The Christianity I grew up in claims that it is the answer to man's fear of death.

Since then the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same; that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death (that is, the Devil), and deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
(Heb 2:14-15)

Truthfully, I could never find resonance with this doctrine, for it seems to me that Christians have more reason to fear death than any non-theist. Here's why...

For the Christian, no matter how much he tells himself that he can be sure of going to heaven, his assurance must always be tainted by the niggling question...What if I don't measure up? What assurance the Bible gives, it also takes away.

But Christ was faithful as a Son over his own house; whose house we are, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers tempted Me, proved Me, and saw My works forty years. Therefore I was grieved with that generation and said, They always err in their heart, and they have not known My ways. So I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter into My rest." Take heed, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,
(Heb 3:6-14)

How can anyone be certain that he will not fail to measure up? Is my faith strong enough? Am I holding firm enough?

To me, the idea that Hell exists, and that the vast majority of human beings will spend an eternity being tortured in its flames, if far more terrifying than the view of the rationalist. Here is Epicurus on the subject...

Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us.

Consider the fact that I have absolutely no evidence for the existence of an afterlife. None. Christians will claim so-called eye-witness accounts of Jesus' resurrection as evidence, but such "evidence" is laughable. What judge would allow such hearsay? With no opportunity to cross-examine these "witnesses," there is no way to know if they have any credibility whatsoever.

A rationalist will consider the evidence and conclude that Epicurus is most likely correct. Death is nothing to us.

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...

Let us posit three kinds of people as they relate to their attitudes about Jesus....

Group One: Committed to him.
Group Two: Against him.
Group Three: Apathetic about him.

Now, let us consider these two statements attributed in the Bible to Jesus...

Statement One: Luke 12:30 "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters."
Statement Two: Mark 9:40 "For he who is not against us is for us."

As the excellent blog Debunking Christianity points out, statement one puts the apathetic group in with the "against him" group. Statement two, however, puts the apathetic group in with the "committed" group.

If you are a Christian, I ask you not to attempt to find a way around this logical contradiction, but to do something a lot harder: Look at it objectively and ask yourself it it is not, in fact, a clear demonstration of the human rather than divine origin of the Bible.

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...

Epicurus had some thoughts about gods that are worth considering:

A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness.

Although he seems to accept the possibility of the existence of gods, he expresses a cogent insight: Gods, by definition, are "blessed and indestructible," being sufficient and complete in themselves. Indeed, the Christian God is described in the Bible in this way.

Being thus self-sufficient and complete, gods have no need to be involved in the lives of human beings. Otherwise, they would be demonstrating neediness. Please consider the Christian God, who, it is claimed, needs no one and no thing, yet brought us into existence and cares very much what we do, and pines away for our love and worship.

What, I ask you, is more likely? That such an illogical thing exists, or that he is a construct of our own fevered wishes and needs?

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...

It should be self evident that conscious, sentient beings like ourselves can derive meaning and fulfillment most effectively by the adoption or construction of a valid worldview. Having concluded that Christianity is lacking in validity simply because it is not, as far as I have been able to tell, based upon a foundation of what is real, I can now attempt to find a worldview that is. Based on reality, I mean.

 A bit more on the "real." A worldview does not have to be based on reality. Clearly, many are not. But it is important to me that the way I see the world is as closely wed to reality as I can make it.

I am aware that there is nothing new under the sun, in the sense that humans have been at it for thousands of years and have pretty much thought of everything in terms of viable philosophies already. So let me comment on some philosophies that resonate with me.

Epicureanism

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Following Aristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of our desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.

In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship, and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social ethics that has survived.

-- Wikipedia

Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.

Read More...