Few religions are fairly characterized by a splinter group, including Christians.

Spanish Inquisition....

THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

That's simply history. There was some possibly violent punishment within the Christian community as told in Acts of the Apostles, but if you know of violence of any relevant frequency or importance by Christians prior to Constantine, please post a link to a discussion of that history.

Very early Christians were mostly lower class including slaves and some middle class people. In fact, one of the first, if not the first, non-Jewish convert to the Christian religion according to the Bible was a eunuch slave. The early Christians were the victims of religious and other persecution in the Roman Empire.

Constantine changed that.

That is why it is OK to speak of the Christian church as one of peace. That was its original nature and teaching.

In contrast, Mohammed actually led his followers into military battle.

Today, of course, those differences are history. Since Constantine, and since Mohammed, Christians are also militarily aggressive at times.

Last edited Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

and therefore no real capacity to do harm to others. that is simple history. islam, by virtue of mohammeds successful military conquests, had an earlier start on the use and abuse of power than christianity did.

The contrast between those two statements says it all.

Muhammed led a violent group or groups of his followers.

The early Christians were not violent.

Muhammed's power may have been the result of his violence.

The Christians' lack of power may have been the result of their non-violence.

What do you think would have happened to his teachings had Muhammed not resorted to violence?

What do you think would have happened to Jesus' teachings if he had resorted to violence?

(According to John, the some or all of the disciples had swords at Gethsemane right before Jesus was arrested, but Jesus told them to put them away. That is the story. Whether it is historically true or not is rather unimportant since there is no historical record that Jesus or his disciples led and armed action (although a couple of Jesus disciples were apparently Zealots).

The historical record is clear that from the beginning, Mohammed himself was involved in violent reprisal against others.

I can't tell whether you are just agreeing with me or minimizing what I am saying so as to detract from its historical significance.

Certainly one aspect of the historical significance of the relatively peaceful nature of early Christianity (and there were two minor reports of violence that I can think of, possibly more, within the early Christian community) is that it took a long time to become a popular religion. It grew very slowly. Another is that the Christian religion adopted violent methods when the Roman government incorporated it at the time of Constantine into itself at least in part.

This is an interesting question.

Another interesting issue is the growth of what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church and the use of violence in the Christian religion.

All of this is history and has only limited relevance to the Christian religion of today although there are Christian churches that advocate for non-violence. Certainly Martin Luther King was an example of a non-violent Christian. Quakers are not always classified as Christian, but they are very non-violent. My father was a Mehodist minister and a pacifist. But in most mainstream Christian churches today, pacifism is not central to the religious dogma but rather a personal belief.

This is a very interesting question. More relevant is how do we encourage all religions to be more pacifistic at this time?

If you believe you received a message and are on a mission for the all-powerful creator of the entire universe who will send you to hell to be tortured for all eternity after death, then you must obey. There is no earthly punishment that can be more fearful than hell.

There is no historical record that Jesus existed.

The bible is a collection of retold stories, an anthology. It is not a historical record. There are no contemporary historical records documenting the story of Jesus.

This "mythical Jesus" nonsense became all the rage. Everyone who watches Bill Maher's documentary or read the article in the Huffington Post trumpeting "there are no historical records of Jesus".

Rather than go into this point by counterpoint, I will simply say this.

G.A. Wells, perhaps the most well known, studied, and respected supporter of the mythical Jesus actually CHANGED HIS MIND and came to the conclusion after another long research exercise that ended in a book, that a historical Jesus who walked along the Sea of Galilee almost certainly existed.

In addition, there are indeed historical records, even if one throws out the Biblical sources. Both the texts of Tacitus and Josephus (although likely altered) most historians believe reference Jesus.

Not contemporaneous. And I always thought the question of whether a man named Yeshua lived in Isreal is independent of the veracity of anything in the Gospels.
At best it could be said loosely based on a preacher around that time with lots of mythology applied.

Abraham Lincoln was president, doesn't mean Abe Lincoln, Vampire Hunter I'd true.

Not contemporary record..

There is technically no contemporary record of Pilate either, but there are a few archaeological finds. Whether the Jesus was the Son of God as portrayed in the Gospels is not relevant. The argument is that such a man, never existed. That, has largely been discredited and MOST (but not all) Biblical archaeologists point to a real Jewish Rabbi that lived at that time.

I am not of the "Jesus never existed" camp, though whoever he was I see the gospels as retelling of myths along with prophesy fulfillment.

The Jesus in the NT and this man are a different question.

The problem arrives when believers use any evidence that some man named Yeshua lived as giving somen proof the gospels are true..

"there is a bible!"

You guys are killing me

shortly after which Jesus is apprehended and crucified, alongside a man who was convicted of a murder potentially at the same incident. A long time ago I read a book (I don't recall the title) that reasoned through some of the facts and likelihoods there. Of course, facts are pretty hard to come by.

If there were any proof of a contemporary record of a hint of the story of Jesus, it would be well known.

was from a book that discussed the Bible with no other source.

...which is the sort of "historical record" we have for most things that far back. Of course, it could have been concocted, and it was almost certainly embellished, cleaned up and skewed deliberately over the years before the council of Nicea. But I don't see much point in the "there's no historical record" argument, as it has a rather large exception. What passes for historical record is often little more than anecdote, and plenty of other things considered historical (though still openly questioned and debated over) are only known from one or two documents. The debate is a valuable one, but a mind clear of agendas is best (easier said than done, given the topic).

One of the best books I've read dissecting the bible is "james, the Brother of Jesus" by Eisenman. Another very good one (though less scholarly) putting together what we know of the time and place is "Rabbi Jesus" by Chilton. If I remember right, the linking of the riot at the temple with the crucifixion of Jesus and the other "murderer" involved comes from that book.

One of the things to remember is that after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, shortly after Jesus's death, the language and culture of that time was more or less extinguished. Current scholarship has gifted us with a better understanding of Aramaic and better access to original texts than has been the case for nearly two thousand years. I suppose the origin of my interest comes from 8 years of catholic schooling, but it is essentially academic. The bible remains a good primary source of material, along with many others.

orally before being written down. If it were a historical account, it would have been written at the same time the events happened. In a couple hundred years, would you be able to tell Tom Sawyer from a factual story if there were no other documents to determine if it were fiction or not?

There is no contemporary evidence of the life of Jesus. There are many documents from that time period. I'm not saying that he did not exist, just that there is no evidence at this time other than a collection of documents created hundreds of years later, many of which are stories known to be borrowed from earlier religions or mythologies.

There has been plenty of forged "evidence", but none of which has stood up to study.

The important issue is not whether there was a historical Jesus, but whether the early Christians thought there was, what they thought he taught or instructed them to do and be and how they lived as Christians.

There was a movement that was eventually called Christian. It changed a lot over time. That is a historical reality that molded some of our history. So that is important and historically substantiated.

most people back then probably wouldn't have seen the point. Its hard to imagine in retrospect the perspectives of an essentially illiterate and uneducated culture, but that was the bulk of humanity up until about 100 years ago. Nowadays, its already becoming difficult to put myself in the shoes of a culture that lacks internet access, though I grew up in the 70's. It seems a long age ago.

violent incident, that still would not change the historical record that the Christians (the group only existed after his death; before that he and his disciples were simply Jewish) were violent.

Facing the Roman empire, the Christians would not have survived if they had resorted to force.

The early Christian movement was definitely pacifist. In the story of the crucifixion, John 18:10, Jesus' disciple, Simon Peter draws a sword and cuts of the ear of the servant of a high priest. Jesus tells Peter to "put up the sword into the sheath the cup; the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?"

That is the pacifist instruction in the Christian religion. The belief that there is a life beyond the material life we live on this earth which is awarded to those who do God's will is essential to the Christian faith as I was taught it. That belief teaches: "the cup which [God] hath given" must be drunk. That is the teaching of complete submission or obedience to the will of God.

Whether you believe this story or not, it was the basis of early Christian belief and conduct.

Here is that story in St. Luke:

Luke 22:38 -- (The disciples are together prior to the arrest of Jesus.) "And (the disciples)said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And (Jesus) said unto them, it is enough."

Jesus prays to be given the ability to accept what he knows will happen to him. Judas betrays -- identifies -- Jesus with a kiss, and this is what is reported to have happened:

Luke 22:40 -- "When they who were alone with (Jesus) saw what would follow (referring to Jesus arrest), they said unto (Jesus), shall we smite him with the sword?"

Luke 22:50 -- "And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear."

Luke 22:51 -- "And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear and healed him."

Jesus' rebuke to the priests who arrested him is particularly moving. He saidi "Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and slaves?" (Luke 22:52) and further, "When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness." (Luke 22:53.)

Those are powerful words that have comforted many nonviolent people.

That story is repeated in Mark 14:45-50 and Matthew 26:50-56.

I will cite the text for that reference:

50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”[a]

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26%3A50-56&version=NIV

These were the four gospels, stories of Jesus that were chosen for the standard Christian Bible. There are other stories or reports about Jesus.

What is important is not whether the story is an accurate account of what happened but rather how this report or story affected the essential pacifistic nature of early Christianity.

The early Christians were essentially although perhaps not always individually, pacifists based on what they understood to be Jesus' teaching at the time of his arrest as well as other teachings of Jesus.

This is not true of the Muslim religion (Islam). The Muslims very quickly spread their religion through conquest. The Christians did not do that until Constantine.

"The first Roman emperor to claim conversion to Christianity,[notes 4] Constantine played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan, which decreed tolerance for Christianity in the empire. He called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the Nicene Creed was professed by Christians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

The Council of Nicaea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Whether it is or is not accurate historically, there is no record of violent Christian conversion prior to Constantine that I am aware of.

Here is a simplified history of what happened in the centuries after Jesus' crucifixion and I am providing an excerpt from an interesting article:

The Romans tried to beat down Christianity but failed. By the fourth century Christianity becomes the state religion and by the end of the fourth century it is illegal to do any form of public worship other than Christianity in the entire Roman Empire. There is a great mystery in how this happened -- how such an extraordinary reversal, that begins with Jesus who is executed by the Romans as a public criminal, as a threat to the social order, and somehow we wind up three centuries later with Jesus being hailed as a God, as part of the one, true God who is the God of the new Christian Roman Empire. There is a remarkable progress, a remarkable development in the course of three centuries. ... It's hard to understand exactly how it happened or why it happened, but it is important to realize that we have a progression and a set of developments, and that Christianity by the fourth century is not the same as the Christianity that we see in the first or even the second.

. . . .

One of the first things Constantine does, as emperor, is start persecuting other Christians. The Gnostic Christians are targeted...and other dualist Christians. Christians who don't have the Old Testament as part of their canon are targeted. The list of enemies goes on and on. There's a kind of internal purge of the church as one emperor ruling one empire tries to have this single church as part of the religious musculature of his vision of a renewed Rome. And it's with this theological vision in mind that Constantine not only helps the bishops to iron out a unitary policy of what a true Christian believes, but he also, interestingly, turns his attention to Jerusalem, and rebuilds Jerusalem just as a righteous king should do. But what Constantine does is take the city, which was something of a backwater, and he begins to build beautiful basilicas and architecturally ambitious projects in the city itself. The sacred space of the Temple Mount he abandons. It's not reclaimable. And what he does is [to] religiously relocate the center of gravity of the city around the places where Christ had suffered, where he had been buried, or where he [had] been raised. So that in the great basilicas that he built, Constantine has a new Jerusalem, that's splendid and beautiful and... his reputation as an imperial architect resonates with great figures in biblical history like David and Solomon. In a sense, Constantine is a non-apocalyptic Messiah for the church. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

Your position that early Christians were peaceful is most likely correct. Christians exist, therefore Early Christians must have existed.

Your statement "there is no historical record that Jesus or his disciples led and armed action" is true in that there is no historical record of Jesus. There is also no historical record that Jesus and his disciples were heavily into roller disco and punk makeup and hair-dos. One can say that there no historical record of Jesus doing anything one wants, because no one has been able to prove that he actually existed.

The Bible is not a historical record and quotes and from it are irrelevant to that point.

If they were the basis for a movement, or I should say, if they and other written texts that told stories about a mythical Jesus were the basis for a movement, then that movement is a historical fact and its texts are a part of its historical record and the quotes from it are relevant.

Whether the Bible is historically accurate or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is what people believe and how their beliefs affect their actions and their social interactions. I sometimes wonder whether brushing my teeth really does me any good. I am told that it does, so I do it. But I do it based on belief and not based on the fact that I really understand why it might help my teeth. It may. It may not. I don't understand the science of dentistry well enough to really know. But I live my life believing that brushing my teeth is the thing to do, so I do it. It certainly feels good to me, and I teach my children to do it. I have faith in brushing my teeth. My dentist's bills sometimes shake my faith.

What we believe can be more relevant than what is true or false with regard to some thing.

On the other hand, if I believe that there is no train approaching quickly on the railroad track and I therefore stand on the railroad track with my eyes shut, but in reality there is a train on the railroad track, I may have faith, by my faith can get me killed.

The early Christians believed the stories of Jesus' crucifixion. There are aspects of the story as told in the Bible's selection of gospels that are not likely to be true considering what Roman law was at the time. (So I have been told by someone who studied that issue.) Nevertheless, the fact that centuries, many centuries, people have believed that the stories of true have engendered hatred and persecution of people who are Jewish. So, the belief, probably erroneous that "the Jews" killed Jesus has formed history in a very sad way.

That Jesus (who was himself a Jew) was a pacifist is part of the story of Jesus that Christians chose to believe. I have read an article on the art of the early Christians that suggested that their religion was a pacifist one. I can't see any other explanation for the fact that there is no evidence of violence by Christians during the early Christian era.

So myth or not, it is relevant. Sorry to disagree with you.

fact remains that the early Christians were basically non-violent prior to Constantine. At least, there is no record of violence.

There may have been a tie between Jesus' disciples and the Zealots. Two of his disciples may have been described as Zealots -- Simon the Zealot and possibly Judas Iscariot. I have not read Reza Aslan's book on that, but hope to.

But it appears that Jesus lived before the Romans destroyed the Zealot movement, and the early Christians believed that Jesus rejected the use of violence in his defense.

What people believed is more important than the historical record of what happened to Jesus. The story of the crucifixion is not likely true even though the existence of Jesus probably is in my opinion.

I just didn't want to discuss what you are talking about. Thanks for adding it though.

I just get sick and tired of the whole "mythical Jesus" routine that seems to be a talking point around here. It is almost universally rejected as wrong, save by a few outliers, but around here, people really believe it and repeat it as often as possible. I also get sick of hearing how Mary is Isis or Jesus is Hercules, etc.

Kind of to your point, Jesus had NOTHING in common with other Greek or Roman mythological deities who were warriors and won great battles. Jesus was a peace loving, self-sacrificing poor Jewish man who was beaten, stripped naked, and then hung on a cross until he died. He had nothing in common with Hercules and that is another stupid talking point real Biblical archaeologists point out. If you were picking kids for your kickball game, Jesus was kind of like the last guy to get picked. Not your typical pagan hero story at all.

...Sorry, which universe are you referring to?

There is no historical record that shows that the Jesus of the bible existed.

Have you bothered to read my above posts?

That statement you just made is nonsense. Both Tacitus and Josephus, have an account of Jesus.

As I noted before, the most well-respected "Jesus Mythology" researcher, G.A. Wells actually changed his position some years ago and actually stated that a man named Jesus almost certainly existed and roamed the Sea of Galilee.

In addition, Wells and many other biblical historians believe in the likely existence of the "Q" document, the prototype book containing the gospels.

Right?

who was the principal mythological Jesus promoter in modern times.

But let's get back to your assertion that "no historical evidence of Jesus exists", which is wrong. Why do you say there is no evidence that is secular, when there is?

How do you dismiss the Epistles of Paul. Who, in today's terms, would be like the Grand Dragon of the KKK suddenly, overnight, changing their position and begin marching with Martin Luther King? Paul's writings are genuine. The Vatican likely has St. Peter's bones. They were found exactly where Constantine said he put them. Carbon dating confirms the date and the age of the man.

Where we appear to have disagreement is that you can hang anything off the statement that "there is no historical record that Jesus or his disciples led and armed action".

There is also no historical record that Jesus or his disciples were not into into drugs. Or that they didn't tap dance everywhere they went. There is no historical record that they didn't always speak in falsetto voices.

The only claim one can make about historical records of Jesus are that none have been discovered to date.

The story of the crucifixion in the Gospels that the early Christians chose to include in the Bible have a clear pacifist message. That is some evidence that the early Christians were pacifists, and that is the question here.

There probably would be a historical record of uprisings or political or religious violence by early Christians. They were living in the Roman Empire, and there were historians who recorded important events. Either violence if there was any was very slight and inconsequential or it did not happen.

I do not disagree with a thing that you have said. I have pointed out repeatedly that your comment "there is no historical record that Jesus or his disciples led and armed action" is null in content. Yet you refuse to address that and continue to try to argue with me on points that I have no disagreement with.

All the more reason for saying that the early Christians were peaceful. They were killed, but there is no historical record that states that they killed others. If someone knows of one, I would like the link or the source.

The vast majority of historians think Jesus was a real person.

When the "James, Brother of Jesus" ossuary was "discovered". it was shouted from the rooftops. Then they found a the workshop of the "finder" complete with several other frauds in progress. He was let go, OJ Simpson/Wall Street Banker style.

If there were concrete evidence, it would be well known, but feel free to enlighten us with some documentation of these "vast majority of historians" or their findings.

recorded history of Mithras. Can't be, both are myths.

For the record though, I think whacking guys with a whip counts as an armed action. When I taught myself to use a whip, I whacked myself several times. Had the Messiah done that to me, I would have considered it an "armed action".

JDP needs to spend some time reading "The Golden Bough" rather than the "Good Book"...

According to the tradition (and anything that happened more than 1000 years ago is uncertain), Mohammad resorted to violence only in self-defense, after the leaders of Mecca -- who saw his monotheism as a threat to their commercial interests in pagan pilgrimage -- attempted to assassinate him and drove his followers out of Mecca. From the beginning, Islam was opposed to the Arab tradition of vendetta and clan warfare. To that extent, the prior post is a distortion.

That said, it is true that Islam was a religion of rulers right from the first, and Christianity only from the time of Constantine.

All of the Abrahamic religions originated in "tributary" societies -- that is, societies based on the extortion of agricultural surplus by a dominant minority by means of threats of violence -- and in which enslavement and the massacre of defeated enemies were routine. And all of them show signs of this.

"All of the Abrahamic religions originated in "tributary" societies -- that is, societies based on the extortion of agricultural surplus by a dominant minority by means of threats of violence -- and in which enslavement and the massacre of defeated enemies were routine. And all of them show signs of this."

Well, in a tributary society, a dominant group extracts tribute, in the form of produce, slaves, and (less often) money from the farming villages under its control, and usually exercises other sorts of privilege. In some Marxist languages this is also known as the slave stage of class society, although that is a bit of an oversimplification IMO. Instances are the Judean independent kingdom, the Persian and Hellenistic empires that influenced the development of Judaism, the Roman and Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empires, and the Caliphates. Many of the appalling things we find in the Old Testament and Islamic Sunna and in the history of Christianity were simply the common conditions of life in those societies, and not the product of the religions themselves.

classes is not a coincidence. They were unable to change their society in any way other than to adopt a religious belief or moral guidance that helped them be non-violent. There was no way they could live or "win" by trying to use violence. They found another way to win on a personal level, and that was Christianity which promised redemption for those who were non-violent and loving and kind to others, those who shared.

Then came Constantine.

believed that Jesus had told them about the use of violence in their lives.

According to the Gospels that became the basis for the Christian religion, Jesus chose to submit to the will of God even at his death. He did not choose to defend himself. His disciples had at least one, possibly at least two swords, and according to the Gospels, he told them not to use them.

If you are not familiar with the story of the arrest of Jesus as told in the Bible, you will find my post #119 interesting, I think.

You say that both Christianity and the Muslim religion (or Islam) grew out of tribal societies that emphasized vendetta and warfare. The interesting thing is that the pre-Constantine Christians set the vendetta and warfare aside pretty much (although there is, if I recall correctly, a story of violence in the Acts of the Apostles against members of the early Christian group who did not share what they had with the others -- I could be wrong about that story). They moved away from that culture of vendetta and warfare and became martyrs. That is why I say that Christianity was in its beginnings non-violent, pacifist.

use force early in the development of their movement and how it came that they did use force.

The teachings of Jesus are inherently pacifistic as they are reported in the four gospels that were chosen to be in the Western Bible.

final agreement reached on what books comprise the Sacred text of the Christian Bible? 397AD

Until well after Constantine's conversion and his official recognition of the Christian Church and his declaration of Christianity as a religion of conquest - There simply was no unified Christian religion. What one group of Christians believed one place would likely have little in common with what another group of Christians believed another place. Until Constantine convened the first council of Nicea in 325 AD - the Christian faith did not have a unified core of beliefs - It did not have unified agreement on what comprised sacred text until well 397AD and well after Christianity had become a religion of conquest.

groups, we do not have any history that reflects rebellions or violence by Christians to my knowledge. Do you know of any?

And isn't it odd that even after Constantine, after Christianity became a religion of conquest, the four gospels that were chosen are, at the crucial moment of Jesus' arrest, decidedly pacifist texts?

I am not too familiar with the gnostic gospels. Are you? Are they less pacifist?

Protestants believe in solo scriptura - from scripture alone. Catholics do not, nor have they ever.

Catholics have always and do always believe that Tradition is just as or probably important than scripture. The Bible was really never meant to be taken literally, especially the old Testament.

Thus the Catholic position is that while the texts may not have been standardized, the tradition was in place already. Catholics also have an Apostolic Tradition, where the tradition is passed from one priest to the next all the way back to Peter.

and the current religion bears an only passing resemblance to the traditions and practice before the council of Nicaea.

I thought nothing about this place would surprise me any more, but I have only ever seen that stuff from racist Tea Party/UKIP types. Sad that it has infected DU - I wonder if it has been given cover by Richard Dawkins spouting increasingly fascist views in the name of progress and rationality.

being fascist.

Reza Aslon, thinks he is Anti-theist...
That Dawkins' "fundamentalist" thinking
is essentially the flip side of the religiosity
he vehemently rejects.

What would a critical reader surmise?

http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-richard-dawkins-sam-harris-and-new-atheists-arent-really-atheists?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark

has gotten tiresome, as has the whole profusion of coinage resulting from the fact that atheists are becoming more outspoken.

Why the need to pigeonhole a critic?

In my abnormal psychology class, the very distinguished and highly successful professor actually stated that incest against boys had no negative results. We were honestly taught that pedophilia against boys was not damaging mentally to the boy.This was at Temple University a college known for its expertise in psychology.

So if professors were spouting such nonsense, it was probably a widely held belief , much like free market economics.

Last edited Mon Nov 24, 2014, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)

From the article:

"I suspect that research would show belief in hell to be more traumatic than the sort of mild feeling-up that I suffered."

He's making a comparison, as someone with personal experience of sexual abuse, and as someone with strong opinions on how fucked-up (not to mention fucking up) it is to raise a child to believe in everlasting hellfire.

But I expect to encounter "Richard Dawkins hearts John Wayne Gacy" arguments any minute now.

Dawkins, Harris, and the rest of the crew need to shut the fuck up.

that is the symbol system he uses to explain his view of the world, but atheism is without a sacred text, without a godhead, and without any leaders or a hierarchical clergy. It is, obviously, nothing like dogma, nothing like fundamentalism, and, obviously, nothing like a religion.

I think anti-theism is the idea that religion and supernatural beliefs need be actively challenged, debated, and refuted. I think it is a matter of degree in terms of outspoken-ness.

What exactly is Supernatural?
Things unexplainable by nature or science?

What about Sentience itself, what is it and how can that be proved?
We all experience it, and like air, we just accept it.
We know when it's not present but where does it reside?
Can it be explained and proven?

or "above" nature. There are many aspects of nature that are, as yet, inexplicable in terms of science, but supernatural explanations do nothing to help other than to end the investigation of a phenomenon. Consciousness, more so than sentience, is one of those topics. There is not a good scientific understanding of consciousness, but there seems to be no help by calling it "supernatural" - particularly if one happens to believe in one specific form of "supernaturality."

of the religion/science schism. Science marches on while others scratch their heads, shrug their shoulders, and mumble, "Dunno, it's a mystery. Leave me alone."

Influencing things on earth or our thoughts and feelings.

Occult as in hidden, not demon worship.

In reality, though, there is little to distinguish his specific criticisms of Islam from those of, say, Ann Coulter. But because he's rude about all religions, he gets a free pass from some. If someone who self-identified as Christian said the exact same things, he'd be denounced, correctly, as a hate-filled bigot.

Some people flip their freaking minds out if you express an opinion they do not approve of. Frankly, critical thinking is something we need more of here at DU, not less. One of the worst trends on this site (I lurked for years) has been the bullying and repression of anyone that holds a well thought but critical opinion of our party, our party's leaders or our party's actions. It truly is disgusting to see that fascist crap on this board of all places. But sadly, some revel in that type of bullying.

more of it around here. The same logic used to parrot their religious dogma appears to be in play with their fervent defense of party no matter what.

I'm not a believer, but I won't travel anywhere near theocratically governed countries because I don't feel safe there, religions of peace or no.

I don't know how you hope to pressure party unity here by pointing out the bigotry of some of its members. There are some, for sure; but try, at least, to understand those who don't tolerate intolerant believers of any faith. I've been out of town for a couple of weeks, so maybe everyone knows to whom you're referring, but I just don't. If bigotry gets called out around here, I think it's better to challenge bigoted statements as they appear in threads, instead of create some blanket condemnation thread. Because it doesn't help me, at least, to understand who you're talking about.

We need to stay objective about the basis by which people justify their intolerance toward intolerant believers. Not all people here are bigots when they watch and weigh believer conflicts. And, of course, not all non-believers are tolerant of believers. But my experience is that non-believers tend to be live-and-let-live types.

The only time intolerance is rational is when it's shown toward those who are irrationally intolerant toward others' free will. Speaking as an atheist, I've noticed that not all who are intolerant are bigots. Some simply want others' intolerance to back off.

You can't have "free will" only because, as Hitchens often said, "To say we have free will because the Boss SAYS we have free will is to make a mockery of the entire concept of free will."

yes, I personally find the idea of a government based on a religion to be antithetical to my understanding of freedom.

Regarding freedom, there is "freedom from" and "freedom to".
Is it not "will to power"?
The irony of "freedom" being found in enlightened self-interest...
The responsibility to defend one's own freedom from a "free-for-all"

But when one makes it the law of a land rather than the law of an internal choice, the shit often hits the fan.

There is no "spiritual liberation" that can come from a religion, in my mind. I think that is why the term "spiritual" is in such wide usage today. It is a form of rejecting religion.

Those aren't my words you are quoting there, but, no, science is not a religion inherently even if it is treated as such by some. It is not a religion because science has empirical evidence and faith - by definition - must lack empirical evidence.

"Spiritual" is for others to define as it has no resonance for me personally.

We all KNOW what a dream is and each have had them.
There is no way to empirically prove it though.

Just saying, rigid definitions can disqualify experiences
that reside outside the abilities of science to validate.
If some people didn't have the ability to dream
wouldn't that relegate them those who did dream
into a "faith" realm?

Not only that they exist, but we are beginning to be able to quantify the content of a dream: http://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2013/apr/05/brain-scans-decode-dream-content

But even without that technology, we can find so many similarities in people's descriptions of dreams throughout history and literature and across cultures that inferences were able to be made about their nature without empirical evidence (As you know, empirical evidence is a specific type of evidence - not the only kind.) Religion and spirituality have no such cohesion across individuals or cultures in my experience.

And, yes, rigid definitions and absolute language can disqualify experiences, that is why i try to use terms like "i think" or "it seems" when appropriate.

Prior to CT scans there was no way to verify
or empirically document dreaming.
So should we leave the door open to other
phenomenon of experience, such a spiritual
or religious experience?
Will science will eventually catch up as it has in dream research?

The idea that cross-cultural comparisons can be used
to validate dream experience could be given the same
weight as "spiritual" experience.
The main distinction being that everyone can agree to the
parameters used to define a dream, whereas
a spiritual experience lacks such universal agreement.

For my purpose I use "spiritual" in the sense
of "Trans-personal Experience" because that is
a common feature of many living religions.
A trans-personal experience in psychotherapy is
often described as a spiritual experience.
The transcendence of personal Ego, the identification
of self with SELF, is an often identified as the intended
result of religious or spiritual discipline.
So there is arguably, cohesion across individuals or cultures.

and shaping by force or persuasion otherwise free wills to live as if some free wills are freer than others. That sounds twisty, but I think you get my meaning.

'Mutually exclusive' is a phrase that invites all manner of conflict, depending on who excludes, who mutually excludes together, and which believer systems have bending the free wills of those born into them with no opportunity later to exert their free wills to believe other things, or not believe at all, or simply leave that system.

Since you asked, I'll ask back: what do you think? Are they?

Theocracy is a top down enterprise designed to control behavior.

A healthy way to view a "religion" is that it should be a vehicle
to the experience the trans-personal.

Experiencing the Trans-personal is inherently a liberating experience.
The process itself illuminates the interior structure of the psyche
allowing the individual to realize the nature and restrictions
the ego imposes on the "whole person".
Lacking such experience the Ego captures the mind
resulting in aberrations such as delusions, neurosis, etc.

Ego delusion is a trap and a source of much suffering.
Evangelical proselytizers are a blatant examples.
Their ego projections about sin and redemption frequently
originate from their own repressed feeling of guilt and shame...
both of which are neurosis and delusions

All religions and most spiritualities are "top-down enterprises" since they begin with a creator of the entire universe or some such superior position of ego or a "higher" dimension and work downwards from there.