Why I am an atheist

[Starlight]

Witherington is fairly respected within his field for his handle on ancient rhetoric, even among non-conservative scholars... Perhaps you'd reject Moo's commentary as well, since he too is a (respected) Christian scholar.

In general I quite like Witherington as a commentator, particularly when he's discussing ancient rhetorical practices, while I tend to nearly always disagree with Moo. That doesn't mean I don't sometimes disagree with Witherington.

So you're in agreement that Christians occasionally invested different or new meaning to secular loanwords, correct?

Using 'brother' and 'sister' in a nonsexual way does not constitute an example of putting new meanings into words. It's just an example of selecting a particular existing meaning. The society of the time was perfectly familiar with the idea of non-sexual non-biological siblings. Under Roman law, as an adult, you could adopt someone as a sibling rather than as a child if you wished.

Also, are you aware that John Boswell;s assertions that these rites were actually same sex union ceremonies are heavily disputed by medieval scholars?

There's been a couple of overzealous Christians who have objected based on the view that "no, no, no, what his research shows can't possibly be the case because I don't like the sound of that". A couple of historians have since done studies that concluded the original conclusion was correct. What seems extremely clear from the surviving evidence is that gay couples were using these ceremonies as marriages... what seems less clear is the extent to which the church knew this was happening and whether or not non-gay couples were also using the ceremonies.

[Adrift]

In general I quite like Witherington as a commentator, particularly when he's discussing ancient rhetorical practices, while I tend to nearly always disagree with Moo. That doesn't mean I don't sometimes disagree with Witherington.

So do you disagree with Witherington and Moo here that there is occasionally some overlap between words like agape and phileo, and that they are not always strictly defined (which was my original point)?

Using 'brother' and 'sister' in a nonsexual way does not constitute an example of putting new meanings into words. It's just an example of selecting a particular existing meaning. The society of the time was perfectly familiar with the idea of non-sexual non-biological siblings. Under Roman law, as an adult, you could adopt someone as a sibling rather than as a child if you wished.

That's what I meant when I stipulated both "different" as well as "new". In other words, Christians occasionally took secular loanwords, and used a definition that, while not unknown, wasn't (as you put it) it's regular meaning. Thus, as you say, occasionally breeding confusion.

There's been a couple of overzealous Christians who have objected based on the view that "no, no, no, what his research shows can't possibly be the case because I don't like the sound of that". A couple of historians have since done studies that concluded the original conclusion was correct. What seems extremely clear from the surviving evidence is that gay couples were using these ceremonies as marriages... what seems less clear is the extent to which the church knew this was happening and whether or not non-gay couples were also using the ceremonies.

It doesn't appear to me that all the critics of this view are necessarily Christian. Criticism of Boswell's view comes from historians like Professor of Classics Dr. David Woods at University College Cork, Dr. Brent Shaw at Princeton, Dr Elizabeth Key Fowden at Cambridge, Medieval historians Dr. Albrecht Classen at University of Arizona, Marilyn Sandidge at Westfield State University, James Brundage at University of Kansas, Gary Ferguson at the University of Delaware, and so on. Surely not all of them are part of some anti-gay, pro-Christian conspiracy to cover over Boswell's thesis, could they be?

[Darth Ovious]

You have not. You have merely claimed that agape is not based on affection. You have not demonstrated it.

Can somebody please tell me why Jaecp has a second account named Roy? I haven't it was forum rules for somebody to have 2 accounts. You mean I know that Jaecp doesn't claim to have two accounts but there can't be two people on this board with this level of ignorance.

[tabibito]

Well in English it makes sense to talk about "love" of food, but it doesn't make sense to talk about being "charitable" to food or having "good will" towards it. So if agape were indicating benevolent intentions, then the only legitimate target of those are humans or animals, not inanimate objects. Whereas if phileo is indicative of strong positive emotions, then you can have those about both inanimate objects and people alike. It would be interesting to know if that distinction applied in the wider context of Greek usage... ie do we ever find Greek speakers saying they agape an inanimate object?

Investigation proceeds - tis a long process.

[MaxVel]

They could simply use premises 1&3 to argue that Christianity has a certain moral code involving loving others as revealed by an overwhelming number of verses in the bible, and that in practice Christianity does not appear to do a good job of successfully getting people to follow that moral code and tends to cause them to do things contrary to it instead. ie Christianity fails at its own goals by its own standards.

3 is not a premise, it's a conclusion, so your argument would appear to be invalid.

As an atheist I continue to believe in the same objective moral code that I believed when I was a Christian. That moral code has no reference to God in it, so it hasn't changed on becoming an atheist.

No wonder your ideas on what Christianity is are all screwy. You were a Christian and God never entered into any of your moral decision-making?

Just to be clear, I think the Bible talks about two moral codes which (following Paul's terminology) I will call the 'letter' and the 'spirit'. The letter is a divine-command moral code where God gives a list of commands to be obeyed and morality thus constitutes conformity with the expressed will of God. The spirit is a moral code where what is valued is love for others and the promotion of the well-being of everyone out of love. The overall teaching of the NT, made clear by both Jesus and Paul among others is that true morality lies with the second 'spiritual' moral code rather than the first 'letter of the law' based code, and this is what subsequently justifies jettisoning much of the OT.

No. Jesus instituted a New Covenant, so those who join that covenant are no longer under the Old one (And those who weren't Jews weren't under it anyway). But I note the bolded sentences above.

Obviously that NT view has no direct reference to God in its actual definition (other than the fact that "God is love" and his 'new commandment' is "love one another").

?? So a moral code that has God=love; and 'love one another' as it's central principle has 'no direct reference to God' in it??

The Christian use of love includes doing what is best for others in light of God's revealed will for humankind. So of course there are going to be things that non-Christians find problematic because they don't share God's perspective on things. The church is going to stand against some practices that society thinks are just fine, that will offend people. At least part of your problem with Christianity is that you don't like it when Christians act according to what they believe, and call some acts sinful.

And what I've actually found is that these days a higher percentage of atheists hold to that view of morality than do Christians. A huge proportion of Christians now are, in essence, "Old Testament Christians" who hold tightly to the OT divine-command theory of morality and whose approach to the bible is characterized by desiring it to give them a list of commands as to exactly what is moral and what is not.

I'm guessing you don't have any evidence for that, and it's no more than your experience. Which doesn't match mine. And I don't see anything like the positive effects of Christian action being replicated in the atheist community. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens, medical care and community development projects in the Third World, fighting for suffrage, against human trafficking and a lot more.

As an atheist I continue to hold that same view of morality as I did when I was a Christian,

Which explains your lack of understanding of so much of Christianity. You were 'following Jesus' but rocking it Starlight style in your moral choices.

and I would label it an 'objective' morality as compared to the divine-command morality which is a 'subjective' one, although I acknowledge that exactly how people like to use the labels 'subjective' and 'objective' differs widely in this forum.

[Roy]

Can somebody please tell me why Jaecp has a second account named Roy? I haven't it was forum rules for somebody to have 2 accounts. You mean I know that Jaecp doesn't claim to have two accounts but there can't be two people on this board with this level of ignorance.

Another shining example of Christianity.

[Mountain Man]

I see that Dimbulb is still avoiding this question so I'll ask it again:

Let's home in on the one point of your argument that seems to be the lynchpin for your entire world view: doubting the existence of the supernatural. You say you have rational reasons for concluding that the supernatural doesn't exist, so what is that reasoning, exactly? And I really hope it's something better than "I have never witnessed any supernatural occurrences, nor ever encountered convincing evidence that one had occurred," because that's not a rational argument.

[shunyadragon]

Can somebody please tell me why Jaecp has a second account named Roy? I haven't it was forum rules for somebody to have 2 accounts. You mean I know that Jaecp doesn't claim to have two accounts but there can't be two people on this board with this level of ignorance.

How many are there of you on Tweb?

[Starlight]

I see that Dimbulb is still avoiding this question so I'll ask it again:

Let's home in on the one point of your argument that seems to be the lynchpin for your entire world view: doubting the existence of the supernatural. You say you have rational reasons for concluding that the supernatural doesn't exist, so what is that reasoning, exactly? And I really hope it's something better than "I have never witnessed any supernatural occurrences, nor ever encountered convincing evidence that one had occurred," because that's not a rational argument.

Your politeness and intellect were both so overwhelming that I couldn't help but reply.

I guess I must be missing something... why isn't my having a lack of evidence for the existence of the supernatural a sufficiently rational reason not to believe in the existence of the supernatural?

[Starlight]

3 is not a premise, it's a conclusion, so your argument would appear to be invalid.

I couldn't care less what terminology you use. The point is that Christianity fails to follow its own moral code.

So a moral code that has God=love; and 'love one another' as it's central principle has 'no direct reference to God' in it??

God is loving, and hence meets the definition of morally good, but he does not define what is and isn't moral.

I don't see anything like the positive effects of Christian action being replicated in the atheist community.

I do. I was listening to a seminar the other month about Kiva, which is a charity website that works to make interest-free micro-loans to people around the world to help them get the financing they need to start their own businesses, plant crops etc. Lenders on the site can participate in "groups", the two largest of which are 'Atheists', and 'Christians', with the Atheist group having the most members and having made the most charitable loans.

A lot of atheists are pretty passionate about helping people and improving the world... it's what the 'humanism' part of "secular humanism" is all about.

Hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens, medical care and community development projects in the Third World, fighting for suffrage, against human trafficking and a lot more.

Christians have definitely done a lot of this over the years, which is great. The last church I attended I picked primarily based on the large number of such programmes and charities it was involved in. Unfortunately not all churches are remotely as active in helping others as that one was.

I now often attend Sunday Assemblies, which are church-like services for non-religious people who are interested in charity and improving the lives of others.

Which explains your lack of understanding of so much of Christianity.

[Jaecp]

Can somebody please tell me why Jaecp has a second account named Roy? I haven't it was forum rules for somebody to have 2 accounts. You mean I know that Jaecp doesn't claim to have two accounts but there can't be two people on this board with this level of ignorance.

Another shining example of Christianity.

How many are there of you on Tweb?

This got bizarre quickly. You'd think he'd have had plenty of time to get over how many times I dismantled his arguments on the old forum in the time I've been away. Maybe him and the other crazy people are mad I won't play with them anymore?

[Mountain Man]

I guess I must be missing something... why isn't my having a lack of evidence for the existence of the supernatural a sufficiently rational reason not to believe in the existence of the supernatural?

You didn't say a lack of evidence, you said a lack of "convincing" evidence which suggests an argument from incredulity.

[JimL]

You didn't say a lack of evidence, you said a lack of "convincing" evidence which suggests an argument from incredulity.

There is no evidence at all for the supernatural, unless of course you take words alone to be evidence of the unseen, and only the naive, those absent of critical thinking abilities, could be so credulous as to believe in words alone. History is replete with such naive believers of false words. Do you have evidence that a prophet is truly a prophet other than the word of the prophet himself?

[Adrift]

There is no evidence at all for the supernatural, unless of course you take words alone to be evidence of the unseen, and only the naive, those absent of critical thinking abilities, could be so credulous as to believe in words alone. History is replete with such naive believers of false words. Do you have evidence that a prophet is truly a prophet other than the word of the prophet himself?

Tassman makes this same argument all the time, and I don't know why it keeps coming up. When people refer to evidence for the divine, or the metaphysical, or for the supernatural, they're not necessarily referring specifically to the claims made in any holy book. You don't have to go to a holy book to find evidence of, say, the concept of a spirit, or of divine beings. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of books on natural theology that dive into the evidence for the spiritual or metaphysical that do no require any adherence to any religious words or writings. There's cosmological evidence, and design evidence, and evidence based on other minds, and evidence that relies on moral arguments, and evidence that relies on intrinsic value, and evidence based on personal experience, and yes, even evidence based on historical religious claims, and all sorts other forms of evidence besides.

Now, you may not find all or any of that evidence convincing. You may even believe that this is all bad evidence, and that's fine, but let's not get crazy and say that there is NO evidence. Of course there's evidence. This world wouldn't be predominantly religious for all of human existence if there was absolutely no evidence (either good or bad) for the things people believed.

[Starlight]

Tassman makes this same argument all the time, and I don't know why it keeps coming up. When people refer to evidence for the divine, or the metaphysical, or for the supernatural, they're not necessarily referring specifically to the claims made in any holy book. You don't have to go to a holy book to find evidence of, say, the concept of a spirit, or of divine beings. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of books on natural theology that dive into the evidence for the spiritual or metaphysical that do no require any adherence to any religious words or writings. There's cosmological evidence, and design evidence, and evidence based on other minds, and evidence that relies on moral arguments, and evidence that relies on intrinsic value, and evidence based on personal experience, and yes, even evidence based on historical religious claims, and all sorts other forms of evidence besides.

Now, you may not find all or any of that evidence convincing. You may even believe that this is all bad evidence, and that's fine, but let's not get crazy and say that there is NO evidence. Of course there's evidence. This world wouldn't be predominantly religious for all of human existence if there was absolutely no evidence (either good or bad) for the things people believed.

Yeah, all that bad evidence combines together to give a totally compelling bad argument which is why I believe in every single religion in world history, because all of them had lots of believers and all those people can't have been wrong because they all had so many bad reasons for their beliefs!