Is it possible be blind? while seeing? Bible thumper read if you dare

by skyking 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • SickofLies
    SickofLies

    I find the fact that you choose to ignore the considerable historical evidence that he did exist to be very enlightening. I find the delight you seem to feel in crushing the comforts of faith in others who journey along side you to be distrubing as well.

    Prove it. Site your sources.

    I don't understand how people can live their whole live with meaningless self-satisfaction as being their sole purpose and nonexistence being all they look forward to.

    What you don't understand is that all the non-believers I know don't worry about death like religious people do, but they concentrate on living instead.

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    I don't understand how people can live their whole live with meaningless self-satisfaction as being their sole purpose and nonexistence being all they look forward to.

    Firstly, we don't try to adapt reality to our desires. We accept and seek to understand things as they really are, not as we would have them be.

    Secondly, what is so meaningful about believing? Eternal servitude? With what as its purpose? The stroking of a deity's ego? I never fully understood what we'd be doing for an eternity when I was a JW, and I still don't see what the point of all the worship and praise is.

    The meaning of life is to live a life of meaning. It's up to each and every one of us to decide how best to do that.

    Rats in a Maze The meaninglessness of life under theism

    (Note: This essay was first posted in summer 2002.)

    I woke up early this morning - something that is in itself unusual for me. My sleep patterns typically involve staying up late into the night working (partially the reason my website is called "Ebon Musings") and rising equally late the next morning. But I've been making a conscious effort to control my sleep patterns better and not waste the day by being lazy, and so today I made it out of bed while the sun was still low in the sky.

    Alone in my house, I dressed and went outside, onto the second-story deck. It was a clear, silent, beautiful morning. The sun was dazzling bright and full of life, the sky was endless blue from horizon to horizon without a cloud in sight, the air was fresh and warm, and my entire view encompassed living greenery, a forest of soaring trees cabled in climbing vines. After the recent erratic weather, there were finally signs that spring was here and the land was coming back to life. It was a beautiful new day, full of hope and promise; and as I sat there in the sun, mentally organizing the things I planned to do with my newly reclaimed hours, I contemplated my life, the turnings I've taken to come to this point, and how proud and happy I am to be an atheist. I've come full circle and found my niche, and barring some radical and unforeseen change in circumstances, I don't ever intend to change my mind.

    After breakfast, on a whim, I switched on the TV and turned to the Trinity Broadcasting Network (always a reliable source of unintentional humor). The televangelists were singing and preaching about Jesus, as usual. Playing the piano, chanting their hymns of praise, interrupting occasionally to give teary testimonials about how Christ has changed them - just like they do every week. Delivering the same sermons they've given a hundred times before, repeating the same arguments that atheistic philosophers refuted decades or centuries ago, reading from a book that hasn't changed in nearly two thousand years. One of them noted that she still finds inspiration in a particular song, even though they play it every week, over and over, in an endless, changeless repetition.

    I don't think I can be faulted for concluding one of us is wasting their life, and it's not me.

    I mean, what's the point of it all if God exists? If he doesn't, then this universe takes on so much more significance - more mystery, more excitement, more urgency. How did we get here? Why are things the way they are and not some other way? Why is there something instead of nothing? If there is no god, it might eventually be possible to answer these questions in a meaningful way, a way that actually explains something. Why aren't people electrified by this prospect? Why aren't they consumed by the hunger to know, to really know, not just to have a religious platitude in lieu of a real reason? For centuries the only answer to any of these questions was the trite and uninformative "God did it" - but now that we can actually improve on that and provide a better answer, why are there still so many people who prefer the old, comforting, familiar one? But then, I've just answered my own question.

    Think of it this way. If God exists, and if his goal for us is to be saved and rejoin him in Heaven, then all he's done is deliberately create us apart from him and then set up a series of arbitrary hurdles we have to jump over to get back to him. Why not just create us in Heaven in the first place? Why create us at all? In the theistic view, our lives and the cosmos are just an experiment, a test run, a child's puzzle box. The things we do here and now have all the significance of a rat trying to find the way through a maze contrived by the experimenter. What's the point? To memorize a route through the maze and be rewarded with a piece of cheese? I refuse to believe my life has no greater purpose than that. Why is so much - an infinity, in fact - riding on our performance in this infinitesimal blip of existence in a lower sphere?

    In fact, if God exists, how can anything we do in this earthly life be significant at all? Artists, writers, sculptors, composers, programmers and the like might as well just give up now - they're all one step behind. Whatever you try to create, it's been done; God's omniscient mind already thought of it, and an infinity of variants of it that are far better, billions of years before you were born. Where is the pleasure in creation if you're just reproducing someone else's work? Where is the wonder of invention if in reality all that's happening is that you're being unknowingly fed the tiniest trickle of ideas from the mind of the Almighty?

    Likewise for scientists. If there is a god, science is not about the deep wonder and mystery of discovering the fundamental rules of the cosmos that has, incredibly, brought forth intelligent life that can look back through time and space and consider its own origins - rather, it is about determining what arbitrary values God picked for the things he decided to create. Presumably, if God created the universe there's no deeper significance to the way things are other than that he wanted them to be that way; if he had any reasons for those decisions, they are in all likelihood unknowable.

    Some famous scientists, past and present, have said that their work is an effort to know the mind of God. But how much inspirational power could this really possess? Nothing is more exciting in science than an unsolved problem; why follow in the footsteps of someone who's already been down this road? Why recreate work that's already been done by another? Again, this worldview reduces the universe to the lab rat's maze. Dark energy, gamma-ray bursters, neutrinos, quasars - these are not fundamental components of existence, but little diversions God inserted into his creation to keep us busy, like Rubik's Cubes or blacksmith's puzzles. There would be no necessity, no deep reason for being for anything we find in our investigations of physical reality. Creation is here as it is just so we can figure out how it works - and whether we can is a foregone conclusion, because before he ever created the first atom, the first proton, the first quark, God knew exactly how far our science would go and what questions we would be able to unlock. We are merely actors in a cosmic stage, playing out our predetermined parts before a critic who already knows how the whole thing's going to end.

    In fact, theistic belief renders practically every field of human endeavor worthless. Whatever we build or invent or engineer, the greatest triumphs of civilization and technology, is like ants scrabbling in the dust to build a pile of sand as far as God is concerned. Our momentary triumphs were known to him eons ago; our failures were planned out by him before the Big Bang. Our daily, workaday lives are just going through the motions, running the maze, a pointless and futile endeavor that will eventually be swept away regardless. When we go to church, we're just endlessly telling him things he already knew. What's the point of it all?

    Under theism there is no good reason to be an environmentalist, no reason to preserve the sanctity and health of this planet or the life it supports. Why bother? God could snap his fingers and create a dozen brand-new Edens if he wanted, and if we all die as a result of our own depredations, at worst there will be a mass exodus to Heaven where human life will continue. If the Earth has any value under this belief system, its value is not inherent, not something it possesses in and of itself; it is valuable only because God arbitrarily said so. Likewise, there is no real reason why the planet needs or deserves our protection, other than that God told us to do it.

    Indeed, in this framework there would also be no good reason to preserve one's own health. Why get inoculations against deadly diseases? Why wear a condom when having sex, wear a seatbelt when driving, wash one's hands before eating, or even strive to eat a healthy diet or exercise? What's the worst that will happen - you'll die and go to Heaven? Why is life valuable, why is it something to be preserved, in a belief system that views the flesh at best as a momentary distraction before the real thing and at worst a positive source of sin and temptation that may earn us eternal damnation if we succumb to it - and the longer we live in this coat of skin, the more likely we are to succumb, right? Again, under theism we are all lab rats running a maze, and the sooner we get out of the maze, the sooner we'll be rewarded. There's no reason to lengthen our stay there and every reason to get it over with as soon as possible. (Lest one think this viewpoint is an atheist-invented straw man, there is a popular religious song entitled "This World Is Not My Home" that expresses precisely this sentiment.)

    What better way could there be to rob life of its meaning and its wonder? How better to deny the value of human freedom, human intelligence, human accomplishment? In other words, what's the point of it all? I can't see any. Why would God need to create other life in the first place, being perfect and completely self-sufficient, and even if he did choose to do so, why would he create life so unbelievably vulnerable and limited as our own? We can't surprise him; we can't improve him. All we can do is tell him what he already knows and jump through the hoops he's set in our way, over and over, until everything reaches heat death and the saved souls in Heaven face an eternity of sterile, unchanging monotony stretching out endlessly before them. (See "Those Old Pearly Gates" for more on this.) In the end, it all seems pointless. What will have been accomplished? Those preachers on TBN can't really be looking forward to an infinity of repeating the same hymns they sang here on Earth every week - can they?

    Atheism, by contrast, frees us and reinvests our lives with meaning. Our existence as thinking, conscious beings becomes all the more mysterious, wonderful and significant without the benefit of a god to guide it and pull the strings behind the scenes. Our lives become full of purpose when we realize that we can set our own paths, make our own goals, that the things we do are original and significant and entirely our own. Science becomes a worthy enterprise again - once again we are able to learn why the cosmos is intrinsically the way it is, learn the deep reasons why things are as we find them and not different. Our planet, the cradle of life and our only home in the cosmos, becomes unique and precious, worthy of our deepest respect and protection, as do the countless other species we share it with. We can once again recognize that when we've lost these things, we've lost them forever, and if we destroy our home then we will destroy ourselves, and whatever potential we had will irretrievably vanish. Our technological and cultural triumphs truly will become our own, noble and worthy achievements to be proud of. And our own individual lives will take on far more value by virtue of the fact that they're the only lives we'll ever have.

    Under theism, we are nothing more than rats in a maze, running out our prearranged lives through arbitrary predetermined scenarios to a foreordained conclusion, never actually making any progress or accomplishing anything except satisfying the unknowable whim of the experimenter. I say this view of reality is both false and depressing. We can do better. We can tear down the walls of the maze and set our own course, throw the puzzles aside and find out the real reasons for things. We are awake, alive and free right here, right now, and we have lives to live and the whole wide universe to explore. Who needs a god?

    http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/rats.html

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    I love the fact that the sources posted to debunk the article are clearly posted by Christian apologetic websites that are about as accurate and reliable as the history taught by the WTS. If all you bible humpers and Jesus lovers out there are so convinced that he really existed then why not produce some proof of your own, or site academic sources that can refute the claims instead of religious sources.

    You've got the wrong burden of proof here. I could say, oh, "Osiris was bit by a spider and received powers to spin webs and fight crime", or "Dionysius came from planet Krypton, was raised by a couple of farmers in a small town, and who discovered he had amazing powers, including the ability to fly", or I can make up any other claim about these ancient gods (Baal went on a quest to destroy the "one ring"? Thor survived a lightning-bolt from Lord Voldemort? Mithra tried to defeat a wicked queen with the help of seven dwarves?), is it up to you to prove me wrong? Or is it up to me to show in the first place such things were believed about Osiris and Dionysius?

    The burden is on the person making the claim to substantiate it. That is why I requested sources for these claims on the previous page of this thread. The original post (evidently copied from elsewhere on the internet) doesn't make an argument with evidence -- there is no evidence. I am familiar with ANE religion and that list is as phoney as a $3 bill. I know that, most people don't. So it spreads all over the internet, like any other urban legend or piece of misinformation that isn't substantiated. Most of those who critique it online are Christians. No surprise. It is in their interest to debunk it because it presents false information about their religion. Most scholars could care less. It is a popular meme that bears no resemblance to the facts and issues that academics study in the history of religion. Maybe some scholars might have a post on it on their academic blogs. But most ignore it, just as most paleontologists don't offer rebuttals of creationism and oceanologists don't try to disprove the existence of sunken continents Atlantis and Mu.

    I am frankly surprised that it is so widely accepted uncritically by atheists on the internet. A genuinely skeptical mind should want to research the reliability of claims and avoid passing on bad information, even if it may appear to help his or her own case. Atheists should want to debunk bad information just as much as the apologists in this case. Passing this stuff on as fact just makes them look as uncritical as the apologists they criticize on other matters.

  • SickofLies
    SickofLies

    Leolaia,

    Most humans, I believe, try to assume the best of other people. I try to be as skeptical as possible but I cannot be an expert on every subject so I can only humbly accept when I am wrong as the evidence is presented to me.

    I will not accept or deny the claims about Jesus similarity to other ancient gods until I do more research on the subject, for now I will remain agnostic towards the subject. However, I have seen some quotes by early Christians that seem to be directly trying to deal with the problem of other gods that have a very similar origin. In fact their was a show on the discovery channel about 'The Life of Brian' and it talked about how their were many other people around claiming to be the messiah and preaching to people just as the movie depicited (it was trying to showcase the irony of them being tried under British laws for blasphemy). Some of these people are even mentioned in the bible. I do remember it being mentioned on the show specifically how the Roman god Mithras was very similar to Jesus and I have heard this other places like on BBC for instance. So unless this is all a total fabrication it would seem to be supportive evidence that other similar stories were in circulation long before the Jesus legend ever came into existence.

    Before I can totally dismiss everything I have heard from these sources I would need some strong corroborating evidence along the lines you seem to claim to be an expert on. If you could enlighten me so I can me more informed and not spead false information I would a ppreciate it.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    In other words, let's see some citations that look a little like this (made up for illustration purposes):

    6. Followers were born-again through baptism in water.

    Jesus: Matthew 3:13-16, Romans 6:1-14, 1 Peter 3:21-22, etc.

    Osiris: Ramsses V Stela 3.2, line 87; Demotic Papyrus 83.III.12, lines 34-38, etc.

    Dionysius: Pausanius, Historia 3.2.89, Pliny, Epistula 103.

    7. Rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. The inhabitants waved palm leaves.

    Jesus: Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, etc.

    Osiris: Book of the Dead, 3.2.9-18; Merneptah Stela, lines 43-49; Pyramid Texts, Utterance 534, etc.

    Dionysius: Strabo, Geographica 2.2.18, Dionysius Votive Inscription, Collosae, line 8 (published by McAdams 1899), etc.

    That shouldn't be too hard, right?

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    Burn:

    I don't understand how people can live their whole live with meaningless self-satisfaction as being their sole purpose and nonexistence being all they look forward to.

    And you perhaps propose that self-delusional hopes about "another life," in terms of demonstrable facts of the existence of every living thing, is a better alternative?

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    If you could enlighten me so I can me more informed and not spead false information I would a ppreciate it.

    I would first say that one should not automatically dismiss the criticism of these lists on apologetic websites; just because something is said on an apologetic website does not mean that it is wrong.

    Second, I would say that one should do research on primary sources and good secondary sources by academic scholars. Find a comprehensive monograph on Osiris in Egyptian religion or the cult of Dionysius and see if you find anything like what these lists present as fact. Or better, go through the literature in general (especially the journals), researching these specific claims one by one. Take, for example, the claim in the OP that Osiris was described as killed through crucifixion. Egyptologists know very well that the death of Osiris was altogether different in Egyptian mythology, i.e. he was tricked by Seth, sealed into a coffin or chest and dumped into the Nile, and then chopped up into many different pieces. Now, try to find a text that describes Osiris as killed in a totally different manner. Similarly, try to find a text of Osiris riding on a donkey while being waved by palm branches. Such a parallel with Egyptian religion is wholly unknown to Bible scholars who work on the gospel narratives, who of course recognize an OT exegetical basis for the scene instead. Or conversely, read the critical literature in biblical studies on these narrative elements, and see what parallels are mentioned. Scholars love reporting and analyzing parallels with other ancient texts or ANE religions, and if there was an ancient text describing Osiris or Dionysius riding on a donkey while being waved by palms, believe me, it would be discussed and analyzed.

    However, I have seen some quotes by early Christians that seem to be directly trying to deal with the problem of other gods that have a very similar origin.

    I am not arguing against the existence of parallels. Of course there are parallels, and some may indeed point to decisive influence on Christianity. What I am complaining about is that false parallels are invented and then pointed to as evidence. That is no better than faking a document and using it as "evidence". These lists create the false impression that there is a 1:1 correspondence between what is related about gods like Dionysius and Horus and what is related about Jesus Christ. The parallels are much more subtle and tenuous than that. It does not help one's argument to exaggerate the parallels by "goosing up" what is said about the pagan gods.

    Most humans, I believe, try to assume the best of other people. I try to be as skeptical as possible but I cannot be an expert on every subject so I can only humbly accept when I am wrong as the evidence is presented to me.

    Remember, though, this is the internet we're talking about....the breeding ground of urban legends, pseudoscience, baseless speculation, etc. There is a reason why college professors do not think very much of their students "Googleinvestigating" or simply citing Wikipedia as a main source of information. Just as one should think twice before passing on the latest email virus threat or Neiman Marcus cookie recipe, so should one think twice about accepting any internet claim as fact without checking it out or assessing its credibility

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    And you perhaps propose that self-delusional hopes about "another life," in terms of demonstrable facts of the existence of every living thing, is a better alternative?

    Indeed. Without getting into truth claims, even if it were untrue, it would be of superior utilitarian value.

  • bebu
    bebu

    One of my favorite essays addressing this subject, in regards to the REAL parallels/intersections out there:

    http://touchstonejournal.ca/tchissues/tch0398.htm#THE%20GRAND%20MIRACLE%201

    Many of the so-called "parallels" (which I investigated a few years back because of a thread just like this one) are urban legends. Skyking, you need to investigate a wee bit more.

    bebu

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit