Why I am not a Christian

I don't believe that the Jewish Bible or the New Testament is historically reliable or that either book is divinely inspired.

I have serious problems with the morality of the Jewish bible and the teachings attributed to Jesus. Jesus didn't teach much that was useful or practical if one seriously examines those teachings. The Bible discourages critical thinking and being open-minded.

I don't believe in creationism; I have a natural worldview. Since I have a natural worldview, I
don't believe in souls or supernatural beings.

I don't believe that anyone should be punished for rejecting any religion or rewarded for believing in any religion. Thinking should not be a crime and I know of no evidence for
humans having free will, especially the freedom to choose a religion that seems very irrational. It is ironic that many preachers say that humans have free will given to us by God,
but we are told that we must accept Christianity in order to be saved, so we must give up
the freedom to live as we choose. The freedom to think and to be myself, along with my
health, is the most important thing that I have.

If there is a God, I don't believe that God would want to be associated with Judaism,
Christianity, or Islam. Scientific knowledge informs us that we live in a rational universe
and those religions aren't rational. Those religions have also a dark side that has
promoted intolerance and hate.

The evidence for an historical Jesus is questioned or not believed by many in the atheist community. I accept that there was a historical Jesus but I don't believe that we have much,
if any, reliable evidence regarding who Jesus was or what his message was. We have nothing in the way of documents written by Jesus or by historians from the first century to help us. The mention of Jesus by the historian Josephus in the "Antiquities of the Jews" from around the year 93 is believed to be an interpolation and it doesn't tell us anything about the message of Jesus even if it is accepted as being entirely authored by Josephus. I suspect that it is a forgery. The period in which Jesus lived was well covered by historians and writers so why is there no mention of Jesus?

There is no reliable early history of Christianity and it appears that there were many different
variations of Christian belief in the first century. The Acts of the Apostles is about all that we have and it is authored by the same person who wrote the Gospel that was assigned the
name Luke in the second century. I don't trust the Gospel of Luke so that makes the Acts
of the Apostles suspect. There are other reasons why I don't trust the Acts of the Apostles.

I know of no evidence that Jesus was trying to start a new religion. His brother, James,
remained a devout Jew but was a follower of Jesus. It sure seems strange that Jesus
didn't write anything down or give some written directions of what Christianity should consist of. Instead, Christians have to rely on individuals who never met Jesus in order to "know" what to believe. The 4 Gospel writers did not sign the Gospels so we don't know who
wrote them. Nearly all critical scholars have determined that the Gospel of Mark was written first and the writers of Luke and Matthew copied most of Mark except for a few modifications and added material from a source called "Q" which is a list of sayings
attributed to Jesus that is hypothetical and lost. The Gospel of Thomas is a list of sayings
attributed to Jesus that was found in Egypt in 1945 and it contains many similar sayings to
the hypothetical "Q" source. It is interesting to not that the Gospel of Thomas doesn't
mention anything about the life or death of Jesus. Evidently, that wasn't important to
those follower's of Jesus. The fact that those 4 Gospels were unsigned is evidence that
they were not intended to be historical. All unsigned religious writings from the first century
are considered to be unreliable as history and there were many other Gospels and Acts
with phony names attached to them that virtually everyone considers to be fictional.

Did the Jewish Bible foreshadow Jesus? According to New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, the answer is no?

 

By saying the universe is "natural" you're claiming that the universe is a clockwork piece that doesn't allow free will, but you have demonstrated your free will by posting about your thoughts. So, yes we have free will. Did I read you wrong?

 

This is material from wikipedia, the Gospel of Thomas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thoma

The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is a non-canonical sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture. Scholars have proposed dates of composition as early as AD 60 and as late as AD 140.[1]

The Coptic-language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Almost two-thirds of these sayings resemble those found in the canonical gospels[2] and its editio princeps counts more than 80% of parallels,[3] while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.[4] Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[5] Other scholars have suggested an Alexandrian origin.

The Gospel of Thomas is very different in tone and structure from other New Testament apocrypha and the four Canonical Gospels. Unlike the canonical Gospels, it is not a narrative account of the life of Jesus; instead, it consists of logia (sayings) attributed to Jesus, sometimes stand-alone, sometimes embedded in short dialogues or parables; 13 of its 16 parables are also found in the Synoptic Gospels. The text contains a possible allusion to the death of Jesus in logion 65[13] (Parable of the Wicked Tenants, paralleled in the Synoptic Gospels), but does not mention his crucifixion, his resurrection, or the final judgement; nor does it mention a messianic understanding of Jesus.[14][15] Since its discovery, many scholars have seen it as evidence in support of the existence of a "Q source", which might have been very similar in its form as a collection of sayings of Jesus without any accounts of his deeds or his life and death, referred to as a "sayings gospel".[16

Considered by some as one of the earliest accounts of the teachings of Jesus, the Gospel of Thomas is regarded by some scholars as one of the most important texts in understanding early Christianity outside the New Testament.[74] In terms of faith, however, no major Christian group accepts this gospel as canonical or authoritative. It is an important work for scholars working on the Q document, which itself is thought to be a collection of sayings or teachings upon which the gospels of Matthew and Luke are partly based. Although no copy of Q has ever been discovered, the fact that Thomas is similarly a 'sayings' Gospel is viewed by some scholars as an indication that the early Christians did write collections of the sayings of Jesus, bolstering the Q hypothesis.[7

 

I don't believe exactly in a clockwork universe because of the apparent randomness associated with quantum mechanics. There are some thinkers that also believe that the mind is an emergent property

of the brain and cannot be reduced entirely to the realm of neurons and chemicals.

My posting of thoughts could be a 100% product of a clockwork universe and a clockwork brain. Why not? I have felt a strong compulsion for a very long time to start a thread with

this title and the compulsion was very strong today. It will add some stress to my life but it should be over soon.


I appreciate your comments and the subject of free will has been on my mind lately. I have recently read the book on free will by Sam Harris and I have also read another book on the subject

by another neuroscientist. It is actually very difficult to make a case for free will. Just because we have the perception of free will doesn't mean that it exists.

 

The Gospel of Thomas is impressive indeed and you may like some of the NDE accounts that take us in a similar direction.


https://www.near-death.com/experiences/gay/christian-andreason.html#a04h

I believe that Ezekiel chapter thirty seven, Revelation chapter twenty and Romans chapters nine to eleven indicate that God is doing multiple time lines to lead more and more and more of us into a heavenly mind set so that we can handle the high vibrational levels of the paradise levels.

 

Applied Multiverse Theory plus non linear time may be of interest to you.

https://www.near-death.com/science/research/future.html#a03

 

I agree with the OP...I don't see that humans have free will at all.
Can you please explain what you mean by "free will".

 

Ok, so someone reaches an intersection, they can go left, right, or straight. Which path does one choose? Multiversal physics tells us that the universe splits and every possible action happens on one universe or another. But it's one's individual mind's free will that decides which path becomes reality.

 

So a poor farmer can just decide to be wealthy....
or old woman dying of cancer can decide to be young and cancer free.
If free will has limits of some kind...can it truly be called free will?

 

While there can be a universe where the poor farmer is rich, the old woman cancer case is a young cancer-free individual, and so on (those are extreme examples)...

... but there is a baseline reality and the various split universes tend to stay about the same.

 

That is normal decision making and that decision, like all others, is already made before our consciousness becomes aware of it. An interpreter module in the left lobe of the brain
comes up with an explanation for every decision and it isn't always accurate. We are often now fully aware of why we do things or why we believe things. Much of what goes
on in the brain functions below the level of consciousness.

 

Well, I can't speak to the science of everything, but, philosophically, the universe is a messy, noisy place and our mind and body need to process our existence both together while taking into account the limitations of our senses and the mind's response time from input to output.

 

try this:

'volition'

This review highlights key mechanisms in the generation of voluntary, as opposed to stimulus-driven actions, and highlights three issues. The first part focuses on the apparent spontaneity of voluntary action. The second part focuses on one of the most distinctive, but elusive, features of volition, namely, its link to conscious experience, and reviews stimulation and patient studies of the cortical basis of conscious volition down to the single-neuron level. Finally, we consider the goal-directedness of voluntary action, and discuss how internal generation of action can be linked to goals and reasons.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678016/

the nuts and bolts of free will

 

When a person chooses between Pepsi and Dr. Pepper, it is seemingly free will that decides which drink (which "path") they might chose. However, we also know that sales of Colas rise with marketing, even very subtle marketing, so it seems to me the will we exercise isn't as free as it seems to us when we stand in the soda isle. What is your basis for claiming that what we use is "free will"?

Edit: Or maybe I'm bringing this a bit off topic.

 

Okay...but even if that were true, how can the poor farmer or the old woman have "free will"
if they are powerless to change their situation. You consider those "extreme examples"
but they seem rather basic actually. If "free will" has limits...than how can it be free will?

 

I'm basing my claim of free will on the existence of quantum vibrations in microtubules of the brain. Because it's quantum in nature it's less likely to be deterministic.

 

So, it's random? No more meaningful than determined outcomes?

 

I have a very hard time accepting this as science. It seems much more like woo woo. The actual hard science we do have points towards free will being illusory. But even that is not overwhelming evidence.

 

If you don't believe in souls, all creatures are nothing more than biological machines to you, right?

This view is rather unusual for human beings since we're all designed to recognize our creator. This concept is known as "Fitrah" in Islam. I'm pretty sure Christians have a similar concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitra

 

I never expected this thread to be mostly about free will. Maybe that will change. Part of my reason for not believing in free will is intuitive. It seems that people are easily manipulated by
their environment. People who are religiously inclined (the vast majority of human beings) generally accept whatever religion is dominant in their culture. Religion makes them happier and
healthier. People like me who can't intellectually accept any religion usually lead a more melancholy life and have fewer offspring. This explains the success of religious beliefs in
modern times.

I used to think of religion as a virus of the mind but I am not so sure of that anymore,

https://www.theguardian.com/comment.../16/why-no-longer-believe-religion-virus-mind by Susan Blackmore

The idea is that religions, like viruses, are costly to those infected with them. They demand large amounts of money and time, impose health risks and make people believe things that are demonstrably false or contradictory. Like viruses, they contain instructions to "copy me", and they succeed by using threats, promises and nasty meme tricks that not only make people accept them but also want to pass them on.

This was all in my mind when Michael Blume got up to speak on "The reproductive advantage of religion". With graph after convincing graph he showed that all over the world and in many different ages, religious people have had far more children than nonreligious people.

The exponential increase in the Amish population might be a one off, as might Catholics having lots of children, but a comparison of religious and nonaffiliated groups in the USA, China, Sweden, France and other European countries showed that the number of children per woman in religious groups ranged from close to zero (for the Shakers) to between six and seven for the Hutterites, Amish and Haredim, while the nonaffiliated averaged less than two per woman – below replacement rate.

Data from 82 countries showed almost a straight line plot of the number of children against the frequency of religious worship, with those who worship more than once a week averaging 2.5 children and those who never worship only 1.7 – again below replacement rate. In a Swiss census of 2000 the nonaffiliated had the lowest number of births at 1.1 per woman compared
with over two among Hindus, Muslims and Jews.

Another striking comparison came from Eric Kaufmann's book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, to which responses differ on whether secularists should be terrified of an impending world dominated by religion or not. When European Jews were classified as orthodox, nonreligious and atheist, the atheists averaged around 1.5 children per woman and the religious Jews nearly three, with the Haredim in Israel averaging six to eight children per woman over many generations.

All this suggests that religious memes are adaptive rather than viral from the point of view of human genes, but could they still be viral from our individual or societal point of view? Apparently not, given data suggesting that religious people are happier and possibly even healthier than secularists. And at the conference, Ryan McKay presented experimental data showing that religious people can be more generous, cheat less and co-operate more in games such as the prisoner's dilemma, and that priming with religious concepts and belief in a "supernatural watcher" increase the effects.


This article explores how human minds may be primed for religious belief from a very young age.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct

 

Yes, it seems that we are biological machines.

 

Religion encourages its followers to conduct good behavior. As far as number of children goes, I joke that God told his people to fill up the world, but he forgot to tell them what to do after it was filled! Namely to stop reproducing. LOL.

 

This article helps to explain why the human brain is primed for religion. One reason has to do with the fact that as our hominid ancestors departed from the trees and moved to the open
grasslands of Africa, they needed to form larger social groups for protection. So, a brain that was primed for religion evolved in order to foster social cohesion.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190418-how-and-why-did-religion-evolve (for those who believe in evolution)

The similarities between humans and chimps are well known, but one important difference has to do with group size. Chimpanzees, on average, can maintain a group size of about 45, says Dunbar. “This appears to be the largest group size that can be maintained through grooming alone,” he says. In contrast, the average human group is about 150, known as Dunbar’s Number. The reason for this, says Dunbar, is that humans have the capacity to reach three times as many social contacts as chimps for a given amount of social effort. Human religion emerges out of this increased capacity for sociality.

How come? As our ape ancestors moved from receding forest habitats to more open environments, like the savannahs of eastern and southern Africa, Darwinian pressures acted on them to make them more social for increased protection from predators and better access to food; it also made it easier to find a mate. Without the ability to maintain new structures – like small groups of five or six so-called nuclear families, says Turner – these apes wouldn’t have been able to survive.

So how did nature achieve this socialisation process? Turner says the key isn’t with what we typically think of as intelligence, but rather with the emotions, which was accompanied by some important changes to our brain structure. Although the neocortex figures prominently in many theories of the evolution of religion, Turner says the more important alterations concerned the subcortical parts of the brain, which gave hominins the capacity to experience a broader range of emotions. These enhanced emotions promoted bonding, a crucial achievement for the development of religion.


Here’s how nature pulled it off. You’ve probably heard talk of the so-called four primary emotions: aggression, fear, sadness, and happiness. Notice anything about that list? Three of the emotions are negative. But the promotion of solidarity requires positive emotions – so natural selection had to find a way to mute the negative emotions and enhance the positive ones, Turner says. The emotional capacities of great apes (particularly chimpanzees) were already more elaborate than many other mammals, so selection had something to work with.

At this point in his argument, Turner introduces the concept of first- and second-order elaborations, which are emotions that are the result of a combinations of two or more primary emotions. So, for example, the combination of happiness and anger generates vengeance, while jealousy is the result of combining anger and fear. Awe, which figures majorly in religion, is the combination of fear and happiness. Second-order elaborations are even more complex, and occurred in the evolution from Homo erectus (1.8 million years ago) to Homo sapiens (about 200,000 years ago). Guilt and shame, for example, two crucial emotions for the development of religion, are the combination of sadness, fear, and anger.


The chimpanzee’s brain is so like ours: they have emotions that are clearly similar to or the same as those that we call happiness, sad, fear, despair, and so forth – the incredible intellectual abilities that we used to think unique to us. So why wouldn’t they also have feelings of some kind of spirituality, which is really being amazed at things outside yourself?

Goodall has observed a similar phenomenon happen during a heavy rain. These observations have led her to conclude that chimpanzees are as spiritual as we are. “They can’t analyse it, they don’t talk about it, they can’t describe what they feel. But you get the feeling that it’s all locked up inside them and the only way they can express it is through this fantastic rhythmic dance.” In addition to the displays that Goodall describes, others have observed various carnivalesque displays, drumming sessions, and various hooting rituals.

The roots of ritual are in what Bellah calls “serious play” – activities done for their own sake, which may not serve an immediate survival capacity, but which have “a very large potentiality of developing more capacities”. This view fits with various theories in developmental science, showing that playful activities are often crucial for developing important abilities like theory of mind and counterfactual thinking.

 

Hmmm, multiple time lines is an interesting concept. I’ve thought of that, where decisions cause an infinite number of realities, all existing simultaneously. I read a novel about that concept. But then I’m not sure how the concept of the soul would work with that. Does only one time line contain our soul? Does each soul have only one timeline that is theirs, and all the other people are just shadows of other souls, as their souls are in their own timelines? Just random musings, lol.

 

There is plenty of good reason to believe it is mostly an accurate historical account, even if you do not believe any miracles actually happened.

A lot of atheists mistakenly believe that if they believe the Bible is mostly an accurate historical account they have to believe in the supernatural.