Originally posted by The Berean
Your argument doesn't follow. You state that no idealology is inherent in humans except perhaps a loose social tribalism. Yet you also claim that athieism is the default belief system of man. These are contradictory statements. If man is born without any ideaology then athiesm cannot be the default belief system of man, right?No, because atheism is not an ideology, it is the result of a "blank slate". Theists insist that "atheism is a belief system as much as theism is" but that's only in terms of the arguments of atheism. Atheism itself is how one is born: we are a-theistic, we are a-political, we are a-national, we are a-ideological.
Because as man evolves, so does his ability to interact with his environment. In less technological times, gods were asserted to help explain what couldn't be understood. In the theist moel, "God" has made things look like one thing, but actually be another. The sun rises and the sun sets. Obvious to anyone. Except it's not the truth. The sun itself doesn't move across the sky, it's the planet that revolves making it seem like the sun is moving by itself across the sky.Also, you state that atheism is a response to theism. Before someone asserts that there is no God someone must assert that there is a God. So if atheim is the default belief system of man then why did man originally abandon it? If man is inherently atheistic then why postulate a "supernatual creator"?
If every which way you turn you are confounded completely by your environment, yet you are surrounded by other beings that can interact and change that environment, then it's "logical" to postulate some sort of "super man" who made the whole thing go in the first place.
Think of humanity as a single child. As it is youngest, it is the least capable of understanding its environment. As it grows and interacts with its environment, it begins to learn things. That orange-ish red plasma is HOT! It can make us stop moving and never be again! So be careful with it! As time goes on, the child (humanity) creates a very complex explanation of why things are like they are:
Why do these gifts appear under my tree every December 25th? Oh, a mysterious character named "Santa" brings them!
Why do the plants all die and come back every spring? Oh, Persephone has been taken by Hades and her mother Demeter weeps for 6 months, only to restore life when her daghter is returned
How did everything come to be? Why, a paternal father in the sky loves us, and has created all things for us
And so on. Of course, the child matures, and begins to understand more about the world, and the tools of understanding grows the more you use them. Humanity is somewhre between toddlerhood and young adulthood in this analogy. We can see the truth, but it still feels good to believe in Santa.
We are on the right track though.
You underestimate the human mind. We look for patterns, we look for explanations. It has been the engine of our survival: our curiosity (it's also been the sword of our disasters). No, humans would likely invent explanations despite the fact that they are born without ideology-- they would invent politics and laws in order to govern themselves. Even lower forms of animals do this, though they aren't as eloquent or as elegant as humans are. But there are endless examples of strict hierarchies in gregarious animals, and there are laws which -- if broken-- carry with them consequences. One may argue that these are also "god-ordained" -- but then... you'll have an interesting time defining if animals are also ensouled.Wouldn't it seem plausible to conclude if man is inherently atheistic then man cannot postulate any idea about a "supernatural creator" or "first cause" or whatever you would want to call it?
The key question I would leave you with is this: Let's reverse it. If, as you are implying, mankind is born with an innate knowledge of god, then why... why do we have NO examples of any culture completely divorced from the Middle East and Europe -- spontaneously "inventing" Christianity? Certianly, vast civilizations have risen and falled inventing other and competitive belief systems, but not once did anyone ever wake up in the Incan Empire, snap their fingers and say, "Of course! Christ Jesus is the Redeemer!"
They didn;t because no religious belief is inherent and atheism is the default by which we are born.
The Time Machine -- A Question of Curiosity
- Thread starter JayHoover
- Start date
logos_x
New member
JayHoover ---
There was almost 300 years of Christian history BEFORE Constantine. And Constantine stopped the persecution in large part that took place until then, and made Christianity an accepted religion of the State.
After that time the Christian message became quite different, and took on many pagan concepts.
Constantine might have been largely responsible historically for "Christian ideology" being accepted by the State, but little else positive could be said about his role. His influence upon "Christian doctrine" amounts to a militarization and corruption of the original Faith.
What you are arguing to be the driving force behind "Christianity" in fact amounts to a great falling away, a marked change that eventually lead to the dark ages. That is what makes your assertion laughable in the extreme.
300 years in religious evolution is a brief blip of time. Countless religions died having lived 10 or more times longer. And of course the kind of Christianity you espouse today died completely until the abuses of the Roman Catholic church sparked a revolt.
However, it was the acceptance of Christianity by the State that gave it its power at all. The chain of events leading up to today's Christianity is, like all historical events, immutable: One could argue this is precisely how god wants it to unfold. But it is unlikely in the extreme that you would e a Christian today if Constantine had not forced the belief as a state-ordained one; likely as not, the small, short 300 years of Christianity would have died out, particularly as more time passed and the promised return never materialized (which, by the way, it still hasn't.)
All of this is speculative however, and I don't see too much point in pursuing it further. I'll opt to give you the last word on it, if you care to reply.
Are you asking me?
If so, I wouldn't know. Judging is essential. There isn't enough intelligent judging or critical thinking. We need a lot more of it, and soon.
I would say this tenet is just one of many destructive appeals of Christianity (and I will be 100% fair and say there are many constructive appeals in Christianity.)
logos_x
New member
The driving force of Christian faith is not an ideology at all...nor political figures or warriors in the past. but the very Spirit breathed forth by God Himself...
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
So..no matter how history unfolded..the outcome would have been the same...
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
That includes you!
It says nothing about judging, but it does say I'm perfected. The actual sentence is something my mom said to me the other day.
The Berean
Well-known member
Believing in Santa Claus and believing in God are not really analogous. The modern myth of Santa Claus is really just a creation of a savvy marketing. Yes, I know story of the historical St. Nicholas, but the “modern” Santa Claus (heavy set man with a beard and a red nose) was never intended to believed as a real person. No one is doing historical research or archeological digs in the hopes of finding the “historical” Santa Claus. From the earliest known writings of man they have been two topics that man has written about, God and money. Postulating about God is a “complex” explanation, at least I think so. Who is this God? What is He like? What is His nature? Why did he create us? These are questions asked by the finest minds in human history and by mere simple persons like myself.
As a engineer working in the aerospace industry. I agree man has a gift for looking for patterns and explanations. I do this daily in my job. I don’t think man necessarily “invents” explanations but ”arrive” at explanations through observation, reason, and logical conclusions.
Man created laws and political systems because it was more beneficial for man’s survival to not have complete anarchy. There is a difference between the laws of man and the laws of the wild. In the wild the strongest and the biggest “write” the laws and the rest follow because they fear death. The wild is the constant struggle between life and death. Man created government to establish laws for everyone’s benefit (at least that’s the desired result). Of course human history is littered with those who would use strength and might to establish their own laws by force and violence. However, there have been and are democracies in human history. Man concluded that it was just and right to give everyone a voice in the establishment of laws.
Are laws “God-ordained”? An interesting question. I believe that certain laws are God ordained.
I do not agree with your conclusion. The premises do not force (in a deductive sense) the conclusion.
Premise 1: Only the Middle East and Europe “invented” Christianity.
Premise 2: Other regions of the Earth “invented” other competing religious beliefs.
Conclusion: Religious beliefs are not inherent. Atheism is the default belief.
Your premises do not "force" your conclusion. They seem to force the opposite conclusion; that all cultures had some sort of religious beliefs (not necessarily Christianity of course) and that atheism is not the default belief system. Can you name any culture that was completely atheistic? Even today in America over 80% of Americans believe in some “God concept”. I find this interesting because American culture is force feeding secularization in the American education system yet a large of percentage of people still believe in God.
I must disagree. Humans have been inventing "powerful" imaginary beings throughout history. They do this to explain events they cannot readily explain. Santa appeals to children because his "existence" explains where those presents come from. Parents use him to evoke behavior patterns from the children year round. This is precisely the same paradigm of the gods: they "explain" the unexplained, and their existence allows those in power to effect behavioral responses from the larger culture.
Yet all these "saints" throughout history have magical powers. It's endemic, and an endemic pattern is indistinguishable from empirical evidence. It's just that Santa appeals more strongly to the West than does, say, Saint Lucille, and the branch of the evolution of the Saint Nick character has more resonance.
Well, theists are simply inconsistent. They will reduce the value of Hercules, a demi god born of a mating between a father-god and a human woman, but they will exalt the demi-god Jesus, who was born of a father-god and a human woman. There's no demonstrable rhyme or reason between the two except the Christian has decided the Bible rates more veractiy than the tales of the Olympian gods, therefore the Abramic gods are real, and the Greek gods are myths. Their standard? Wellll, there really isn't one. They just insist it is so.
And the answers come up confusing and tremendously contradicting. Personally, I make no assertions about the nature of these gods, I just passively listen to what those who assert say and then I critique their assertion. So far, it's very dismal. They have all-knowing gods not knowing that knowing a choice to be made isn't free will but an illusion of free will. Some people, myself for instance, have a fairly low tolerance for mumbo-jumbo, and others have an incredulity that is dishearteningly broad. Look, with all due respect, Christians believe in what other cultures would consider a zombie. Only the social acceptance of this story makes it something you wouldn't outright laugh at. But you would laugh at an adult insisting Santa Claus or Hercules was a real being, now, wouldn't you (or you'd doubt their sanity to say the least)?
You're speaking from the advantage of a trained and technological mind. But let's take your requirements and see where they lead:
1. Observation. Please cite for me some demonstrable example of anyone observing the Judeo-Christian god. Please make certain this example is in no way interchangeable with mere anecdote.
2. Reason. Via the tenets of Christianity itself, reason is secondary to faith. If faith is "the hope of things unseen", then how is reason applicable (there's a huge conversation here about how the theist uses reason to dismantle reason in order to embrace a faith he needs his reason to discern, but that's another thread)
3. Logic. There is nothing logical about a man dying, being stone cold dead for three days, and then coming back from the dead. Few theisms function on logic. Most function with an inherent celebration of miracles, which are, by definition, in direct opposition to logic.
I agree with you completely. And the best way to leverage control over people is to convince them that there is an all-seeing powerful entity who will punish you if you do not obey... ah ha! the rules of the priestly class. We know that powerful civilizations have risen upon the back of this paradigm-- clearly the best (worst!) example of this is the influence of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the greater history of Europe.
Well, some men believe this. Not all. And many great civilizations have risen without it. Again, you speak with a perception that is somewhat provincial. Modern democracy is about 200 years old. It's heavily corrupt even in America (which is not even a democracy, but a republic), with voters being influenced or silenced in many different ways. Still, the adage is, "Democracy is the best of a lot of bad choices. (or something like that).
I would ask you to:
A) Demonstrate how this is so
and
B) Which ones are? Seems to me if you prove A, then all are god ordained if you travel back up the chain far enough. A god is ultimately responsible for everything.
I didn't say this-- you've blended two separate sections. What I said is that we are all born a blank slate, period. No baby is born wioth a religious perspective or a politcal one. They are taught both.
The issue about inventing Christianity is a test of Christinaity's veracity (which Christianity fails). If Christianity, as the Christian insists, is the "one true religion", then it would be a simple matter for the god(s) of Christianity to spontaneously nurture it around the world. No reason why once Jesus came back from the dead regeneration shouldn't have begun to occur-- spontaneous knowledge of Christianty all around the world. Christians today believe that the "spirit comes upon you" and only god decides who is saved. But we have no record of this occuring. Even Mormonism makes a lame claim that it happened... despite a wealth of absolutely no corrborating evidence (none). By the way, the same should hold true for Islam. Religions interestingly propopagate directly based upon the speed of communication of their times. One would think Scientology must be the "one true religion", it grew so fast and globally in just a few short decades.
There are a few wherein the supernatural belief system didn't flourish, but they are negligble. However, you are missing the point. I have already stated that the human species in its infancy would indeed have to create these belief systems in order to make sense of their surroundings, and to help enforce behavior they considered important. Just like any human child will invent imaginary friends, or play in ways that are completely fantasy-compelled, so too will humans seek to explain their environment in a likewise manner.
But place technology and science in their hands, and they will quickly find answers that differ greatly from what the religions assert. Why would this be? Which is the truth? Why are the stars far away, giving the stubborn perception that in order for light to travel from there to here, a hundred billion years would have had to transpired? Is god capricious? Purposely changing things? Or... is the truth simply that the bible knows nothing of cosmology, and being wrong, should be recognized as mythology?
And don't get me wrong. Mythology is important. Literature and poetry make the world more beautiful. But that doesn't make fiction into fact.
Not actively promoting religion is not "force fedding secularism". The state remains -- or should remain -- mute and uninvolved on the question of religion. This is a private matter between a person and their own belief system, and this is precisely where the government should stand on it
I can never understand the conservative view on this: This is the one area where the government does what it's supposed to do-- stay out of our business, and stop dictating to us what we should or shouldn't believe, and the theistic conservative complain about it and want to change it!
It simply supports the contention that theists are simply never consistent-- except in their inconsistency.
Last edited: