Your favorite philosopher

[Jacques Joseph]

When you say you're a Christian, what do you *really* mean? Because that is a very broad spectrum. Do you just mean 'I'm a good person who believes in the principles of tolerance and simple living espoused by Jesus of Nazareth'? If so, then I'm a Christian too. Or do you mean 'I believe in the existence of a personal deity who answers prayers and will reward me in the afterlife'? Because there I disagree with you but I'm not going to get into an argument about it (and I suspect neither particularly would Dawkins). Or do you mean 'I believe in a supreme being who created the world in seven days and who placed dinosaur fossils in the earth to test my faith'? Because then I'm prepared to argue quite strenuously with you and claim that your belief system isn't just wrong but logically flawed.

I´d be prepared to argue with the last one, too, even though I´m not that sure it has to be logically flawed but that would be nitpicking. There´s obviously empirical evidence, common sense, Ockham´s razor and what not to argue against such an opinion so I think we´re in agreement here.

But that's not the discussion we have in the real world. In the real world, people say 'I'm a person of faith' and that is supposed to be the end of all argument. And *That* is what I disagree with, and what Dawkins is trying to combat.

As I´ve said, given my background, living in a mostly atheist country that does not care that much about political correctness, I´ve never been in this discussion, which is why I didn´t see that aspect of the argument. That of course puts the whole thing in a different light, though I´d still argue that it would be good to make a clearer distinction. First, such an argument isn´t that much about the non/existence of God but about religion, and second, only about a very specific form of religion which a lot of reasonable religious people would be ready to argue against as well. I don´t mean to be quarelling over words but the way in which the problem is presented can, I think, lead to misunderstandings. For example, in the speech transcript you posted a link to, Dawkins comes across as saying that all religion (in general) only serves to perpetrate lies and obscurantism, using narrow-minded Christian fundamentalism as a strawman to prove his point.

Anyway, I´ll be looking forward to exchanging some views on Wittgenstein!

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

I am, of course, not trying to pick a fight. I just want to be sure you really fully respect Jesus as an agnostic.

You should try to pick ones more often, I love arguments. An idea that can't stand up to being argued about is one not worth having.

Jesus is often claimed by nonbelievers (and those not sure, like yourself) to have been a profoundly good and wise man even if he was not divine. But some points must be made.
1. He claimed to be the son of God.
2. He claimed to be capable of miraculous deeds, and made no effort to convince others his deeds were normal.
3. He told others that if they believed strongly enough, they could do what he did.

With this being said, the conclusion rises: if he wasn't divine, was he truly a good man? He lied, he indentured many into servitude through the claim that he was a demigod. He openly defied the law, on the mere justification that his way was better. If he was sane, and not divine, how could he possible be a good man?

But what if he really believed what he said, and was not divine? Then he must have been insane. His literal belief that he was the son of God led him to insurrection, wild claims, and causing chaos both in Rome and Judea.

The point I'm trying to make is that Jesus is only worth looking up to if he was divine. Otherwise, he was either a superb con man who got caught in the end or a lunatic. Or else, he was just a character in a book, in which case he was never a man to begin with. Of course, I love philosophical discussion and if you feel otherwise, I'd love to chat.

To put it short, it is my opinion that Jesus was just a guy(or several people reordered into a single person) who had a lot of ideas that he told a lot of people. He developed some following, and after his death people made books about what he said, but they were religious texts so like all such stories, they were spruced up to make them more mystical and to make their ideas have more 'pull' as it were.

A large portion of the Jesus story bears a striking resemblance to other 'myths' as pointed out by The Zeitgeist as well as other far more reputable sources. Sons of gods wasn't exactly a new thing, Perseus, Hercules. Virgin births isn't a new thing(also fun fact: the term virgin has changed in the current venacular, it used to simply mean 'not married' and had nothing to do with sex at all.) Osiris was resurrected after 3 days, he walked on water, he was the lamb of god, he cured the sick, three kings/wise-men came to his birth. The story of Jesus reads like it was assembled in the exact same way as stories of other holy men.

The background story is far from unique and far from new, but the idea's were shockingly new and radical even by todays standards. So as I said before it would seem to me someone came up with those ideas, spread them around, gained something of a cult following, and then was rewritten to be divine after his death. Because we always are more willing to listen to the far out there stories more than the mundane. So I would contend that Jesus likely never said any of the points you made and ipso ergo was not a liar.

Spreading radical idea's about peace, tolerance and good will towards all men is more than enough to get a person killed by the powers that be. Look at reggae stars, they tell that message every day, and Bob Marley gets shot at with a sniper while on stage.

 

[MeisterKleister]

Daniel Dennett (3rd picture in my avatar); he explains consciousness and the purpose of life using science.

As for debates, I love listening to Matt Dillahunty (former president of the Atheist Community of Austin).
He is the best debater I have seen; an eloquent and fierce advocate of skepticism and critical thinking; and one of the best defenders of reason today, in my humble opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Matt+Dillahunty&page=&utm_source=opensearch