Atheists: Why Shouldn't We Follow Jesus?

[sayak83]

Obviously as an atheist, I'm not concerned with claims of performing miracles and preaching of the end times. I reject those claims on the basis of a lack of evidence. I assume you agree with that, so it isn't really even worth discussing. However, I am concerned with his moral philosophy and that doesn't require physical evidence. Because whether or not it's true that he lived that way or even existed has no impact on the actual philosophy itself. I am most concerned with how the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible lived.

What makes him particularly admirable is that he associated with criminals, the destitute, and the hated at a time when doing so was enough to get you stoned to death. He preached a message of love and mercy. Many of the other figures you mentioned also had wonderful ideas. Most did not actually live them in practice.

Could explain who were the people I mentioned that did not actually live as they practiced?
As far as I am concerned, I read the philosophy from ancient sources and look at life examples from modern sources. Because life histories of ancients are quite unreliable (and often glorified or sanctified) I find it better to look at more modern examples (like Gandhi or Mandela say) .

If you are talking about both great philosophy and great exemplar, why not look at the works of Epictetus? A Roman slave crippled by his master who later became a great Stoic practitioner of his time (50-110 CE)?
Epictetus | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy


Please read the brief summary in the link about his moral philosophy and tell me if his thoughts on ethics, good and evil are thought provoking enough to read and reflect upon. And who better to tell us of these things from the Roman world than one who was once a slave and became a teacher respected even by the emperors? So my question is:- Why is Epictetus not discussed and read as widely (and indeed more widely) than Jesus and Paul by non-Christians in Europe and USA?

As long as your sense of what is important and what is not important from your cultural heritage remains tied to what Christians believe to be worth reading , your views and your values will be parasitic on Christianity and will not have the autonomous substance to contribute positively and creatively in society. 2 billion people read that one book every day, read something else for once.

 

[fantome profane]

The portrayal of Jesus we find in the books of the new testament are a mixed bag with self-contradictory attributes. But if you are an atheist you can freely choose those qualities and attributes you find admirable and ignore anything you find inconvenient. That is what most Christians do.

As for me when it comes to following Jesus, I have no intention of getting myself crucified.

 

[GodlessHeathen]

Thank you all for your input. There seem to be three main groups of people here whose positions can be summed up with a sentence.

1. "Jesus isn't a good moral example to live by".
2. "There other figures who are just as good, if not better, examples to live by."
3. "I simply don't want to."

If you're in Group 3, then that's obviously your right and fair enough. There isn't anything else to discuss, I guess. Some of those who fall into Group 2 have listed some figures, but at least the majority of these figures seem to have some sort of very major issue with them, such as owning slaves or admiring bloody dictatorships or building weapons of mass destruction. Personally, I haven't seen any example that to me provides a better moral example than Jesus. For those who fall into Group 1, I'm interested in what makes you tick. I've seen some answers already, mainly focused on how if he isn't divine, then he seems bonkers. That's a fair point, though even if he did have some sort of mental disorder that would not take away from the actual moral philosophy itself. "Love thy neighbour" is still a good thing to follow, even if it comes out of the mouth of a schizophrenic.

Another criticism is Jesus teaching that thinking about "sin" is as bad as "sin" itself. The only example I know of where Jesus says this is in the case of adultery, where thinking about a woman lustfully is tantamount to adultery "in your heart". This is expanded on later in more general terms in Matthew 15:19-20: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone". So if we put this together, Jesus is saying that retaining these defiling thoughts in our hearts without rejecting them will lead us to committing these particular sins. Not that having those thoughts is just as bad as committing the act.

The other criticism is that Jesus teaches that the oppressed merely put up with suffering for the sake of reward in Heaven, but I would like to see some actual basis for this criticism as I cannot think of or find any example where Jesus actually says this.

 

[buddhist]

Few would disagree that the life Jesus lived as portrayed in the Bible is a good example to live by. ... Why shouldn't we atheists follow Jesus?

I would be one of those who disagree that the Biblical Jesus is a good example to live by.

I wouldn't teach my children or anyone else to "Love everyone (non-rejection of evil people) and be meek, quiet, and turn the other cheek for now (non-resistance against evil) and obey the authorities in everything (becoming thoughtless, unanalytical, mindless, obedient sheep) - because one day I'm gonna come back with a vengeful army and make a bloody example out of all those who oppose me, and make them suffer for a long, long time; you can help too!"

A horrible role model with an insidious philosophy that may appear satisfactory only on a very superficial level, IMO.

 

[Milton Platt]

Few would disagree that the life Jesus lived as portrayed in the Bible is a good example to live by. I would go further and argue it is the best example to live by, almost objectively so. To me, the questions often debated on these forums are almost irrelevant. It almost doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed, or whether or not Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles. We will likely never be able to know the answers to these questions definitively. If we die and our suspicions are confirmed that there is no God, will we have regretted living a life like Jesus did, leaving the world in a better state than when we entered it? I see no reason why that would be the case.

Too often, when atheists reject the hypocritical religious moral busybodies, the corrupt megachurch pastors fleecing their flocks, the outright crimes committed by some religious people and in the name of their religions, we tend to reject the concept wholesale without retaining what can be good about it. Atheism is just a rejection of belief in a god and therefore does not answer any moral questions; it isn't intended to. That isn't to say that atheists lack morality because that's not true either. But we tend to piece one out based on reason loosely based on the Golden Rule. But is this enough? I don't think so either.

Having a moral code based on reason is a good thing, but without the impetus to actually put it into practice in all situations, then we end up living our lives in cruise control at the whims of our desires. Most of us aren't terrible people. The harm we inflict on most people tends not to be intentional. Yet, we still harm others out of a sense of opportunity, out of a desire for justice or vengeance, or we still harbour hatred for others. By actively making an effort to live more like Jesus did, we might fall short, but the attempt would most certainly make our lives immeasurably better. So I pose the question again: Why shouldn't we atheists follow Jesus?

We don't know for certain that Jesus ever existed (but I am willing to accept that some person by that name may have actually existed). The more important point is that we have no possible way of verifying any of the so-called miracles, including whether he rose from the dead, or that he was the son of any god at all. In fact, we have no way of verifying that there is a god, so Jesus becomes a moot point in that regard and becomes just an itinerant Jew wandering in the desert.

We in no way need the Jewish god or Jesus to establish a moral code. Other cultures do so without either. Additionally, I do not think that everything Jesus supposedly taught was good. He endorsed slavery, for instance. "living like Jesus" would mean wandering penniless and not planning for your future. It would mean giving a nod to slavery. It would mean sometimes rejecting your father, mother, and family. How is this good?

 

[Sunstone]

Franklin, Einstein, and Mandela are certainly better than most people. However, they weren't without fault themselves. Franklin owned slaves, Einstein built the atomic bomb, and Mandela admired Castro's 'leadership'. These people did some amazing things as well and that obviously cannot be discounted. But I wouldn't exactly base my moral philosophy on those of slave owners.

You seem to think Jesus was perfect. Why? That notion strikes me on the face of it to be shallow.

 

[dgirl1986]

We don't really need to base our lives on someone else or the idea of someone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thank you all for your input. There seem to be three main groups of people here whose positions can be summed up with a sentence.

1. "Jesus isn't a good moral example to live by".
2. "There other figures who are just as good, if not better, examples to live by."
3. "I simply don't want to."

If you're in Group 3, then that's obviously your right and fair enough. There isn't anything else to discuss, I guess. Some of those who fall into Group 2 have listed some figures, but at least the majority of these figures seem to have some sort of very major issue with them, such as owning slaves or admiring bloody dictatorships or building weapons of mass destruction. Personally, I haven't seen any example that to me provides a better moral example than Jesus. For those who fall into Group 1, I'm interested in what makes you tick. I've seen some answers already, mainly focused on how if he isn't divine, then he seems bonkers. That's a fair point, though even if he did have some sort of mental disorder that would not take away from the actual moral philosophy itself. "Love thy neighbour" is still a good thing to follow, even if it comes out of the mouth of a schizophrenic.

There's a heck of a lot more to Jesus' teachings than just "love thy neighbour." Other problematic stuff:

- "don't worry about providing for your food or shelter"
- "people who aren't hungry now are in for some sort of 'woe'"
- "the 'old law' should be upheld"
- "divorce for any reason other than adultery (e.g. abuse) is unacceptable"
- "don't resist evil"

Another criticism is Jesus teaching that thinking about "sin" is as bad as "sin" itself. The only example I know of where Jesus says this is in the case of adultery, where thinking about a woman lustfully is tantamount to adultery "in your heart". This is expanded on later in more general terms in Matthew 15:19-20: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone". So if we put this together, Jesus is saying that retaining these defiling thoughts in our hearts without rejecting them will lead us to committing these particular sins. Not that having those thoughts is just as bad as committing the act.

So he advocates sending someone to Hell for having thoughts that aren't really that bad?

“You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.

The other criticism is that Jesus teaches that the oppressed merely put up with suffering for the sake of reward in Heaven, but I would like to see some actual basis for this criticism as I cannot think of or find any example where Jesus actually says this.

You can't think of this passage? It's famous:

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of me.12 Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way.

 

[Underhill]

Few would disagree that the life Jesus lived as portrayed in the Bible is a good example to live by. I would go further and argue it is the best example to live by, almost objectively so. To me, the questions often debated on these forums are almost irrelevant. It almost doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed, or whether or not Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles. We will likely never be able to know the answers to these questions definitively. If we die and our suspicions are confirmed that there is no God, will we have regretted living a life like Jesus did, leaving the world in a better state than when we entered it? I see no reason why that would be the case.

Too often, when atheists reject the hypocritical religious moral busybodies, the corrupt megachurch pastors fleecing their flocks, the outright crimes committed by some religious people and in the name of their religions, we tend to reject the concept wholesale without retaining what can be good about it. Atheism is just a rejection of belief in a god and therefore does not answer any moral questions; it isn't intended to. That isn't to say that atheists lack morality because that's not true either. But we tend to piece one out based on reason loosely based on the Golden Rule. But is this enough? I don't think so either.

Having a moral code based on reason is a good thing, but without the impetus to actually put it into practice in all situations, then we end up living our lives in cruise control at the whims of our desires. Most of us aren't terrible people. The harm we inflict on most people tends not to be intentional. Yet, we still harm others out of a sense of opportunity, out of a desire for justice or vengeance, or we still harbour hatred for others. By actively making an effort to live more like Jesus did, we might fall short, but the attempt would most certainly make our lives immeasurably better. So I pose the question again: Why shouldn't we atheists follow Jesus?

Nah, I think the inherent logic of the golden rule applies in virtually every case I know of.

The biggest problem I have with his teachings is the flawed position of "be content in all things". That's fine if you accept the fairy tale of eternal life. But I believe this is it. So being content is dooming your one opportunity to enjoy a happy existence.

But the ideas of Jesus weren't bad for the most part. I just don't feel the need. If our society spent half as much time teaching the golden rule as it spends on religion, the world would be a better place.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. "Jesus isn't a good moral example to live by".

My problem with Jesus is his cursing of the cities, just because the people there were not impressed by what he said. It seems like an old powerless hag cursing someone who has annoyed her. For the moment I would forget about th swine that he sent off the cliff or his classmate whom he killed with his stare. And then, my way is the only way. I am the sole concessionaire sent by God.

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

Few would disagree that the life Jesus lived as portrayed in the Bible is a good example to live by. I would go further and argue it is the best example to live by, almost objectively so. To me, the questions often debated on these forums are almost irrelevant. It almost doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed, or whether or not Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles. We will likely never be able to know the answers to these questions definitively. If we die and our suspicions are confirmed that there is no God, will we have regretted living a life like Jesus did, leaving the world in a better state than when we entered it? I see no reason why that would be the case.

Few would? Really? Well, I don't have those stats, but Jesus was the biggest hypocrite in history that people love but never obey anyway. But the hypocrisy that he bred as well tends to go ignored. He lived under Jewish law and was a rebel. He rebelled against it, and then asked his followers to "give under to Caesar what is his..." He also said to turn the other cheek, pray for those that persecute you and so on. But what did he do? As soon as he was (rightfully asked) about some of the claims he made about being god's son, he cursed the Sanhedrin in ways that contradict what he asked everyone else to do. (Brood of vipers! etc. ad nauseum). I don't recall him dropping to his knees to pray for any of them. His anger was misdirected and crude. Cursing a fig tree just to prove your power? Or how about the underachieving act of tossing demons into an innocent, sentient herd of pigs who then threw themselves into the ocean and drowned? I wonder who of us would have liked him to take our livelihood and farm animals and angrily start beating us and them with a cat-o-nine tails because we were in front of the wrong building? Would you give up your family for such a guy? Because he would have wanted you to do so.

Jesus was a tyrant, a hypocrite and an all around bad idea. Bad man and definitely not a deity. There were so many things wrong with his story. I could ramble on in a book about it...

 

[bnabernard]

Jesus said to trust no-one, they were either sheep in wolves clothing or angels of light concealing a dodgy agenda,
so who do you listen to.
How about someone who says they knew him?

 

[Paradox22]

I feel like perhaps you missed the point of what I was saying. Everyone has the capacity to ascertain right from wrong, yet we know for a fact that people still do wrong. Atheists are more than capable of reasoning out a moral code that is more or less in line with the example of Jesus, but have little to no impetus to actually follow it in situations where it becomes inconvenient or difficult to do so.

I see what you are saying but I disagree with you on one key point: Atheists have just as much impetus to act in accordance with their more or less reason-based moral theory of conduct. Belief in an afterlife during which you will be called into account for your conduct is not necessary to provide incentive to do what you think is right, even when it is inconvenient. Morality does not require religion. It requires a personal commitment to do what we believe is correct conduct, because it is the moral thing to do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He lived under Jewish law and was a rebel. He rebelled against it, and then asked his followers to "give under to Caesar what is his..."

FWIW, I generally take "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God" as a coded way of telling a Jewish audience to give nothing to Caesar (since they would have thought that everything belongs to God, leaving nothing for Caesar) in a way that wouldn't have gotten him arrested by any Roman troops or administrators who happened to be listening.

 

[rusra02]

The teachings of Jesus Christ, when applied, can benefit anyone, regardless of their faith or lack of faith. For example, Jesus commanded that "All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them". When practiced, this 'golden rule' results in better relationships with others. There are many other principles, or fundamental truths, that Jesus taught that can enrich one's life. So to the extent we practice these, we can benefit ourselves, IMO. On the other hand, one cannot fully follow Christ's teachings without exercising faith in his God. Jesus credited God for giving Jesus what he taught. (John 7:16) IMO, this explains the superiority of Christ 's teachings. Without faith in God, I believe we could never fully follow Jesus teachings.

 

[DragonHawk1959]

Few would disagree that the life Jesus lived as portrayed in the Bible is a good example to live by. I would go further and argue it is the best example to live by, almost objectively so. To me, the questions often debated on these forums are almost irrelevant. It almost doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed, or whether or not Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles. We will likely never be able to know the answers to these questions definitively. If we die and our suspicions are confirmed that there is no God, will we have regretted living a life like Jesus did, leaving the world in a better state than when we entered it? I see no reason why that would be the case.

Too often, when atheists reject the hypocritical religious moral busybodies, the corrupt megachurch pastors fleecing their flocks, the outright crimes committed by some religious people and in the name of their religions, we tend to reject the concept wholesale without retaining what can be good about it. Atheism is just a rejection of belief in a god and therefore does not answer any moral questions; it isn't intended to. That isn't to say that atheists lack morality because that's not true either. But we tend to piece one out based on reason loosely based on the Golden Rule. But is this enough? I don't think so either.

Having a moral code based on reason is a good thing, but without the impetus to actually put it into practice in all situations, then we end up living our lives in cruise control at the whims of our desires. Most of us aren't terrible people. The harm we inflict on most people tends not to be intentional. Yet, we still harm others out of a sense of opportunity, out of a desire for justice or vengeance, or we still harbour hatred for others. By actively making an effort to live more like Jesus did, we might fall short, but the attempt would most certainly make our lives immeasurably better. So I pose the question again: Why shouldn't we atheists follow Jesus?

Few would disagree that the life Jesus lived as portrayed in the Bible is a good example to live by. I would go further and argue it is the best example to live by, almost objectively so. To me, the questions often debated on these forums are almost irrelevant. It almost doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed, or whether or not Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles. We will likely never be able to know the answers to these questions definitively. If we die and our suspicions are confirmed that there is no God, will we have regretted living a life like Jesus did, leaving the world in a better state than when we entered it? I see no reason why that would be the case.

Too often, when atheists reject the hypocritical religious moral busybodies, the corrupt megachurch pastors fleecing their flocks, the outright crimes committed by some religious people and in the name of their religions, we tend to reject the concept wholesale without retaining what can be good about it. Atheism is just a rejection of belief in a god and therefore does not answer any moral questions; it isn't intended to. That isn't to say that atheists lack morality because that's not true either. But we tend to piece one out based on reason loosely based on the Golden Rule. But is this enough? I don't think so either.

Having a moral code based on reason is a good thing, but without the impetus to actually put it into practice in all situations, then we end up living our lives in cruise control at the whims of our desires. Most of us aren't terrible people. The harm we inflict on most people tends not to be intentional. Yet, we still harm others out of a sense of opportunity, out of a desire for justice or vengeance, or we still harbour hatred for others. By actively making an effort to live more like Jesus did, we might fall short, but the attempt would most certainly make our lives immeasurably better. So I pose the question again: Why shouldn't we atheists follow Jesus?

Whether Jesus is the best example of living a good life is debatable.
And many people do a great deal of harm living by a religion based moral code.
Nor does being an atheist mean that one's moral code is more flexible than that of a theist.
The Bible says that Believers are to treat the foreigner living among them as their own. But you have only to listen and you will quickly learn that few theists live by this precept.
The same goes for caring for the poor.
The Bible also says:
Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast.
But many MANY people who presumably consider themselves pious condemn their pets to death by taking them to some so called - shelter.

 

[DragonHawk1959]

FWIW, I generally take "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God" as a coded way of telling a Jewish audience to give nothing to Caesar (since they would have thought that everything belongs to God, leaving nothing for Caesar) in a way that wouldn't have gotten him arrested by any Roman troops or administrators who happened to be listening.

If a soldier asks that you carry his pack a mile - carry it 2 miles instead.
◄ Romans 13:5 ► NIV
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
Render onto each as is due him... If honor - honor.... If taxes - taxes....

 

[Underhill]

The teachings of Jesus Christ, when applied, can benefit anyone, regardless of their faith or lack of faith. For example, Jesus commanded that "All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them". When practiced, this 'golden rule' results in better relationships with others. There are many other principles, or fundamental truths, that Jesus taught that can enrich one's life. So to the extent we practice these, we can benefit ourselves, IMO. On the other hand, one cannot fully follow Christ's teachings without exercising faith in his God. Jesus credited God for giving Jesus what he taught. (John 7:16) IMO, this explains the superiority of Christ 's teachings. Without faith in God, I believe we could never fully follow Jesus teachings.

This implies that the Golden Rule was some new concept. It dates back long before that. The concept is seen in ancient Egyptian writings (The Eloquent Peasant). Confucius said it 500 years before Jesus came on the scene. "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."

Of course it is not new. It is singularly logical in its simplicity and requires no belief of any kind.

 

[DragonHawk1959]

I feel like perhaps you missed the point of what I was saying. Everyone has the capacity to ascertain right from wrong, yet we know for a fact that people still do wrong. Atheists are more than capable of reasoning out a moral code that is more or less in line with the example of Jesus, but have little to no impetus to actually follow it in situations where it becomes inconvenient or difficult to do so.



Can you elaborate on how Jesus was a "horrible example"?



That's your right. Nobody is putting a gun to your head. It's just a suggestion as something that is good for humanity and has literally no downside to it.

They religiosity are united adept at shirking living by the moral code Jesus taughr.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If I had to choose a fictional character to emulate, I'd probably go with Snake Plisskin.