Hi! This is my first post here. Long time fan of Ehrman. I’ve read most of his books and I am currently trying to expand my “scholarship”. Any reading suggestions are welcome. I prefer to listen to books because I can do other things while I listen but if I can’t get it in audio I’ll survive ;).
What I want to talk about is something I have noticed within some online atheist groups I am a part of. There is almost a rabid disinclination to believe that there was a historical person of Jesus upon which the Christian faith emerged. I do not make the mistake of believing that atheists are automatically rational thinkers because that is definitely not always the case. But, there have been times when people I otherwise find completely reasonable are absolutely unwilling to look at the historical evidence when it comes to the historical Jesus. I often find myself arguing with people about this and I wish I knew why the idea that Jesus never existed is more satisfying to them than the idea that Jesus did exist but was not at all who modern Christians believe him to be?
I think part of the answer is that people tend to crave certainty, and they prefer a simple explanation to a more complicated one with shades of grey. This dynamic, I think, can explain both evangelical Christians and evangelical Atheists. Unfortunately, real life is rarely that simple, and history is even messier. (And it just gets messier the further you try to go back.)
Robert said
Out of respect for chelz84 and his thread topic, I have moved an extenisve discussion on Steefen’s theory and many peoples’ reactions to Steefen and his theory to a new thread, which can be found ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Well, no popcorn for you.
JAS said
Many of the most ardent Atheists I know were raised Catholic. I decided long ago that there was nothing quite like Catholicism for making new Atheists.
I think you’re right. From my experience the Jesuits are particularly adept. I had a friend who studied under the Fathers and a couple encouraged him to train to actually join the order. He told them that he wasn’t sure he believed in God. One of the Fathers replied (reportedly unironically), “What difference does that make?”
the fundamentalist atheists…
What is a “fundamentalist atheist”? Better yet, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist look like?
Stephen said
What is a “fundamentalist atheist”? Better yet, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist look like?
Perhaps an atheist who is as aggressive in his or her atheistic views as a fundamentalist Christian is in his or his Christian views. (As such, it would be a designation of an equivalent degree of adherence and perhaps promotion of those respective views.) That is why I used the term evangelical, which I think works better as one who spreads his or her views.
JAS said
Perhaps an atheist who is as aggressive in his or her atheistic views as a fundamentalist Christian is in his or his Christian views. (As such, it would be a designation of an equivalent degree of adherence and perhaps promotion of those respective views.) That is why I used the term evangelical, which I think works better as one who spreads his or her views.
The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the “opium of the masses”—cannot hear the music of the spheres.
— Albert Einstein
CEJ said
JAS said
Perhaps an atheist who is as aggressive in his or her atheistic views as a fundamentalist Christian is in his or his Christian views. (As such, it would be a designation of an equivalent degree of adherence and perhaps promotion of those respective views.) That is why I used the term evangelical, which I think works better as one who spreads his or her views.
The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the “opium of the masses”—cannot hear the music of the spheres.
— Albert Einstein
During my days in debate class back at Zebulon Pike Barber College, where I attained firsts in classics and animal husbandry, I was taught that resorting to ad hominem in an argument was an implicit acknowledgement of defeat. Even in less Olympian climes if you think someone is a being a jerk why not just say that ? The problem is of course that it is impossible to criticize religion without giving offense because it is so tied up with a person’s sense of self. Critiquing religion is almost always interpreted as a personal attack. How dare you offend my deepest sensibilities? Who wants to be perceived as a jerk? So religion gets a free pass and we wind up with an ideologically dominated Supreme Court which strips away women’s rights and undermines secular democracy and we pretend none of this has anything to do with religion!
Stephen said
During my days in debate class back at Zebulon Pike Barber College, where I attained firsts in classics and animal husbandry, I was taught that resorting to ad hominem in an argument was an implicit acknowledgement of defeat. Even in less Olympian climes if you think someone is a being a jerk why not just say that ? The problem is of course that it is impossible to criticize religion without giving offense because it is so tied up with a person’s sense of self. Critiquing religion is almost always interpreted as a personal attack. How dare you offend my deepest sensibilities? Who wants to be perceived as a jerk? So religion gets a free pass and we wind up with an ideologically dominated Supreme Court which strips away women’s rights and undermines secular democracy and we pretend none of this has anything to do with religion!
Hush. The A-Team is on. And they’re in a tight spot.
Stephen said
CEJ said
JAS said
Perhaps an atheist who is as aggressive in his or her atheistic views as a fundamentalist Christian is in his or his Christian views. (As such, it would be a designation of an equivalent degree of adherence and perhaps promotion of those respective views.) That is why I used the term evangelical, which I think works better as one who spreads his or her views.
The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the “opium of the masses”—cannot hear the music of the spheres.
— Albert Einstein
During my days in debate class back at Zebulon Pike Barber College, where I attained firsts in classics and animal husbandry, I was taught that resorting to ad hominem in an argument was an implicit acknowledgement of defeat. Even in less Olympian climes if you think someone is a being a jerk why not just say that ? The problem is of course that it is impossible to criticize religion without giving offense because it is so tied up with a person’s sense of self. Critiquing religion is almost always interpreted as a personal attack. How dare you offend my deepest sensibilities? Who wants to be perceived as a jerk? So religion gets a free pass and we wind up with an ideologically dominated Supreme Court which strips away women’s rights and undermines secular democracy and we pretend none of this has anything to do with religion!
Here in the heart of the Bible Belt, church signs often give a clue to the zeitgeist. The current sign for the First Baptist Church says “Our freedom was ordained by God.” I really (no, not really) want to schedule an appointment with the pastor just to ask him his scriptural basis for this claim. I’m sure the sentiment is related to the 4th, but I have no idea where God or Christ enters the picture.
Stephen said
During my days in debate class back at Zebulon Pike Barber College, where I attained firsts in classics and animal husbandry, I was taught that resorting to ad hominem in an argument was an implicit acknowledgement of defeat. Even in less Olympian climes if you think someone is a being a jerk why not just say that ? The problem is of course that it is impossible to criticize religion without giving offense because it is so tied up with a person’s sense of self. Critiquing religion is almost always interpreted as a personal attack. How dare you offend my deepest sensibilities? Who wants to be perceived as a jerk? So religion gets a free pass and we wind up with an ideologically dominated Supreme Court which strips away women’s rights and undermines secular democracy and we pretend none of this has anything to do with religion!
It is almost always impossible to discuss/disagree with personal views that are seen as highly important without it being seen as a personal attack. For such views, the boundaries between the ideas and the person vanish. This can be just as true for lots of things, not only religion. A few examples include politics and sports.
Classics and Animal Husbandry is a combined major somewhere? Perhaps classes in Plato and the Pig Pen. I am assuming that was meant as a joke, but my cousin’s son went to a college in Florida where you could make your own major. His was Art, Religion and Marketing. (I think the marketing part got thrown in to satisfy parents who feared for his ability to make a living. He is now in graduate school, training to be an art therapist. Many fingers are still crossed.)
I am assuming that was meant as a joke…
I have no sense of humor. It was removed a few days after birth along with my foreskin. Unfortunately ZPBC burned down in 1994 as the result of a fertilizer experiment gone awry.
Zebulon Pike, searching for the beginning of the Arkansas River, ‘discovered’ what would later come to be known as Pikes Peak. But there’s also a Barber College named after him! I never would have guessed.
In early America, as a result of his explorations and wartime exploits, Pike became an international celebrity. There were hundreds of cities, counties, dams, parks, forests, and at least one snowplow named after him. Sadly his fame diminished after the Civil War, replaced by other heroes. There is a lesson to be learned there if we had the courage to face it.
chelz84 said
I wish I knew why the idea that Jesus never existed is more satisfying to them than the idea that Jesus did exist but was not at all who modern Christians believe him to be?
The appeal is that if Jesus didn’t exist it automatically renders all of Christianity as false. It makes it all simple for them so they don’t have to think too much about it. Atheists can be lazy, too.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)