/atheism/ - Atheism

>>9765

Well of course the elite priest class would claim to know the ultimate reality of the universe to enhance their power. At the dame time, they believed in the Gods that Hinduism has inhereted, and which Buddhism largely discarded.

>>9766

>Please make the case.

I might attempt that when I've read more about it. In the meantime, I've already laid out many similarities between the two religions, and if this religion predates Christianity by several hundred years and its country subjugated Israel (The Babylonian Exile), its more likely to be the uncorrupted original belief.

There are also still practicioners of it today. It has also been a relatively more peaceful religion, having not grown as large as the Abrahamic religions. If I recall, they have interesting temples where they venerate an eternal fire (probably ias an icon.) I don't remember if they are the ones who lay out the corpses of the dead for sky burial (vultures come to eat the bodies), but it is an interesting belief system with enthralling temples.

Their veneration of fire also reminds me of a certain Buddhist sect With fire rituals, and there are similiar cultures worship fire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_worship

You could make the case that their religion and God or two Gods, are calling out to all of the other religions. Your attraction to Christianity is just a manifestation of their God that represented all that is good.

I'm inclined to think Christianity absorbed a lot from Babylon, in addition to absorbing ideas from Egypt and Rome when it was occupied by those powers.

>>9769

>You could make the case that their religion and God or two Gods, are calling out to all of the other religions. Your attraction to Christianity is just a manifestation of their God that represented all that is good.

You could, and I have said, though perhaps not in this thread, that I understood this about other faiths and it didn't shock me or bothered me one bit.

>I'm inclined to think Christianity absorbed a lot from Babylon

You mean Judaism? I personally see a massive break between OT and NT, though most of my /christ/ people disagree, but that's generally because they hate homos and want them stoned to death or burnt alive I know, I know, don't get mad if you're my Christbro and your ass is hurtin'.

From what I can tell, you have a very conspiratorial idea about how Christianity came about. I don't disagree with the idea of influences, but I don't believe it removes the substance of Christianity at all.

If you could pinpoint the things that were passed on from Babylon, I'd love that. I can only think of the six-winged angels for now.

>>9766

>That's because I wasn't using this as an argument for monotheism VS polytheism, but for the idea that things start monotheistically and continue towards polytheism, unless restricted by authority and tradition.

Perhaps monotheism is more atractive as the power becomes more centralized in countries, which could explain how it became so common in the modern world. Or it could just be a lucky fluke like evolution, and Rome/the Middle Easy might have converted to another polytheistic belief system under different circumstances. Perhaps something similiar did happen in another universe.

>>9493

I also see a pretty clean break between the OT and NT. (Many claim it even has a new God.) In many ways the NT was a new religion that needed to draw on the scriptures of the OT for authority, in the way that the Mormons of Islam relied on existing scriptures to prove to skeptics that they weren't making up some divine nonsense out of nothing (or private hallucinations.)

If its ever proven than Judaism was not the first monotheistic religion, it will call into question why we are not following some older religion. (Maybe it has been proven. But the Jews can claim an oral history before the scriptures, and I know of no method to compare two oral histories from very early antiquity and say which God came first in time.)

It would be powerful to prove that an older religion influenced Judaism and evolved into the Abrahamic religions, but with very different doctrines. My understanding is that Christianity rachetted up the good vs evil theme, (God vs Satan), which was not as strong at the begining of the OT. This happened centuries after a nearby country had embraced zoroastrianism.

>>9771

> the Mormons of Islam

Blew my mind, what the heaven is this?

>If its ever proven than Judaism was not the first monotheistic religion, it will call into question why we are not following some older religion.

I don't think it would. Not to me anyway, since I already call into question most of the OT as a sound basis for Christianity. If some older religion had been the inspiration, it wouldn't mean much to me. It'd only confirm what I already suspect about the OT's ways.

>My understanding is that Christianity rachetted up the good vs evil theme, (God vs Satan),

Not so much. It's more about a personal battle against sin, than just God VS Satan. But again, you speak as if the authors of the NT had some sort of plan and consciously stole elements from other religions and beliefs.

>which was not as strong at the begining of the OT.

Indeed, which is very interesting.

I hope you're still active on /christ/, because while I don't agree with much, I always enjoy your posts.

>>9772

>mormons of islam.

Mormons or islam. It is very difficult to scroll in the tiny box on this device to review long posts and correct typos, and difficult to type without making them. The r key is close to the f.

>It's more about a personal battle against sin, than just God VS Satan.

Armageddon though.

>had a plan…

They could have borrowed from those religions. Countries trade even when they aren't going to war, and there are conversations, and a new preacher could easily decide an idea he heard in a pub fit within his worldview or a view he wanted to espouse, (for noble reasons, or for personal gain.) I heard the idea for scientology started in a bar.

>>9774

Hmm, so you're saying religions borrowed ideas from other religions? But muh speshul snowflake religun.

>>9774

Ah OK, I thought Mormons of Islam was a real thing.

>Armageddon though.

What about it? If I recall, Armageddon is just a place in the NT.

>They could have borrowed from those religions.

How do fishermen in Palestine borrow from other cultures like Egyptian mythology and the likes? These people didn't have access to much, and the culture they were most exposed to was Roman culture, which would eventually contaminate Christianity with its ideas (mostly about hell).

>I heard the idea for scientology started in a bar.

You heard wrong. I spent quite a bit of time studying Scientology and it didn't start in a bar. It started after Dianetics, which is basically just speech therapy (like any psychologist would do with you) plus some lie detector (which actually works, it shows when you're tense) and some technique about it. Hubbard took it to the next level and made it a religion to be free of taxes and become a guru. Scientology is dead already. I give it 15 years before it's completely out. Only 15'000 members left anyway. The Internet killed it.

>>9777

I haven't researched whether the scientology bar bet is true. But one of the quotes is….

'…..New Jersey in 1947: `Hubbard spoke … I don't recall his exact words; but in effect, he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million, he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"'

>How do fishermen in Palestine borrow from other cultures like Egyptian mythology and the likes?

I was talking about Judaism. Freud actually had a theory that Moses was one of the prophets of Akehenaten who fled to Israel with his belief when the succesors of that pharoh persecuted his new cult and erradicated it from Egypt. That pharoh also built a new capital in the desert, and Exodus could be a reference to that journey.

Some people like to compare Horus and the resurrection to the Jewish religion, namely how the Egyptians loved the number 12 and often depicted 12 followers.

>armageddon

Armageddon/the end of the world/Judgment Day = the Zoroastrianism "reckoning of spirits" (they have judgement day)

Here's a link I found three minutes ago.

http://www.avesta.org/zfaq.html

Look, they even have a hell.

>>9780

>Rome gave us hell

Or Zoroastrianism? My understanding is that the Greek hell is very different from the Jewish one. The Greek/Roman hell is not fiery brimstone, and is closer to an underground tomb, just like the one from the Shinto myth about the creation of humanity. The Greek hell has the river Styx running through it, you must pay a few coins to cross it, and there is a 3 headed dog that guards the entrance.

Or do you mean that Hades = Satan?

>>9781

Main difference being that the Roman hell is forever and the Christian one wasn't originally. Most Bibles use one term for 6 different terms originally, all of which mean somewhat different things.

>>9781

I can't speak for the Roman depiction of hell but the Greek one is indeed very different. It's a very gloomy place where the dead long to be alive again but they aren't necessarily being tortured.

For the righteous and glorious there are even the peaceful fields of Elysium which is vaguely described as a land of beautiful flowers. The good dead get to rest here for all eternity.

The Underworld wasn't really a punishment either it was just where the souls of dead humans went. Hades himself also wasn't really a bad guy it was just his job to maintain the underworld. In fact he's often depicted as being cheated by Zeus and rightfully upset about it. I imagine he was eventually changed into a Satan like figure due to Christian influence.

Anyway the history of the afterlife is very interesting. Our modern conception of fire and brimstone vs. heavenly paradise is theorized to indeed come from Zoroastrianism. Afterlifes in this region of the world before then are often desolate places that all human souls go, regardless of actions. The punishments and rewards of the gods are all earthly. This included Judaism until the Persian occupation of Judea. Even in Modern Judaism while there is some idea of paradise and punishment it is only very vaguely described. It's completely within your right, even as an orthodox jew, to believe in reincarnation for example.

Christians are divided on what to make of this scholarship but the most frequent reaction I've seen is accusations of heresy. Since this implies that the word of god had more to do with history and culture rather than divine revelation.

>>9785

> Since this implies that the word of god had more to do with history and culture rather than divine revelation.

There's no question about it as far as I'm concerned. Especially with the OT. I have no problem with any of this.

>>9786

Well no offense but as a christian I think you should find it a little problematic. The doctrine of heaven and hell are central to christianity which of course has its roots in judaism. If the Hebrew scripture could have been affected to such a degree by a pagan religion then that brings up some troubling possibilities such as:

1. Zarathustra being a minor prophet of God himself

2. The doctrine of heaven and hell being false

3. The most ancient scripture wasn't divinely revealed and was instead created by humans like any other mythology

And you could probably go on from here. The implications could be pretty far reaching.

>>9787

>Well no offense but as a christian I think you should find it a little problematic.

None taken.

>The doctrine of heaven and hell are central to christianity which of course has its roots in judaism

Actually no. There's no mention of either in the Old Testament. Are you sure you're familiar with it?

>>9788

Well they are mentioned, just vaguely. Despite not mentioning it a whole lot in the Torah oral jewish belief at the time did start to adopt it and these concepts were eventually fleshed out in christianity.

My point wasn't that heaven and hell were based in the Torah but that christianity's foundation was judaism which started to adopt ideas of heaven and hell due to persian influence. There are other concepts that were eventually put into the talmud like the resurrection of all jews into heaven.

>>9789

> Or, our human failings to Satan/the devil to escape our own responsibility.

I doubt that's the reason. Even within Christianity, the tempter doesn't take all the responsibility.

I must say that Zorostuff is picking my interest big time, not for good reasons. What do experts say about the links between the two religions?

>>9790

>Well they are mentioned, just vaguely.

Where?

>>9791

>>9791

Daniel 12:2 is a good example.

It mentions an afterlife of sorts with rewards and punishments but again the language is very vague.

>>9792

>Daniel 12:2

I stand corrected. Very interesting stuff.

>>9792

And Daniel was supposedly exiled in Babylon of all places.

>>9791

I don't yet know what the scholars say about the connections, and at first I would like to better understand the religion itself, before learning in which direction the influence flowed, or if its possible to argue they developed independently. (Which appears highly unlikely given their proximity.)

I also have no idea what Christian apologetics would say about Zoroastrianism either. My guess is most Christians and non-Christians aren't enough aware of it for it to trouble them. It would be interesting to see a Zoroastrian and a Christian debate one another over who had the true religion.

Still around, in case.

Quick question: in your experience, do any Christians consider that God's actions could be (or are) undesirable?

>>9870

>Quick question: in your experience, do any Christians consider that God's actions could be (or are) undesirable?

For most, no, but it's a question of definition. By definition God doesn't do undesirable things.

Now, for more sophisticated Christians, the things God did in the Old Testament that they may not agree with or fail to see as good, are considered to be fiction, which it sometimes is beyond the shadow of a doubt, such as in the Book of Job, which is a poem, a known piece of fiction, written as such and read as such.

That's pretty much how I read the OT anyway, but that's not most Christians' positions. Perhaps more so with Protestants, the American ones, who tend to cling onto the Bible more than any other denomination because they have little else.

>>9870

On a slightly different topic, some believe that God doesn't know what the future is made of and that He chose so with reason. You could back that up with some Scripture suggesting that God tries things and observes what happens with us, or the world. In Genesis, God makes things first and then "sees that it is good" as if He didn't foreknow. I think it's called Open Theology or something.

You could argue that He did this with the Hebrews, giving second chances and whatnot, and you could argue that if He had known it would fail, He would have used the Messiah plan immediately.

In that sense, some Christians would be fine with the idea that God tried things which failed (though mostly because of us). Garden of Eden, Hebrew tribes, etc, these are different plans devised at different times.

I hope that satisfies your question.

>>9891

I was more curious how many, rather than the specifics; but thanks.

It's an open question, if anyone wants to share.

>>9889

>(God doesn't know everything, or the future.)

In that case all of the biblical prophecies are groundless. They are no more likely than prophecies that we could create from our own nightly dreams.

>>9891

>God doesn't know what the future is

Isn't he omniscient?

>>9909

Only when he allows himself to be.

>>9901

>In that case all of the biblical prophecies are groundless. They are no more likely than prophecies that we could create from our own nightly dreams.

That's another topic. But even so, God can know what He intends to do in the future, which isn't the same as knowing the future. Big difference between the two, and nothing contradictory.

>>9909

>Isn't he omniscient?

Yes, but He's also omnipotent, so He can make Himself ignorant of the future, or, more likely, He can make things so that even He can't guess the future, as in a non-deterministic universe, which is what we have, quantum theory and all.

See it this way, I can design dice, it doesn't mean I'll know what the dice will give each time someone throws them, nor does it mean that I will know what moves they'll make with these numbers. No reason to forbid God from using this method either.

>>9923

in order to patch the problems of omniscience you had to use the contradictions of omnipotence. many theologians would have a problem with you saying that god has unrestricted omnipotence (whatever that oxymoron means), i.e., that he can do things that he can't do.

why are you willing to defend one of the many highly mutually exclusive and self-contradictory definitions of "god" when there are no valid justifications to maintain those beliefs in the first place?

>as in a non-deterministic universe, which is what we have, quantum theory and all

you are going full pseudo-scientific here. Neither classical mechanics and fully deterministic maths allow us to guess the future as deterministically as I would like to.

What does quantum mechanics even has to do with your superstitious beliefs?

>>10122

>many theologians would have a problem with you saying that god has unrestricted omnipotence

I didn't say that. It is possible, even for humans, to make yourself unaware of certain things (by simply not reading a book, for instance). What I'm saying, for God, is that the very nature of what He chose to make implies His ignorance of certain events and parameters.

This is not exactly what you understood.

If God chooses to design individuals with free will, He therefore accepts to make a being whose choices will be independent from His. That is no lack of omnipotence.

>why are you willing to defend one of the many highly mutually exclusive and self-contradictory definitions of "god" when there are no valid justifications to maintain those beliefs in the first place?

I don't see how these are mutually exclusive or self-contradictory. I just think your definitions are not exactly the same and your expectations of God are similarly different.

As to beliefs, that's another thing entirely.

>you are going full pseudo-scientific here.

Not at all. The required premise for a deterministic universe is that its processes behave in a derterministic manner, i.e., in a manner that you can predetermine. In astrophysics, for the movements of planets and such, it is very deterministic. You can foretell where a planet will be based on its parameters.

Quantum mechanics prove that the universe is not based on determinism at this level, and if this level isn't deterministic, then you can't argue the universe is, much less free will.

>What does quantum mechanics even has to do with your superstitious beliefs?

That was in response to free will. Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't need to be religious to believe in free will. As to superstitions, they're as much science as they are religion. See American circumcision if you don't think so.

>>10427

I'm aware of Lem, as my partner is Polish and I have visited Poland twice and survived a Polish wedding (no small feat for a Western European). I wasn't aware that there was a translation, though. I heard that there was one, but it was from the French translation rather than from the Polish original.

I've seen both movies and felt both missed what the book probably had. I'm afraid you've spoilt me on exactly what I was interested in. I won't read the pages you posted but I'd like to know if it's still worth reading now that I know this much.

>which is the only kind of God a modern fellow would be able to believe in.

I'm a modern fellow but that doesn't prevent belief in a "regular" God. I'm training myself in apologetics, feel free to test me. I don't guarantee success on my part, but I guarantee good faith and that I will try.

>>10430

It's an acceptable postmodern book, which makes it guarenteed to piss off readers. What I said spoils nothing, because the book is mostly speculation with few hard answers. The God hypothesis is one of at least a dozen interpretations of the unknown entity in the book, which is likened to a Roscharch ink blot - the interpretations tell you more about the state of mind of the speaker.

A few years ago it was translated directly from Polish to English for kindle. I like the idea of worshipping a pitiful God that wants to end its own life. A lonely, bored and unchallenged God that is more believable since it couldn't have possibly been created by humans. It's existence solves no problems like a savior; it ignores us, and merely exists and struggles with problems as we do. You'd immediately feel a kinship to the flawed alien thing, and a sense of awe that you could never understand it fully. Awe comes from truly knowing it's not the product of the human imagination, and its separate experiences make it alien beyond comprehension.

>>10432

Would you worship it even though it's not real, or only if it was?

>>10440

Worship is a stronger word than adoration. It's hard to imagine worshipping anything real or unreal before an altar unless I felt tremendous love toward the thing (or fear, but that's not love.) Easier to muster would be a milder sense of neighborly respect toward an incomprehensible creature, alien, pet or God. Awe can be simiple, and is probably a good thing to manufacture in our daily lives.

>>10444

Worship isn't always related to altars. It can mean posting "Good luck, Ebola-chan," not having hotdog buns, and/or sharing as many files as you can. None of these religions propose major changes in people' views; even spreading Ebola is not as big a change as claiming you can talk to something that created the world.

This is a fault in major religions: they have to many do's and don'ts; they derive too much from their core message; they're too complex.

If you would be arguing against an Ebolite, a Discordian, or a Kopimist, you wold challenge them on their their fundamental message. Why not argue against Christianity by arguing against loving other people?

>>10447

>Why not argue against Christianity by arguing against loving other people?

I do reject the idea of unconditional love because it can be very harmful. But I don't want to go further and reject encouraging love or altruism. Like Christopher Hitchens said in his criticisms of Objectivism, I see no need to tell naturally selfish people (he used the word "Americans") to be more selfish. Christianity at its best can be viewed as an attempt to reduce a lot of stress and petty conflicts.

Let's put aside whether Christ existed or taught what he did for a moment, and consider the merits if everyone acted unselfishly. Christ as a Christlike figure that encourages forgiveness and harmony, or as a martyr represents a noble goal. Obviously, emulating that degree of self-sacrifice would ruin your life, but a segment of the teachings on tolerance and non-violence are good principles for a harmonious society. The story about having mercy on the adulterer rather than telling the mobs stone her/ figuratively consume her like cannibals for example.

(Yes, I know it didn't happen, or can be interpreted as Jesus cowardly refusing to take a stand, but it's still a nice story.) It's the dogma and the totalitarianism of religion that poisons everything.

>>10451

You could also reject it because it means very different things to different people, because it's not the best way to promote altruism, because it's the best way to promote altruism and you don't want it, because you think something else is central to goodness (like harmony) or another reason.

I'm not sure why christfags feel the need to tell naturally unselfish people to be less selfish.

>>10447

The idea of loving other people is hardly exclusive to Christianity and as you've said, religions have many do's and don'ts so to say that Christianity can be broken down to JUST loving other people is a grossly misrepresentative statement. One might as well also say that Communism is merely about treating the working class well or feminism is merely about the idea that women are people. Whatever one's opinions of these things are, fact remains they're far more complicated and carry a lot more baggage than the simple simple appealing bumper sticker phrases their proponents like to put forth.

But as the other anon posted, it is still possible to argue against Christianity from that position because in addition to being complex, it's also quite black and white. There is either do's or don'ts in a lot of the rules of religions with no room for context or consideration. This does not work well in a world that's constantly updating its morality.

I do not think that people should love others unconditionally. Like just about everything else, there should be a limit and because of that, things should be judged on a case to case basis.

>>10455

>I do not think that people should love others unconditionally.

Loving others unconditionally doesn't mean you allow them to do anything they want. If you love your children, in the sense of caring for them and wanting them to evolve and progress, you will give them a frame in which to thrive, and that means giving them limits and punishing them when they trespass these limits (and I don't mean corporal punishments, giving the child the sense that they disappointed you will be enough if you are a credible parent).

>This does not work well in a world that's constantly updating its morality.

Morality seldom updates on anything. What humans do may change a lot, but on the whole, most normal humans have the same sense of morality, though partially flawed, than they have of the empirical world; some may be color-blind but it only alters things a little.

>>10457

>morality seldom updates

In the ancient world up until a few hundred years ago we lived in a world where it was alright to say might makes right. Slavery began when one tribe or nation conquered another, and everything you owned including your body instantly became their possession. We have withheld the rights of women to vote until around a hundred years ago, and most recently there has been persecution of gays and other minorities, ranging from intolerance and murder at the individual level, up to criminalization at the state level (entrapment at the stonewall riots, or castration thanks to anti-sodomy laws.)

In that light, morality updates itself with every generation, perhaps it takes 50 years to complete a change because we have to wait for the old guard to die out. The general shift towards acceptance of homosexuality within our generation is the most apparent example.

Meanwhile in Europe animal rights laws that had no equivilant in the past are increasingly treating certain animals almost like equals. The sense of condemnation for abortion has been challenged, and privacy and piracy are evolving buzzwords that are embroiled in a tug of war with the authorities on the internet. I'm sure you could think of more examples of the thinking that is about to change in our society, and naturally whenever a change is made it is usually popularly considered to be more moral than the previous manner of thought.

>>10460

>In the ancient world up until a few hundred years ago we lived in a world where it was alright to say might makes right.

It wasn't all right to say it, it was simply how the world worked. It still does today, but the ramifications of power are more varied and we don't all feel it to be that way.

That said, it doesn't make it moral, nor does that mean most people agreed to it. All your examples are the same in this regard.

Most slaves in Rome had better living conditions than most Americans working minimum wage, for instance.

In terms of morality, things haven't changed much. Acts have changed, but that's precisely because morality doesn't change much and most people aim for the same ideals because of that.

>>10461

>That said, it doesn't make it moral, nor does that mean most people agreed to it.

American Southerners popularly supported slavery, drawing passages from the bible, even if they had no slaves.

>In terms of morality, things haven't changed much. Acts have changed, but that's precisely because morality doesn't change much and most people aim for the same ideals because of that.

My gut feeling is this can't be, if for no other reason than countries are not perfect islands, and the migration of people and ideas change conceptions of morality. The replacement of Buddhism with Islam in western India changed concepts of morality. Definitions change when a new religion replaces an old one, along with the corresponding dogma. The ascendation of the teachings of Confucius overturned existing thought in Asia, and gradually relegated women to lower ranks, neutered individuality, and encouraged simple-minded obedience to superiors. The rise of Christianity in Europe made usury and charging interest immoral in the Middle Ages.

Tl;dr: there are many counter examples

>>10455

There are a few more principles to Christianity, but this is important to a majority of denominations.

I don't think that dogma is the worst part of religion, but love, omniscience, free will, vague and unspecific words. What complicated, baggage-carrying vision can arise because, and not in spite, of this?

>>10464

>American Southerners popularly supported slavery, drawing passages from the bible, even if they had no slaves.

Yes. Most of the world used slavery and it was always considered normal. Like I said, the conditions of slave was not automatically worse than that of some workers today. Replace the whip by wage and in many cases, you'd sooner be a slave than a worker. This has little to do with morality. George Washington himself had slaves and treated them well. Having slaves doesn't mean you're automatically an evil asshole as in the movies. But most importantly, slaves were a normal part of society. Concerning Black slaves, they generally worked less than the Northern Protestants did, and had far more fun since they had no sexual code to live by. They also enjoyed free music. This is actually one of the reasons why many free Americans wanted to "free" the slaves: so that they could be forced into "moral life" and not enjoy free sex and music anymore.

This is not very related to the topic at hand, though.

>>10464

>Tl;dr: there are many counter examples

By and large, there is no major civilisation in which murder, theft, and adultery were ever held as positive values.

There is no society which held these as laws, for instance. Not a single example of that.

Just like empirical reality, our imperfect senses will perceive it somewhat differently (humans who live in areas without straight lines, like the jungle, won't be subject to certain optical illusions, for instance) but that does not negate the fact that there is an empirical reality to begin with. So with morality: we don't imperfectly grope for it, which explains some differences, but by and large it is extremely similar.

>>10474

>adultery, theft, murder

Aside from "thou shall not take what does not belong to you," which we teach to 6 year olds, what other useful timeless principles can morality offer us? I see a lot of sexual taboos passed off as timeless morality, but I don't think they will stand the test of time.

>By and large, there is no major civilisation in which murder, theft, and adultery were ever held as positive values.

Foraging soliders have long delighted in all of these, and so have the white-collar criminals in finance. The old testament allowed all of these things to pass, and mandated them in fact, as long as the target was a gentile. (1 Samuel 15:3 )