Atheism: What's the point?

[Ashmoria]

How do you know? Maybe their default perspective is that there must be some causative entity, at the very least a basic prime mover, to what he/she experiences. Just like many babies believe that the first person they see must be their mother, or creator, or whatever.

infants (newborns) don't have the concept of "mother". they dont even have the concept of "OTHER".

[Ashmoria]

There are other ways of not being an atheist, other than not believing or being aware of any specific God. For instance, I could believe that there must be some sort of creator to the universe, but have no experience of it and no idea what the creator is like, this would make me not an atheist, but also would not make me believe or be aware of any specific God.

to the extent that you have a belief in a creator of the universe, you are not an atheist. you are an agnostic theist.

[Grave_n_idle]

How do you know? Maybe their default perspective is that there must be some causative entity, at the very least a basic prime mover, to what he/she experiences. Just like many babies believe that the first person they see must be their mother, or creator, or whatever.

Because we have a pretty good idea how babies work.

In the beginning, babies are only aware of a limited scope - 'what is'.

As they get a little older, they become aware of 'self' is addition to 'what is'.

As they get a little older, they become aware that not every factor impacting 'what is', is part of 'self' - they become aware that there other 'selfs'.


So - even the 'concept' of god is nonsensical to a newborn. The concept wouldn't have any meaning, AT LEAST, until the point at which the baby learns that other parts of their reality are autonomous.

[Hydesland]

There are other ways of not being an atheist, other than not believing or being aware of any specific God. For instance, I could believe that there must be some sort of creator to the universe, but have no experience of it and no idea what the creator is like, this would make me not an atheist, but also would not make me believe or be aware of any specific God.

to the extent that you have a belief in a creator of the universe, you are not an atheist. you are an agnostic theist.

So just because a baby is not aware of any specific God, does not make it an atheist by default. Even if by default it can't believe that any non specific causative entity exists, the fact that it hasn't experienced a specific God yet is not a reason.

[Grave_n_idle]

So just because a baby is not aware of any specific God, does not make it an atheist by default. Even if by default it can't believe that any non specific causative entity exists, the fact that it hasn't experienced a specific God yet is not a reason.

It's not a matter of awareness - it's a matter of belief.

BAbies lack belief BECAUSE they lack awareness, it isn't the awareness itself that defines you as an atheist.

[Tmutarakhan]

Right. Tacitus is a recorder of gossip.

And he's the best source we have in terms of contemporary, independent reporting.

Yep. Taking him at face value, which there is no good-faith reason not to do: within 25 years after the crucifixion, the Christians were a sufficiently widespread and notorious group that they were a useful political scapegoat in the aftermath of a traumatic terrorist attack on the city of Rome; and the basic story of their origin, that they were followers of a troublemaker who had been put to death for his views, was already taken for granted. This seems plain enough, and not at all difficult to understand.

[Grave_n_idle]

Right. Tacitus is a recorder of gossip.

And he's the best source we have in terms of contemporary, independent reporting.

Yep. Taking him at face value, which there is no good-faith reason not to do: within 25 years after the crucifixion, the Christians were a sufficiently widespread and notorious group that they were a useful political scapegoat in the aftermath of a traumatic terrorist attack on the city of Rome; and the basic story of their origin, that they were followers of a troublemaker who had been put to death for his views, was already taken for granted. This seems plain enough, and not at all difficult to understand.

Taking him at face value, which there is no good-faith reason to do... surely?

Why do we instatnly assume he - of all historians, ever - had no agenda?

If Tacitus disliked the nascent Christian church, his history could talk about the cult of Chrestus, whether or not anyone else had ever talked about them, no?

We can be pretty sure that Jospehus was tampered at a significantly later date, and most later discussion focuses on earlier sources like Tacitus. We've very little material to corroborate Tacitus with.


If we take DO Tacitus at face value, he discusses a cult with a reputation (that doesn't intrinsically make them widespread - it just means they're loud - look at WBC), and attempts to pin something on them. He discusses the alleged origins of that cult. That doesn't really say much about the cult, and it says even later about the TRUTH of the origin myth.

[Secluded Islands]

Right. Tacitus is a recorder of gossip.

And he's the best source we have in terms of contemporary, independent reporting.

Yep. Taking him at face value, which there is no good-faith reason not to do: within 25 years after the crucifixion, the Christians were a sufficiently widespread and notorious group that they were a useful political scapegoat in the aftermath of a traumatic terrorist attack on the city of Rome; and the basic story of their origin, that they were followers of a troublemaker who had been put to death for his views, was already taken for granted. This seems plain enough, and not at all difficult to understand.

are you saying tacitus is or isnt reliable?

do we have the original manuscripts of tacitus writings? the paragraphs tacitus wrote about "christ" could have been written in afterwords by religious copyists...

[Ashmoria]

are you saying tacitus is or isnt reliable?

do we have the original manuscripts of tacitus writings? the paragraphs tacitus wrote about "christ" could have been written in afterwords by religious copyists...

no ancient writer is totally reliable. they didnt have the same attitude toward "the truth" that we do.

any story needs some kind of independent verification if you are going to rely on it being true.

not unlike stories you read on the net. until it has some kind of verification you believe it at your own risk.

[Grave_n_idle]

are you saying tacitus is or isnt reliable?

do we have the original manuscripts of tacitus writings? the paragraphs tacitus wrote about "christ" could have been written in afterwords by religious copyists...

no ancient writer is totally reliable. they didnt have the same attitude toward "the truth" that we do.

any story needs some kind of independent verification if you are going to rely on it being true.

not unlike stories you read on the net. until it has some kind of verification you believe it at your own risk.

And I'd say the best insurance is to apply the golden rule that you'd apply on the internet - the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence it requires.

So - the blog you read where the girl says she found $10 on the street.... not too much invested in that story, you don't need much more 'evidence'.

The same blog, and the same girl is talking about how she was playing poker last night, with Karl Marx and Jesus? A little more evidence might be required.

An old book that talks about a magical bouyant zombie carpenter? Yeah... 'some guy called John said so' isn't cutting it.

[Ashmoria]

are you saying tacitus is or isnt reliable?

do we have the original manuscripts of tacitus writings? the paragraphs tacitus wrote about "christ" could have been written in afterwords by religious copyists...

no ancient writer is totally reliable. they didnt have the same attitude toward "the truth" that we do.

any story needs some kind of independent verification if you are going to rely on it being true.

not unlike stories you read on the net. until it has some kind of verification you believe it at your own risk.

And I'd say the best insurance is to apply the golden rule that you'd apply on the internet - the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence it requires.

So - the blog you read where the girl says she found $10 on the street.... not too much invested in that story, you don't need much more 'evidence'.

The same blog, and the same girl is talking about how she was playing poker last night, with Karl Marx and Jesus? A little more evidence might be required.

An old book that talks about a magical bouyant zombie carpenter? Yeah... 'some guy called John said so' isn't cutting it.

especially when the stories are remarkably similar to other famous stories going around.

[Hayteria]

There are other ways of not being an atheist, other than not believing or being aware of any specific God. For instance, I could believe that there must be some sort of creator to the universe, but have no experience of it and no idea what the creator is like, this would make me not an atheist, but also would not make me believe or be aware of any specific God.

to the extent that you have a belief in a creator of the universe, you are not an atheist. you are an agnostic theist.

Just out of curiosity, would you consider Albert Einstein an agnostic theist? IIRC his perspective is that he believes in a god but not a god concerned about human beings, yet I've seen both atheists and religious people alike claim to have his views on their side.

[Ashmoria]

There are other ways of not being an atheist, other than not believing or being aware of any specific God. For instance, I could believe that there must be some sort of creator to the universe, but have no experience of it and no idea what the creator is like, this would make me not an atheist, but also would not make me believe or be aware of any specific God.

to the extent that you have a belief in a creator of the universe, you are not an atheist. you are an agnostic theist.

Just out of curiosity, would you consider Albert Einstein an agnostic theist? IIRC his perspective is that he believes in a god but not a god concerned about human beings, yet I've seen both atheists and religious people alike claim to have his views on their side.

if that is indeed what he believed, it would tend to indicate that he was an agnostic theist. theist because he believed there is a supreme being of some kind, agnostic (less certainly) because he didnt seem to know what sort of being this might be.

i dont know much about einstein so im not comfortable making a definite statement about his beliefs.

[Dakini]

We are born Atheists; we are born with no preset moral code or belief. Look at any baby in the maternity ward. They are all Atheists contrary to what their parents will say. After all, they don't know the difference,

Your parents taught you to be an Atheist. Just like i have been taught to belive in God. it's all what your parents teach you.

My parents taught me to be a Christian.

There goes your theory.

[Dakini]

Yes. Many.

Miraculous healings at Lourdes. People who are crippled, have cancer, etc. have been immedeatly healed after being dipped into a spring of water at Lourdes. (There's a story behind the water.)

A quick look found five cases the Catholic Church recognizes as "without scientific explanation". None of them had cancer.

A staircase that was made by a man resembling Saint Joseph created a spiral staircase with no central support with tools that were used 2000 years ago. No modern tools. To this day, scientests have not explained it.

Uh... http://www.csicop.org/si/9811/i-files.html not a miracle. Unless by miracle you mean safety hazard.

Instances of cement statues of Mary, Jesus, etc. crying blood. (This happens quite often. I've seen it on the news every once and a while.)

Find some scientific reports to back up the veracity of this... it's not hard to fake something like that.

There is much historical evidence that the miracles Jesus performed, actually happened.

No there isn't.

[Dakini]

There are other ways of not being an atheist, other than not believing or being aware of any specific God. For instance, I could believe that there must be some sort of creator to the universe, but have no experience of it and no idea what the creator is like, this would make me not an atheist, but also would not make me believe or be aware of any specific God.

to the extent that you have a belief in a creator of the universe, you are not an atheist. you are an agnostic theist.

Just out of curiosity, would you consider Albert Einstein an agnostic theist? IIRC his perspective is that he believes in a god but not a god concerned about human beings, yet I've seen both atheists and religious people alike claim to have his views on their side.

I wouldn't call Einstein much of a theist. When he refers to god he usually does so in the Spinoza sense where god=universe.

[Bassyruk]

No, the Bible has historical prophecies that have clearly come true, science, etc..

Proof?

Daniel 8? Ever heard of Alexander the Great?

[Ashmoria]

No, the Bible has historical prophecies that have clearly come true, science, etc..

Proof?

Daniel 8? Ever heard of Alexander the Great?

you might want to point to verses that clearly indicate alexander.

[Tmutarakhan]

Taking him at face value, which there is no good-faith reason to do... surely?

Why do we instatnly assume he - of all historians, ever - had no agenda?

Of course he has an agenda: he nakedly reflects the biases of Roman citizens of a certain class, and everything he says has to be understood as an account of how Romans of the circles he moved in talked, and viewed the affairs of the day. By "taking him at face value" that is precisely what I mean: when he reports how Romans were talking about the Christians, this may or may not be an accurate account of what the Christians at the time were like, but it is surely an accurate account of what Romans of Tacitus' class thought about them.

If Tacitus disliked the nascent Christian church, his history could talk about the cult of Chrestus, whether or not anyone else had ever talked about them, no?

And why would he dislike them without any contact with them or without ever hearing anybody else talk about them? I neither like nor dislike the Tenrikyo sect, since, except for one mention on NSG, I have never heard of their existence; I would have to hear some description of them, whether from a member or from somebody else talking about them, before I could possibly develop any attitude about them at all. Tacitus is quite open about the circumstances in which he heard about this cult, and what it was that he heard about them.

We can be pretty sure that Jospehus was tampered at a significantly later date

We know this because the added material is so obviously at variance with Josephus' real attitudes. He would never call Jesus the prophesied Messiah (he believed those prophecies were fulfilled by Vespasian!) but a later tamperer would. People in ancient times were really bad about writing convincing forgeries; they just didn't have the mind-set of putting themselves into somebody else's shoes. A later Christian author adding material to Tacitus would never have spoken about Christ or Christians in such derogatory terms: that material is obviously written by someone whose contempt for Christianity was entirely genuine.

We've very little material to corroborate Tacitus with.

When it comes to ancient history, we have very little material-- period. Most people and incidents that we have heard about, we hear about through one source only. That is just how it is. This is why you can't just take a source and throw it away; you need every bit of data you can. And every source must be evaluated in terms of what the biases and agendas of the authors are.

he discusses a cult with a reputation (that doesn't intrinsically make them widespread - it just means they're loud - look at WBC)

By "widespread", I meant geographically. He reports them as having spread from Judea to Rome. He does not note (or probably know, or care) how many branches there were in between the Levant and Italy, or say anything about their numbers. WBC members travel a lot, but have no branches anywhere outside Topeka.

He discusses the alleged origins of that cult. That doesn't really say much about the cult, and it says even later about the TRUTH of the origin myth.

He doesn't discuss any "origin myth"; he does not mention whether Christians of his day considered their founder to be a son of God, or a miracle worker, or whether they thought he had risen from the dead. Of course every cult starts with somebody; he doesn't say "The cult started with this guy Paul who told stories about about somebody no-one else could see", rather that the cult started with some preacher of pernicious superstition who was put to death in an effort to stop such rot from spreading. Occam's Razor suggests that he would have heard this account of how the cult started because it started with a preacher spreading what upper-class Romans would call pernicious superstition, who was put to death in an effort to stop such rot from spreading; there is absolutely nothing unusual about such a thing happening anywhere in the Roman Empire, especially in Judea. I don't see why you would to make up some more complicated story.

[Dakini]

Of course he has an agenda: he nakedly reflects the biases of Roman citizens of a certain class, and everything he says has to be understood as an account of how Romans of the circles he moved in talked, and viewed the affairs of the day. By "taking him at face value" that is precisely what I mean: when he reports how Romans were talking about the Christians, this may or may not be an accurate account of what the Christians at the time were like, but it is surely an accurate account of what Romans of Tacitus' class thought about them.

However, it's not necessarily an account of how they were thought of at the time of the fire. It's more likely an account of how they were thought of in 116CE.

Basically, your proof of Jesus boils down to proof that there were Christians by the beginning of the 2nd century. Nothing more.

[Grave_n_idle]

Of course he has an agenda... but it is surely an accurate account of what Romans of Tacitus' class thought about them.

These two points contradict one another.

A later Christian author adding material to Tacitus would never have spoken about Christ or Christians in such derogatory terms: that material is obviously written by someone whose contempt for Christianity was entirely genuine.

That rather depends on how much was added.

When it comes to ancient history, we have very little material-- period. Most people and incidents that we have heard about, we hear about through one source only. That is just how it is. This is why you can't just take a source and throw it away;

We absolutely can, and most of the time, 'we' do.

You find some new Roman text discussing some previously little known (or unknown) Roman demi-god, you don't analyse it as though it is a TRUE account. You consider it an important source for discussing it's own new data, perhaps - but you don't assume it means anything in terms of the literal existence of godlike creatures.

...you need every bit of data you can. And every source must be evaluated in terms of what the biases and agendas of the authors are.

...and in terms of it's own subject matter. And in terms of corroboration or conflict in other sources.

He doesn't discuss any "origin myth"

He talks about crucifixion - the origin myth of the Christian cult.

Occam's Razor suggests that he would have heard this account of how the cult started because it started with a preacher spreading what upper-class Romans would call pernicious superstition, who was put to death in an effort to stop such rot from spreading; there is absolutely nothing unusual about such a thing happening anywhere in the Roman Empire, especially in Judea. I don't see why you would to make up some more complicated story.

Occam's razor suggests that Tactitus was probably writing down gossip he heard - nothing else.

What he was writing could be true or false. He wasn't there, he wasn't even a contemporary of those events.

And what we know about gossip, is that stories change, adopt parts of other stories, and become personalised with the agendas of people that tell them.

[Grave_n_idle]

However, it's not necessarily an account of how they were thought of at the time of the fire. It's more likely an account of how they were thought of in 116CE.

Basically, your proof of Jesus boils down to proof that there were Christians by the beginning of the 2nd century. Nothing more.

Absolutely.

It can tell us something about when it was written. It can't be relied upon to be very objective or accurate on the fire... and it can be relied on even less for the veracity of the earlier events.

[Bassyruk]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

[UpwardThrust]

Atheists get free cookies.

I want a cookie

[UpwardThrust]

In what way is Christianity a cult? That's a load of crap.

It meets a minimum of 2-3 of the definitions as defined by webster ... only takes one to qualify