How did Jesus die for our sins?

[Horatio Parker]

AFAICT, there's no such thing.

Yet, you did say, "that's how I understand the theology."

If you're suggesting that my understanding constitutes an objective standard in theology, I'll defer to you.

But I wouldn't say so.

 

[Sarpedon]

See, theological thinking is always circular.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I would agree with you about this if there were a couple of dozen guys who believed in Jesus's miracles and none of them had any political power. When, however, they want to use the "fact" that he performed those miracles to enact legislation based on their understanding of what he wanted, then pointing out the absurdity of these claims and poking holes in them is something which should be done at every opportunity.

If atheists just sit around not giving a shit and doing nothing while the Christians get up and give a tremendous shit and try to do a lot, our not giving a shit can help lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering.

I don't understand. To not ridicule is to do nothing? To allow that spirituality exists and can be pursued free of superstition is surrender? Where in anything I've said is there any indication that I approve merging church and state?

No, I'm saying that ridicule is an important part of that. Helping to show that religion is just kind of silly and you shouldn't be bothering anyone else with your faith is an effective way to drive it into unacceptability.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't understand. To not ridicule is to do nothing? To allow that spirituality exists and can be pursued free of superstition is surrender? Where in anything I've said is there any indication that I approve merging church and state?

No, I'm saying that ridicule is an important part of that. Helping to show that religion is just kind of silly and you shouldn't be bothering anyone else with your faith is an effective way to drive it into unacceptability.

To my mind that strengthens the hand of the demagogues. I prefer to undermine the foundations.

 

[blastula]

Yet, you did say, "that's how I understand the theology."

If you're suggesting that my understanding constitutes an objective standard in theology, I'll defer to you.

But I wouldn't say so.

Your words were open to that interpretation.

 

[Atheos]

To my mind that strengthens the hand of the demagogues. I prefer to undermine the foundations.

We seem to disagree on what it takes to undermine the foundations. I'm curious as to what approach you feel is best.

Here's my thinking: If an absurd belief can be used to galvanize large numbers of people into voting in ways that undermine civil liberties for others, then demonstrating the absurdity of the belief is undermining the foundations. The foundation is belief.

Christians always survive the "weakening" of their demagogues. Jim Bakker's downfall didn't undermine any foundations. Catholics don't abandon their beliefs because Priests are caught abusing alter boys.

But pull the mask off the absurdity of the belief itself and show it for what it is and people will notice. Yes there will often be resistance, and some won't budge at all. But some will. I didn't deconvert because I was disappointed by some demagogue. I deconverted because I came to see the absurdity of what I believed. I can't think of a single deconversion story I've ever read where the deconversion was predicated on some iconoclastic episode involving a church leader. Perhaps such stories exist but Christians are more likely to rationalize that if they let such things bother them it's because they placed their faith in some man instead of Jesus.

 

[Horatio Parker]

To my mind that strengthens the hand of the demagogues. I prefer to undermine the foundations.

We seem to disagree on what it takes to undermine the foundations. I'm curious as to what approach you feel is best.

Here's my thinking: If an absurd belief can be used to galvanize large numbers of people into voting in ways that undermine civil liberties for others, then demonstrating the absurdity of the belief is undermining the foundations. The foundation is belief.

Christians always survive the "weakening" of their demagogues. Jim Bakker's downfall didn't undermine any foundations. Catholics don't abandon their beliefs because Priests are caught abusing alter boys.

But pull the mask off the absurdity of the belief itself and show it for what it is and people will notice. Yes there will often be resistance, and some won't budge at all. But some will. I didn't deconvert because I was disappointed by some demagogue. I deconverted because I came to see the absurdity of what I believed. I can't think of a single deconversion story I've ever read where the deconversion was predicated on some iconoclastic episode involving a church leader. Perhaps such stories exist but Christians are more likely to rationalize that if they let such things bother them it's because they placed their faith in some man instead of Jesus.

Let me put it this way: do you want people to be atheists because they fear not to be?

Because mockery, notwithstanding your protestations of respect, is a form of bullying or intimidation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Because mockery, notwithstanding your protestations of respect, is a form of bullying or intimidation.

No it isn't. That attitude just plays into the lie that disrespecting the premises of a belief is personally disrespecting the person holding the belief. When one points out the absurdity of young earth creationism, they're not bullying creationists. When one gives an honest and straightforward account of the tenets of Scientology (which is really the same thing as mocking it), they're not intimidating Scientologists.

Silly beliefs deserve mockery. I want people to be atheists because they're able to take a step back from their beliefs and look at them from a different point of view and realize the weakness of them. Humour is a very effective way to achieve that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Because mockery, notwithstanding your protestations of respect, is a form of bullying or intimidation.

No it isn't. That attitude just plays into the lie that disrespecting the premises of a belief is personally disrespecting the person holding the belief. When one points out the absurdity of young earth creationism, they're not bullying creationists. When one gives an honest and straightforward account of the tenets of Scientology (which is really the same thing as mocking it), they're not intimidating Scientologists.

Silly beliefs deserve mockery. I want people to be atheists because they're able to take a step back from their beliefs and look at them from a different point of view and realize the weakness of them. Humour is a very effective way to achieve that.

Listening to you, one might think that an unscientific belief, because that's really what we're talking about, can only be discounted through mockery.

Mockery is rhetoric, not reason.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Listening to you, one might think that an unscientific belief, because that's really what we're talking about, can only be discounted through mockery.

Mockery is rhetoric, not reason.

No, it can't only be discounted through mockery, it's just that it's a more effective way. The best weapon against the right wing policies in America over the past generation was probably Jon Stewart's The Daily Show because he just sat there and laughed at how fucking stupid their positions were. When you have a Trump supporter, you're not going to change his mind by giving him a rational and fact-based analysis of the consequences of Trumps' positions because he's not listening to you. The strategy of painting Trump as an incompetent idiot who can't be trusted with the Presidency by laughing at the dumb shit he says and does has been monstrously effective, though.

It's the same with religion. I've tried having rational discussions with young earth creationists and it's like talking to a brick wall. Get them chuckling at the absurdity of some points of their beliefs, however, and sometimes they can then separate themselves emotionally from the positions and actually take a look at them without the koolaid glasses getting in the way.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Listening to you, one might think that an unscientific belief, because that's really what we're talking about, can only be discounted through mockery.

Mockery is rhetoric, not reason.

No, it can't only be discounted through mockery, it's just that it's a more effective way. The best weapon against the right wing policies in America over the past generation was probably Jon Stewart's The Daily Show because he just sat there and laughed at how fucking stupid their positions were. When you have a Trump supporter, you're not going to change his mind by giving him a rational and fact-based analysis of the consequences of Trumps' positions because he's not listening to you. The strategy of painting Trump as an incompetent idiot who can't be trusted with the Presidency by laughing at the dumb shit he says and does has been monstrously effective, though.

It's the same with religion. I've tried having rational discussions with young earth creationists and it's like talking to a brick wall. Get them chuckling at the absurdity of some points of their beliefs, however, and sometimes they can then separate themselves emotionally from the positions and actually take a look at them without the koolaid glasses getting in the way.

No. Jon Stewart was effective because he brought more insight to the table than just about anyone in tv. That he was also able to not lose sight of humor is an indication of his talent, but that he's funny is secondary.

If, in a discussion, you can get your adversary to chuckle at his own views, that's probably being done in a respectful way. Not what I'm talking about.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it can't only be discounted through mockery, it's just that it's a more effective way. The best weapon against the right wing policies in America over the past generation was probably Jon Stewart's The Daily Show because he just sat there and laughed at how fucking stupid their positions were. When you have a Trump supporter, you're not going to change his mind by giving him a rational and fact-based analysis of the consequences of Trumps' positions because he's not listening to you. The strategy of painting Trump as an incompetent idiot who can't be trusted with the Presidency by laughing at the dumb shit he says and does has been monstrously effective, though.

It's the same with religion. I've tried having rational discussions with young earth creationists and it's like talking to a brick wall. Get them chuckling at the absurdity of some points of their beliefs, however, and sometimes they can then separate themselves emotionally from the positions and actually take a look at them without the koolaid glasses getting in the way.

No. Jon Stewart was effective because he brought more insight to the table than just about anyone in tv. That he was also able to not lose sight of humor is an indication of his talent, but that he's funny is secondary.

If, in a discussion, you can get your adversary to chuckle at his own views, that's probably being done in a respectful way. Not what I'm talking about.

No, his effectiveness was due to his humour. He wasn't the most insightful person out there by far, but he was probably the most influential because the humour he brought to the topics had people pay attention so they'd gain the insight.

Also, he was NOT respectful to the people he was mocking. Quite the opposite.

 

[Horatio Parker]

No. Jon Stewart was effective because he brought more insight to the table than just about anyone in tv. That he was also able to not lose sight of humor is an indication of his talent, but that he's funny is secondary.

If, in a discussion, you can get your adversary to chuckle at his own views, that's probably being done in a respectful way. Not what I'm talking about.

No, his effectiveness was due to his humour. He wasn't the most insightful person out there by far, but he was probably the most influential because the humour he brought to the topics had people pay attention so they'd gain the insight.

Also, he was NOT respectful to the people he was mocking. Quite the opposite.

No. He wasn't offered Meet the Press because he's funny.

 

[Atheos]

Let me put it this way: do you want people to be atheists because they fear not to be?

Because mockery, notwithstanding your protestations of respect, is a form of bullying or intimidation.

Who said anything about wanting people to be atheists? I certainly didn't. If folks want to believe silly superstitions and myths I really don't have a problem with that.

I came to the place I am now by considering the irrationality of beliefs I once held. If someone else goes to the same effort and reaches a different conclusion so be it. But at least take the time to think about it instead of just accepting it because some priest says so.

Not everyone wants to think for themselves. It takes effort.

But for those who do, simply basking in an ocean of likeminded believers isn't going to get it done.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, his effectiveness was due to his humour. He wasn't the most insightful person out there by far, but he was probably the most influential because the humour he brought to the topics had people pay attention so they'd gain the insight.

Also, he was NOT respectful to the people he was mocking. Quite the opposite.

No. He wasn't offered Meet the Press because he's funny.

No, he was offered that because he was a smart, insightful man. The world is littered with smart, insightful men whom nobody pays attention to, though. Stewart's cutting humour and his ability to create a compelling story out his mockery of the absurdity of others' stupidity and hypocrisy is what got him the following so that people paid attention to his insights instead of ignoring those insights in the same way that they ignore the insights of so many others.

Having good arguments is meaningless unless you also have the tools to get people to pay attention to those arguments. Humour is one of the best ways to do that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Let me put it this way: do you want people to be atheists because they fear not to be?

Because mockery, notwithstanding your protestations of respect, is a form of bullying or intimidation.

Who said anything about wanting people to be atheists? I certainly didn't. If folks want to believe silly superstitions and myths I really don't have a problem with that.

I came to the place I am now by considering the irrationality of beliefs I once held. If someone else goes to the same effort and reaches a different conclusion so be it. But at least take the time to think about it instead of just accepting it because some priest says so.

Not everyone wants to think for themselves. It takes effort.

But for those who do, simply basking in an ocean of likeminded believers isn't going to get it done.

The vast majority of people are not going to change because they examine their beliefs. They'll change because it's okay to do, regardless the belief, because other people are doing it. A hardcore believer coming to the conclusion that this stuff is phony is the rarest of exceptions in my experience.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I would not assume that.

Not much of a response. I think we're done.

What's the difference between one person thinking they have a billion dollars and twenty million people thinking they each have a billion dollars? When does it get "recorded" as you say, somehow instantly now making it a reality and not just a wishful idea or delusion?

And it doesn't have to be money, which is not an abstraction btw. Money is certainly real. It can be a person's eye color or height. It can be that they think the earth is flat. Your argument is that it's now real outside their minds just because some critical number of people say it's real, if I understand correctly.

 

[Horatio Parker]

No. He wasn't offered Meet the Press because he's funny.

No, he was offered that because he was a smart, insightful man. The world is littered with smart, insightful men whom nobody pays attention to, though. Stewart's cutting humour and his ability to create a compelling story out his mockery of the absurdity of others' stupidity and hypocrisy is what got him the following so that people paid attention to his insights instead of ignoring those insights in the same way that they ignore the insights of so many others.

Having good arguments is meaningless unless you also have the tools to get people to pay attention to those arguments. Humour is one of the best ways to do that.

Yes, but it's the insights that, in the end, make him a game changer. That, and younger people not going anywhere else to get their news.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Let me put it this way: do you want people to be atheists because they fear not to be?

Because mockery, notwithstanding your protestations of respect, is a form of bullying or intimidation.

Who said anything about wanting people to be atheists? I certainly didn't. If folks want to believe silly superstitions and myths I really don't have a problem with that.

I came to the place I am now by considering the irrationality of beliefs I once held. If someone else goes to the same effort and reaches a different conclusion so be it. But at least take the time to think about it instead of just accepting it because some priest says so.

Not everyone wants to think for themselves. It takes effort.

But for those who do, simply basking in an ocean of likeminded believers isn't going to get it done.

I think it's a mistake to conflate miracles and spirituality from either perspective. I think for many believers, it's the emphasis on community and reflection that keeps them coming - not an insistence that Noah's ark was precisely such and such size or Jesus hung on the cross from exactly 11:57 am to 3:02:16.

Obviously this isn't the case for literalists, but I'm less concerned about them. I'd rather marginalize them by appealing to the more rational mainstream types. By not insisting that a religious belief is always a magical belief.

 

[Atheos]

Who said anything about wanting people to be atheists? I certainly didn't. If folks want to believe silly superstitions and myths I really don't have a problem with that.

I came to the place I am now by considering the irrationality of beliefs I once held. If someone else goes to the same effort and reaches a different conclusion so be it. But at least take the time to think about it instead of just accepting it because some priest says so.

Not everyone wants to think for themselves. It takes effort.

But for those who do, simply basking in an ocean of likeminded believers isn't going to get it done.

The vast majority of people are not going to change because they examine their beliefs. They'll change because it's okay to do, regardless the belief, because other people are doing it. A hardcore believer coming to the conclusion that this stuff is phony is the rarest of exceptions in my experience.

Not being an expert on what motivates "the vast majority" I defer to your expertise on this matter. However I'll still continue to point out absurdity when I see it because I'm a crabby old man who can get away with it.