Of course not. It just gets used so often, and so loosely when it comes to religion, it’s meaningless. And that’s not the only place it’s useless either. For example, what’s the difference between a radical feminist and a feminist?

“Liberal” is another word that when applied to politics has almost no useful meaning. Anybody who is despised by somebody on the “right”, no matter who they are or what they believe is a “liberal”. The word has other perfectly valid uses, just no longer in the sphere of politics.

“If we can agree to a certain set of humanistic moralities then I think we can talk more productively.”

As long as those moralities do not require (in your mind) a religious basis to be legitimate, yes we could have some interesting conversations…

Good point about the word “radical”. So what do we do, remove the word from our vocabulary? That would of course be absurd. How we define the word is what is important. If we go by the moral compass in all of us then we can better frame the ussage of the word.

By this I mean there are certain things that virtually everyone can agree; for instance, I believe it is wrong to rape children, I’m willing to bet that most if not all here in Pandagon world would agree. Kind of extreme but do you see where I’m going with this?

If we can agree to a certain set of humanistic moralities then I think we can talk more productively.

Sorry, I have to go. I’ll try to come back to this later.

Jason

How about if you went on TV and told everybody that 9/11 and Katrina were god’s punishment for allowing the gay “lifestyle”?

(Of course, what both Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the other “loving” Christian leaders REALLY meant was that we allowed LGBT people to live, rather than stoning them or some such. But saying that would be a little TOO radical even for them.)

And BTW, the word “radical” might have value in certain contexts, but religion isn’t one of them.

One person’s “radical” is another’s mainstream, and another’s staid conservative belief. Protestants were radical when Luther nailed his tract on the door. Islam was radical beginning with Mohamed. The Buddha was radical, Jesus was radical, Jains were radical, etc. Judaism was supposed to be radical (”One god? Are you nuts?”). “Radical” as used in religious discussions is utterly without useful meaning…

No, I really do want to know what it is about religion that scares people who don’t identify themselves as religious.

Radical religion can be and in some cases is very dangerous, look at radical Islam. Those of the Muslim faith as I understand it do not believe as the radicals do yet we seem to lump them into the same catagory. Is it not fair to say the same about the Christian faith then.

If a Christian were to say all Gay people are giong to Hell I would call that a radical belief. Christianity as I understand it says that inorder to get to Heaven one must accept Christ as their savior and ask for the forgiveness of their sins; from that point it is up to God to judge them not man. God is the one who decides who goes to Hell and who doesn’t not the Pope. I however, am no expert in religion.

Education can be a two way street. If you have something to teach I’ll listen, but don’t turn around and tell me I’m full of crap, which you didn’t, when I’m trying to teach you something. I’m interested, that’s why I post here.

The intent of my first post was to say you can’t yell tolerance and then not be tolerant. What tolerance has one shown to the Christian if he turns around and doesn’t respect that persons right to his or her belief.

I will in the future try to be less argumentative and attempt to add more substance as I did with the “Evidence to suggest post” post.

Thanks,
Jason

ol cranky said:
For the record, had I met you in person and you described yourself as Jewish and an atheist, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it. As it is, I’ve had non-Jewish people tell me that “I’m not really Jewish” because I’m not “religious enough” (whatever that means) and I’ve had people (educated ones) really not understand that I don’t celebrate Xmas at home because I’m Jewish.

I went back and re-read this passage and you are correct. I thought it was someone here who was telling him he wasn’t Jewish because he didn’t practice the faith. Thanks for pointing that out.

You said:
And the passage in Antiquities 20.9.1 is not at all uncontroversial. Don’t pretend that its authenticity is not disputed.

I didn’t say there wasn’t. If you look to those with an axe to grind whether they be believers or not, you will find some conflict as to the authenticity. What I should have said then was that to historians with no bias either way this appears to be authentic and reliable. We can argue authenticity of many works from history whether they be religious in origin or not; you will find many opinions for works such as these. What we have to rely on ,unfortunately, is the experts in the middle, (non bias). To give my post at least some credibility I offered a very conflicted work of his (Josephus), the “Testimonium Flavianum”, and made sure to note it’s unreliability and why.

Notice the title of my post, Evidence to suggest that Jesus a.k.a. Christ existed:

“Evidence to suggest”…I did this for a purpose which was to say, this isn’t proof that he was who Christians say he was but rather proof that he was an actual person.

Jason

It’s not religion, per se, it’s (some) religious people, many of whom are not content to follow their own rituals and beliefs, but feel the need to make sure everybody else does too. Your right to be religious is fine right up until it infringes on my rights.

Pretty simple I would think for people whose ancestors in many cases escaped to America specifically so they wouldn’t have some other religious tradition unwillingly imposed on them.

“I mean really, why do you ridicule those who believe in a higher power.”

I have never made a banner and hung it from my car expressing my thoughts on the silliness of religious belief. I’ve never tried to take over my city council to ensure that atheism is imposed on others. I’ve never considered the citizens I live with to the the raw material for future religious conversion. There really aren’t other atheists who do that either.

So why can’t I come to Pandagon, knowing there is a large percentage of non-believers here, and say what I want about religion? How does that infringe on your rights?

“The Big Bang Theory is well, just a theory; it can’t be proven. Should we accuse the scientific community of being nut jobs for defending something they can’t prove.”

Let’s say sometime in the future scientists determine that instead of a Big Bang, there was a Big Whimper.

Would that change the reality of moths changing color in reaction to their environment? Would that stop bacteria from developing immunity to antibiotics? Would gravity stop, the planets stop orbiting, or would life cease on Earth?

I would much rather understand the universe through the research and testing of scientists, who correct themselves when errors are discovered.

In contrast to basing my life on trusting that every word in an ancient text was correct and literal - an ancient text written by anonymous people, based on questionable sources, translated to and from several different languages over the centuries. And a text whose “truths” cannot be questioned on possible pain of death.

Science has proven to be more correct over the long run than religion has. Our entire (modern) world is based on the correctness of science. If science was THAT wrong, literally there would be airplanes falling from the sky, buildings collapsing all around, etc.

All religion does is comfort some with fairy tales, afflict many with pangs of guilt, and compel others to kill in the name of “god”…

Some of you here like to throw the word tolerance around and in the same breath, or key stroke, bash anyone with religious belief.

It’s important to be clear about what should and should not be tolerated. Do you propose that people should not be held accountable for their beliefs, i.e. racists should not have to answer for their racism?

You even go so far as to tell a Jewish person they’re not really ethnically Jewish because they don’t practise the faith.

That’s a fucking lie, Jason. Quotes, or it didn’t happen. Recantations and apologies are also acceptable. Otherwise, you’re just another Liar For Jesus.

I guess my question would be, what is it about religion that scares you?

Thanks for asking. Is that just the rhetorical question that it appears to be, or was it a real, honest question that you’d like an answer to? Answers are in this comment, and this one, and watch this video.

The Big Bang Theory is well, just a theory; it can’t be proven.

Nothing can be proven except mathematics. You can’t prove that you aren’t a “brain in a vat”, and that there really are walls and a roof around you. Since you can’t prove those walls exist, will you try walking through them? No? You say you nevertheless find utility in the “walls hypothesis”, even though it can’t be proven? Okay. Then your attack upon the Big Bang theory is just special pleading.

If science could prove it then it would be called The Big Bang Law.

Again, nothing can be proven except math. And in science, theories don’t ever become laws. I don’t know if you are an honest debater who would care about the differences, but if you are, you can start to get at the concept here.

Maybe we should add an Amendment to the Constitution that states the seperation of Science and State.

Just what would be the point of that? Do you believe that lawmakers should not take scientific discoveries into account when they draft legislation? No more government funding for health research, I guess. What a bunch of good ideas you have, Jason.

And the passage in Antiquities 20.9.1 is not at all uncontroversial. Don’t pretend that its authenticity is not disputed.

Jason, religious belief is the ultimate in intolerance.

I could be white, from western european roots, a christian, a protestant, I could believe in full immersion baptism, I could believe in the bible as sole source for god’s instruction to mankind, but if I handle snakes, or if I worship on Saturday instead of Sunday, or believe in any of another several-dozen-to-hundreds of other doctrinal differences, I will be condemned to hell in many other christian’s eyes.

And let’s not get started on actually different religions. I mean, did you know there are people who don’t believe in Jesus at all?. Can you imagine?!?!?

But in your mind, if I think all religious people are misguided, but respect their right to be misguided, and don’t actually take action to prevent them from practicing their beliefs, I’m the one who’s intolerant. Interesting…

Oh yes, Jason. Because Science (ooo, scary! you capitalized it!) conforms to the same intellectual rigor as “Let there be light”. *eyeroll*

Some doubt has been cast as to whether or not Pontius Pilate was an actual person; if he was not then the Jesus of Christian faith in all likely hood did not exist. So, how do we decide if Pilate was an actual person or just some guy invented by early Christians to give credence to their religion.

Well there would seem to be some reliable evidence to this, the “Pilate Stone”. What was Pilate’s title? Pilate was the “Prefect of Judea“, or more accurately the “Prefect of ludaea”. During the time of the New Testament, “Prefect” was a title given to the Governors of the area we currently refer to as Israel and the Palestinian territories. In 1961 the Pilate Stone was discovered in the ruins of an amphitheater at Caesarea Maritima, an inscription on this stone refers to Pilate as “Prefect” or Governor. Most historians consider this, among other things, as proof of the existence of the man Pilate referred to in the New Testament writings.

What about historical sources outside of the Bible? The 1st Century Jewish historian Josephus, (Titus Flavius Josephus), gives us some compelling evidence in his writings. You may think that because he was a Jewish historian that this would some how taint his reliability; here are some facts about him to at least marginalize this train of thought.

In short, Josephus was a general in the Jewish army during the 1st Jewish-Roman war. He suffered a terrible defeat and became an informant for Rome. He was also associated with, and some speculate a member of, the Pharisees. If you know anything about the Pharisees you’ll know that they were not friendly to Jesus. This in itself would give proof that it would in no way benefit Josephus to write about Jesus.

Josephus wrote a work known as the Antiquities of the Jews which is a history of the world from a Jewish perspective. In Antiquities 20.9.1 Josephus writes:

“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such disposition, he thought he had now the opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

So what does this prove you may ask? Well it proves the existence of a guy named Jesus. It doesn’t refer to him in a friendly manner either…“Jesus the so-called Christ“. In this work James, Jesus’ brother, was handed over to the Sadducees to be judged and stoned. According to the Bible, Jesus had a brother named James.

Josephus was also credited with writing the Testimonium Flavianum. Due to the way Jesus is referred in this work it is highly likely that early Christian translators took some poetic license and it is therefore not considered a reliable source as insight to whom Jesus was. It is very friendly in it’s reference unlike what is written in Antiquities 20.9.1.

Does this prove that Jesus was “The Christ”? Not at all; what it does prove though is that he existed.

Jason