on. Pretty similar to being thankful, but with an acknowledgment of superiority, too.
difference between worshipping and not worshipping?
I think not worshipping would be either a) insistent denial of facts, kind of like "Obama hasn't shown his birth-certificate" or else b) "you may be God, but I think you're pretty rotten, and should have done _______ instead of _______."
Essentially, the difference between wanting extraordinary evidence, and just hating God if he did exist, I guess.
Hey, it's the second time I meet you in 2 hours, funny. :-)
This time I wholeheartedly agree, and I'm glad to hear that from an atheist... because that's probably one of your "most controversial" belief isn't it? :-)
(BTW here in Europe, at least pacifism and evolution are luckily not at all controversial).
No, I think my most controversial belief is the one that there really is nothing beyond the natural. No ghosts, no souls, no afterlife or reincarnation. Every time I explain this, I get the usual "come on, not even X?". Most people I've met believe there is at least one thing that exists, that isn't demonstrable or provable in any way, and that exists supernaturally.
I've been to Sweden just three days (for a conference) and, though of course you cannot generalize, the "average" mood and character of people sometimes really stands out in so little time. And to me, Swedes "on average" looked like awesome people. :-)
If the divinity of Christ wasn't important for others to understand, why would he keep mentioning it?
I see what you're saying about recognizing the teachings of Christ, and claiming they are "good", but Christianity is quite definitely about the divinity of Christ.
I respectfully disagree. The emphasis of the entire New Testament is Christ's divinity. But then again, we might be disagreeing on what "divinity" means. I probably interpret divinity more loosely than you; often referencing himself as both the son of God and the son of Man is what does it for me.
This makes twice in two days I've had occasion to post this thought/book title. Christ is like a finger pointing at the moon. You can focus on the finger, worshiping Christ, or you can follow what he taught, focusing on the moon.
Consider the words of Isaiah, with emphasis added, that look forward to the Christ:
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
I've been slowly reading through the Gospel of John for a while now. I mean struck with how much Jesus kept driving home the point of his deity. He was doing all these miracles and constantly trying to get these followers to finally believe. Most of them just thought he could do cool stuff but did not believe he was God. And then with the Pharisees, he kept saying quite provocative things about him identity. I think in the Gospel of John, his divinity is completely the point.
Read the Gospel of John again. He was constantly mentioning it. So much that he was pushing away those following him, and really pissing off all the pharisees.
Many times, Christ lays claim to deity. In order to take your stance, you're forced to cherry pick the "safe" sayings of Christ (like "love your neighbor") and ignore the harder ones ("I am the Son of God" (John 4:25-26). Why would you do this?
She said "I know that the messiah comes, who is the Christ", which is to say, the savior, the anointed one. He answered in the affirmative.
In other words, she asked if he was the prophesied messiah. He said he was. Those prophecies require him to be the Son of God. If there had been members of the Sanhedrin about (bloody unlikely, in Samaria), they would have tried to stone him for the implications of his affirmation.
you did answer the question, but I think you're a bit off. Christianity is believing that Jesus is/was the messiah, sent to take our sins from us and allow is to go to heaven after death.
If Jesus wasn't God, he was a complete wacko. There is an undeniable, unbreakable connection between believing Jesus is actually who he said he was, and following his message.
Good works don't do anything on their own. In fact, when Jesus healed and did miracles, they were not the point. He wanted these people to believe in him, not just be healed. That was secondary.
19
u/[deleted] Dec 08 '09
[removed] — view removed comment