a question for atheists

[pencilart3]

Interesting post, Bob! I guess you weren't exactly asking for a response but oh well... You were talking about what happens to the half evolved humans such as the blade of grass, ant, etc... I don't believe that these are humans at all. And I definitely don't believe that a blade of grass has an afterlife. I don't believe in evolution, as you will soon discover from reading my previous posts. Apparently I am one of the only ones!

[timothy42b]

And I definitely don't believe that a blade of grass has an afterlife.

Dunno about grass, but the Bible does not distinguish between human and animal souls. 

[birba]

Amazing.  We're actually offspring of adam and eve.  It's really mind boggling.

[timothy42b]

Amazing.  We're actually offspring of adam and eve.  It's really mind boggling.

The Bible did not intend for us to think Adam and Eve were real individuals. 

They are archetypes. 

[birba]

You don't say!

[chopinlover01]

The Bible did not intend for us to think Adam and Eve were real individuals. 

They are archetypes. 

Here's where I have an issue.
The story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, yes? Then where does the "original sin" from several thousand years ago come from when Christ is crucified?
Which, by the way, may not actually have been "for our sins". In those times, crucifixion was the standard method of capital punishment- there were fields full of crucified felons and whatnot. Anyone who had opposing views to the state was often executed if they were too radical- which, Christ basically being a communist (lol), and wanting to help all the poor, hating the rich (a lot more liberal than you might have though), he was likely a high target on the government's list.

[timothy42b]

Here's where I have an issue.
The story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, yes? Then where does the "original sin" from several thousand years ago come from when Christ is crucified?
 

Okay, I get to lecture and educate a bit.

pencilart is a fundamentalist.  He thinks Adam and Eve are real individuals.  And that's okay, there's room for disagreement.  He also thinks all Christians believe that but his branch tends to not want to know more than they have to.  Certainly most theologians and clergy do not believe that. 

My branch is liberal so we have a little more appreciation for the diversity of opinion.

The idea of original sin as a debt attached to all mankind as a result of one man's minor screwup is obviously just plain silly.  To the extent that we believe in original sin as a concept, we think of it as just an observation or realization that human beings by nature are prone to misbehave.  We can't help this tendency, it's in our nature. 

Which, by the way, may not actually have been "for our sins".

"For our sins" meaning the concept of substitutional atonement?  That we are all condemned to eternal punishment and the only way out was for somebody else to be punished in our place?  Now it gets more complicated.  The average liberal member in the pew probably would agree if he gave it any thought.  But classically this has not been the church's position.  There are actually four competing explanations for the purpose of the crucifixion, and that is just one of them.  The favored explanation has varied through the years and across denominations somewhat, but only the fundamentalists really insist on substitutional atonement.  (and are completely unaware there are other ideas)  Only one of the canonical gospels supports that at all, the others at least hint at other reasons.  And I'm not even getting into the other 16 gospels we still have, that were in use at the time but didn't make the cut into the Bible.   

Of course as a practical matter you are correct.  Jews executed criminals and heretics by stoning, Romans executed insurgents by crucifixion.  It is easy to see which applied here. 

[pencilart3]

According to the Bible, when Jesus died it was not just another crucifixion because he never sinned, so when Jesus died, he was punished for our sins, not his, because he had none.

[liszt1022]

Still waiting for the shark tooth explanation.

[Bob]

Still waiting for the shark tooth explanation.

What's a shark tooth explanation?

[liszt1022]

What's a shark tooth explanation?

(see previous page)

[chopinlover01]

According to the Bible, when Jesus died it was not just another crucifixion because he never sinned, so when Jesus died, he was punished for our sins, not his, because he had none.

Christ still had very opposing viewpoints to the state at the time, so it's very possible he was executed for being too radical (and potentially seen as a threat to the state). The Bible isn't a reliable source of history at all- much less the say-all-end-all that you'd like to make it out to be.
Also,
Substitutional atonement doesn't make sense.
For one, your sins probably don't merit another guy having to die for you- plus, that doesn't even help in the first place.
It used to be that rural villages, once a year, would confess their sins unto a lamb and send the lamb out to the desert to starve to death.
Never changed their behavior- and it doesn't seem to work for the Roman Catholic priests, either, considering their fondness of the little boys () , but I digress.
Putting your sin on someone else doesn't fix the problem. You basically just wasted your savior- it would've done just as much good to use the lamb (or a lamp post, really).

Okay, I get to lecture and educate a bit.

pencilart is a fundamentalist.  He thinks Adam and Eve are real individuals.  And that's okay, there's room for disagreement.  He also thinks all Christians believe that but his branch tends to not want to know more than they have to.  Certainly most theologians and clergy do not believe that. 

My branch is liberal so we have a little more appreciation for the diversity of opinion.

As was mine, come to think of it, when I was a Christian.

The idea of original sin as a debt attached to all mankind as a result of one man's minor screwup is obviously just plain silly.  To the extent that we believe in original sin as a concept, we think of it as just an observation or realization that human beings by nature are prone to misbehave.  We can't help this tendency, it's in our nature. 

"For our sins" meaning the concept of substitutional atonement?  That we are all condemned to eternal punishment and the only way out was for somebody else to be punished in our place?  Now it gets more complicated.  The average liberal member in the pew probably would agree if he gave it any thought.  But classically this has not been the church's position.  There are actually four competing explanations for the purpose of the crucifixion, and that is just one of them.  The favored explanation has varied through the years and across denominations somewhat, but only the fundamentalists really insist on substitutional atonement.  (and are completely unaware there are other ideas)  Only one of the canonical gospels supports that at all, the others at least hint at other reasons.  And I'm not even getting into the other 16 gospels we still have, that were in use at the time but didn't make the cut into the Bible.   

Thanks for the insightful paragraph, Tim- would you mind explaining the other positions of original sin? You said there were 4, and I'd like to hear the rest, it definitely sounds interesting.
But my issue with this concept remains. As I was saying to Pencilart just now, the fact that we sin shouldn't mean that we have to have our supposed savior tortured and killed by the state, all in God's divine will. Doesn't particularly make sense to me.

[swagmaster420x]

Heres my question: Is it more natural to be atheistic, or religious?

[birba]

Agnostic is the safer road....

[timothy42b]

According to the Bible, when Jesus died it was not just another crucifixion because he never sinned, so when Jesus died, he was punished for our sins, not his, because he had none.

Okay, here's a logic problem for you.

If he didn't die, then there was no punishment and no salvation, right?  So he must have been really dead.

But if he was dead, God the Father had to raise him, or he'd have stayed dead. 

But if they were both the same God, then for that time period they were all dead, and there was no God, and no chance of him being raised, right? 

[perfect_pitch]

Okay, here's a logic problem for you.

If he didn't die, then there was no punishment and no salvation, right?  So he must have been really dead.

But if he was dead, God the Father had to raise him, or he'd have stayed dead. 

But if they were both the same God, then for that time period they were all dead, and there was no God, and no chance of him being raised, right? 

Actually... that post was so good, it deserves another.

[pencilart3]

Okay, here's a logic problem for you.

If he didn't die, then there was no punishment and no salvation, right?  So he must have been really dead.

But if he was dead, God the Father had to raise him, or he'd have stayed dead. 

But if they were both the same God, then for that time period they were all dead, and there was no God, and no chance of him being raised, right? 

There is one God, he has three persons. Don't you know anything about the trinity at all? 

[josh93248]

Anyone want to talk about... I don't know... PIANO for a change? Actually Noah, given what your signature is I'm curious what you have to say about my Bach... I hate to resort to going around promoting myself as it were but this seems to be where you are hanging out these days...

Anyway, I'm sure you're all having a lovely time, I was too for a while. But it is REALLY REALLY REALLY CLEAR that this just isn't a debate anymore. It's an echo chamber being used by numerous separate individuals at the same time. It's all just sound bouncing off of people, rather like Schoenberg...

[themeandvariation]

@Pencilart ..  Respectfully, the 'trinity' (mysterious doctrine..interpreted many ways) somehow left out the 'feminine' in its description of 'godhead' … I think this is striking.  (one may argue that 'Mary' has been elevated, but still… ) …

[chopinlover01]

It's all just sound bouncing off of people, rather like Schoenberg...

Shots fired at the atonal composers of the 20th century 

There is one God, he has three persons. Don't you know anything about the trinity at all? 

There is one God. Oh wait, there are three beings of that God that are separated from each other.
Except that if God dies, all three would die.
Therefore, you are believing in 3 gods

Seriously though, that's how you seem to be arguing.

Heres my question: Is it more natural to be atheistic, or religious?

I think it's natural for humans to wonder if there's something bigger than us, as evidenced by the thousands of religions since the dawn of humankind. But that doesn't make it factually correct.

[josh93248]

Shots fired at the atonal composers of the 20th century  ;DThere is one God. Oh wait, there are three beings of that God that are separated from each other.
Except that if God dies, all three would die.
Therefore, you are believing in 3 gods

Seriously though, that's how you seem to be arguing.I think it's natural for humans to wonder if there's something bigger than us, as evidenced by the thousands of religions since the dawn of humankind. But that doesn't make it factually correct.

I like you chopinlover, but don't get me started on atonal music. The only stuff of that variety I can stand is Scriabin and even that is a stretch. Atonal music is, to me, part of the trend that has alienated the masses to classical music. I have been told many times about how much better the scene used to be, with classical and pop played side by side, with hit songs inspired by Rachmaninoff melodies. Where is that today? Disappeared up the collective butts of clueless wankers who fail to realise that for all the knots one can twist in music, for all the obsession with details hardly anyone cares about, for all the rigours we force performers to go through to play "acceptably" and for all the alienating, uninspiring, uninspired, over-intellectual, pointless, unappealing, tedious, soon-to-be-forgotten music that has been "composed" in the mostly wasted past 80 years (roughly) ALMOST NONE OF IT is able to connect with ordinary people and enrich them. Connoisseurs can go to hell, I believe that music should enrich as many people as possible as deeply as possible, we are letting a great tradition that could easily be continued go to waste and fall into obscurity. I just can't stand it.

[themeandvariation]

I won't touch on the idea of belief.. But those who reflexively throw out and reject 'the story of an evolution of spirituality'  as it was first being conceived of - because it 'simply isn't true'.. are missing the power of myth.. Someone who was willing to give his life in each moment -  so the story tells - for an Idea of  love  … (the 2 commandments from  which He reduced all previous 'concerns' about 'rightful' action.. I think it a bold and ingenious stance)  … It is Gutsy… like MLK, … like Aristotle… like.. probably  some people you know..

[outin]

I like you chopinlover, but don't get me started on atonal music. The only stuff of that variety I can stand is Scriabin and even that is a stretch. Atonal music is, to me, part of the trend that has alienated the masses to classical music. I have been told many times about how much better the scene used to be, with classical and pop played side by side, with hit songs inspired by Rachmaninoff melodies. Where is that today? Disappeared up the collective butts of clueless wankers who fail to realise that for all the knots one can twist in music, for all the obsession with details hardly anyone cares about, for all the rigours we force performers to go through to play "acceptably" and for all the alienating, uninspiring, uninspired, over-intellectual, pointless, unappealing, tedious, soon-to-be-forgotten music that has been "composed" in the mostly wasted past 80 years (roughly) ALMOST NONE OF IT is able to connect with ordinary people and enrich them. Connoisseurs can go to hell, I believe that music should enrich as many people as possible as deeply as possible, we are letting a great tradition that could easily be continued go to waste and fall into obscurity. I just can't stand it.

Now there's something we can strongly disagree on...I'm getting a bit of a deja vu... Someone here got very upset on me for liking a Boulez sonata  

But at least we got back to something interesting for a change... there's plenty of wonderful atonal music...I love some of Schoenbergs works as well

If hell is full of atonal music and heaven sounds like Beethoven...I'll rather go to hell

[josh93248]

Now there's something we can strongly disagree on...I'm getting a bit of a deja vu... Someone here got very upset on me for liking a Boulez sonata  

But at least we got back to something interesting for a change... there's plenty of wonderful atonal music...I love some of Schoenbergs works as well

If hell is full of atonal music and heaven sounds like Beethoven...I'll rather go to hell

I admit, I went on a bit of an angry rant there. I don't really have a problem with individuals liking whatever music they like (I mean, if you like the smell of poo, by all means, roll around it in it  ) but I just feel everything's gone wrong with classical culture... Anyway we should have a better discussion about this another time

But... But... But as for that last comment... fine GO to hell. lol.

[outin]

I admit, I went on a bit of an angry rant there. I don't really have a problem with individuals liking whatever music they like (I mean, if you like the smell of poo, by all means, roll around it in it  ) but I just feel everything's gone wrong with classical culture... Anyway we should have a better discussion about this another time

But... But... But as for that last comment... fine GO to hell. lol.

I don't mind you ranting either...I know I sometimes have weird taste:)

Lets seize this thread and talk music!

But what's your limit then? Late Scriabin is fine? Do you like neoclassism? Something like this:

[josh93248]

I don't mind you ranting either...I know I sometimes have weird taste:)

Lets seize this thread and talk music!

But what's your limit then? Late Scriabin is fine? Do you like neoclassism? Something like this:

Well... It's not repulsive.......

But it's not my style, Scriabin often has more drama or atmosphere or colour and I can just dig his writing for piano, ya know? Besides, I really like Scriabin for his non or semi atonal stuff, I have a weird thing where if I like a composer, I tend to like everything they do because I can see a musical personality I like in it, even if it's not great music. Hence my insane post about my ambitions.

And by all means, keep trying repertoire on me I may stop listening quickly though, I reserve that right

[outin]

And by all means, keep trying repertoire on me I may stop listening quickly though, I reserve that right

Ok, how about some Finnish piano music with eastern influence...

Based on a traditional Japanese horror story btw.

[josh93248]

Ok, how about some Finnish piano music with eastern influence...

Based on a traditional Japanese horror story btw.

This one is a little better. I mean, I don't like it but at least it fits the horror theme fairly well.

[outin]

I have a weird thing where if I like a composer, I tend to like everything they do ...

In that case... Listen to this first:

And this afterwards :

And please do not cheat!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I'm not reading all the replies so I have no idea what the heck went down here.

I'm just gonna answer the question of the OP

1.  I don't think it's more advantageous to believe in God

2.  It's cause believing something isn't a choice.  It's a matter of being convinced.  I don't care how pretty religions say it's like in heaven.  If I'm not convinced, I'm not convinced,


That's like someone saying that it's more advantageous to believe that there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if you go there and do steps XYZ.  If I don't have a good reason to believe that's true, I'm not gonna believe it.  And I don't care WHAT is at the end of the rainbow.  as YOU might find good reasons to believe it, but I don't.  

It's for the same reason why you don't believe that you' win the lotto, or that when you cross the street you'll get rich, or whatever you can make up: you're not convinced.

[josh93248]

In that case... Listen to this first:

And this afterwards :

And please do not cheat!

Okay outin, I liked the first Schnittke a bit, but I wasn't captivated. The fugue on the other hand... Eh, atonal fugues... yuck, the only one I might touch would be the Shostakovich one, just so I can complete his 24 Ps and Fs.

@ rach forever. This conversation so you know, went WAY beyond the OP, which is to say it became a standard Atheism vs Religion debate. I followed it for a while until I left, only to come back with this outburst:

Anyone want to talk about... I don't know... PIANO for a change? Actually Noah, given what your signature is I'm curious what you have to say about my Bach... I hate to resort to going around promoting myself as it were but this seems to be where you are hanging out these days...

Anyway, I'm sure you're all having a lovely time, I was too for a while. But it is REALLY REALLY REALLY CLEAR that this just isn't a debate anymore. It's an echo chamber being used by numerous separate individuals at the same time. It's all just sound bouncing off of people, rather like Schoenberg...

which led to another, which led to outin challenging me with some weird music... so here we are...

[timothy42b]

There is one God, he has three persons. Don't you know anything about the trinity at all? 

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

There is only one God, the persons cannot die independently.  If one dies all dies.  That should be obvious. 

Granted this has never occurred to you and your Sunday school teachers avoided the topic.  Now that it's here, what will you do with it?

[pencilart3]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

There is only one God, the persons cannot die independently.  If one dies all dies.  That should be obvious. 

Granted this has never occurred to you and your Sunday school teachers avoided the topic.  Now that it's here, what will you do with it?

Think of it this way, it's not 1+1+1=3, it's 1x1x1=1. God is three in person, one in essence. And yeah I really agree with Josh this is turning (or has already turned) into an argument not a debate, and none of us are even listening to the other side.

[josh93248]

And yet, you keep coming back buddy...

Look, you can keep going if you want... I just think we'd all be better off moving on...

[chopinlover01]

Think of it this way, it's not 1+1+1=3, it's 1x1x1=1. God is three in person, one in essence.

Then when God died, there wouldn't be a God to revive him

And yeah I really agree with Josh this is turning (or has already turned) into an argument not a debate, and none of us are even listening to the other side.

Tim and I have been, it's just very easy to dismiss

[josh93248]

Even I can see arguing about trinities and "can god die?" Blah blah blah, gets no one anywhere. No offence guys but really. Isn't a better question how does god exist in the first place?

Crap. I re-entered the debate.... DAMNIT!!!