Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[torridon]

But your version of determinism indicates that we are just a consequence of unavoidable material reactions driven by the laws of physics - over which we have no personal control.

In reality we are all driven by the God given power of our human soul which sets us free from uncontrollable material reactions to allow us to choose our own destiny.
..

.. which is just a faith claim, not a fact, and not a conclusion from evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't portray him as saying that.

Gonnagle was surely presenting certain behaviours by atheists as being Christian - presumably referring to so called Christian values. These values are not restricted to Christians therefore should not be referred to as being Christian. To be showing Christian behaviour they would need to believe Jesus was the Son of God.

Not for Gonzo, he sees the behaviour as not restricted to Christians, and as being Christ-like. I think thar's a perfectly understandable position.

[Stranger]

Yeah, that's indulgent bollocks. The idea that your position on anything is somehow different because it is a lack of belief when you accept that you don't choose what your position is laughable. You have a desperate need to claim a superiority that logically makes no sense.

You do appear to have developed a tendency to just have a rant for the sake of it, every so often. 

Critical thinking is a skill that people can learn. Nobody's perfect at it but you can try to have an attitude of questioning what you believe and the reasons you do so, as well as taking note of any new information and how it might change your reasoning. Perhaps you should try it? 

[Nearly Sane]

You do appear to have developed a tendency to just have a rant for the sake of it, every so often. 

Critical thinking is a skill that people can learn. Nobody's perfect at it but you can try to have an attitude of questioning what you believe and the reasons you do so, as well as taking note of any new information and how it might change your reasoning. Perhaps you should try it? 

Your smugness is overwhelming, and your inability to carry out consistent logical thinking is underlined by your post. All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.

[Stranger]

Your smugness is overwhelming, and your inability to carry out consistent logical thinking is underlined by your post. All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.

Your mention of compatibilism suggests that you're making the same mistake that our Alan so frequently makes, in thinking determinism means fatalism and it's therefore pointless to try to persuade or argue a point. Obviously this is not the case because everything we experience changes us to some degree, so it's perfectly possible to persuade and be persuaded. Every word either of us posts will affect everybody who reads them in some way and to some degree.

Critical thinking is a learnable skill that people can choose or reject. Even just learning that it's better to challenge what you believe rather than just look for confirmation all the time, is useful.

Obviously you don't actually believe that it's pointless to argue a point of view and that people can't change because "all your beliefs are not chosen", otherwise you would never post a point of view at all, let alone have these sorts of argument. And you criticise my ability to be logically consistent...

[Maeght]

Not for Gonzo, he sees the behaviour as not restricted to Christians, and as being Christ-like. I think thar's a perfectly understandable position.

I can see why Gonnagle may think that way but that doesn't make it an accurate way of thinking.

[torridon]

I can see why Gonnagle may think that way but that doesn't make it an accurate way of thinking.

I guess Claude Monet's way of painting was not accurate either, but it holds appeal.  I guess something like that goes on in Gonner's head

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,
Good Morning you Wonderful people

Just to clarify, I am a Christian, someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ, that's it end of, I do not follow the teachings of some old guy in Rome, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, or any other high heid yin in Religion, I don't follow the teachings of Mark, or Luke or John or Mathew, the true and accurate teachings of Christ.

I shall return but right now I need to go out into the real world.

May the Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, aye JP even you Godless Atheists❤️✝️

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Morning Gonners,

Just to clarify, I am a Christian, someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ…

Just out of interest, does it also matter to you much whether you must believe too that Jesus was a man-god, or even whether he existed at all? I ask because I might equally say that, for example, I follow the teachings of Aristotle or Plato but I really don’t care at all whether those people really existed, or indeed whether the ideas attributed to them were actually theirs. The work stands alone on its merits in other words regardless of its provenance. My experience of “followers" of Jesus Christ on the other hand is that it matters to them – really, really matters in fact – not only that Jesus was real and that the words recorded in biblical texts were his, but also that he really was the son of God.

This approach seems to me to be epistemically different from the “ideas stand alone” approach, and to carry certain dangers - the inability to develop and adapt the ideas expressed for example because, after all, if a “god of the omnis” or his son said them they must be inerrantly and eternally correct right?

Short version – do you “follow the teachings” just because you find them morally useful, or do you need the religiosity part too to give them force?   

[Sriram]

Dear Thread,
Good Morning you Wonderful people

Just to clarify, I am a Christian, someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ, that's it end of, I do not follow the teachings of some old guy in Rome, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, or any other high heid yin in Religion, I don't follow the teachings of Mark, or Luke or John or Mathew, the true and accurate teachings of Christ.

I shall return but right now I need to go out into the real world.

May the Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, aye JP even you Godless Atheists❤️✝️

Gonnagle.

HI Gonnagle

You seem to also follow certain Buddhist teachings and techniques. Buddha did not teach of a God at all.
 

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Thread,
Good Morning you Wonderful people

Just to clarify, I am a Christian, someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ, that's it end of, I do not follow the teachings of some old guy in Rome, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, or any other high heid yin in Religion, I don't follow the teachings of Mark, or Luke or John or Mathew, the true and accurate teachings of Christ.

I shall return but right now I need to go out into the real world.

May the Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, aye JP even you Godless Atheists❤️✝️

Gonnagle.

Dear Gonners
You don't seem to have much time for the vicarious atonement - which is a central belief for probably most forms of Christianity (liberal Anglicanism is probably not too concerned). The admirable Anchorman, a very learned gentleman, made very much of it - the idea that no matter how good you try to be, you can never be worthy enough in God's eyes. Which is why you must accept that Christ died for our sins, as the perfect sacrifice.
At the moment, your beliefs seem akin to what I used believe. But you must (as Sriram has pointed out) stop going on about the Buddha as if he had anything to say about God.

[Gonnagle]

Morning Gonners,

Just out of interest, does it also matter to you much whether you must believe too that Jesus was a man-god, or even whether he existed at all? I ask because I might equally say that, for example, I follow the teachings of Aristotle or Plato but I really don’t care at all whether those people really existed, or indeed whether the ideas attributed to them were actually theirs. The work stands alone on its merits in other words regardless of its provenance. My experience of “followers" of Jesus Christ on the other hand is that it matters to them – really, really matters in fact – not only that Jesus was real and that the words recorded in biblical texts were his, but also that he really was the son of God.

This approach seems to me to be epistemically different from the “ideas stand alone” approach, and to carry certain dangers - the inability to develop and adapt the ideas expressed for example because, after all, if a “god of the omnis” or his son said them they must be inerrantly and eternally correct right?

Short version – do you “follow the teachings” just because you find them morally useful, or do you need the religiosity part too to give them force?   

Dear Blue 🎵blue blue blue blue ESSO BLUE🎶 Remember that advert

Just out of interest, does it also matter to you much whether you must believe too that Jesus was a man-god,

It vexes me not a jot, Jesus the man, Jesus the God, Jesus the man-God, the Holy Trinity, Jesus died for our sins, eh how come that Thomas guy could touch his wound if he was a God? that question used to haunt me, not anymore, all I know is that a great man came into this world and changed it and me, Praise the Lord, and just to add, because I am a bit of a hypocrite, at Easter I will join with other Christians and joyfully say "HE HAS RISEN" sue me.

Further and this I think answers old Siriams question, Christianity is my home, but I care not a jot where I gather my wisdom from, Aristotle, Plato, Buddha, Mohammed, I am a big fan of Socrates ( you don't get much Socratic debate on this forum ) and even further a wise Atheist once told me, God does not want you to think about him but he does want you to think, I can visit, but Christianity is my home.

Gonnagle.

PS: Jesus was real person, a historical figure, how do I know, Albert Einstein told me

[Alan Burns]

do you “follow the teachings” just because you find them morally useful, or do you need the religiosity part too to give them force?   

You do not see the big picture.
We do not use religious faith in order to perceive and follow moral teachings.  That is not the main objective.
Jesus did not suffer torture and crucifixion just to teach us morality.
He suffered on our behalf to save us from our sins and bring us eternal life.  See Isiah 53.

[Dicky Underpants]

You do not see the big picture.
We do not use religious faith in order to perceive and follow moral teachings.  That is not the main objective.
Jesus did not suffer torture and crucifixion just to teach us morality.
He suffered on our behalf to save us from our sins and bring us eternal life.  See Isiah 53.

Perhaps you could discuss this matter with Gonnagle. Could be an interesting exchange.

[Gonnagle]

Perhaps you could discuss this matter with Gonnagle. Could be an interesting exchange.

Dear Dicky.

No problemo, at least it would be two massive intellectual minds ( ego's I think the word you are looking for Gonnagle ) starting off from the same premise, God did it, although Alan seems to be concerned with the next life, I have trouble navigating this one, yeh bring it on, not the rumble in the jungle but the rumble in the forum, can I have the Stranger as my second ( not adverse to some dirty tricks )

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You do not see the big picture.

A blind faith claim isn’t “the" big picture – it's just your big picture (apparently).

We do not use religious faith in order to perceive and follow moral teachings.  That is not the main objective.

That wasn’t the question though. I was asking Gonners whether it was important to him to think the (supposed) author of the ideas he “follows” was also divine. I think the answer may be “no”, but I’m not sure about that.

Gonners?

Jesus did not suffer torture and crucifixion just to teach us morality.

Ok.

He suffered on our behalf to save us from our sins and bring us eternal life.

That is the blind faith claim, yes.

See Isiah 53.

Why?

[Stranger]

You do not see the big picture.
We do not use religious faith in order to perceive and follow moral teachings.  That is not the main objective.
Jesus did not suffer torture and crucifixion just to teach us morality.
He suffered on our behalf to save us from our sins and bring us eternal life.  See Isiah 53.

Which makes Christianity utterly absurd and the Christian God an unjust, bloodthirsty, vindictive monster.

It's mad. God has decided that we all need punishing for being the way it made us, but we can get let off because it cosplayed a human and got itself tortured to a temporary three-day death, but only if we believe this insanity. A clearly unjust fake substitute blood sacrifice for the 'crime' of being human, and one that only applies to the overly credulous.

Yet people take it seriously! You gotta laugh.

[Gonnagle]

AB,

A blind faith claim isn’t “the" big picture – it's just your big picture (apparently).

That wasn’t the question though. I was asking Gonners whether it was important to him to think the (supposed) author of the ideas he “follows” was also divine. I think the answer may be “no”, but I’m not sure about that.

Gonners?

Ok.

That is the blind faith claim, yes.

Why?

Dear Blue,

Divine? had to look that up.

Historically, "divine" signifies something of, relating to, or proceeding from God or a god, with roots in Latin and Old French, and has been used to describe religious, sacred, or godlike qualities, as well as a belief in a higher power or purpose.
Here's a more detailed look at the historical meaning of "divine":
Etymology:
The word "divine" originates from the Latin word "divinus," meaning "of a god," which in turn came from "divus," meaning "of or belonging to a god".
Religious Context:
In a religious context, "divine" refers to things related to or proceeding from a deity, often implying holiness, transcendence, or a connection to the spiritual realm.
Historical Usage:
Divine Right of Kings: In European history, the concept of "divine right of kings" asserted that monarchs derived their authority directly from God and were not accountable to any earthly authority.
Christian Theology: In Christian thought, "divine" is used to describe the nature and attributes of God, emphasizing God's power, wisdom, and love.
Other Religions: In other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, "divine" can refer to concepts like Brahman (the ultimate reality in Hinduism) or Deva (a divine being in Buddhism).
Modern Usage:
While still used in a religious context, "divine" can also be used in a more general sense to describe something of exceptional quality, beauty, or excellence.

I like the other religion bit, but I much prefer the last description.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

PS: Jesus was real person, a historical figure, how do I know, Albert Einstein told me

Maybe a physicist isn't the best person to consult about this sort of thing. A historian might be a better idea...

I'm not a historian my a long way, but I believe there is a consensus that the Jesus of the gospels was based on a real person, though they were written well after his death and can't be taken as....err......gospel. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Which makes Christianity utterly absurd and the Christian God an unjust, bloodthirsty, vindictive monster.

It's mad. God has decided that we all need punishing for being the way it made us, but we can get let off because it cosplayed a human and got itself tortured to a temporary three-day death, but only if we believe this insanity. A clearly unjust fake substitute blood sacrifice for the 'crime' of being human, and one that only applies to the overly credulous.

Yet people take it seriously! You gotta laugh.

But since Christ was/is God, he was just torturing himself. His logic for doing this, and indeed insisting that humans must accept that this is the way to  restore 'oneness' with Himself - this has always baffled me. Can't think why.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Mornin' Gonners,

I like the other religion bit, but I much prefer the last description.

OK, so is it fair to say that the teachings of Jesus would be just as important to you if he was just mortal? Indeed, presumably too then they'd be just as important to you if they'd been misattributed and Jesus didn't author them at all?  That puts you a long way from the AB type of Christian I think, but OK.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But since Christ was/is God, he was just torturing himself. His logic for doing this, and indeed insisting that humans must accept that this is the way to  restore 'oneness' with Himself - this has always baffled me. Can't think why.

Not sure which is worse Stranger's victim blaming "Got itself tortured" or yours "tortured himself".
Why is it you seem to be actually exonerating torture and torturers?

[Gonnagle]

Maybe a physicist isn't the best person to consult about this sort of thing. A historian might be a better idea...

I'm not a historian my a long way, but I believe there is a consensus that the Jesus of the gospels was based on a real person, though they were written well after his death and can't be taken as....err......gospel. 

Dear Stranger,

No argument from me, but pen and quill or the knowledge to use such powerful tools was limited to only a select few, that is where the oral tradition comes in, your Shaman, priest, Rabbi's, poets, songsters, and dare I say it, oh I dare, I dare the Gonnagles, as for wee Albert, I am a old romantic, when asked about a historical Jesus, his presence shown through lovely Albert, just lovely.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Mornin' Gonners,

OK, so is it fair to say that the teachings of Jesus would be just as important to you if he was just mortal? Indeed, presumably too then they'd be just as important to you if they'd been misattributed and Jesus didn't author them at all?  That puts you a long way from the AB type of Christian I think, but OK.   

Dear Blue,

Sorry, yes good Morning, as for your post👍👍👍

Gonnagle.

[Dicky Underpants]

Maybe a physicist isn't the best person to consult about this sort of thing. A historian might be a better idea...

I'm not a historian my a long way, but I believe there is a consensus that the Jesus of the gospels was based on a real person, though they were written well after his death and can't be taken as....err......gospel. 

Among the many 'messiahs' mentioned by Josephus, there were probably quite a few called Yeshua, and maybe many of the sayings attributed to one of these was the one we know as 'Jesus'.
As for the main proponent of the doctrine of the atonement, and the author of the earliest Christian writings, that of course was St Paul. He had the disadvantage of never having met Jesus in the flesh (take what you will of his divine 'vision'), and makes no reference to Jesus' earthly teachings at all, except the Eucharist.