Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1306262579' post='2245425']
It's nothing more than an analogy, which proves nothing about the origin or the rightness or wrongness of religious beliefs.[/quote]

This topic is not about whether beliefs are right or wrong, it's about how and why they're adopted by people, how they're passed on and ultimately become part of a structured ideology which then gives it added strength in the meme battle.


[quote]I found the "explanation" of religious asceticism here very strained. (Obviously, I don't believe in Jainism, but found this attempt to "explain away" this practice in pseudo-darwinist terms rather weak.) Obviously, there are plenty of means of policing that don't involve willingly starving oneself to death. And this explanation simply does not work for Christian asceticism, which serves no such "policing" function. (Think the voluntary poverty, chastity and obedience practiced by cloistered monks or nuns, who do not even interact with the outside world, but spend their lives praying for the rest of us.) Their self-denial has no material benefits to either themselves or others from an atheistic standpoint. The benefits are purely spiritual.

To quote Saint Paul, if the Christian Faith is not true, "we are among men most to be pitied."[/quote]

For the Jainism, yes, but don't underestimate the effect that voluntary sacrifice can have on others.

The jainist starves himself, monks and nuns give up on worldly things, radical islamists become suicide bombers...

This is al non coercive means of valuing a beleif system which [i]always trumps[/i] coercive policing as in the case of the Jainist.



[quote]I don't get the impression from your posts that you've actually even read the Bible (other than perhaps out-of-context snippets on atheist websites).
After all, it was Christ Himself who said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The reasons for this are theological, rather than social, and involve Christ's redemptive mission - replacing the Old Law of absolute justice with the New Law of forgiveness and mercy. (Only by Christ's redemptive sacrifice can sins be forgiven.)[/quote]

I haven't, other than chunks here and there.

My interest is primarily in the psychology of beliefs and other factors that people use for their foundations, which is what this topic was about but I'm ignorant as to the historical aspect of the spreading of Christianity and of the bible itself. Reading the whole bible is something that I've been putting off for some time now mostly because of the work invovled (I'm one to not only read the bible, but a whole lot of other things surrounding it such as its historical context, archeological evidence, and older religions from which Christianity has borrowed). I'm not that comfortable debating the biblical foundational aspect of beliefs yet, because I don't know much about it.

I also find what society has done to religious beliefs and what those beliefs have done to society interesting.


[quote]I'm sure your pain and suffering is beyond my comprehension.[/quote]

Pain and suffering? Where did you read that rather extreme playing the victim?

No, what I meant was that you would have to be an atheist to see all the ways in which religious beliefs (not just from the Catholic church) still interfere in your life even though you don't believe and uphold their doctrines.

[quote]Not defending the Inquisitions, but the historical truth is that the vast majority of the people brought before the Inquisitions were cleared and allowed to go free. [u]Having an actual trial was a step up at this time in history. [/u] Otherwise those accused could be easily put to death without a real trial at the hands of kings, nobles, and lynch mobs. Thus, accused persons preferred the Inquisition to secular courts.[/quote]

"[u]Having an actual trial was a step up at this time in history.[/u] "

You have a point here...


[quote]You know your anti-religious propaganda well, but your vitriolic statements betray a serious ignorance of real history. For your education and reading pleasure, I suggest: [url="http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306261413&sr=1-3"][i]The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success[/i][/url], by Rodney Stark, as well as[url="http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306261585&sr=1-1"][i] How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization[/i][/url], by Thomas Woods, Jr. [/quote]

I'll look those up and the topics they bring foward. If I may ask, what's your educational background?

[quote]It appears you don't know much about the history of Communism either. Atheism and antagonism towards religion was part-and-parcel of the dogma of Marxist-Leninist Communism, and countless Christian clergy and religious were imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by Communists simply on account of their religious position. This occurred not only in the USSR under Stalin, but in Maoist China, Vietnam, North Korea, and other countries. While the persecution was not always as blatant as in the times of WWII (the murderous persecution of all priests and religious by Communists in Poland and then-Czechoslovakia at that time was particularly brutal), religion has been (and remains) tightly suppressed and regulated by the state in all Communist countries.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union"]Treatment of Christians in the Soviet Union[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_Christians_in_Communist_Bloc_countries"]Treatment of Christians in Communist Bloc countries[/url]

It's historical fact that atheistic Communist regimes have been responsible for more bloodshed and oppression than any other governments in human history, so don't even try to play that "horrible bloodthirsty Christians vs. nice peace-loving atheists" game. It's pure garbage.

And atheists in North Korea still put dissenters in gulags. Your point being?
I'm really not aware of the stonings in Africa, but I seriously doubt it was a practice introduced by Christianity. There's a lot of savage pagan practices continuing in much of Africa, which long pre-existed the preaching of the Faith there, and many local practices (such as the persistence of witchcraft) are in conflict with Christian orthodoxy. But that's another discussion. It seems you're just grasping at any straws you can find to portray Christians as the "bad guys."[/quote]

North Korea is another totalitarian regime.

I'm not trying to portray Christians as bad guys, I'm saying that religious beliefs (which excludes atheism, which is simply a statement on the lack of belief in gods and not a statement on what is believed in) can cause and influence certain behaviours. Atheism has no dogma or rules on how to act or what to think and how to lead your life.

When you bring up people such as Stalin or Mao tse Tung, you're thinking just as poorly as someone who says that Hitler was a Christian and therefore all Christians are like Hitler. Stalin and Mao created personality cults that surrounded themselves and left no room for any other political cult that could distract attention from them and how they thought they should govern their countries. Not only organised masses of religions suffered, but basically any other opposingorganised mass of people, including political parties. To think that it was because they were some sort of Antichrist who were put on this earth to persecute Christians is naive.

It has nothing to do with atheism, because as well all know, killing and putting people into gulags for something we don't even believe in the first place makes all the sense in the world...



[quote]I'm really not aware of the stonings in Africa, but I seriously doubt it was a practice introduced by Christianity. There's a lot of savage pagan practices continuing in much of Africa, which long pre-existed the preaching of the Faith there, and many local practices (such as the persistence of witchcraft) are in conflict with Christian orthodoxy. But that's another discussion. It seems you're just grasping at any straws you can find to portray Christians as the "bad guys."[/quote]

Missionary's work...

People who live in backward tribal cultures are using literal biblical scripture to kill people they believe are witches, kill homosexuals, adulterers, and the like. It's all very old testament but it shows how beliefs based on the literal interpretation of the same book can interact with culture to plunge society into what we in the modern western world would see as barbaric.
On the other hand, even the most orthodox Jews do not do these things anymore.

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306359483' post='2245944']
I don't doubt that we have more info on the scriptures than many other things, given that there's a world-wide religious phenomena surrounding it that uses it as a foundation, but those who study it know a few things that it seems the average believer doesn't: that is, it was put together by mankind during different periods in time to serve different political purposes, that who the authors were are unknown, and that the people who wrote the first copies gospels were not eye-witnesses, which means that there were already somewhere along the telephone line separated by space (they were written in Greek) and time (the earliest was placed at around 70 C.E.)

And that's why I'm bringing up the telephone game. Apparently the accounts have changed from Paul's letters to each gospel, following a succession of time. They differ slightly in their descriptions, including added supernaturality to Jesus with each one.

Which details do you mean?

By 'objective' I meant the least likely to look for things to validate their beliefs and least likely to adopt an apologetic view which can distort something to favour their beliefs. An agnostic (theistic or atheistic) stance can give you a clearer picture and ability to evaluate facts better. Most serious scholars do seem to have that stance.

Did Moses write the scrolls?
[/quote]


Well the Gospel's of Matthew and John were both written by apostles (although there is debate on the Gospel of Matthew). the Gospel according to Luke was written by a disciple of St Paul (considered an apostle as well, although was not an eyewitness). The Gospel of Mark was written by a follower of St Peter. Now based on this, each of the Gospel was written by someone directly connected to Jesus, or separated by one or two people. Also, there is some legitimate debate over dates and sources and other things.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306278149' post='2245510']
I wish I had time to read and participate in this thread. Looks interesting. Just wanted to say, Socrates, dude, I thought you were me for a second. Sweet avatar bro.
[/quote]

I keep confusing you two all the time

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1306347064' post='2245847']
People (including those with PhDs) write books claiming all sorts of crazy things, but there's certainly no credible case that I've seen for Jesus Christ being multiple persons, or for not having existed at all. Most scholars, atheist or otherwise, admit to the existence of a historical Jesus Christ, though obviously, atheists will dismiss all the miraculous aspects of His life, and those regarding His divinity as being myth. But this is due to an a priori philosophical bias against anything miraculous, or the existence of God, not from the historical record itself. (If you deny the possibility of God becoming man, or of miracles, then you will dismiss any testimony of such as a lie or myth, no matter how otherwise historically compelling the source may be.)

As for the "Jesus being one person hypothesis," that's about as silly as talking about the "George Washington being one person hypothesis," or the "Julius Caesar being one person hypothesis." All the early references speak of Jesus Christ as being one person, and take this fact for granted. I've seen no historically compelling case for Jesus being more than one person, and to my knowledge no one has even suggested such until 1900 or so years after His life on earth. That claim is just bizarre. What other persons exactly was Jesus?
If you're going to dismiss everything recorded about Jesus as false, and claim that He was in fact multiple persons, or never existed, the burden of proof is on you to prove that hypotheses.

Besides, there was a lot of hostility to Christianity in its early years. Surely, if the man Jesus Christ never actually lived in the first place, some of the new Faith's opponents would have brought that up at some point, yet we have no record of such an objection.


I don't share your starry-eyed naivete concerning atheists being unbiased and pure and "fact based" in their motivations.
Many atheists writing about the Christian Faith have a very active, and often quite visible, hatred and contempt for the Christian religion, and write with the motivation of tearing the Faith down, rather than with unbiased objectivity.
I think I can safely say that most of those denying the very existence of a historical Jesus would fall in that category.



Of course, the best, most extensive records of Jesus we have are found in the Bible. The Bible was not written as a single book, but is a collection of books by different authors, including the four Gospel accounts by different authors of the life of Christ. And there's really no solid reason to believe that the passages referring to Him in Josephus are false.
The Gospel accounts are the earliest and most reliable accounts of Christ we have, and were likely written within living memory of the events recorded. Dismissing the accounts because they are biblical canon is a circular argument. Obviously, Jesus' followers would have the most interest in writing down accounts of His life.


If the Gospels were lies, why would they bother recording so many objections to Christ's teachings? Not exactly the stuff of mythology.

I don't have the source with me, but I've read that there are Talmudic Jewish traditions of belittling Christ, claiming that He was not the son of God, but the bastard son of Roman soldier, etc. However, the Jews never denied the existence of Jesus as a real person.



I guess I shouldn't accept so quickly that Napoleon Bonaparte was [i]one[/i] historical figure either.
[/quote]

I have no problem accepting that there was a historical Jesus and that he's (in some sense without all the supernatural elements) what the New testament is based on. My initial question is whether what the bible attributes to him is [i]all[/i] attributed to him, or whether for instance something one of his disciples or earliest preachers might have said which was not originally in line with the earliest documentations, made up or whether something someone else did was credited to Jesus.

Washington and Bonaparte were both much more recent, with actual eye witnesses and even pieces authored by themselves. Not a good appeal to ridicule.

As for unbiased atheists, I'm not as naive to think that any human is free from biases, but unlike the religious, atheists don't feel like their souls are at stake and so aggressively guard beliefs which may be unfounded. There is a not so subtle difference there that I find significant.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306363169' post='2245966']
Well the Gospel's of Matthew and John were both written by apostles (although there is debate on the Gospel of Matthew). the Gospel according to Luke was written by a disciple of St Paul (considered an apostle as well, although was not an eyewitness). The Gospel of Mark was written by a follower of St Peter. Now based on this, each of the Gospel was written by someone directly connected to Jesus, or separated by one or two people. Also, there is some legitimate debate over dates and sources and other things. [/quote]

Thanks for the summarized answer.


[quote]What Romans don't get called pagans anymore?[/quote]

I didn't know if you were referring to the Romans or Greeks...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306359483' post='2245944']
I don't doubt that we have more info on the scriptures than many other things, given that there's a world-wide religious phenomena surrounding it that uses it as a foundation, but those who study it know a few things that it seems the average believer doesn't: that is, it was put together by mankind during different periods in time to serve different political purposes, that who the authors were are unknown, and that the people who wrote the first copies gospels were not eye-witnesses, which means that there were already somewhere along the telephone line separated by space (they were written in Greek) and time (the earliest was placed at around 70 C.E.)

And that's why I'm bringing up the telephone game. Apparently the accounts have changed from Paul's letters to each gospel, following a succession of time. They differ slightly in their descriptions, including added supernaturality to Jesus with each one.

Which details do you mean?

By 'objective' I meant the least likely to look for things to validate their beliefs and least likely to adopt an apologetic view which can distort something to favour their beliefs. An agnostic (theistic or atheistic) stance can give you a clearer picture and ability to evaluate facts better. Most serious scholars do seem to have that stance.

Did Moses write the scrolls?
[/quote]
Actually phatmassers in general are not ordinary believers, many people here have degrees in theology, some are teachers, priests, nuns or monks, all militants take the faith very seriously.
The authors are not unknown, and were certainly written fairly early, except for St John who wrote in the 90-100s. Even before St John was writing St Clement of Rome was the 4th pope and wrote an admonishing letter to the Corinthians where he clearly delineates church structure and authority around 70AD.

Asking an atheists opinion of the something religious is like asking a MDs opinion of a chiropractor. Explain to me how an atheist can evaluate miracles or the belief in God with out bias. We start from the historical theological reality of God Almighty.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1306379875' post='2246065']
Actually phatmassers in general are not ordinary believers, many people here have degrees in theology, some are teachers, priests, nuns or monks, all militants take the faith very seriously.
The authors are not unknown, and were certainly written fairly early, except for St John who wrote in the 90-100s. Even before St John was writing St Clement of Rome was the 4th pope and wrote an admonishing letter to the Corinthians where he clearly delineates church structure and authority around 70AD.

Asking an atheists opinion of the something religious is like asking a MDs opinion of a chiropractor. Explain to me how an atheist can evaluate miracles or the belief in God with out bias. We start from the historical theological reality of God Almighty.
[/quote]

See, this is why I don't feel that comfortable discussing the bible...I've come across people who have said that the authors except for Paul are not only unknown, but that some of the books of the bible were put together during different periods by different authors. I'm looking for the more credible sources.

Well, for starters I would find it very difficult to believe in the core beliefs of Christianity, that is, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that's really not what I came here to discuss. I also would find it to be too much of a stretch to believe in the miraculous and supernatural claims of the bible. You could call those biases but for me those would require extraordinary evidence. I have my own explanations for all that though, which obviously you would not accept.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, my primary interest is not in one religious philosophy in particular, but the universal human tendency for religious beliefs, which better explains why people have them, though I don't think that the shift in focus this thread has taken is at all bad.

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306381824' post='2246079']
See, this is why I don't feel that comfortable discussing the bible...I've come across people who have said that the authors except for Paul are not only unknown, but that some of the books of the bible were put together during different periods by different authors. I'm looking for the more credible sources.

Well, for starters I would find it very difficult to believe in the core beliefs of Christianity, that is, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that's really not what I came here to discuss. I also would find it to be too much of a stretch to believe in the miraculous and supernatural claims of the bible. You could call those biases but for me those would require extraordinary evidence. I have my own explanations for all that though, which obviously you would not accept.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, my primary interest is not in one religious philosophy in particular, but the universal human tendency for religious beliefs, which better explains why people have them, though I don't think that the shift in focus this thread has taken is at all bad.
[/quote]

Well i'm certainly not an advocate of this (in fact i think that it is largely stupid) but Thomas Jefferson edited his own bible, and took out any and all miracles (I believe he only did this to the new testament). maybe that would be right up your alley?

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306381824' post='2246079']
Also, as I mentioned earlier, my primary interest is not in one religious philosophy in particular, but the universal human tendency for religious beliefs, which better explains why people have them, though I don't think that the shift in focus this thread has taken is at all bad.
[/quote]

Obviously, any religous person worth their salt is going to explain the universal tendency for religious beliefs as hardwired into us by God, something that we all have recognizing our Creator.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306382070' post='2246081']
Well i'm certainly not an advocate of this (in fact i think that it is largely stupid) but Thomas Jefferson edited his own bible, and took out any and all miracles (I believe he only did this to the new testament). maybe that would be right up your alley?
[/quote]

I think it looks stupid at first glance, but he didn't do it in order to publish or revise the bible it seems, just cherry picking (or rather - miracle removing) followed by cutting and pasting the leftovers into a new book.

I think that there are universal truths on which all religions are based, so in that sense I agree with him.

[quote]Obviously, any religous person worth their salt is going to explain the universal tendency for religious beliefs as hardwired into us by God, something that we all have recognizing our Creator.[/quote]

Yes, and that's one plausible explanation, but it does nothing to explain which religion got it right if that's the case. There is also the possibility that there is a god or gods out there but that no religion got it right so far.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306381824' post='2246079']

Also, as I mentioned earlier, my primary interest is not in one religious philosophy in particular, but the universal human tendency for religious beliefs, which better explains why people have them, though I don't think that the shift in focus this thread has taken is at all bad.
[/quote]

So the fact that there is a universal human tendency towards religious beliefs must be explained by a practical, or biological reason, it couldn't be that maybe there is a God?

Doesn't universal tendency to believe in the preternatural and supernatural ead on to conclude that perhaps there is something there?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306390060' post='2246124']
So the fact that there is a universal human tendency towards religious beliefs must be explained by a practical, or biological reason, it couldn't be that maybe there is a God?

Doesn't universal tendency to believe in the preternatural and supernatural ead on to conclude that perhaps there is something there?
[/quote]

If the tendency is there which I believe it is, then there would be both the biological aspect to it, which is our psychological predisposition which has evolutionary explanations and there would also be the cultural/societal aspect to it. Nature and nurture interact and select ideas which lead to positive actions which then favour itself in the ideology battle struggle for survival. The practical reasons pertain mostly to the nurture part of this, which means culturally and ideologically.

It makes sense when explaining why isolated peoples have worshipped gods but at the same time religion in its particulars is a cultural issue.

I don't see the argument that Amppax put forward as faulty, but I don't see a good reason to believe that 'god' is anything more than a concept and even less reason to accept the theology of one particular religion over another.

For all I know there could be a god or gods and no religion got it right yet.

Edited May 26, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306362812' post='2245961']
This topic is not about whether beliefs are right or wrong, it's about how and why they're adopted by people, how they're passed on and ultimately become part of a structured ideology which then gives it added strength in the meme battle.[/quote]
Fair enough. Having studied Church history, I actually do know something about how the Christian Faith was spread and grew, and let's just say I find the whole "meme theory" thing rather inane, but to each his own.



[quote]For the Jainism, yes, but don't underestimate the effect that voluntary sacrifice can have on others.

The jainist starves himself, monks and nuns give up on worldly things, radical islamists become suicide bombers...

This is al non coercive means of valuing a beleif system which [i]always trumps[/i] coercive policing as in the case of the Jainist. [/quote]
I don't think it's really fair to compare the completely non-violent life of prayer and self-denial of Christian monks and nuns with suicide bombers (an example of how the Christian and Islamic concepts of martyrdom are quite different), but in each case, I don't think such self-sacrificing behaviors can be explained away by evolutionary theory.

No animal willingly sacrifices itself for a higher ideal (different than sacrificing oneself fighting to protect offspring or the rest of an animal group). "Survival of the fittest" and the need to propagate one's gene's certainly can't explain the voluntary poverty and chastity of a monk.

[quote]I haven't, other than chunks here and there.

My interest is primarily in the psychology of beliefs and other factors that people use for their foundations, which is what this topic was about but I'm ignorant as to the historical aspect of the spreading of Christianity and of the bible itself. Reading the whole bible is something that I've been putting off for some time now mostly because of the work invovled (I'm one to not only read the bible, but a whole lot of other things surrounding it such as its historical context, archeological evidence, and older religions from which Christianity has borrowed). I'm not that comfortable debating the biblical foundational aspect of beliefs yet, because I don't know much about it.[/quote]
I appreciate your honesty.

[quote]I also find what society has done to religious beliefs and what those beliefs have done to society interesting.




Pain and suffering? Where did you read that rather extreme playing the victim?[/quote]
Lighten up, sparky.

[quote]No, what I meant was that you would have to be an atheist to see all the ways in which religious beliefs (not just from the Catholic church) still interfere in your life even though you don't believe and uphold their doctrines.[/quote]
I don't live in Brazil, and maybe things are different down there, but I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Businesses being closed for Christmas?


[quote]"[u]Having an actual trial was a step up at this time in history.[/u] "

You have a point here...[/quote]
And the Middle Ages were actually a huge step up from the allegedly more "enlightened" pagan era. Under pagan Roman Law, for instance, a citizen could legally kill his wife and children, or sell them into slavery or prostitution, with no questions asked. And the Romans were among the most civilized pagan societies. Like it or not, the whole concept of human rights originated out of a Christian framework. (You can read the books I linked to for more details.)



[quote]I'll look those up and the topics they bring foward. If I may ask, what's your educational background?[/quote]
BA in History, currently candidate for MBA. Yours?


[quote]North Korea is another totalitarian regime.[/quote]
Yes, totalitarianism and atheism are not incompatible. In fact, the vast majority of totalitarian regimes were atheist.

[quote]I'm not trying to portray Christians as bad guys, I'm saying that religious beliefs (which excludes atheism, which is simply a statement on the lack of belief in gods and not a statement on what is believed in) can cause and influence certain behaviours. Atheism has no dogma or rules on how to act or what to think and how to lead your life.

When you bring up people such as Stalin or Mao tse Tung, you're thinking just as poorly as someone who says that Hitler was a Christian and therefore all Christians are like Hitler. Stalin and Mao created personality cults that surrounded themselves and left no room for any other political cult that could distract attention from them and how they thought they should govern their countries. Not only organised masses of religions suffered, but basically any other opposingorganised mass of people, including political parties. To think that it was because they were some sort of Antichrist who were put on this earth to persecute Christians is naive.

It has nothing to do with atheism, because as well all know, killing and putting people into gulags for something we don't even believe in the first place makes all the sense in the world...
[/quote]
Never claimed such actions by the Communists were sensible, but they are historical fact.
The Communists did not believe in God, but Communist ideology is in fact atheist, and officially regards religion as enemy to be fought and opposed.
All Communist regimes have been hostile to religion: actively discouraging and tightly regulating it at best, and at worst engaging in bloody persecution. This anti-religious element is intrinsic to Communist ideology, not confined to a few monsters like Stalin and Mao (though they may have been the most brutal in enforcing it).

This ideological atheistic opposition to religion had everything to do with Communist persecution of Christians and other religious groups.

Claiming that atheism had absolutely nothing to do with Communist persecution of religion is either seriously ignorant or seriously dishonest.

No, I never claimed most atheists are like Stalin or Mao, nor that they are Communists (just as most Christians are not witch-burning stone-throwers). However, the fact is that Communism is atheistic. It was you who started attacking Christianity's "historic track record." Atheists are very quick to blame the Christian Faith for all kinds of historic evils, yet the historic track record of atheistic governments is in fact much worse.
Just don't play the historic blame-game, because you lose. Sorry.

(And, btw, Hitler was not a Christian in any kind of real sense. Yes, he declared himself a Christian on the campaign trail a few times to get votes, but in private has been recorded as making many statements condemning Christianity, which he saw as a weak "Semitic" religion. He himself was not personally religious nor a church-goer, and Nazism was condemned from the beginning by the Vatican. The Nazis were into a lot of weird occult neo-pagan type stuff.)

[quote]Missionary's work...

People who live in backward tribal cultures are using literal biblical scripture to kill people they believe are witches, kill homosexuals, adulterers, and the like. It's all very old testament but it shows how beliefs based on the literal interpretation of the same book can interact with culture to plunge society into what we in the modern western world would see as barbaric.
On the other hand, even the most orthodox Jews do not do these things anymore.[/quote]
Un-pc as it is to say so, the barbarism existed in pagan societies in Africa and elsewhere long before any Christian missionaries came along. There's still lots of work to be done. And I'd like to see some links as to what exactly you are referring to. Seems to me likely to be a few fringe elements you are referring to, rather than anything mainstream or common in African Christianity. Stoning adulterers is certainly not something condoned by the Catholic Church.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Socrates

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305926457' post='2243958']
You're twisting this situation to mean that I'm implying that they were playing a game with no regards for consequences and gambling their lives and statuses. I meant no such thing. The telephone game is a description of what happens, and in this case, a telephone game separated by both space and time if based on the orally passing down of stories and memories.
If mistakes and distortions are made, then those mistakes are also passed on and more mistakes added or the message further distorted, which is basically what the telephone game shows. When things are written down, for instance, if there's a divergence the you can always go back to the original and check.
[/quote]

No, I'm twisting it to mean that you think there was only one person there (which there wasn't) or the people there had a group delusion or mass hallucination. (possible, but there's essentially no probability of this.)

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Human perceptual and memory flaws are a very real thing, based on fact and [i]nobody[/i] is immune to them, not even the most intelligent among us. And the worst thing about this is that people aren't even aware that their perceptions are limited and that their memories are selective and filled in with false memories all the time. If we were aware of these, then they wouldn't happen as much...
[/quote]

Yes they are, but groups essentially *are* immune to them if given enough time to absorb non-traumatic ideas and discuss them freely.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Well this is based on the fact that people don't really know when the historical Jesus was born. Herod, it seems, died in the year 3 B.C.E, two years before what most people place as Jesus' birth year. But this is of minor importance.
[/quote]

Were there multiple Herods? I can't remember if there were multiples or something else . . . *shrugs* Agreed, though, this isn't important.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Outspoken atheists, you mean. As it goes if most feel the need to let others know that they're atheists it's to protest against something. The real average atheist is one that you wouldn't even know as an atheist.

I use the definition of atheist and agnostic based on their root words and not what their common usage has become (definitely an act of rebellion ). One can be an agnostic atheist just as one can be a an agnostic theist. Agnosticism (gnosis is Greek for 'knowledge') is about what a person knows whereas atheism is about beliefs. I'm agnostic towards the existence of pink unicorns but I don't believe in them.
[/quote]

I agree that the definition of atheist that you use *should* be the right one based on the root words, unfortunately, what *should* be and what *are* are not always the same.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
As someone who is a complete layperson in this subject, I prefer agnostic atheist scholars to theistic ones because I know that the odds of them being biased towards Christianity are much less and so are more objective when analysing historical evidence. You have to remember that a lot of historical evidence is also down to interpretation and educated inferences and not cold hard facts, especially where ancient history is concerned, where, like as in the bible, the originals have been lost and what we have are copies of copies and translations of translations.
[/quote]

I think an even more interesting gauge would be 'did the person change based on their research?'. If so, they clearly have an open mind. If not, it doesn't really prove much anything.

God bless,
Joe

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1306438275' post='2246292']
No, I'm twisting it to mean that you think there was only one person there (which there wasn't) or the people there had a group delusion or mass hallucination. (possible, but there's essentially no probability of this.)

Yes they are, but groups essentially *are* immune to them if given enough time to absorb non-traumatic ideas and discuss them freely.[/quote]

Well a mass hallucination can be difficult, but group delusions actually can happen quite easily. The main difference between your point of view and mine is that you already accept the historicity of the bible while I haven't reached a solid conclusion yet. The fact that the originals were lost complicates things: the copies that made it into the bible could've been tampered with, unwittingly or no.

[quote]Were there multiple Herods? I can't remember if there were multiples or something else . . . *shrugs* Agreed, though, this isn't important.[/quote]

Yeah, there isn't a religion surrounding Herod so whether the accounts written about him are accurate or not doesn't really matter...

I pretty much accept that there was one historical Jesus now.

[quote]I agree that the definition of atheist that you use *should* be the right one based on the root words, unfortunately, what *should* be and what *are* are not always the same. [/quote]

It's not just about dictionary definitions and common usage. Words influence [i]what[/i] you think, which is the main problem here. I make it a point to explain what I, as an atheist, mean when I use the word 'atheist' to counter what non atheists mean when they use it. It's become loaded negatively in ways that I feel do not reflect reality.

[quote]I think an even more interesting gauge would be 'did the person change based on their research?'. If so, they clearly have an open mind. If not, it doesn't really prove much anything.

God bless,
Joe
[/quote]

You're right. So far I've looked up Bart Ehrman who became an atheist but it looks like the main thing that eroded his beliefs is that he believed that the bible was the inerrant and perfect word of god. It depends on the person...others would over look the contradictions that made him seriously question his faith.

Beliefs are not that easily changed. I for instance couldn't believe that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead based on a book, and I do try to look at things with an open mind.

Though him becoming an atheist after studying the bible in more depth doesn't give added weight to atheism, it just means that he placed more value on the bible as a founding for his beliefs than someone who can overlook contradictions and extract what they feel is the meaningful message.