- Post
- #735417
- Topic
- Ask the non-member of all churches AKA Interrogate the atheist
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/735417/action/topic#735417
- Time
RicOlie_2 said:
What are your reasons for believing that their are no gods? I'll take lack of evidence as an answer, but I'd prefer something more specific.
My beliefs are actually rather complex, and relate to the hierarchy of animals. Our abilities of comprehension, and our ability to explore the world around us, far exceeds that of, say, chimps. So it is safe to say that the next species up from us would also far exceed us in such things. To imagine that we could relate to God - who, if he/she/it exists would be SO far above us - is highly unlikely. Furthermore, just as the chimp can't even ask the sorts of questions that we can, were we to pose such questions about "God", or the "meaning of life" to a species higher than us, they would probably respond by saying we aren't even asking the right questions, and that our minds are too limited to make it even worth discussing.
In summary, my belief is that our minds are too limited to even comprehend the questions, let alone recognize the answers. Religion, by contrast, so dramatically simplifies this whole thing that I can't help but believe that it is purely of human construction.
Secondly, I believe that most religions were build as a reasonable attempt to explain the world around us, and to think on a higher level. But it was limited by the tools available at the time, which didn't include science and technology. Given what we have learned about the world and universe around us, I think it would be reasonable to form new religions to try and explain what science cannot, and theorize what might be out there beyond our reach of scientific observation. Instead, most religions just reject science when it contradicts the old books. Since religions respond to scientific observation and inquiry in this manner, which seems contrary to loving and respecting God and His creations, I just can't take it seriously.
How much historical credit do you give the (canonical) gospels? Do you think Jesus was crucified and buried, but didn't rise from the dead, or do you not think he was crucified at all, or do you think he didn't exist or was only based on someone historical (historical in this case meaning real)? Do you think he was a healer of some sort, or just a preacher, or none of the above?
I am not even sure he existed. There is essentially no physical evidence, and no contemporary written record of such. He could just be a mythical figure. It is hard to believe that someone so influential and considered so dangerous (at the time) wouldn't have something written about him during his life.
If he did exist, he sounds like a very, very cool dude. Maybe one of the coolest ever. However, he might also have been a bit whacko insisting that he is the son of God and the savior of mankind. He also must have had some serious charisma. If I had a time machine, he'd certainly be one of my first stops, even though I'm an atheist.
As to the "canon", I can't say I believe any of it. Well, if he really was alive, I would believe that he was crucified, but that's about it. A lot of people were crucified, so that would be reasonable for a martyr of the time.