Sunday School

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

It is possible that Raif Badawi may be pardoned.

The anonymous diaries of Pakistani atheists.

Christians are still proselytizing to children in public schools while Christian Reform Schools are allowed to brutalize children. Even ten year old atheists know it when they see it.

No man can serve two masters said Jesus to Mike Pence even though President Trump is a believer.

Roy Moore lists some of his favorite things. I am sure he mentions Judaeo-Christian values at some point. We would be better off if all governments had some of the value of Star Trek instead.

Time to meet the silence breakers.

In Australia the same-sex marriage bill is passed. Will they have their own bakeshop story too?

Science and religion are not compatible.

How to successfully argue that Jesus existed.

The right wing watch Christmas gift guide.

How Megachurches blurred the line between religion and riches.

It is now not just me calling “religious liberty” a code word for discrimination and exclusion.

This weeks’ Woo:  Getting under the skin on acupuncture.

Climate Change: An interview with Al Gore.

We are all part of some coalition plus cooperation and the evolution of hunter-gatherer storytelling.

How the discovery of alien life would change our ideas about morality.

What bacteria can tell us about Human Evolution.

Is psychology a self-correcting science?

What would your parting message be?

Some photographs taken this year.

While you are waiting for the kettle to boil…..

Coffee Break Video: A history of the world in 18 minutes. Religion compromises moral judgement.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Have a great week everyone!!

George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.

Sam Harris.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

If you have a moment please sign this to help end religious discrimination in Irish schools.

[Strega]

Thanks, Reg!

[Simon Paynton]

“How to successfully argue that Jesus existed.”

– the stories, personality and philosophies of Jesus are those of a remarkable one-off person, and what’s more, they can be independently verified as genuinely awesome.  If it wasn’t “a man called Jesus”, it was “an author who wrote the stories” – which under the general circumstances, seems less likely.  But even if that’s the case, the argument still stands.  QED.

It’s similar to proving that Einstein or Newton existed, even if there was no reliable first-hand evidence to go on.

[Davis]

they can be independently verified as genuinely awesome.

What does that mean? The only sources on Jesus are some gospels written well after he died. All other sources come later. The consensus is that someone named Jesus existed and was cruxified. It is currently impossible to prove Jesus as described in the bible existed, let alone his supernatural qualities. I also don’t know how one can “idependently verify the awesomeness of a person”. How do you do that?

which under the general circumstances, seems less likely.

Why is it unlikely? I’ve never met a human being with some level of power and a following, who weren’t flawed in many ways. There have also been multiple accounts of “all love and tolerance and forgiveness” well before someone named Jesus was crucified. Authors create incredible characters every day and it has been well demonstrated that stories about religious figures can be highly manipulated and are to some extent unreliable. There is nothing special in the Jesus stories that makes this character special or more likely to be real.

It’s similar to proving that Einstein or Newton existed,

Their existence is in no doubt. We have their own works to read, their notes as they drafted their works, their correspondence with others, texts written by others about Einstein and Newton throughout their life span. We have pictures and with Einstein we have videos, birth cirtificates and death certificates. We have memorabilia on both and we have very precise information on some aspects of their lives. Our information about Jesus was written down by Christians well after Jesus died with no contemporary documents or artifacts to back their story up.

[Simon Paynton]

“how one can “idependently verify the awesomeness of a person”. How do you do that?”

– you know how in monetary accounting, there is the concept of reconciliation?  Arriving at a result through two independent means.  In this case, Jesus said X, we can also arrive at X through independent, well verified philosophical means.  This applies basically to his general message and the things he did as a human being.

“Why is it unlikely?”

– it’s less likely that Jesus was a fictional character, than that Jesus was real, because 1) the things that he is reported to have done, fit in with cutting-edge moral philosophy as we know it; 2) it’s a bit weird that the four Gospel-merchants would all say approximately the same thing, if it was authored by someone else.

“It’s similar to proving that Einstein or Newton existed,”

– their ideas exist, somebody had to originate those ideas, that somebody must have been a real person to have done that.

[Davis]

Simon Paynton wrote:

In this case, Jesus said X, we can also arrive at X through independent, well verified philosophical means.

No. No on many counts. The character as described said many things that sound nice. He said a few things that are morally horrible. It is nothing new in the history of peace and love ethics (what he supposedly said had already been said for centuries by Gurus and street preachers).  But to arrive at your conclusion independently you would need:

1. Two ethicists who both agree that a certain phrase Jesus said is morally praiseworthy.

2. Two ethicists who share a similar ethical world view.

3. The ethical world view must match what Jesus said.

—

Sure, you can find some people who will fulfill all three conditions…and you will find a hell of a lot who don’t. I, for example, do not think some of the things Jesus said an did was moral…for example knocking over money changing tables. You shouldn’t wash your hands before eating. You must totally obey your parents. Sending a flock of pigs to a pointess death. Your religion should be first before anything else including your family. Evil doers do what they do because they are evil people. And we won’t even start getting into the stuff Jesus happened to say nothing about “murder in war, slavery, spousal abuse etc”.

I can guarantee you that you will have a pretty hard time finding two scholars who will both agree entirely on the awesomeness of all of the above. I for one think it is all abhorent. Others might justify one or two of them. On top of that, finding two ethicists who share Jesus’s own world view will be rather difficult, especially with modern ethics where it has become incredibly divorced of religious forces.

But what you may have meant was:

Love thy neighbor

Turn the other cheek.

Judge not.

That all sounds quite agreeable and easy to approve. You’ll find many people who agree with the above. You will also find many who will criticize the last two especially. Turning the cheek when experiencing violence is a pretty terrible general response to have and you will only have pacifists and a few deontological ethicists who will agree with it. The same goes for Judging…I judge murders and racists and homophobes and friends who lie to me. I don’t see how this lesson is praiseworthy, I don’t share it, and I doubt I would find many ethicists who would go for it.

And even if you got all three of those pronounced awesome independently by two people studying Jesus, this is cherry picking. Taking the phrases that sound nicest, the ones you identify with the most and omitting the not so good stuff. If Jesus was so morally superior and had an outrageously awesome sense of morality…he wouldn’t have said several things and it wouldn’t conflict.

Finally…I’ve never heard awesome used as an adjective with morality. By that do you mean morally sound?

[Davis]

1) the things that he is reported to have done, fit in with cutting-edge moral philosophy as we know it;

There is no such thing as cutting edge moral philosophy. There are massively different world views proposed and explained by very different kinds of faculty and philosophers. Perhaps you are referring to a pacifist world view where identity politics are important (no violence, equality, social support, non-judgement). Something like “A theory of Justice”. That may be accepted in general by many people who life in developed countries (certainly not everyone)…but that doesn’t make it cutting edge. In fact, we they are in the minority on Earth. And Jesus said things that conflicted with identity politics…so this is a pretty weak argument.

it’s a bit weird that the four Gospel-merchants would all say approximately the same thing

There is nothing strange about different people independently writing down a variation of a story. At least three Greek poets wrote about Elektra and while there are structural similarities…there are also notable differences. It is still not sure Elektra ever existed. Does the fact that different authors wrote about a similar character make her existence more probable? What about Socrates? Plato wrote dialogues with him as his teacher and he was included in plays yet we are hardly certain he existed. Can you think of good reasons to invent an ideal character….especially if that character espouses a moral world view you want to spread? Besides…the Q source is widely accepted in biblical scholarship…an example of how different writers take the same source and expand on it. That doesn’t make any of it true. They just used the same original material. If the original material was fabricated or highly exaggerated then the following works will also suffer those qualities.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Davis.

[Davis]

their ideas exist, somebody had to originate those ideas, that somebody must have been a real person to have done that.

Yes.  Jesus did not invent the phrases you read in the bible. It was all written well before he lived (if he ever lived). Read Aristotle who came well before Jesus. Read Hindu and Bhuddist scripture. No sound moral argument Jesus made is original and all we have are sources written WELL after he died. You cannot compare Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to a possibly fictional man being quoted as saying a nice moral claim which has been said many a times before. That’s a terrible argument both per the reliability of the sources and the originality of the ideas.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Davis.

[Simon Paynton]

Jesus’ moral philosophy was valid, and since then, nobody has done better.  Buddha came up with the same blueprint: “truth and compassion”.  The fact that it isn’t original, is supporting evidence that it is correct, since true moral philosophy would be timeless.

“Turn the other cheek.”

– this is a prosocial innovation, in accord with his general outlook of unconditional love, that in fact can be shown to be of great use in promoting long term mutual thriving.

“There is no such thing as cutting edge moral philosophy.”

– that would be my moral philosophy.  Through this, I can demonstrate the validity of Jesus’ prosocial message, and he didn’t have any other, except that he obviously had some kind of issue with families in general.

“Two ethicists”

– I really don’t give a shit.  I can present a coherent and logical justification.  Two ethicists can go drink themselves to death for all the difference they would make.

“A theory of Justice”

– fairness – or justice – varies according to the local customs, but the point is, fairness or justice in some form remains fundamental.

“You cannot compare Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to a possibly fictional man”

– we can, because in moral terms, Jesus was an Einstein.  However, morality is not as complicated as the Theory of Relativity, so he definitely had an easier job on his hands.

“There are massively different world views proposed and explained by very different kinds of faculty and philosophers.”

– and they can suck it.

You’re missing the central themes that Jesus is famous for – and those have to be the ones that count.  “Judge not lest ye be judged” – don’t condemn people or write them off.  This implies, instead, observe first and make judgements later.  “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  – this remains vitally relevent today.  Very prosocial and in line with unconditional love.  Easy.

“Jesus said things that conflicted with identity politics”

– so what?  Who says identify politics are a valid philosophy?  Personally I think they’re mainly bogus.  Too many people have too much fun using them to bully people.

“cherry picking”

– Jesus didn’t go around doing horrible things.  The most shocking thing he is known for, is knocking over some money changers’ tables.  That is very mild.

 

[Strega]

According to that same bible, Jesus totally lost the plot with a fig tree that wouldn’t produce fruit out of season.  He also set bears on a bunch of kids calling some bloke ‘baldy’.

[Davis]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Jesus’ moral philosophy was valid, and since then, nobody has done better.

So I suppose you read Bhuddist scriptures (not just a summary?) and you read Aristotles ethics? This is an incredible claim you are making and yet it is impossible to take it seriously considering your complete refusal to read about major moral systems  that have emerged and been expanded upon in the last 500 years. I believe in your words it was “I don’t give a shit”. So what is the deal here? You say no one did it better since Jesus and yet you know next to nothing about moral systems other than what Jesus and maybe a couple other guys came up with. It would be like me saying The New York Yankees are the best…while knowing nothing about almost all the other teams…and little about the rules of baseball. No one can possibly take this seriously.

Two ethicists can go drink themselves to death for all the difference they would make.

And yet you want us to take your moral system seriously? You have nothing but contempt for writers you have never read and moral systems you know nothing about and yet we should give a damn about yours? Why?

fairness – or justice – varies according to the local customs

That  is a gross misrepresentation of A Theory of Justice. I take it you never read it? Perhaps you read a 5 page summary? Maybe even the first paragraph of it on Wikipedia?

Jesus was an Einstein

No he wasn’t. Jesus said stuff that others said before and didn’t even repeat it in an original or novel way. Einstein figured out something almost impossible to understand and to a great extent with nothing else to fall back on. And how would you know Jesus is the summit of morality if you know next to nothing about ancient and modern moral systems? Why don’t I just say Winston Churchill is the Einstein of politics (oh by the way I don’t give a shit about historians and barely read any history and whatever use historians are, but would you like to here my treatise on history?

and they can suck it.

Then why should we not take the same attitude towards you and tell you to suck it?

You’re missing the central themes that Jesus is famous for

He is famous for what has been cherry picked out of the gospels. The bad stuff is just as important as the good stuff. A moral system is only as good as the faults within them…and the faults are there. If he was the utter apex of morality then he wouldn’t have said such screwed up bullshit. You cannot sweep it under the rug and yet take your claim that he is the messiah of morality at the same time. That’s ridiculous.

Jesus didn’t go around doing horrible things. The most shocking thing he is known for, is knocking over some money changers’ tables. That is very mild.

Clearly you haven’t read the texts that Jesus’s “philosophy” comes from. Otherwise you couldn’t possibly make this claim. Can you not even read the first four books of the New Testament before crowning Jesus as the king of ethical problems?

so what? Who says identify politics are a valid philosophy? Personally I think they’re mainly bogus. Too many people have too much fun using them to bully people.

The political aspect is only one part of this broader philosophy and moral system. You have to learn about it and read up on this or otherwise you’ll characteristic it…betraying a superficial understanding of a major moral system. And yet this moral sytem is as close as you get to modern cutting-philosophy. So what is it? Is Jesus’s teaching similar to cutting edge philosophy or not? It’s impossible to make sense of most of this. And you are also terribly mischaracterising identity politics as a moral system by citing a few nut job activists instead of the actual ethical system behind it. I assume this is another moral system you’ve chosen not to learn or read about?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Davis.

[Davis]

Hey Reg. What happened to 10 things we didn’t know last week? I miss those a lot.

[_Robert_]

Simon, you are always on here gushing about jebus…..have you actually read his versus?

Jesus told his followers to hate their families:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

He was insane:

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off … And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off … And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48

He was fine with the old testament:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17

and then there is the threat of hell…

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41-42
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:49-50
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41

He encouraged beating of slaves: what an asshole !

And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke 12:47

It goes on and on…..so sad.

 

[Author]

Posts