My name is Johan Royen Larrson. I was born in 1984 in outside Stockholm, Sweden, which is where I live today as well.
I used to be an atheist but converted agnosticism when I realized that there aren't any proof for Gods non-existance either, not because I wanted to be on good grounds with the omnipotent beard in the sky, but rather to keep an open mind.
I came across the CoV when I got a school assignment to write a paper on a religion, cult or sect of my own choice. It's beliefs are identical to my own, so there were no arguments not to join up.
When I don't preach to the masses (calm down, I was only joking), I dabble in just about every artform there is, the most prominent being graphics (design mostly) and music (of the electronic variety), with a bit of writing on the side (planning a story about a guy who thinks he is a psychopatch (which he isn't, by the way).
Finally, I hate to be wrong, have a short attention span and tries to please everyone.
I used to be an atheist but converted agnosticism when I realized that there aren't any proof for Gods non-existance either, not because I wanted to be on good grounds with the omnipotent beard in the sky, but rather to keep an open mind.
I think there are good arguments for the non-existence of gods. Are you saying that you are not convinced by the arguments you have seen, haven't found any, or you think they are not possible?
My name is Johan Royen Larrson. I was born in 1984 in outside Stockholm, Sweden, which is where I live today as well.
I used to be an atheist but converted agnosticism when I realized that there aren't any proof for Gods non-existance either, not because I wanted to be on good grounds with the omnipotent beard in the sky, but rather to keep an open mind.
I came across the CoV when I got a school assignment to write a paper on a religion, cult or sect of my own choice. It's beliefs are identical to my own, so there were no arguments not to join up.
When I don't preach to the masses (calm down, I was only joking), I dabble in just about every artform there is, the most prominent being graphics (design mostly) and music (of the electronic variety), with a bit of writing on the side (planning a story about a guy who thinks he is a psychopatch (which he isn't, by the way).
Finally, I hate to be wrong, have a short attention span and tries to please everyone.
Welcome. You sound as though you will fit right in. ;-)
As for the whole atheism/agnosticism thing, I tend to call myself an "atheist" because it is generally the least confusing tag when people try to understand my position. Really I think of my own position as more "agnostic", but also "evolutionary". But when I start talking about things like that, people tend to get odd off-the-cuff and entirely inacurate opinions of my beliefs. I am an "atheist", and that seems to get the message across better. Even still people think that I hate religion, or their Jesus doll, which isn't true. But then they also don't usually get any expectations that I am going pay undue attention to their religious experiences or evangelism. I do think, however, that CoV can use a little more diversity of religious belief, and that non-atheists can reasonably hold a Virian position about religion not incompatible with atheism. Some may think that I am crazy for suggesting such things, but if one can recognize that not all things religious are necessarily evil, then we have crossed over a major conceptual hurdle in the Church of Virus undertaking. Needless to say, many CoVer's even among the veterans have yet to take that plunge, and instead cling to an assertion of the inherent irrationality and hence evilness of religion. If a thing can only malfunction, then of what possible use can it be set to? Or so the reasoning goes. . .
I do think, however, that CoV can use a little more diversity of religious belief, and that non-atheists can reasonably hold a Virian position about religion not incompatible with atheism.
If the non-atheists hold a position compatible with atheism, what makes them non-atheists?
Re:My introduction...
« Reply #5 on: 2002-10-21 11:32:11 »
Quote:
As for the whole atheism/agnosticism thing, I tend to call myself an "atheist" because it is generally the least confusing tag when people try to understand my position. Really I think of my own position as more "agnostic"
Yes, I'd probably agree. Little has changed since Russell observed that atheism was easiest as a description since few people appeared to realise that agnosticism could technically apply to the Homeric gods as much as the christian one. Beyond that, I would think that the absence of evidence for god would be largely enough to justify an atheist position, perhaps amended to agnosticism by the Popperian possibility of falsifiability. Otherwise, I don't see the need to prove the non-existence of something; the onus does seem to be on religions to prove the existence of their deities.
Quote:
Needless to say, many CoVer's even among the veterans have yet to take that plunge, and instead cling to an assertion of the inherent irrationality and hence evilness of religion. If a thing can only malfunction, then of what possible use can it be set to? Or so the reasoning goes. . .
I think my position has shifted somewhat. A few years ago, my difficulties with religion mainly applied to what I still see as inhumane doctrines, as held by the three main monotheisms. However, I have been more concerned with the basis of religion since then, since the various crimes committed by Hinduism and even Buddhism are clearly not attributable to doctrine of any sort. I suspect the issue may be less to do with ir/rationality and more to do with totalising perspectives, which is something that does seem associated with religion.
I think there are good arguments for the non-existence of gods. Are you saying that you are not convinced by the arguments you have seen, haven't found any, or you think they are not possible?
Well, "my" theory is based on the fact that we don't know as much as we think we do. If the total "mass" of things to discover in the universe is a city the size of Stockholm (about a million people), we have discovered maybe the content of one closet in one apartment in the city. This leaves plenty of room for a "god".
Of course these are simply assumptions, and I believe I am right in my assumption that the total "mass" (I don't think there is a unit fo knowledge) of attainable knowledge is closer to infitine rather than finite (and don't get me started on different-size infinities, lol), which in turns leave an infinite space in which an infinite number of gods may exist.
Then again, the definition of a god may vary from person to person, and I don't believe the god who spoke to Abraham and Moses, was the father of Jesus etc existed. In fact, I doubt the existance of Abraham, Moses and Jesus as well...
Ancient 'bone box' may be earliest link to Jesus A carving on a newly found artifact refers to Jesus, James, and Joseph. But is it authentic? By Abraham McLaughlin | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
A newly discovered ancient limestone box with a flowing Aramaic inscription could include the earliest mention of Jesus outside the Bible – and may turn out to be the most-dazzling archaeological discovery in decades.
The rough-hewn object – about the size of a big toolbox – appears to be a "bone box" used in 1st century burial rituals in Jerusalem. Letters etched into its side read, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
Whether it's truly from about A.D. 63 – and whether it really refers to three of history's most famous family members – is likely to be widely debated. But if so, it would be the first extraBiblical mention of Jesus or his relatives created shortly after their lifetimes.
If authentic, "it's high on the list – probably No. 1" of the most important Jesus related artifacts, says John Dominic Crossan, cauthor of "Excavating Jesus." It is "the closest we come archeologically to Jesus."
Other than this box, a papyrus scrap from 100 years after the crucifixion is the earliest mention of Jesus outside the Bible.
While potentially rife with import for archeology, the bone box won't necessarily transform mainstream views of Jesus: Religious tradition has long connected him to James and Joseph. And for many Christians, archaeological finds don't create epiphanies of faith.
Ultimately, the box's biggest impact may be to stoke interest in James and his relationship to Jesus – and to remind millions that Jesus is more than the abstract icon so often pictured high above a pulpit. "Sometimes Jesus just drifts off into the clouds," says Dr. Crossan. But "we're not just dealing with mythical characters who are being theologically assessed. These were real people in real situations."
Indeed, bone boxes or ossuaries were used between the 1st century BC and AD 70.
A year after a person's burial in a tomb, family members would collect the bones into an ossuary. It was a ritual driven by necessity: Tombs, which were often carved into rocks, were expensive – and thus were reused.
For the ossuary in question – announced in "Biblical Archaeology Review" – there's first the question of authenticity.
The biggest red flag is that it comes from an anonymous collector in Jerusalem who is mum on its history. Observers worry it could be a fake from the sometimes shady antiquities market. There is a long history of archeological forgery. The largely discredited "Shroud of Turin" – supposedly placed on Jesus after the crucifixion – is one example.
The article's author, a well-known epigrapher from the Sorbonne in Paris, scrutinized this ossuary carefully. Scans by electron microscopes show no trace of modern tools – and full evidence of layers of a patina that could have developed only over many centuries. The inscription's grammar and script also appear to fit normal usage in the decades leading up to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Then there's the question of whether the inscription refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The three names it mentions are as common as Jim, Jack, and John today. In tackling this riddle, the author turns to statistics. Of the 40,000 men living in Jerusalem at the time, he figures about 20 people could fit the description "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." But the mention of a brother is highly unusual on ossuaries. This could hint that the Jesus mentioned here is particularly famous – thus perhaps Jesus of Nazareth.
Experts already disagree about the authenticity. Crossan figures it's most likely credible. But Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of Jesus" worries the inscription is too good to be true. "It's too pat," he says. "Why add 'Jesus' to the inscription? It's like someone wanted us to be sure."
If the box is viewed as credible, the impact could be enormous. "It would perhaps rival the Dead Sea Scrolls," says Dr. Eisenman.
First, it would add to the scant extrabiblical evidence of Jesus' existence – though few today doubt such a man trod the Earth.
Second, it would renew a theologically charged debate about James's relationship to Jesus. The traditional Roman Catholic view is that Jesus is the only son of Mary. If Mary was always a virgin, the argument goes, then James must actually be a cousin or half-brother or step-brother. The ossuary may be "the nail in the coffin of the 'cousin' argument," says John Meier, a New Testament professor at Notre Dame University.
Third, it would perhaps renew interest in the man who has been called "James the Just." A reputed vegetarian who dressed in simple linen, he had little political power but used his enormous moral suasion to broker compromises between Christian factions.
Most broadly, it would remind people of the humanity of Jesus. "For the first time," says Mr. Meier, "you can actually put your hands on something connected to Jesus."
Jesus-related artifacts Biggest archaeological finds related to the life and times of Jesus – besides the new "James ossuary."
1. Ossuary of high priest Joseph Caiaphas, who's mentioned in the Bible as helping interrogate Jesus before the crucifixion. Found in Jerusalem in 1990.
2. Inscription mentioning Pontius Pilate, the Roman official who approved Jesus' crucifixion. Found in 1962 near the Mediterranean Sea.
3. The apostle Peter's house. Found in 1906 – but not confirmed until the 1980s – in Capernaum beneath the remains of a 5th-century church.
4. The Galilee Boat. A 1st-century, 8-by-26-foot fishing boat. Found in the mud of the Sea of Galilee in 1986.
5. The Crucified Man. Remains, including a bone heel pierced by a large nail. Discovered in burial caves near Jerusalem in 1968.
Re:My introduction...
« Reply #8 on: 2002-10-22 20:13:32 »
Welcome Royen, I hope you find some good here. Hopefully we can learn from each other.
I was curious about your quotation below.
Royen: "Well, "my" theory is based on the fact that we don't know as much as we think we do. If the total "mass" of things to discover in the universe is a city the size of Stockholm (about a million people), we have discovered maybe the content of one closet in one apartment in the city. This leaves plenty of room for a "god"."
I was curious, if you were to look closely, do you think that by studying the items in your metaphorical closet somewhere in Universe Stockholm, you might find that many of the basic units of material in the closet would resemble the basic units in the rest of Stolkholm? Do you think that in your closet the laws of physics would be different than in the rest of Stolkholm? Could the existing units that you can define and quantify exist outside of your "closet"? If so, do you think that the items in your closet would more likely or less likely represent much of what is outside of the closet?
Do you think, since the closet is your only contact and source of knowledge, that it would be possible to accurately create a god model using only the knowledge and emperical data collected from within this perceptual closet? Could the creatures becoming sentient inside the closet accurately describe, without any emperical information at all, a proper god concept?
It seems to me that if one can assume that some of what is outside of one's closet is the same as what is inside, then one can assume that there is some homogeneous feature between one's closet and the rest of the universe. What would you say the odds are that the sum of what we know about the universe is completely different and unique from what we will find outside the closet as we learn more. If the universe is somewhat stable and congruent - and the god model in all cases requires a connection to man (both as conceiver of god if there is none, or creation by god if there is one), then god, if one exists, must be in part of the universe we are in as well as other parts.
Re:My introduction...
« Reply #9 on: 2002-10-22 21:41:33 »
Re atheism, there is this guy, Massimo Pigliucci, a regular contributor to Skeptic Magazine, who has been heavily involved with the research of these issues and has written several interesting essays.
I was curious, if you were to look closely, do you think that by studying the items in your metaphorical closet somewhere in Universe Stockholm, you might find that many of the basic units of material in the closet would resemble the basic units in the rest of Stolkholm?
First of all, the closet in Stockholm wasn't a metaphor for the universe, but a metaphor for volume, or space, or something like that. The space occupied by knowledge (yes, the abstract) to be exact.
Of course we may draw conclusions based on the knowledge in our "closet", like "the sun has planets, so other stars are likely to have planets as well", but in most cases we can't draw conclusions like that. Take for example cold fusion. We haven't seen it in action, but most scientists still believe it is possible. We may not know if it is until we've explored the imaginary bathroom, which means we'll have to explore the bedroom and hallway first.
I may have misunderstood your reasoning completely though, so feel free to correct me =)
Re:My introduction...
« Reply #11 on: 2002-10-23 15:10:45 »
Quote:
First of all, the closet in Stockholm wasn't a metaphor for the universe, but a metaphor for volume, or space, or something like that. The space occupied by knowledge (yes, the abstract) to be exact.
I think we are on the same page now, and I think your answer shows that. For instance, mathematics is a tool in our closet. Do you think we will run into anything that cannot be expressed using this tool in the rest of Stockholm? The thrust of my question is: Do you think that god is here / detectable by the tools we have in the closet? If not, then what is the validation for the idea of god at all? What verifiable tool do we have in our closet that was used by the people who first suggested the god concept, in any form? If we know the idea was a pure invention of imagination, then why should it be taken as anything other than fancy?
Quote:
Take for example cold fusion. We haven't seen it in action, but most scientists still believe it is possible. We may not know if it is until we've explored the imaginary bathroom, which means we'll have to explore the bedroom and hallway first.
In order to come to the idea of cold fusion, a lot of mathematical groundwork was necessary. The very concept of "cold fusion" would be impossible to conceptualize without a lot of data getting us to the point of understanding particle physics. Data that has been collected and verified by many sources. With the tools we have there is a suggestion that cold fusion (might as well be time travel, teleportation, and optical computers) might become a reality. In this case we have the tools to make hypothoses that often work out.
So only using the tools we have, we can at least determine if we ever had the tools to "see" a god. It seems to me that if we never had these tools, then it is a safe assumption that man created god. Do you thnk we (humans) had the tools to make the origial "god" statements?
Well, I think my definition of God in this case differs from the common definition. I don't even consider the possibility of God as he is described in the bible as possible. I do, however, accept the possibility of an (relative to us) omnipotent creature that could be described as a god, although I lean towards scepticism.
I think the "tools" used by the people who first came up with the god-concept were simply hallucinogenes, unless all this religion stuff (originally) is simply a good excuse for creating a stable ground to build civilization on (something my religion teacher tells me is "a typically western view". My religion teacher is protestant.).
Well, I think my definition of God in this case differs from the common definition. I don't even consider the possibility of God as he is described in the bible as possible. I do, however, accept the possibility of an (relative to us) omnipotent creature that could be described as a god, although I lean towards scepticism.
You bring up a good point, atheism is always with respect to some particular definition of god or gods. You say you don't think the god of the bible is possible, which means (I suggest) that most people would say you are an atheist.
I count myself as an agnostic atheist, I don't see any conflict between the two. Agnosticism (at least in Huxley's original formulation) is a philosophical stance to believe something as far as the evidence will take you, and no further. Atheism means you lack belief in deities, usually the god of the bible. If the evidence suggests that the god of the bible does not exist, I think it is perfectly consistent to be an agnostic atheist.
Re:My introduction...
« Reply #14 on: 2002-10-24 18:38:58 »
I'll have to say then, Royen, that your answer is as good as any, and aside from the a person saying "It's all about faith", probably the best answer you could give, I generally will agree with David.
I do have another question for you though, if you don't mind. You seem to have reasoned that the god of Christiandom cannot be accurate, but that possibly a model closer to what you have in mind could exist.
Quote:
I do, however, accept the possibility of an (relative to us) omnipotent creature that could be described as a god, although I lean towards scepticism
As far as I know, atheism does not say that there cannot be other life in the Universe, or that there are not creatures vastly more evolved - hence complex, than us. Or that there may be other entities with technology so advanced that it would appear as magical to us at our current level of develpoment.
What features are necessary to define something as a god? More specifically, what features of a god are necessary to diferentate it from evolutionarily and/or technologically advanced creatures?
Author
Logged
