Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on April 03, 2025, 03:25:23 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Religions are today unpopular for various reasons. But religions could be seen as the source of our civilized values of today.
Please check out the article below.I am sure I have discussed it before but worth discussing again.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
*********
Religions have never had it so bad!
Many people of science lead by people like the illustrious Professor Richard Dawkins, are very vocal about the ills of religions and the need to rid society of this scourge as soon as possible.
Atheism is the new trend! Religious values are being replaced by secular values such as…humanism, rationality, integration, non judgement, globalization, non-violence, universal brotherhood, animal rights and so on.
These values and ideals are seen as more ‘civilized’ and desirable the world over compared to traditional values.
No doubt, the current trends are very positive and are to be welcomed!
But how did we today arrive at a situation where such universal and secular values are becoming the norm around the world?! How did society, world over, move from tribal and feudal communities to societies of today with such universally acceptable values of humanism, tolerance and globalization?
I would give the credit almost entirely to religions!
Religions are the ladder that have enabled human societies to reach such high levels of progress in human integration, self discipline and universality. Once a certain objective is achieved, the ladder that we use to get there may seem irrelevant and unnecessary….but its usefulness in reaching our goals cannot be denied, rather, it should be acknowledged.
**********
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Religious values are being replaced by secular values such as…humanism, rationality, integration, non judgement, globalization, non-violence, universal brotherhood, animal rights and so on.
And are there any of those values that you disagree with Sriram. That seems like an excellent list of values that we should all be following.
And you seem to imply that these values are somehow opposed to religious values - are they? I don't think they are - I suspect most religions also espouse most of these values albeit they may be described in rather different terms. I think what we are seeing, largely, is much more universal values that are intrinsic to the human experience and to the development of the human species via evolution. These have always been there. At times they have been phrased in the language of religion, but now they are being phrased in a secular manner to reflect a decline in religiosity in most developed countries.
-
And are there any of those values that you disagree with Sriram. That seems like an excellent list of values that we should all be following.
And you seem to imply that these values are somehow opposed to religious values - are they? I don't think they are - I suspect most religions also espouse most of these values albeit they may be described in rather different terms. I think what we are seeing, largely, is much more universal values that are intrinsic to the human experience and to the development of the human species via evolution. These have always been there. At times they have been phrased in the language of religion, but now they are being phrased in a secular manner to reflect a decline in religiosity in most developed countries.
Dear Prof,
But are we seeing those values, we will now go over to our roving reporter Nearlysane who brings us all the daily news from around the world just for our little forum, Sane just for us guys in the studio, the hot topic is values and lets talk America are we seeing those values in the good old US of A.
Sorry Sane, just being silly it is one of those rhetorical questions. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Religions are the ladder that have enabled human societies to reach such high levels of progress in human integration, self discipline and universality. Once a certain objective is achieved, the ladder that we use to get there may seem irrelevant and unnecessary….but its usefulness in reaching our goals cannot be denied, rather, it should be acknowledged.
I don't think that is necessarily true Sriram, given that there is no evidence that religions even existed for most of the time since humans first evolved perhaps 300,000 years ago.
I think what you are referring to is the need for complex societal structures for the development and progress of humans as a species. Certainly religion can fulfil than need for complex societal structures, but so can and have other societal structures both in the past and the present.
So realistically the development of humans over the past 300,000 years seems to have a relatively recent phase, perhaps the last 10,000 years where religions have played a substantial role, but there is little evidence religion existed before then. So if, as you appear to be suggesting, religion gets pushed out of human development in the next phase (not convinced that this is true) then religion would represent a rather brief transient societal construct within a much longer humans developmental process.
-
And are there any of those values that you disagree with Sriram. That seems like an excellent list of values that we should all be following.
And you seem to imply that these values are somehow opposed to religious values - are they? I don't think they are - I suspect most religions also espouse most of these values albeit they may be described in rather different terms. I think what we are seeing, largely, is much more universal values that are intrinsic to the human experience and to the development of the human species via evolution. These have always been there. At times they have been phrased in the language of religion, but now they are being phrased in a secular manner to reflect a decline in religiosity in most developed countries.
I am not suggesting anything of that sort. You have misunderstood.
I fully agree with the modern secular value of humanism, freedom, globalization, liberation, equality and so on. I am only saying that religions have been largely responsibly for the development of such values in society over the centuries, even though many proponents of such values may not today be religious.
These values could be basic to humans, but have required religious means to be communicated and enforced.
-
I don't think that is necessarily true Sriram, given that there is no evidence that religions even existed for most of the time since humans first evolved perhaps 300,000 years ago.
I think what you are referring to is the need for complex societal structures for the development and progress of humans as a species. Certainly religion can fulfil than need for complex societal structures, but so can and have other societal structures both in the past and the present.
So realistically the development of humans over the past 300,000 years seems to have a relatively recent phase, perhaps the last 10,000 years where religions have played a substantial role, but there is little evidence religion existed before then. So if, as you appear to be suggesting, religion gets pushed out of human development in the next phase (not convinced that this is true) then religion would represent a rather brief transient societal construct within a much longer humans developmental process.
Last 10000 years is good enough. That is when settled communities started forming.
My point is very simple. Developing a sense of kinship is impossible for groups divided by geography, racial differences, language differences and other social and cultural differences. Our animal instincts and mutual suspicions will make it near impossible.
Religion has managed to do just that. It has integrated people across geography, language, race and other differences.
About the future, I am assuming and hoping that certain religions will get merged together to form just a couple of religious groups which will also eventually disappear and people around the world will have just one philosophical basis for their goals and to explain the purpose and meaning of life and death.
-
Last 10000 years is good enough. That is when settled communities started forming.
My point is very simple. Developing a sense of kinship is impossible for groups divided by geography, racial differences, language differences and other social and cultural differences. Our animal instincts and mutual suspicions will make it near impossible.
Religion has managed to do just that. It has integrated people across geography, language, race and other differences.
About the future, I am assuming and hoping that certain religions will get merged together to form just a couple of religious groups which will also eventually disappear and people around the world will have just one philosophical basis for their goals and to explain the purpose and meaning of life and death.
It is beyond doubt that societal and cultural norms associated with ritual, practice, accepted norms etc have been instrumental in the development of human societies. This is largely because human babies/children take so long to develop and there is a need to create a safe space around then to allow them to learn and develop the skills necessary for survival. If humans popped out and had adult-like attributes within months (as is the case for many other species) then I doubt these societal norms would have been necessary or would have developed.
However I think we need to consider what exactly is meant by religion - it is clearly a subset of complex societal structures, with (I guess) the key element being some reference to the supernatural. So I guess the question is whether this overlay which turns a complex societal structure into a complex religious societal structure is necessary. As you've accepted the earliest structures did not appear to have this religious overlay, and you also seem to think that in the future we might have very complex societal structures but without religious overlay.
So the question is whether this religious overlay (linked to the supernatural) was necessary for the development of human societies from about 10,000 years ago to now or whether it was incidental. There is certainly some strong evidence that many ancient civilisations had a strong atheist element to them, such that belief or otherwise in gods wasn't really an important aspect holding those societies together.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#
-
It is beyond doubt that societal and cultural norms associated with ritual, practice, accepted norms etc have been instrumental in the development of human societies. This is largely because human babies/children take so long to develop and there is a need to create a safe space around then to allow them to learn and develop the skills necessary for survival. If humans popped out and had adult-like attributes within months (as is the case for many other species) then I doubt these societal norms would have been necessary or would have developed.
However I think we need to consider what exactly is meant by religion - it is clearly a subset of complex societal structures, with (I guess) the key element being some reference to the supernatural. So I guess the question is whether this overlay which turns a complex societal structure into a complex religious societal structure is necessary. As you've accepted the earliest structures did not appear to have this religious overlay, and you also seem to think that in the future we might have very complex societal structures but without religious overlay.
So the question is whether this religious overlay (linked to the supernatural) was necessary for the development of human societies from about 10,000 years ago to now or whether it was incidental. There is certainly some strong evidence that many ancient civilisations had a strong atheist element to them, such that belief or otherwise in gods wasn't really an important aspect holding those societies together.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#
I am not arguing for theism or atheism. I am merely saying that religions have been successful in uniting large groups of people across all differences and have also been responsible for the civilized values that we today believe in.
I don't think atheism by itself has produced any sense of kinship among divergent groups across the world or produced any shared set of values.
-
It is beyond doubt that societal and cultural norms associated with ritual, practice, accepted norms etc have been instrumental in the development of human societies. This is largely because human babies/children take so long to develop and there is a need to create a safe space around then to allow them to learn and develop the skills necessary for survival. If humans popped out and had adult-like attributes within months (as is the case for many other species) then I doubt these societal norms would have been necessary or would have developed.
However I think we need to consider what exactly is meant by religion - it is clearly a subset of complex societal structures, with (I guess) the key element being some reference to the supernatural. So I guess the question is whether this overlay which turns a complex societal structure into a complex religious societal structure is necessary. As you've accepted the earliest structures did not appear to have this religious overlay, and you also seem to think that in the future we might have very complex societal structures but without religious overlay.
So the question is whether this religious overlay (linked to the supernatural) was necessary for the development of human societies from about 10,000 years ago to now or whether it was incidental. There is certainly some strong evidence that many ancient civilisations had a strong atheist element to them, such that belief or otherwise in gods wasn't really an important aspect holding those societies together.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#
Dear Prof,
Thank you ( that's a genuine thank you ) for the link, I will read it again at my leisure ( during my middleweek, its the new thing, ask JP he invented it :o ) one thing I will agree with your link, Atheism the word Atheism is a very old word, it certainly predates Christianity.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sriram,
For me your link does not go far enough, religion has been a huge driving force throughout mankind's history, and I would argue since we stepped out of the cave, it is the way we are hot wired, we are homo religious,
Although it does mention Islam as brutal and violent, is that right, not a expert but that does not sit right.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sriram,
For me your link does not go far enough, religion has been a huge driving force throughout mankind's history, and I would argue since we stepped out of the cave, it is the way we are hot wired, we are homo religious,
Although it does mention Islam as brutal and violent, is that right, not a expert but that does not sit right.
Gonnagle.
Religion isn't a driving force. It doesn't exist outside of humanity. This is just the mirror of the atheists on here who think that religion is a bad force.
-
Dear Prof,
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion#
So I have read your link ( quite a few times now ) and my initial thought was, Ha! those old Atheists at it again but that was kneejerk ( beware the kneejerk ) but at the end of the link it states,
Whitmarsh stresses that his study is not designed to prove, or disprove, the truth of atheism itself. On the book’s first page, however, he adds: “I do, however, have a strong conviction – that has hardened in the course of researching and writing this book – that cultural and religious pluralism, and free debate, are indispensable to the good life.”
And I am thinking, what the hell is religious pluralism
Religious pluralism is the recognition and respect for the diversity of religious beliefs and practices, promoting the idea that multiple paths can lead to understanding and connection with the divine or ultimate reality, rather than asserting the superiority of one religion over others.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Definition:
Religious pluralism is an attitude or policy that acknowledges and values the existence of different religious belief systems within a society.
Key Concepts:
Diversity: It recognizes the variety of religious traditions, practices, and beliefs that exist.
Respect: It emphasizes the importance of respecting the beliefs and practices of others, even if they differ from one's own.
Coexistence: It promotes the idea that different religions can coexist peacefully and even benefit from mutual understanding and dialogue.
Philosophical and Theological Approaches:
Humility: Pluralism often involves a degree of humility regarding the truth claims of one's own religion, recognizing that other traditions may also hold valuable insights.
Dialogue and Understanding: It encourages respectful dialogue and mutual understanding between different religious traditions.
Multiple Paths: It suggests that there may be multiple valid paths to spiritual understanding or salvation, rather than a single, exclusive path.
Examples:
Interfaith cooperation: Organizations and initiatives that promote dialogue and collaboration between different religious groups.
Academic study: The study of different religions in a way that emphasizes their similarities and differences, rather than promoting one religion as superior.
Societal acceptance: A society that allows for the free practice of different religions and protects the rights of religious minorities.
Distinction from other terms:
Religious tolerance: While tolerance is important, pluralism goes beyond mere tolerance to embrace the value of religious diversity.
Religious relativism: Pluralism is not the same as relativism, which suggests that all religions are equally valid, regardless of their truth claims.
So I now add to my list, I am not only subjective Christian type poster but can now add to my list, religious pluralist ;)
As for the rest of your link, yes all the great names mentioned were Atheists but only in the old sense of the word not in the modern definition.
As a example I give you one of my favourites, old Socrates, wonderful man.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates/The-charge-of-impiety
A deeply religious man, he just wanted people to actually think about their religion and not just humbly accept.
Gonnagle.
-
I have recently viewed many witness stories about people's personal encounters with Jesus Christ. These witnesses comprise many Jews, Muslims and Atheists. A common theme is from people who have come from the depths of despair seeing no ultimate purpose in their lives to discovering profound love and joy in their personal encounter with Jesus. Many were openly hostile to thoughts of Jesus before their encounter, but now have had their lives turned around in a way they never dreamed of. Professor John Lennox considers these witness stories provide the most convincing argument for his Christian faith, for he knows of no people who have had their lives enriched by such joy and love in turning to Atheism or other faiths.
Many of these personal witness stories can be viewed on the "one for Israel" website.
-
I have recently viewed many witness stories about people's personal encounters with Jesus Christ. These witnesses comprise many Jews, Muslims and Atheists. A common theme is from people who have come from the depths of despair seeing no ultimate purpose in their lives to discovering profound love and joy in their personal encounter with Jesus. Many were openly hostile to thoughts of Jesus before their encounter, but now have had their lives turned around in a way they never dreamed of. Professor John Lennox considers these witness stories provide the most convincing argument for his Christian faith, for he knows of no people who have had their lives enriched by such joy and love in turning to Atheism or other faiths.
Many of these personal witness stories can be viewed on the "one for Israel" website.
Well Prof Lennox of course is talking anecdotes and probably a small sample size and which furthermore may be coloured by selection bias. Surveys show that interfaith conversions are largely away from Christianity and towards Islam. Anyone can cherry pick statistics to suit their bias but then they are missing the bigger truth.
-
I have recently viewed many witness stories about people's personal encounters with Jesus Christ. These witnesses comprise many Jews, Muslims and Atheists. A common theme is from people who have come from the depths of despair seeing no ultimate purpose in their lives to discovering profound love and joy in their personal encounter with Jesus. Many were openly hostile to thoughts of Jesus before their encounter, but now have had their lives turned around in a way they never dreamed of. Professor John Lennox considers these witness stories provide the most convincing argument for his Christian faith, for he knows of no people who have had their lives enriched by such joy and love in turning to Atheism or other faiths.
Many of these personal witness stories can be viewed on the "one for Israel" website.
Well if someone told me they had had a 'personal encounter with Jesus Christ' I wouldn't be inclined to believe them, for the obvious reason that the person they referred to (assuming they ever existed as described in the NT) has been dead for around 2,000 years.
Can't see much 'joy' in believing the unbelievable.
-
Surveys show that interfaith conversions are largely away from Christianity and towards Islam.
How does that help atheism? As long ago as the 17th century, John Bunyan considered Islam...but as an easier option to his spiritual struggles in his Christian experience as mentioned in his spiritual autobiography "Grace Abounding".
-
Well if someone told me they had had a 'personal encounter with Jesus Christ' I wouldn't be inclined to believe them, for the obvious reason that the person they referred to (assuming they ever existed as described in the NT) has been dead for around 2,000 years.
Can't see much 'joy' in believing the unbelievable.
A materialist should be arguing that life is merely how matter is arranged and that a sufficient technology should be able to do that as a matter of course therefore I don't think it's at all in the realm of unbelievable. Argument from incredulity Gordon?
-
A materialist should be arguing that life is merely how matter is arranged and that a sufficient technology should be able to do that as a matter of course therefore I don't think it's at all in the realm of unbelievable. Argument from incredulity Gordon?
What technology might this be, Vlad, that allows anyone to have an ongoing relationship with someone who has been dead these last two millennia? If you think this is possible, and has been possible for the last 2,000 years, then you are the incredulous one.
-
I have recently viewed many witness stories about people's personal encounters with Jesus Christ. These witnesses comprise many Jews, Muslims and Atheists. A common theme is from people who have come from the depths of despair seeing no ultimate purpose in their lives to discovering profound love and joy in their personal encounter with Jesus. Many were openly hostile to thoughts of Jesus before their encounter, but now have had their lives turned around in a way they never dreamed of. Professor John Lennox considers these witness stories provide the most convincing argument for his Christian faith, for he knows of no people who have had their lives enriched by such joy and love in turning to Atheism or other faiths.
Many of these personal witness stories can be viewed on the "one for Israel" website.
As is usual for you, you are inclined to cherry pick witness stories which support only your own blinkered viewpoint. There are plenty of other witness stories on the internet which support entirely different beliefs or non beliefs of course, many of which give purpose and happiness to those concerned. I see no reason to think that Christianity has some sort of preference in the happiness stakes. For my own part, I have never seen any need for any god and yet I seem to have lived a reasonably happy and stable life, full of the almost inevitable ups and downs of course, but based on solid foundations which also have the advantage, in my case, of being rational and honest.
-
What technology might this be, Vlad, that allows anyone to have an ongoing relationship with someone who has been dead these last two millennia? If you think this is possible, and has been possible for the last 2,000 years, then you are the incredulous one.
The technology to rearrange matter would do it, if that is all life is. How you think any advance on that existing capacity is unbelievable well, you’ve asserted it...your burden.
If however there is more to life than the material you can hardly then rule out spirits and souls.
This isn’t any old spirit though, but the Wholly divine Jesus and ressurection is a divine technology so the human ability to do it which is what you are basing your objection is not relevant to the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead
-
The technology to rearrange matter would do it, if that is all life is. How you think any advance on that existing capacity is unbelievable well, you’ve asserted it...your burden.
If however there is more to life than the material you can hardly then rule out spirits and souls.
This isn’t any old spirit though, but the Wholly divine Jesus and ressurection is a divine technology so the human ability to do it which is what you are basing your objection is not relevant to the claim that God raised Jesus from the dead
Now that is incredulity.
-
Surveys show that interfaith conversions are largely away from Christianity and towards Islam.
Only if you are considering conversation from one religion to another. But even then the numbers are tiny - the proportion of people converting from one religion to another in the UK is just a few percentage.
So your mosque isn't packed with ex-christians - nope it is packed with people brought up muslim, with perhaps one in one hundred having converted from a different religion and a similar proportion having converted from a non-religious background.
And similarly your church isn't packed with ex-muslims - nope it is packed with people brought up christian, with perhaps one in one hundred having converted from a different religion and a similar proportion having converted from a non-religious background.
In fact the only 'conversations' that happen in any significant numbers are the conversions of people brought up religious who have become non-religious as adults. Those numbers are huge - indeed pretty well 50% of people brought up Christian in the UK end up non-religious as adults. Numbers are a little less for muslims, but still dwarf any conversion from one religion to another.
-
Well Prof Lennox of course is talking anecdotes and probably a small sample size and which furthermore may be coloured by selection bias. Surveys show that interfaith conversions are largely away from Christianity and towards Islam. Anyone can cherry pick statistics to suit their bias but then they are missing the bigger truth.
I wonder how many have migrated to the 'new' religion - Bahá'í Faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith#Demographics
-
Now that is incredulity.
If you say that resurrection couldn't happen in 1st century Palestine because there was no human technology for it.
1) Christians aren't arguing human technology.
If you say resurrection is something humans will never have the technology for on what grounds do you make that claim?
-
Only if you are considering conversation from one religion to another. But even then the numbers are tiny - the proportion of people converting from one religion to another in the UK is just a few percentage.
Your definition of "brought up as" is in my view most suspect to the point where I would say you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
So your mosque isn't packed with ex-christians - nope it is packed with people brought up muslim, with perhaps one in one hundred having converted from a different religion and a similar proportion having converted from a non-religious background.
And similarly your church isn't packed with ex-muslims - nope it is packed with people brought up christian, with perhaps one in one hundred having converted from a different religion and a similar proportion having converted from a non-religious background.
In fact the only 'conversations' that happen in any significant numbers are the conversions of people brought up religious who have become non-religious as adults. Those numbers are huge - indeed pretty well 50% of people brought up Christian in the UK end up non-religious as adults. Numbers are a little less for muslims, but still dwarf any conversion from one religion to another.
[/quote]
-
Your definition of "brought up as" is in my view most suspect to the point where I would say you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Yawn - as ever Vlad you are talking bollocks.
I'm not making up any definition of 'brought up as' - I am referring to proper bone fide academic research on religiosity. So to an extent it could be considered to be the definition of the academic experts. But it isn't even that, because the point is that the researchers typically ask that question of the research participants. So it isn't my definition, nor realistically is it the researchers. Nope is it the view of the people be asked as part of the survey - it is them defining for themselves how they were brought up in terms of religion.
So unless you are saying that these people are wrong about their own views on their own upbringing (or you are jumping all in on the no true Scotsman fallacy) then you are talking complete non-sense. Realistically I would trust an individual to be able to define whether or not they were brought up christian, or muslim, or non-religious rather than me or you Vlad.
-
If you say that resurrection couldn't happen in 1st century Palestine because there was no human technology for it.
1) Christians aren't arguing human technology.
If you say resurrection is something humans will never have the technology for on what grounds do you make that claim?
My but you are dense at times: I'm wasn't talking about technology: it was you (a Christian) that mentioned it and not me, so be careful with all that straw.
My point is that since you guys aren't able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies, and since the claim is metaphysical one that is, frankly, fantastical in nature, then there are no good reasons to take it seriously.
-
My but you are dense at times: I'm wasn't talking about technology: it was you (a Christian) that mentioned it and not me, so be careful with all that straw.
My point is that since you guys aren't able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies, and since the claim is metaphysical one that is, frankly, fantastical in nature, then there are no good reasons to take it seriously.
By technology I mean the use of any technique for example techniques in meditation techniques in baking etc.
That is what is meant here when I mention the word technology.
Again if life is merely the arrangement of matter, then as a materialist you HAVE to accept, and certainly in an infinite universe that the possibility of being able to resurrect has or will be achieved.
-
Yawn - as ever Vlad you are talking bollocks.
I'm not making up any definition of 'brought up as' - I am referring to proper bone fide academic research on religiosity. So to an extent it could be considered to be the definition of the academic experts. But it isn't even that, because the point is that the researchers typically ask that question of the research participants. So it isn't my definition, nor realistically is it the researchers. Nope is it the view of the people be asked as part of the survey - it is them defining for themselves whether how they were brought up in terms of religion.
So unless you are saying that these people are wrong about their own views on their own upbringing (or you are jumping all in on the no true Scotsman fallacy) then you are talking complete non-sense. Realistically I would trust an individual to be able to define whether or not they were brought up christian, or muslim, or non-religious rather than me or you Vlad.
-
Yawn - as ever Vlad you are talking bollocks.
I'm not making up any definition of 'brought up as' - I am referring to proper bone fide academic research on religiosity. So to an extent it could be considered to be the definition of the academic experts. But it isn't even that, because the point is that the researchers typically ask that question of the research participants. So it isn't my definition, nor realistically is it the researchers. Nope is it the view of the people be asked as part of the survey - it is them defining for themselves whether how they were brought up in terms of religion.
So unless you are saying that these people are wrong about their own views on their own upbringing (or you are jumping all in on the no true Scotsman fallacy) then you are talking complete non-sense. Realistically I would trust an individual to be able to define whether or not they were brought up christian, or muslim, or non-religious rather than me or you Vlad.
Do you have any point to make Vlad. Lovely to see you simply post my post in full without comment. Perhaps it is because you've accepted my points completely ... but somehow I doubt it.
-
My but you are dense at times: I'm wasn't talking about technology: it was you (a Christian) that mentioned it and not me, so be careful with all that straw.
My point is that since you guys aren't able to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies, and since the claim is metaphysical one that is, frankly, fantastical in nature, then there are no good reasons to take it seriously.
I can understand your incredulity over things not witnessed on a day to day basis and to be frank fascinated by what you find you can believe in and what you are unable to
And I suppose that leads on to how you gate new experiences.
At the end of the day, I came by Christ by means of the God first and by the moral condition of humanity which led me to abandon humanism as too rose tinted and toward the Christian diagnosis of human morality.
-
By technology I mean the use of any technique for example techniques in meditation techniques in baking etc.
That is what is meant here when I mention the word technology.
Again if life is merely the arrangement of matter, then as a materialist you HAVE to accept, and certainly in an infinite universe that the possibility of being able to resurrect has or will be achieved.
I don't you know: you are making a religious claim of a fantastical sort based on ancient anecdote for which you haven't excluded the risks of mistakes or lies, and where the anecdotes have no meaningful provenance. On that basis alone I can reject the claim that a specific dead person didn't stay dead 2,000 years ago.
I don't have to even consider whether true resurrection will ever be technologically possible until such times as you, since the possibility of resurrection using technology is your suggestion, can explain how that could ever happen. In any event, it's not as if Jesus was cloned for a few days 2,000 years ago.
You may as well ask me to believe that winged kangaroos were spotted flying over Kelvingrove Park in Glasgow because somebody said they saw them - it's only 15 minutes away by car, but I wouldn't bother going to check. I know ridiculous when I hear it.
-
I don't you know: you are making a religious claim of a fantastical sort based on ancient anecdote for which you haven't excluded the risks of mistakes or lies, and where the anecdotes have no meaningful provenance. On that basis alone I can reject the claim that a specific dead person didn't stay dead 2,000 years ago.
I don't have to even consider whether true resurrection will ever be technologically possible until such times as you, since the possibility of resurrection using technology is your suggestion, can explain how that could ever happen. In any event, it's not as if Jesus was cloned for a few days 2,000 years ago.
You may as well ask me to believe that winged kangaroos were spotted flying over Kelvingrove Park in Glasgow because somebody said they saw them - it's only 15 minutes away by car, but I wouldn't bother going to check. I know ridiculous when I hear it.
Firstly winged Kangaroos flying over Kelvingrove park(hardly believable) good be explained by heavy use of alcohol and drugs in that area (highly believable).
In other words the Christian reports of resurrection have a far wider basis than your single incident scenario.
Also, since you believe that life is merely the arrangement of matter, your plea of it never happening either deliberately or spontaneously contradicts that.
So resurrection possible.But belief in it is reinforced by encountering the risen Christ, a fear of that encounter is not so much that it is scientifically improbable but it’s consequences for your moral ego.
-
Firstly winged Kangaroos flying over Kelvingrove park(hardly believable) good be explained by heavy use of alcohol and drugs in that area (highly believable).
I'm sure the residents of Park Circus will appreciate your views: have you been there, Vlad?
In other words the Christian reports of resurrection have a far wider basis than your single incident scenario.
Is it not the case that this 'resurrection' is a single incident claim?
Also, since you believe that life is merely the arrangement of matter, your plea of it never happening either deliberately or spontaneously contradicts that.
Is this with or without the technology you mentioned earlier?
So resurrection possible.But belief in it is reinforced by encountering the risen Christ, a fear of that encounter is not so much that it is scientifically improbable but it’s consequences for your moral ego.
Nonsense.
-
I'm sure the residents of Park Circus will appreciate your views: have you been there, Vlad?
Is it not the case that this 'resurrection' is a single incident claim?
Hi Gordon
Well, according to 1Corinthians 15:6, the risen Christ was supposed to have appeared to more than 500 people. The nature of these appearances is not specified, but since it is Paul who is writing, I suppose he is talking about internal mental events, like his own vision of Christ ("The Lord revealed himself in me"). We might be justified in giving another explanation to these appearances than the one of Christian believers. At any rate, Paul's vision differs considerably from the very physical manifestation of Christ, reported by the gospel writers (who of course were writing later, and probably needed to beef up the 'in your face' solidity of the risen Jesus.
Of course, the actual Resurrection was supposed to be an individual incident, but everything was written about so long about after Jesus' earthly ministry, I don't see why we should trust such fantastical narratives, especially since they are contradictory.
I do wish Vlad wouldn't keep banging on with his 'one size fits all' explanation of why Christ doesn't 'appear' to people. Many have by no means poo-pooed the idea that Christ might still be living, and have not been granted any spiritual experience at all. The 'Holy Cow' Mother Theresa was one such.
-
Dear Vlad,
Firstly winged Kangaroos flying over Kelvingrove park(hardly believable) good be explained by heavy use of alcohol and drugs in that area (highly believable).
I say old chap! steady on! High class alcohol and drugs please! followed by Tiffin on the lawn 8) standards dear boy standards :P
Gonnagle.
-
If you say that resurrection couldn't happen in 1st century Palestine because there was no human technology for it.
1) Christians aren't arguing human technology.
If you say resurrection is something humans will never have the technology for on what grounds do you make that claim?
Think Gordon's comment was aimed more at the second part of your post rather than the first.