• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love how I cannot tell from this message whether you are a koolaid-drinking Christian Fascist or a Dawkins-huffing New Atheist. Both have a strong interest in this particular version of Jesus that you are pushing.

    Attack the argument and not the person.

    Most of us take it for granted that Jesus forgave the adulterer

    3rd century forgery.

    and further, that only by his forgiveness can we enter the kingdom of heaven, according to contemporary vernacular Protestant American Christian Mythology.

    And? There is an entire branch of Christian thought dedicated to figure out how to be saved. That source has just as much justification as Calvinism. Of course none of it is true, the only place we go when we die is the ground.

    The Biblical Scholars like yourself - amateur or professional, earnest or polemical - will always debate like Talmudic rabbis about it,

    I have discussed facts only.

    but we’re out here in the real world where people are alive and living their various gospel truths.

    So you are naked, barefoot, and demanding the rich to give up all their money?

      • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Of course logic isn’t enough. Logic can tell you how to do something, but it can’t tell you why. In other words, logic can’t tell you why one outcome is better or worse than another. You need emotions for that.

        • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          indeed, an illustration of how one cannot derive an ‘ought’ from statements of what ‘is’ unless one incorporates some sort of conditional framework such as a desired outcome or consequence.

          for instance, it can be perhaps framed as an if-then statement: IF one wishes to produce a specific result, THEN a certain action must be taken - but even then, WHY someone might wish to produce that result is still left undefined; and even when a number of those reasons can be listed, the act of actually engaging any of those reasons is still the exclusive domain of a sapient agency perceiving their own emotional state.

          In the end, we’re all just doing what ‘feels right’; the logic, reason, and rationality around it are just there to focus and refine how our emotions resolve.

          With a convoluted enough Rube Goldberg Machine of excuses and justifications, ANYTHING can be made to ‘feel’ like it will achieve the desired effects… just like how any good tool can become a weapon if grossly misused.

          • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Upvoted not because I particularly like either argument just, “I advise you to consider empathy” is a powerful statement.

            Also watching people debate the authenticity of the Bible and its various books is too rich. 👌

            Can you imagine a mormon walking in on this dicussion?

            • JTode@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I remain atheist at my deepest heart, but I understand after many years of wasting my time being wrong that anything which doesn’t exist, also doesn’t deserve any time wasted thinking about its finer details. In its own way, this deep dive into biblical archivism is just the Atheist’s version of The Courtier’s Reply.

              Any honest Atheist, when pressed hard, has to concede the final thousandths of an inch to uncertainty and give the highest and strongest ground to the Agnostics, and that’s really the one that allows for the most freedom. I use chemicals, some from my doctor and some from the store, to boost my mood and my productivity. Some people use Jesus or Allah or Idontfuckingcarereally, as long as they don’t try to take my weed or my Vyvanse.

              edit: we all do what we do to get by. If you’re not harming anyone with your drug of choice, I say you should have as much of it you can handle without burning out.

                • JTode@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Did I say halfway point? I think I specifically said something more resembling the tiny domains of delta that come into play as you endlessly approach the speed of light but never reach it. One can endlessly approach Atheism, but until you can somehow use logic to prove a negative, in the end, you are the one who is trafficking in false knowledge. If you were so sure - if you were as sure as I am that no deities exist - you wouldn’t be wasting your time in this way, and particularly not resorting to deliberate mischaracterizations of what I said.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Atheism is about belief not about knowledge. You can identify as an Agnostic Atheist. Someone who doesn’t believe in a god but knows it can’t be demonstrated one way or another. I for example do that. You are mixing up the assertion of knowledge with the assertion of belief.

              • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, and also: one need not be a ‘believer’ to perceive, comprehend, and accept the utility functions that religious behaviors have accommodated (albeit inefficiently and with a significant amount of superfluous baggage) throughout history and within the human psyche.

                As a tribal species, we function better when we have some kind of overarching organizational structure to inform individuals of their own (psychological and social) position relative to the community to which they belong, so as to better focus individual efforts toward cooperative goals. It’s the heart of skill specialization that enabled us to become more than generalist hunter-gatherers, after all! Some kinds of cult-shaped collective gestalt entities will always emerge whenever the constituent humans of a community begin to specialize their expertise.

                One of the elements that separate us from our ancestors is that we have an opportunity to synthesize an organizing system that features fewer of the maladaptive, exploitative, abusive traits of naturally arising cult entities.

                (and by ‘cult’ I don’t just mean religious - I also mean political, commercial, and recreational memetic entities too! Even fandoms are an example of this phenomenon!)

                  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh, yeah, you’re right that the present paradigm has outlived its usefulness, for sure.

                    But like any technology, not everybody has access to the latest developments.

                    It’s unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that there are many places on earth where people have no other means of social support than the meager and dubious amenities provided by religious orders.

                    I’m sure there are those who might successfully litigate the argument that having no hospital at all could be construed as somehow better than having a hospital founded via religious means, and the imperialistic, colonizing aspects of missionary work, which directly damage cultures and societies on a generational scale, may indeed have caused more harm than the acute disease and occurrences of injury which they can treat on an individual basis - but that’s not an argument I would personally back.

                    The corrupting mimetic contagion of religiosity can be inoculated-against while a society continues to benefit from the medical or nutritional support… although only if the society in question either learns how on its own, or is taught. Like most things in life, not quite so simply cut-and-dried, alas.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I have I have a lot of empathy for all the people Islam and Christianity have murdered because of con ran by James and Peter.