Beyond The Theism vs. Atheism Debate

[0belafekete0]

One area of possible commonality I've tried to suggest is the question, are we actually interested in religion? As example...

Please define what you mean by religion. It's not clear that everyone is talking about the same thing when they use that word.

Many atheists want religion to go away. In order for that to actually happen, whatever need is motivating people to adopt religions will have to met by some other means.

Are you sure? Atheists including notably Sam Harris want to retain "spirituality" which may be a euphemism for at least some aspects of religion depending on what you mean by religion.

Many theists want the best goals of religion to be achieved. The best goals of religion would be to fully meet the needs of the religious and surrounding community.

Theists don't agree about what the best goals of religion are or about what religion is.

It seems these goals are complementary. If the human needs that fuel religion were somehow met, religion would have achieved it's victory, and thus religion would no longer be needed. Here's a colorful example...

Who thinks about religion or God while they're in the middle of wild sex? Who thinks about atheism while they're in the middle of wild sex? Who wants to argue about any of it while they're in the middle of wild sex?

People shout "O my God" during sex. Religionists use sex as a metaphor for the experience of "knowing" God [See the Son of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible]. Based on such evidence theism is unconsciously closer to sex than atheism.

So, that's my suggestion. Wild sex 24 hours a day for every person on earth. Ok, ok, I know that will result in a population explosion, but just think of it as more people to have wild sex with.

Now you're just playing.

Why does religion exist in the first place? Why do even atheists have this need to feel they KNOW the answer? It seems it would be in everybody's interest to understand these human needs and deal with them.

Religion exists to fulfill humankind's need for ultimate meaning. The atheist's need to feel they know comes from the same place.

We don't have to call this inquiry religion, or debunking religion. We could just call it, trying to be happier human beings.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Unless we destroy ourselves, religion will outlive us all.

. The proof is easier than you think. I will try as I see it. Specifically Christ was such an overwhelming mover that the fact that paganism would still be the course had He not lived, in addition, the prophets foretold His coming. To top that, He overcame the debate you are talking about 3 ways:::parables, miracles, and self sacrifice. HIs rising to the occasion(atheism), coincided with the set of events determining Him(theism) -------as a further "evidence" He tried to reassure those that still doubted (Thomas) -----Blessed are those that believe yet do not see.

[felix dakat]

The proof is easier than you think. I will try as I see it. Specifically Christ was such an overwhelming mover that the fact that paganism would still be the course had He not lived, in addition, the prophets foretold His coming. To top that, He overcame the debate you are talking about 3 ways:::parables, miracles, and self sacrifice. HIs rising to the occasion(atheism), coincided with the set of events determining Him(theism) -------as a further "evidence" He tried to reassure those that still doubted (Thomas) -----Blessed are those that believe yet do not see.

Welcome to the religion forum ObelafeketO. Overwhelming mover is an interesting choice of words. Can you expand on what you mean by the expression? I find that imagining alternative histories opens endless possibilities with no possibility of resolution. Don't you? So if Jesus never appeared, an infinite number of alternative histories open up. In some of them paganism prevails. In others, Judaism moderates itself and prevails to become a dominant influence. A very different Islam arises the middle east perhaps idolatrous instead of iconclastic. You may disagree on the specifics and yet see the point: nobody can ever know what would have happened.

Also please explain how parables, miracles and self-sacrifice overcame the current debate. If people knew this there would be no debate yet debate there undeniably is. The interpretation of parables is disputed, miracles, once controversial are dismissed by modernists, self-sacrifice is lauded, but its practitioners seem to be shrinking especially among the most vocal of the religious Right who seem to prefer that others make sacrifices so that their way can dominate society. So, Christ's overcoming would seem to be an object of faith. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But, is that how you see it?

I don't see where atheism as such was even an issue during Jesus' time on earth. How did you arrive at that conclusion? How do you see Jesus as determined by events/ Do you not recognize him as the determiner of events?

Finally, I'm curious about the relevance of the doubting Thomas story to this discussion.It seems like a tangential leap. Can you connect the dots for me so that I can understand how you see it to be relevant to this discussion?

[Typist]

Specifically Christ was such an overwhelming mover that the fact that paganism would still be the course had He not lived,

While I don't feel this begins to approach proof, I would agree that perhaps the best argument for Jesus is that we're still talking about him widely and earnestly 2,000 years later. Can't say that about very many people.

It seems constructive to try to understand his staying power, and this is aided by sidestepping the distracting "Is Jesus God?" question. My pet theory goes as follows...

A central fact of the human condition is that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". This perception can reasonably be proposed as the source of the majority of our personal and social problems. So, a rather big deal, that affects all of us.

Imho, the genius of Jesus's teachings are that they addresses this core problem directly, AND in a way that is very accessible to the average human being. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is both very practical AND very simple advice for easing the personal and social pain arising from the "me" vs. "everything else" perception.

This example also serves we wannabe philosophers, in that it demonstrates that quality philosophy is both 1) well connected to the facts of reality, and 2) is well packaged in a straightforward language that is easily consumed by readers.

Fancy arguments designed primarily to inflate the ego and social position of the arguer fail this test. What is the point of brilliance if few of our fellow humans understand WTF we're talking about?

These days it's become popular to endlessly analyze our own personal psychology, the navel gazing enterprise. The problem with this approach is that one analysis leads to the next, to the next, to the next, in an endless loop, and the process serves mostly to reinforce the core problem, the perceived division between "me" and "everything else".

Jesus is brilliant in blowing right on by this huge pile of unnecessary work. I hear him saying, "Forget all that, forget you, go help the guy in the soup kitchen." In other words, change the @#$% subject. Billions of people have tested this advice and found it works, thus the fellow is still popular.