Battle of the New Atheism

[WITHTEETH]

Also why does jesus talk to himself on the hill the day before he gets crucified? Why would he also sacrifice himself to himself?

 

So the Christian god at the very least has multiple schizophrenic personality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Woah! Your logic (or lack thereof) blows me out of the water! Everything Jesus did he did for a reason. You'll also notice in the Bible (if you've even picked one up) that he does in fact say that he and God are the same person. You'll notice that Jesus went to the Synagogues on the Sabbath day as well. Bottom line is, he did everything to set an example and to teach humans how to live, even right down to his death. As for the whole crucifixion thing, it's a very deep concept that can't be explained easily. But it involves God taking sin onto himself, lowering himself so that he could get close to humans and vice-versa, to take the punishment for himself so that we wouldn't have to. Watch Chronicles of Narnia sometime. " Or try researching it for yourself, if you can be bothered to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I went to a christian private school, church 3 times a week and the rest of the sacrificial rituals like communion. i know my stuff.

[Dark Moth]

Obviously... "

[Plano Skywalker]

Every god in Hinduism come from the same source, the same god.  They aren't separated for they all come from the same god.  Just as J-man, the spook, and big G are all connected, they are different aspects of the same person.  That is form of polytheism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

actually, it could be argued that Hinduism is not polytheism in the strictest sense...the "endgame" in Hinduism (as I understand it) is to one day reach Nirvana and to, essentially, be absorbed into the great river or the essence of Brahma, the creator.

 

every soul will eventually reach this destination, even the gods...effectively, there is (or WILL BE) only 1 essence, according to this belief. that is actually Pantheism, as opposed to Polytheism.

 

Hinduism is pantheism in polytheist drag.

 

As I see it, every religion is either Monotheist, Polytheist or Pantheist. Polytheism deals with seperate *essences*, for instance, Odin and Thor are 2 different souls and will always be seperate from each other.

 

The Christian trinity is not pantheistic nor polytheistic. ONE ESSENCE.

[Pidesco]

Also why does jesus talk to himself on the hill the day before he gets crucified? Why would he also sacrifice himself to himself?

 

So the Christian god at the very least has multiple schizophrenic personality.

Woah! Your logic (or lack thereof) blows me out of the water! Everything Jesus did he did for a reason. You'll also notice in the Bible (if you've even picked one up) that he does in fact say that he and God are the same person. You'll notice that Jesus went to the Synagogues on the Sabbath day as well. Bottom line is, he did everything to set an example and to teach humans how to live, even right down to his death. As for the whole crucifixion thing, it's a very deep concept that can't be explained easily. But it involves God taking sin onto himself, lowering himself so that he could get close to humans and vice-versa, to take the punishment for himself so that we wouldn't have to. Watch Chronicles of Narnia sometime. :-" Or try researching it for yourself, if you can be bothered to do so.

 

 

How do you explain the "Father, why have you forsaken me" bit?

[WITHTEETH]

The bible contradicts itself in many areas, if your not aware of this i can pull out my bible and give you versus. but we should maybe PM this instead.

 

This should wet your appetite for now.

Clicky!!!

Edited October 29, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[Sand]

Okay guys, lets not have this turn nasty.

 

My main problem with the Bible is that it isn't a reliable source of information. The Gospels and the other books were all created after the death of Jesus and weren't actually penned to parchment till the 1st and second centuries. Before that it was all told through word of mouth and one thing I know about human nature we like to make stories more grand than they actually are.

 

I am sure there are kernels of truth within the stories told but as a historical record they are suspect. Also it seems to have a lot of elements borrowed from other cultures. For instance Jesus being a half god, that is straight from the Greek mythos such as Hercules and the such.

[Dark Moth]

How do you explain the "Father, why have you forsaken me" bit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For starters, whether or not you want to believe Jesus was divine is really up to your interpretation. The case can be made either way. But during his life on earth, the Bible strongly implies that Jesus did not want anyone to know of his divine nature. That in a way would defeat his purpose. You could almost say he was acting a part, even up till his death. But as I said, it is difficult to explain. This would best be discussed some other time.

 

The bible contradicts itself in many areas, if your not aware of this i can pull out my bible and give you versus. but we should maybe PM this instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To put it lightly...No [excrement], Sherlock. But I'd be happy to see what examples you have in mind. Through PM. I've seen that list before, BTW. Most of its examples are weak or ambiguous and not actual contradictions.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Sand]

Acting the part? Okay, I find that funny.

[Dark Moth]

Why?

 

For instance Jesus being a half god, that is straight from the Greek mythos such as Hercules and the such.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus is not a half-God the way you're implying.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Sand]

Oh, I can just see Jesus, being God, when alone doing things that a god would do, but when some human comes nosing around he would abruptly stop using his god powers and go native.

 

I mean if you had godlike powers would you actually hammer in a nail or something mundane if no one was around?

[Pop]

You could argue that he gets a "high" out of it, a good feeling that's enough for him to continue risking himself. Sort of like sportsmen and adrenaline. A reason enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could, but that wouldn't prove that humans are always naturally self-interested. If we accept that premise, when the lifeguard sees a drowning child, his desire is not to save the child, but to avoid a guilty conscience, or get a thrill out of risking his own life. That's counterintuitive. Of course the lifeguard's goal in saving the child is to save the child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, looking at it from the individual level. This will have to wait to tues, as I'm trying to finish two papers for a midnight deadline tonight + class all day tomorrow, however:

 

You could argue that, but that wouldn't prove that humans arn't always naturally self-interested (Remember, Dawkins argues that human intelligence may be able to overcome such gene self-interest). It may be argued that it is counter-intuitive that the life guard risk his own life to safe that of another's (he is being paid btw). So, if that is counter-intuitive, what drives him to do it? Hint: Think genes!

 

Aka Dawkins argue that altruism isn't natural, is cultural. Hence the term "meme".

 

as I said, it's deep, and me rushing through it isn't doing it justice at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still, the statement that "there are no acts of altruism" is proven patently false, which was the original premise.

 

A lot of mothers would argue against altruism being unnatural. Mothers naturally want what's best for their children. Many will risk their own lives for their children. It's preposterous to argue that mothers do this because of some external societal influence. Even if we argue that a mother sacrificing herself for her children is doing so because of natural selection or "to pass on her genes" or whatever, you still can't get around the fact that what she's doing is both unselfish and natural.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Pop

[Dark Moth]

Oh, I can just see Jesus, being God, when alone doing things that a god would do, but when some human comes nosing around he would abruptly stop using his god powers and go native.

 

I mean if you had godlike powers would you actually hammer in a nail or something mundane if no one was around?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

 

That's beside the point, and now you're just being silly. But you're saying you find the concept of God hiding his divinity and trying to be appear as a human funny? I don't see how that's so unrealistic, but okay.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Dark Moth

[kumquatq3]

Still, the statement that "there are no acts of altruism" is proven patently false, which was the original premise.

 

No, your right, as I said I'm realllly rushing (note the drastic increase in spelling and grammer errors, I mean, more than normal). Dawkins arguement is that humans are the lone being to over come their genetic coding. Intelligence and all that.

 

A lot of mothers would argue against altruism being unnatural. Mothers naturally want what's best for their children. Many will risk their own lives for their children. It's preposterous to argue that mothers do this because of some external societal influence. Even if we argue that a mother sacrificing herself for her children is doing so because of natural selection or "to pass on her genes" or whatever, you still can't get around the fact that what she's doing is both unselfish and natural.

 

Again, rushing, "unnatural" is the wrong term.

 

However, if the genes have programmed her to be "altruistic" to the child so that the genes may continue on...is that "unselfish"? On the surface that's how it appears, the act however, is driven by her gene's selfish motivations.

Edited October 29, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Sand]

Think nothing of it, Dark Moth, it just struck me as funny. Mel Brooks sort of funny, that is.

 

Here is Jesus doing the carpenter thing with no one around so he decides to make his life a bit easier using his Godlike power to drive the nail in effortlessly, but when Joseph comes around Jesus scrambles to get the hammer in hand to appear to be working as a human.

 

Even Jesus was a teenager.

[Pop]

It's hard to argue for an act's selfishness when the act destroys the self. A mother who would donate her kidneys to her sick child, ensuring her own death, is being selfless, not selfish. No matter what good feelings she might be gaining out of doing the right thing for her child, she's losing much, much more. If she's doing so because she's programmed to do it, she's not being selfish, she's being a slave.

[Dark Moth]

I see.

 

Well, while I'd like to continue this discussion, I am a busy man and I have a lot of work I should be doing. So I'll bid all of you goodnight. Keep it civil, children.

[kumquatq3]

It's hard to argue for an act's selfishness when the act destroys the self. A mother who would donate her kidneys to her sick child, ensuring her own death, is being selfless, not selfish. No matter what good feelings she might be gaining out of doing the right thing for her child, she's losing much, much more. If she's doing so because she's programmed to do it, she's not being selfish, she's being a slave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You keep talking about the individual, which is fine (people see things in lots of ways), it just makes me think I'm not getting my point across tho. Not because you don't agree, but because your not addressing my point. It doesn't destroy "self", it does but thats not the point, it helps ensure that the gene lives on and survives via another replicator (host). The gene, by the mother nursing her child, has helped insure it's future survival in the gene pool.

 

and talking about people complicates it as well, as I've noted.

 

Here are two book reviews, I barely glanced at them, but they should do a more complete job than I can right now:

 

http://educ.queensu.ca/~science/main/profd...ooks/PDBRCT.htm

http://users.bigpond.net.au/marshan/book7.htm

[Colrom]

The book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman has an extensive discussion on textual variations of the Bible and associated documents motivated by theological debates about whether or not Jesus was Christ (the Messiah) the Son of God or even God the Father at various points in his life. Some of the different views persist among Christians.

Edited October 30, 2006 by Colrom

[kumquatq3]

I read those book reports, the first one is ok but horribly short, the second is rubbish. I'll look later.

[Calax]

For instance Jesus being a half god, that is straight from the Greek mythos such as Hercules and the such.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus is not a half-God the way you're implying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

how? a god knocked up mary higher than a kite and she gave birth to a kid with special powers.

 

the only thing missing is gods genetils, and a tragic story that accompanies Jesus life (he didn't exactly kill his wife)

[kumquatq3]

how? a god knocked up mary higher than a kite and she gave birth to a kid with special powers.

 

Actually, there is a real debate about whether or not the "virgin" birth is due to a mistranslation from older texts.

 

It is about a word that mean "young women" being translated into "virgin". The word that means "young women" could also mean virgin, but not explicitly, and a different word that means virgin could have been used if intended in the original.

[metadigital]

Dawkins argues that there is no altruistic acts, in fact, one of his most famous  books attacks the point.

 

I don't have the time to spell out the argument, but basically he sees evolution as about the genetic level. Rather the group or individual.

 

...I don't think that makes sense as is, but I don't have time for 3 page paper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, I was providing some non-intelligent (in any sense that humans are aware of) organism that DOES act in an altruistic manner.

source

source

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So it is perfectly possible for altruism to spontaneously occur in nature. Is this evidence of the hand of god? Or just another permutation out of the infinite variety of survivability traits available?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only on the surface. Remember, the books called the "Selfish Gene"

 

From article:

A spore is a cocoon of sorts that serves as a seed for future generations.

 

Aka their DNA and such continue on, even when the "host replicator" dies off.

 

I'm going to just quit for now, because I am obviously not getting my point across in these rushed burst.

 

I just want to say that Dawkins is part of a group who argues evolution on a genetic level, not on the individual or group level. It's about the gene's survival.

 

 

EDIT: Altruism, if evolution was on the individual level, would poss serious problems to theory of evolution. After all, if the "best" of a species kills itself for a weak one that violates what evolution is about. Then you get evolution for the group and that fails to....and I'm going to be soooo late with these papers...**** me.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was making the point that altruism doesn't REQUIRE intelligence: it's not a prerequisite.

 

Once we accept this possibility, then it might also be feasible for genes (being non-intelligent and possessing / evolving survival traits) to display altruistic "behaviours" ...

[Walsingham]

*makes petulant child face and ignores topic*

[Xard]

On Jesus being half-god: From Christian point of view Jesus is 100 % human and 100 % God

[taks]

which is, btw, 100% strange.

 

taks