Was christianity a hoax?

sponger

I think we are only concerned about purpose when we don't have one. I don't think purposeful people stop worry about whether or not they have purpose. Their purpose is clear as day to them as they have devoted themselves to it from the moment they acquired it.

But, the question is whether this acquisition of purpose was a conscious effort. The question is whether they intentionally become purposeful.

I think a truly purposeful person does not intentionally seek purpose. Instead, purpose finds them. I don't think Einstein decided to make math his lifelong passion. I don't think a passion for music was a purpose that Jimi Hendrix decided to have either.

For them, the purpose was always there, but just wasn't being utilized until it found its "conduit", so to speak. I say conduit because math was merely an extension of Einstein's passion for being analytical, and music was an extension of Jimi Hendrix's passion for expression.

Their purpose was there with them whether they liked it or not. They had no say in the matter. They did not make the decision to suddenly have purpose.

But, when people think of Einstein and Jimi Hendrix, they typically don't see two people who were merely following a passion. What they see are two people who accomplished great things and who are deserving of admiration.

I would say that most people want to be admired. They want to see themselves as having accomplished something. They want to feel as though they "got somewhere" in life. They follow what's called the path of "extrinsic" motivation. It's a measurement of accomplishment based on what society would deem as being an "accomplishment".

So, what they end up doing is creating their sense of purpose. They fabricate it from thin air. They devise a method for creating artificial passion. They do this because they at least know that they "should" have purpose, whether they really have it or not.

And the way this is done is to harness and channel that desire for admiration by following a prescribed lifestyle. And by leading this lifestyle, they at least know that they are identifying with "purposeful" people. This constant awareness of their commonalities with the perceived "greatness" of "purpose" satisfies the need to be admired and at the same time turns their need for admiration into a "passion" that they have become successful at nurturing.

And, of course, this precribed lifestyle is religion. And the "greatness" that they believe they are emulating is known as "God."

Atheism is not an absence of purpose. It is the acknowledgement of the authenticity of purpose, and the acceptance of the lack thereof.

My favorite way of describing purpose is to use the Bruce Lee Enter the Dragon analogy.

There's a scene in Enter the Dragon where he is teaching a student Kung Fu and asks the student to kick. Then Bruce Lee says, "It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss out on all the heavenly glory."

Purpose is looking at the moon. A lack of purpose is looking at the finger. People have a tendency to look at the finger society told them to point at the moon. They are merely following the role that was created for them.

But, when we point at the moon for the sake of pointing and not for the sake of looking at the moon, we become self-conscious. We want to know if we are "properly" pointing at the moon. This is doubt.

And that doubt is what someone in this thread was feeling about his desire to become a film maker. He considered extrinsic factors such as big movie production. That is, he became worried that his finger wasn't good enough.

So, he replaced this disconcerting feeling of doubt with "faith". He said, "I have faith that it will work out." Of course, he was talking about faith in god.

But, again, god is "greatness". And by reminding himself of his belief in "greatness", he was able to eliminate the doubt that came from looking at the finger.

And this is how the prescribed lifestyle of religion emulates the passion (ie purpose) of Bruce Lee. Ask anyone who Bruce Lee is, and they will tell you he was a "great" martial artist. He was, but he was moreso a passionate martial artist. He was looking at the moon and never at the finger.

Within the context of religion, the moon is god. Under atheism, the moon is the moon.

angelica

sponger wrote:

I think we are only concerned about purpose when we don't have one. I don't think purposeful people stop worry about whether or not they have purpose. Their purpose is clear as day to them as they have devoted themselves to it from the moment they acquired it.

But, the question is whether this acquisition of purpose was a conscious effort. The question is whether they intentionally become purposeful.

I think a truly purposeful person does not intentionally seek purpose. Instead, purpose finds them. I don't think Einstein decided to make math his lifelong passion. I don't think a passion for music was a purpose that Jimi Hendrix decided to have either.

For them, the purpose was always there, but just wasn't being utilized until it found its "conduit", so to speak. I say conduit because math was merely an extension of Einstein's passion for being analytical, and music was an extension of Jimi Hendrix's passion for expression.

Their purpose was there with them whether they liked it or not. They had no say in the matter. They did not make the decision to suddenly have purpose.

But, when people think of Einstein and Jimi Hendrix, they typically don't see two people who were merely following a passion. What they see are two people who accomplished great things and who are deserving of admiration.

I would say that most people want to be admired. They want to see themselves as having accomplished something. They want to feel as though they "got somewhere" in life. They follow what's called the path of "extrinsic" motivation. It's a measurement of accomplishment based on what society would deem as being an "accomplishment".

So, what they end up doing is creating their sense of purpose. They fabricate it from thin air. They devise a method for creating artificial passion. They do this because they at least know that they "should" have purpose, whether they really have it or not.

And the way this is done is to harness and channel that desire for admiration by following a prescribed lifestyle. And by leading this lifestyle, they at least know that they are identifying with "purposeful" people. This constant awareness of their commonalities with the perceived "greatness" of "purpose" satisfies the need to be admired and at the same time turns their need for admiration into a "passion" that they have become successful at nurturing.

And, of course, this precribed lifestyle is religion. And the "greatness" that they believe they are emulating is known as "God."

Atheism is not an absence of purpose. It is the acknowledgement of the authenticity of purpose, and the acceptance of the lack thereof.

My favorite way of describing purpose is to use the Bruce Lee Enter the Dragon analogy.

There's a scene in Enter the Dragon where he is teaching a student Kung Fu and asks the student to kick. Then Bruce Lee says, "It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss out on all the heavenly glory."

Purpose is looking at the moon. A lack of purpose is looking at the finger. People have a tendency to look at the finger society told them to point at the moon. They are merely following the role that was created for them.

But, when we point at the moon for the sake of pointing and not for the sake of looking at the moon, we become self-conscious. We want to know if we are "properly" pointing at the moon. This is doubt.

And that doubt is what someone in this thread was feeling about his desire to become a film maker. He considered extrinsic factors such as big movie production. That is, he became worried that his finger wasn't good enough.

So, he replaced this disconcerting feeling of doubt with "faith". He said, "I have faith that it will work out." Of course, he was talking about faith in god.

But, again, god is "greatness". And by reminding himself of his belief in "greatness", he was able to eliminate the doubt that came from looking at the finger.

And this is how the prescribed lifestyle of religion emulates the passion (ie purpose) of Bruce Lee. Ask anyone who Bruce Lee is, and they will tell you he was a "great" martial artist. He was, but he was moreso a passionate martial artist. He was looking at the moon and never at the finger.

Within the context of religion, the moon is god. Under atheism, the moon is the moon.

"The spiritual force transcends all. -- I feel this great creative and spiritual force within me that is greater than faith, greater than ambition, greater than confidence, greater than determination, greater than vision. It is all these combined. My brain becomes magnetized with this dominating force which I hold in my hand". Bruce Lee

deadnothingbetter

Collin wrote:

This shows how little you know of psychology.

I know that much is true. Psychology is not accepted as a form of science. I actually read that in my psychology book.

angelica

deadnothingbetter wrote:

I know that much is true. Psychology is not accepted as a form of science. I actually read that in my psychology book.

Incorrect. Psychological studies are all completely scientific. Science is a method of study.

You may be referring to the fact that psychology is not a 'hard' science.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

Hinny

deadnothingbetter wrote:

I know that much is true. Psychology is not accepted as a form of science. I actually read that in my psychology book.

It's a social science. The scientific method still applies- that people hypothesise about something and set about proving that it works, then for challenges to be made about the theory, to refine it in an ongoing process.

catefrances

the 'problem' psychology has in regards to it being regarded a science, is that it is not bound by absolutes. it involves the study of people and we are too individualistic to provide definitive answers.

sourdough

Its a very fuzzy area. I teach high school psychology and it falls under "social studies" along with history and geography rather than science.

Collin

sourdough wrote:

Its a very fuzzy area. I teach high school psychology and it falls under "social studies" along with history and geography rather than science.

Well, that's high school what do you expect?

Psychology is a very broad field of study, some of it isn't science at all i.e. psychoanalysis for example, but some of it is, think about neuropsychology, how can anyone say that's not real science.

sourdough

Collin wrote:

Well, that's high school what do you expect?

Psychology is a very broad field of study, some of it isn't science at all i.e. psychoanalysis for example, but some of it is, think about neuropsychology, how can anyone say that's not real science.

I suppose its a subject area such as geography where the field is so broad that it has strong elements for both. However, in universities as well you graduate with a Bacherlor of Arts (BA) rather than a Bacherlor of Science (BSc), so it does fall within the realm of arts.

Neurology is a part of medicine so you would likely go through biology or other hard science and you wouldn't specialize until med school. You wouldn't have had to take a single psychology course before med school.

Collin

sourdough wrote:

I suppose its a subject area such as geography where the field is so broad that it has strong elements for both. However, in universities as well you graduate with a Bacherlor of Arts (BA) rather than a Bacherlor of Science (BSc), so it does fall within the realm of arts.

That's a very odd way to define psychology, especially because that appear to be a North American standard.

Neurology is a part of psychology but to be a neurologist, you would likely go through biology or other hard science and you wouldn't specialize until med school. You wouldn't have had to take a single psychology course before med school.

My friend's girlfriend wants to be a neuropsychologist, she has a ton of psychology.

sourdough

Collin wrote:

That's a very odd way to define psychology, especially because that appear to be a North American standard.



My friend's girlfriend wants to be a neuropsychologist, she has a ton of psychology.

I'm not sure what a neuropsychologist is. I thought we were talking about neurologists. Is there a difference? Neurology is a field of science which is taken in med school. Is it a medical degree or a stream within a psychology undergrad? Just wondering...

I'm not denying that there is a strong element of science within psychology, but it does fall into the grey area and is generally lumped in with arts over here anyway.

Collin

sourdough wrote:

I'm not sure what a neuropsychologist is. I thought we were talking about neurologists. Is there a difference? Neurology is a field of science which is taken in med school. Is it a medical degree or a stream within a psychology undergrad? Just wondering...

Neuropsychology is a branch of psychology and neurology that aims to understand how the structure and function of the brain relate to specific psychological processes and overt behaviors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology

Neurology is a branch of medicine dealing with disorders of the nervous system. Physicians specializing in the field of neurology are called neurologists and are trained to diagnose, treat, and manage patients with neurological disorders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurology

I found it a bit hard to explain in English, hope this is enough.

edit: Neuropsychology isn't the only part of the broad field that is psychology that is scientific.

Jeanie

sourdough wrote:

...............Neurology is a part of psychology but to be a neurologist...........

Sorry sourdough, know I'm probably completely reading this wrong, but Neurology is medicine and therefore science. Should this read neuropsychology.................?

sourdough

Jeanie wrote:

Sorry sourdough, know I'm probably completely reading this wrong, but Neurology is medicine and therefore science. Should this read neuropsychology.................?

Oops... Yup! Thanks for the heads up. Its been edited.

Jeanie

sourdough wrote:

Oops... Yup! Thanks for the heads up. Its been edited.

Cool!! Sorry to interupt!! Just the thought of my neurologist not being scientifically trained was a bit of cause for concern!! hehe :D:D:D

Last Exodus

catefrances wrote:

faith requires NO PROOF. that's why they call it FAITH. the onus is on no one.

Faith is something one MUST have in the absence of evidence. I think there is ample evidence of god all around us. Our very existence, the organization of the universe can imply a higher existence or intelligence. Now the son of god thing...That to me has no evidence at all.

Last Exodus

sourdough wrote:

I am an atheist, but Jesus was not just a bed time story. There is tons of historical evidence of Christian and non-christian origins (ie. Pre-Christianized Rome) of his existance and that he was a significant figure. Whether or not he performed miracles or was the son of god is another story, but he did unquestionably exist.

I take issue with the word tons. id say the word scant is more appropriate.

Last Exodus

rigneyclan wrote:

Many believe that the Roman solar god Mithras was the inspiration for mythical Jesus. The following is an inscription found on the ruins of an ancient Roman temple dedicated to Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

"How about the fact that Mithras was known by his followers as the "Light of the World" and "The Good Shepard," and told his followers to practice ritual communion meals of bread and wine. Is it any coincedence now, that the religion of Mithras died out about the same time when Christianity was getting popular?"

Sounds pretty Jesus like, huh?

I found that out from a pretty funny video posted on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dnxHmvrrW0

There are all kinds of precedents for Jesus like figures in history. Ahnnimus gave some good examples. I like to look at history to understand how and why Jesus came to be and why. I think the "why" is the interesting subject. The "why" is really rooted in the history of the Jews whose own history can be traced back to other ancient peoples like the Egyptians. Some of the first concepts of afterlife came from the Egyptians, yet today that concept is best embodied in the Christian traditions. But those traditions, like most others are really just borrowed ideas from earlier times. The historical underpinnings I think really offer the best explanation. Next, why and how did christianity go from a small band of renegades in ancient Judea to a massive world wide phenomenom? It was centuries before Christianity became the worlds most popular religion, and by then it was all wrapped up in good old European politics. So, to me, that's what makes the whole thing kinda hard to swallow...

catefrances

Last Exodus wrote:

Faith is something one MUST have in the absence of evidence. I think there is ample evidence of god all around us. Our very existence, the organization of the universe can imply a higher existence or intelligence. Now the son of god thing...That to me has no evidence at all.

how is our existence proof of God?

Collin

Last Exodus wrote:

Faith is something one MUST have in the absence of evidence. I think there is ample evidence of god all around us. Our very existence, the organization of the universe can imply a higher existence or intelligence. Now the son of god thing...That to me has no evidence at all.

I disagree. In my opinion there is absolutely no evidence of a god or a higher being, none whatsoever. In your opinion there's evidence all around us, fine.
But I find this statement you made very odd: 'faith is something one must have in the absence of evidence'. I can quite wrap my mind around that one. What exactly do you mean?