Would you like to discuss religion?
Yes
Side Score: 13
|
 |
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
Sure! But I must warn you. I am an atheist. But an atheist who is very well-versed in Theology. And I am very familiar with the Bible and it's origins. How and why it was written. So I have a tendency to ask the Believers the tough questions. Ones they don't want to think about, and cannot answer. They usually just go away mad. Go figure. LOL. Like over on another thread, I got one religious nut, called saint now or some such, so mad that he's telling me I'm gonna burn in hell! LOL. See? this is the type of zealot one usually deals with when attempting to engage in theological debate. But yeah, if ya wanna talk religion, I'm game, baby. let me know! Side: Yes
The Bible was written mostly so an oppressed and oft-maligned nomadic people could retain some faith and hope. The Hebrews of some 3500 to 2000 years ago were occupied and ruled by the powerful Romans. They were also continually enslaved and beat-down by other tribal peoples like the Babylonians and the Assyirans. And as you know, it is simply human nature that, when the chips are down and your life is miserable, for one to invent fantasies of a better life. Or an after life where you are free and happy. It is also human nature to try and atribute causes and resons for things, even whe there are none. The evolved homo sapien mind lies to create patterns. this was once a desirable and helpful attribute, back in our hunter-gatherer days a couple hundred thousand years ago. It helped us survive. But one of the downsides of this tendency is that the mind seeks escape from reality when faced with untenable thoughts and circumstances. So it invents things like religions and sky gods. Supernatural--but fictional--beings who will help us and intervene on our behalf. And help us vanquish our enemies when we cannot do it ourselves. And even give us an Afterlife if we are good little boys and girls! LOL. Hence--gods and religions are borne out of fear. Plain and simple. Out of an inability to accept truth and fact and cold hard life. So yeah....the Hebrews had to invent a god to compete with all those Roman gods. The Romans were poly-theists. So the Hebrews invented Yahweh, a big bad tyrannical bully who they thought was the strongest of ALL gods! The wrote stories about him. The bible is merely a collection of fables and stories. Like Greek Mythology. It is simply Hebrew Mythology. And then a human rabbi/philosopher/political insurrectionist came along named Yehsua. From Nazareth. After the Romans killed him, the legend of Jesus grew. At first he was not considered divine. Let alone a god. Even his early apostles called him "rabbi." Ever notice how the legend of Jesus grows with each of the gospels? Paul'l letters came first, beginning in around 50 AD. HE never called JC a god. And the first written gospel was Mark. He Never mentioned a virgin birth! Or JC being God. Then came Matthew--even though it was written 2nd the bible compilers put it first since it said a lot of tho OT prophecies came true with JC. And the legend grows with Luke. And notice how when we get to John's gospel, which was written a good 70 years after JC died, all of a sudden the meek and mild JC who tole his followers to keep his miracles secret, well, he is a braggart and he's all "I am the light and the way and the alpha and omega!" LOL. JC never said those things. Check around with some biblical scholars. Like the Jesus Seminar. Those words were put in his mouth by John, since, by then, the Christians were really getting killed and beaten down by the Romans. The temple was destroyed some 20 years before, and so they needed to ramp-up and inflate JC's creds, his legend, to motivate his followers. Hence you get all that crapola about the Light and the Word. Gone are those humble parables. The new Jesus is almost like a different person. Why? Because his words in that gospel are pure fabrication. Even the earliest gospel, Mark, was not written till about 25 years AFTER JC died. Paul never even met Jesus. Also, he did not write his first epistle till about 15 YEARS after his alleged conversion by JC and the Light when he was on the road to Damascus. Why did it take him so long? LOL. Side: Yes
If the discussion goes beyond superficial assertion of belief as self-evident, then yes. Otherwise, no. There are philosophical premises from which to advance a religious argument which exist outside of religious texts, but they are employed with exceptional rarity. It would be interesting to debate those ideas; I do not think any of them valid at present but it is precisely that view that merits debating the matter. For the record, I am an atheist by way of nihilism. If I thought it possible for religion to be eradicated I would support that, but I do not see it as plausible. I do think it will becoming increasingly obsolete and, if our species lives long enough, an exception to the human experience rather than the rule. Side: Yes
1
point
|
Not especially although I do find it necessary at times. I suppose I don't like it much because not many people discuss religion, well they discuss it like they discuss politics, abortion and so on. They like to hear agreement but dissenting opinions not so much. I think the proselytizing efforts of many religions has given many people similar feelings to mine. Side: No
|
