I rarely discuss atheism or morality with religious people. It is a waste of time. As I have said before, most are infected (indoctrinated) with something similar to a disease for which, at present, we have no cure. They cannot change.
However we sometimes need to counter a few facile arguments.
I have recently read that many christians believe that I cannot have morality or live ethically without a belief in a god. For instance, if it would enhance my own survival or reproductive potential it would be right to commit murder, rape or theft for example. I have even been told that I am moral because I was raised in a religious community (true) and it is that and not my atheism that makes me such a good person. So I will give just one reason why I don't strangle the next cross dangling idiot I see.
If I argue that, say, theft is acceptable, then it is acceptable for others to do the same. I may gain temporarily if I steal from others but in the long term I would lose because there are many other people who would steal from me. So it is in my interests to encourage a complete ban on theft.
Conversely, it follows that it is in my interests to encourage altruism.
But I do not have to have worked all this out in order to act morally. Societies with a significant number of individuals that do not adopt similar principles are unstable. I act morally because my ancestors survived and in order to do so they had to act morally.
So, whether we work out how to behave or inherit a predisposition (perhaps by being susceptible to religion) we can still be moral.
panj
Author Archive for Panj Page 2 of 2
I have not been too annoyed at the fuss over the of the chocolate sculpture of Jesus. Some right wing catholics have complained that this nude figure is disrespectful so the artist has agreed it will not be displayed. The incident does much to demonstrate the confused bigotry of some Christians.
But it did get me thinking more about the resurrection myth and prompted me to pose a question.
How did the friends and relatives of this man know he was dead in the first pace?
The body must have done what other dead bodies do. After a few hours the muscles would stiffen and the body would become rigid - otherwise they would say he was not dead.
The body would begin to ooze fluids from various orifices - otherwise observers would say it was not dead.
Blood would move under gravity and begin to coagulate. The body would assume different shades of reds, blues and yellows as corpses do. Jesus would look especially awful because he had been physically mistreated. If the body did not display these changes observers would have claimed it was not dead.
Within the three day period before it came back to life flies would have deposited eggs and it would have begun to smell. This is a very hot country.
So, for the people around the corpse to agree that it was dead all these things had to occur.
Then, this revolting, stinking, oozing, fly ridden cadaver gets up and walks about. The Romans say nothing about this. There are no riots. There is no hysteria.
Utter rubbish. The Christian version of the resurrection is nothing but a silly, risible fairy tale. Anyone who believes in its actual truth is a stupid, gullible idiot.
The truth is that Jesus did not come back to life in a real sense. He, and his ideas, re-emerged in peoples minds only. That, I do believe.
But it did get me thinking more about the resurrection myth and prompted me to pose a question.
How did the friends and relatives of this man know he was dead in the first pace?
The body must have done what other dead bodies do. After a few hours the muscles would stiffen and the body would become rigid - otherwise they would say he was not dead.
The body would begin to ooze fluids from various orifices - otherwise observers would say it was not dead.
Blood would move under gravity and begin to coagulate. The body would assume different shades of reds, blues and yellows as corpses do. Jesus would look especially awful because he had been physically mistreated. If the body did not display these changes observers would have claimed it was not dead.
Within the three day period before it came back to life flies would have deposited eggs and it would have begun to smell. This is a very hot country.
So, for the people around the corpse to agree that it was dead all these things had to occur.
Then, this revolting, stinking, oozing, fly ridden cadaver gets up and walks about. The Romans say nothing about this. There are no riots. There is no hysteria.
Utter rubbish. The Christian version of the resurrection is nothing but a silly, risible fairy tale. Anyone who believes in its actual truth is a stupid, gullible idiot.
The truth is that Jesus did not come back to life in a real sense. He, and his ideas, re-emerged in peoples minds only. That, I do believe.
I get several alerts per day from Atheist sites, blogs and news articles. Much of the discussion centres around why we should not believe this or that. It is all well argued, encouraging and intellectually challenging - but I still say some very clever Atheists are missing an important point.
We seem to be set on trying to stop people from pursuing and diseminating their chosen lifestyle. We will make no progress this way. We should be ignoring the faithfull and concentrate on building our own empires. Where is our equivalent of the Synod, the Vatican, or the Muslim Council.
We seem to be set on trying to stop people from pursuing and diseminating their chosen lifestyle. We will make no progress this way. We should be ignoring the faithfull and concentrate on building our own empires. Where is our equivalent of the Synod, the Vatican, or the Muslim Council.
Some months ago I joined the UK Brights forum. A few hundred members produce scores of emails per day, mostly criticising religion. After a year I see very little progress. Do the majority of church members waste their time criticising us? Of course not. They are too busy indoctrinating, collecting and building.
I have just returned from the funeral of a close relative. This is the fourth I have attended in a couple of years. Three were Christian and one was humanist in essence. In each there was a little tradition which made me uncomfortable. The body was dressed, posed and in the case of the two women their own make up was applied. They were then put on show.
Am I being weird in regarding this practice as hideous.
Am I being weird in regarding this practice as hideous.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
