Ask an atheist

[Reaver197]

This is one reason why I feel religious beliefs should not go unscrutinized nor unchallenged, and why some of our federal laws have to change to reflect this.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/02/...-childhood-an-ex-christian-scientist’s-story/

People's beliefs have ramifications and effects on more than just themselves.

 

[zifn15]

On the other hand anyone who thinks they understand how the universe works scientifically, you're wrong too, albeit probably less wrong. The basic structure of the universe is understandable but the second you attempt to understand anything outside of it you've entered an area the human mind is not fit to try and understand.

While i agree that their are things that the human mind cannot truly understand, it is the purpose of information technologies and an evolving mathematics to comprehend these realities for us. Many things in this universe we would not have been able to comprehend (ie. the structure of an atom) without the aid of very complex tools (I consider math, computers, and measuring devices as different types of tools). Since these tools are getting better over time, we don't know how much we can learn about the universe. Since this information is unknown, we can't make any assumptions about what we humans have the capacity to understand.

I'm also not sure about how you are using the phrases "basic structure of the universe" and "how the universe works." Depending on these definitions my argument may be invalid.

 

[GofG]

Why do we have any reason to believe that there is anything outside of our universe? As Occam's razor cuts God from the equation, does it not also cut a superuniversal plane of existence?

 

[Diakonos]

I have to protest. Occam's razor does not cut out God at all. This is fallacious because if there were a God, then the simplest explanation (and no simpler) would necessitate God. To say occam's razor cuts out God is to assume that there is no God, and then use that to disprove God.

One's standard of knowledge and the confidence given to human reason is very important. Why do we parade philosophically as though we speak from an infallible, omniscient, logical standpoint? Yes, I realize it's all we have.

Autoepistemic reasoning becomes more desirable (still not deductive) as we first outline our assumptions and inherently limited ontology.

 

[Sucumbio]

EPIC POST

Cause he learned me how to censor bypass.

Or that heaven is merely a beer volcano and a stripper factory.

Let us pray.

And Sucumbio cried out to the God of Israel
"Oh, that you would bless me and accept me into your Kingdom!
Let it be wrought with naked women who would please me.
Oh keep me from harm so that I may enjoy The Beer of Heaven."
And God granted his request.

Wait, what is the point of this thread? Oh right...

This is the thread to ask WHY we appear to be such fun-destroying *******s most of the time and get a well-informed, thoughtful reply.

Atheists have never appeared to me as being fun-destroying. So ... I guess this thread has nothing more for me.

No locking plz?

"Ha!"

That was my Chris Matthews impression.

.................................................. FINE.

Ok, SwastikaPyle (interesting choice for a user name, are you a neo-Nazi?), and any other so-called atheists on SWF, (I'm gonna go easy on you all because I too was once a so-called atheist, and this may have already been answered but I'm lazy and don't feel like reading 11 pages of this thread vs ChivalRuse.)

Being unable to either prove, or disprove the existence of God, why do you choose to -believe- ergo place your -faith- in his non-existence?

And obviously the same could be asked of me, but I will answer that if and only if I am first answered.

 

[rvkevin]

I have to protest. Occam's razor does not cut out God at all. This is fallacious because if there were a God, then the simplest explanation (and no simpler) would necessitate God. To say occam's razor cuts out God is to assume that there is no God, and then use that to disprove God.

First of all, you're correct to say that Occam's Razor does not rule out God, but that's because its more of a guideline and not a rule. And you're also correct to say that if there was evidence for an all-powerful being, that anything could be possibly explained by such a being. However, without that evidence, it does not follow that an all-powerful being is the simplest solution. Think about it, if I strike a match, does it mean that every time I do, that an all powerful being is creating fire at the end of the match for me, or is it just a reaction guided by the rules of chemistry? Assuming there is a God without evidence is an unnecessary assumption to every known circumstance (Hence the God of the gaps). Due to this unnecessary assumption, it makes the God hypothesis not the simpler explanation and that's where Occam's Razor comes in.

One's standard of knowledge and the confidence given to human reason is very important. Why do we parade philosophically as though we speak from an infallible, omniscient, logical standpoint? Yes, I realize it's all we have.

This is not that case, the reason why we have the peer-review process in science is because no single person is infallible.

Being unable to either prove, or disprove the existence of God, why do you choose to -believe- ergo place your -faith- in his non-existence?

I don't believe the existence of a God due to lack of evidence, ergo, I'm an atheist. How about you?

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't believe the existence of a God due to lack of evidence, ergo, I'm an atheist. How about you?

Interesting... ok, so, what evidence would you require in order to change your mind and decide that God does exist?

And as for me, I choose to believe in God despite the lack of physical evidence.

 

[CRASHiC]

What are your sexual moralities, and how are they/were they formed?

Why are you willing so disband your belief for the unprovable scientific explanations of existence but not the idea of a higher guiding power (ignoring all religious scripts) given that they require the same amount of disbanding your belief as science quickly enters the relm of unprovable theories in the farthest regions of String Theory?

 

[gm jack]

I'm agnostic. Easy answer. I don't believe there is one as there is no solid evidence for one. The leprechaun story posted early is pretty accurate. I mean, hearing voices telling you what to do would normally be classified as schizophrenia, but as soon as it's God telling you to do it, it's alright again.

That said, there is no way currently known to disprove the idea either, so I should keep my mind open to the possibility.

What would it take to convince me? Some solid scientific evidence which points to a creator or divine being directly, rather than being a stand in for a lack of understanding (i.e. evidence for God, rather than lack of evidence for anything else).

 

[Brickbox]

Do you believe that Jesus existed? and also check out psalm 14:1

 

[rvkevin]

Interesting... ok, so, what evidence would you require in order to change your mind and decide that God does exist?

Depends on what the God is claimed to do. If he is claimed to grant prayer, then studies concerning prayer should be able to show a significant difference between no prayer, prayer, and the placebo effect (They have not shown such a difference). So, what evidence would you require in order to change your mind and decide that God does exist?

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Are you saying that non-belief is itself a belief, because I'm believing in non-belief?

Do you think that 'off' is just one more TV channel?

edit: oops, this post was directed at Sucumbio.
Also, don't forget that the real argument here is against organized religion. If we're just asking 'does god exist,' there's already 8 pages of it.

 

[CRASHiC]

Atheism is not non-belief. Its belief that something doesn't exist, which is just as invalid as believing it does exist. Agnostic is the non-belief.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm agnostic. Easy answer. I don't believe there is one as there is no solid evidence for one. The leprechaun story posted early is pretty accurate. I mean, hearing voices telling you what to do would normally be classified as schizophrenia, but as soon as it's God telling you to do it, it's alright again.

That said, there is no way currently known to disprove the idea either, so I should keep my mind open to the possibility.

What would it take to convince me? Some solid scientific evidence which points to a creator or divine being directly, rather than being a stand in for a lack of understanding (i.e. evidence for God, rather than lack of evidence for anything else).

Ha the leprechaun. I've always liked "you can talk to god in your head, it's when he answers back you have a problem."

I agree, you should keep your mind open to the possibility that God exists. As an agnostic you believe we mere mortals cannot know God, or know of his existence, as such a thing is far beyond our perception at least at the present. Your reason for being agnostic is similar to rvkevin's reason for being atheist. Lack of Evidence. But your stance is even more complex. He's willing to discount the possibility outright. You are only willing to discount it because you believe we're incapable of knowing, and that evidence right now, is lacking.

Some solid scientific evidence which points to a creator or divine being directly, rather than being a stand in for a lack of understanding"

You didn't have to suggest that Belief in God the Creator is such only because those that believe have no other answer at this time. If you feel that way, that's your opinion, but it's highly judgmental (but I sense you didn't mean it that way, so no offense taken). I personally still believe the Big Bang created our known Universe, and yet I simultaneously believe in God.

Now before we go off on some ridiculous creation theory, let me just point something out.

If you have to ask someone to wish you a happy birthday, how good does it -really- feel, when they do, after you've asked them to?

If God has to come down here and bonk people on the head, sing a song, do a dance, etc etc, how good would that make him feel to then see everyone go OH! There IS a God. *everyone bows now* ... seriously, lol. That's the whole point of our existence if you get into Catholicism (which I'd recommend if you're agnositc, because that evidence you so desperately require is actually already there for you to discover, just have to look for it.)

Oh and even considering the above paragraph, technically... God's already come to earth once, in the form of his human son, Jesus.

Now yes, you still have to "believe" that Jesus really was the son of God, and not just some hyperactive dude. Your doubts in this matter may also be alleviated by researching scriptures and historical texts.

 

[rvkevin]

Atheism is not non-belief. Its belief that something doesn't exist, which is just as invalid as believing it does exist. Agnostic is the non-belief.

This is incorrect. Atheism regards what you claim to believe. Agnosticism regards what you claim to know. If you are an atheist, you don't believe in the existence of deities. If you are agnostic, you don't claim to know that claim. The "Hard Atheism," the "I claim that there are no gods," that is generally equated with atheism is gnostic atheism. People differ from agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism based on the god being evaluated. Unless gm jack claims that it is impossible to ever know about a god, then he's an agnostic atheist in my book.

Do you believe that Jesus existed? and also check out psalm 14:1

Jesus probably existed. I do not believe that the claims made about him are true (the miracles).

And about psalm 14:1. Statistics show that it is wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg

Oh and even considering the above paragraph, technically... God's already come to earth once, in the form of his human son, Jesus.

Why don't you believe the other prophets? Some examples are Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama, and Kim Il-Sung. Why does one guy claiming to be God or the son of God deserve merit over the others?

 

[gm jack]

Ha the leprechaun. I've always liked "you can talk to god in your head, it's when he answers back you have a problem."

I agree, you should keep your mind open to the possibility that God exists. As an agnostic you believe we mere mortals cannot know God, or know of his existence, as such a thing is far beyond our perception at least at the present. Your reason for being agnostic is similar to rvkevin's reason for being atheist. Lack of Evidence. But your stance is even more complex. He's willing to discount the possibility outright. You are only willing to discount it because you believe we're incapable of knowing, and that evidence right now, is lacking.

It's impossible to know because it's been defined as something beyond our realms of understanding, or "beyond comprehension". I don't believe that to be the case and that there is a God, but because that's the hypothesis, I can't discredit it as there is no way to prove either way. Same goes for the flying spagetti monster. Can you actually disprove his existence? Many people have been touched by his noodly appendages.

I would push myself as an atheist, but I know you can't say something doesn't exist unless you can give a solid reason why not.

You didn't have to suggest that Belief in God the Creator is such only because those that believe have no other answer at this time. If you feel that way, that's your opinion, but it's highly judgmental (but I sense you didn't mean it that way, so no offense taken). I personally still believe the Big Bang created our known Universe, and yet I simultaneously believe in God.

Now before we go off on some ridiculous creation theory, let me just point something out.

If you have to ask someone to wish you a happy birthday, how good does it -really- feel, when they do, after you've asked them to?

If God has to come down here and bonk people on the head, sing a song, do a dance, etc etc, how good would that make him feel to then see everyone go OH! There IS a God. *everyone bows now* ... seriously, lol. That's the whole point of our existence if you get into Catholicism (which I'd recommend if you're agnositc, because that evidence you so desperately require is actually already there for you to discover, just have to look for it.)

Oh and even considering the above paragraph, technically... God's already come to earth once, in the form of his human son, Jesus.

Now yes, you still have to "believe" that Jesus really was the son of God, and not just some hyperactive dude. Your doubts in this matter may also be alleviated by researching scriptures and historical texts.

I was raised Catholic and I think it's a load of BS. Recently, a parish in Ireland has asked it's members to help pay for its legal fees in a case where several priests were convicted of child abuse. And quite frankly, if a divine being came down, yes I would acknowledge the existence of a God. Yes, Jesus was almost certainly a person who preached, but being the son of God seems a step too far. None of the gospels fully agree with each other (especially the earlier versions. One missed out the ascension into heaven entirely, and stopped when the body was missing). Outside of religious texts, there is no evidence for their occurrence.

Personally, I believe Jesus did exist and preach, but was nobody special. The disciples decided that after his death the best way to promote the teaching they followed would be to make them holy. After all, if God says he wrote the book, the book must be true.

 

[Diakonos]

What would it take to convince me? Some solid scientific evidence which points to a creator or divine being directly, rather than being a stand in for a lack of understanding (i.e. evidence for God, rather than lack of evidence for anything else).

The nature of such evidence is in itself unattainable. What we're trying to do here is to put God in a lab. We are trying to examine that which is much higher than ourselves, and which (if it exists) has examined us thoroughly. It cannot be done well. Our methodology would fail. It would work if and only if such a being chose to "play by" our rules. There would be no need, and indeed, speaking from a Christian standpoint, my God reveals himself in a more personal way. Of course, I don't believe that we ought to just say "GODDIDIT". Neither will I say that lack of understanding is proof of God. However, the limits of our understanding (and the analyte's complexity) might suggest that there is higher understanding. It need not, and I don't propose it to.

This is incorrect. Atheism regards what you claim to believe. Agnosticism regards what you claim to know. If you are an atheist, you don't believe in the existence of deities. If you are agnostic, you don't claim to know that claim. The "Hard Atheism," the "I claim that there are no gods," that is generally equated with atheism is gnostic atheism. People differ from agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism based on the god being evaluated.



Jesus probably existed. I do not believe that the claims made about him are true (the miracles).

And about psalm 14:1. Statistics show that this is wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg

Truly, truly, I think that agnosticism is the most logical outworking from a human perspective. I have to tell you though, that even though I know this, I am utterly compelled to believe in and love my creator. This is not on the basis of trying to put God in a lab, trying to philosophize a being higher than myself, but rather taking this God at his word and seeing how it plays out in my life. If the God of the bible is true, he will play by his rules. If he is true, then I don't make the rules. I played by his rules, and found that there is no higher thing than knowing him. You will tell me I'm brainwashed. I will say I have no explanation, only testimony, some evidence, and fulfillment.

Jesus existed. It takes a lot to convince oneself otherwise. The historicity of his miracles and resurrection are well credited. In fact, if the claims of the bible were not so important and outrageous, no one would think twice about whether its testimony was valid or not. We read scripture with a bias-- one that this Christian God is good, or one that he isn't (his non-existence would place him in this category). I believe an intellectually honest attempt at reading scripture with undue skepticism left at the door will produce only meaningful experience.

 

[gm jack]

Your last sentence sums it up. If you want it to be true, you look it and look at the thin evidence, say how wonderful it is and then say the lack of solid evidence is due to the way God works.

If you look at it not believing, you think either it's BS or would like some more evidence.

Personally, I don't think a single text which has been modified over time (look at the ****storm the Dead Sea Scrolls caused) can be taken as a reliable text, given the magnitude of what supposedly happened. Especially when it contradicts itself over several major areas. The Gospels are not consistent at all over the rising from the dead, which is the most important part of the faith. If the books don't agree, how can it be trusted?

Personally, I would ask religious people to pray to God as per normal for a month, write down all their prayers, and see how many happen. Then, do the same, but replace god with Chuck Norris. If you keep it unbiased and give the same standard of prayers (i.e. no asking one for your mum to get better from a mild flu and asking the other to cure world poverty within a week) and then compare the success rates. I think it should give about the same ratio, depending on how ambitious your praying is. Why Chuck Norris you ask? He's a guy who looks like he can get stuff done.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Atheism is not non-belief. Its belief that something doesn't exist, which is just as invalid as believing it does exist. Agnostic is the non-belief.

So, not believing in a race of singing potatoes is just as invalid as believing in said race?

 

[rvkevin]

Jesus existed. It takes a lot to convince oneself otherwise. The historicity of his miracles and resurrection are well credited. In fact, if the claims of the bible were not so important and outrageous, no one would think twice about whether its testimony was valid or not. We read scripture with a bias-- one that this Christian God is good, or one that he isn't (his non-existence would place him in this category). I believe an intellectually honest attempt at reading scripture with undue skepticism left at the door will produce only meaningful experience.

Why don't you believe the other prophets? Some examples are Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama, and Kim Il-Sung. Why does one guy claiming to be God or the son of God deserve merit over the others?

And no, his miracles and resurrection are not well credited. And as someone already said, it is not documented from an independent source (or contemporary for that matter). And as someone has already said, the reason "that if the claims of the bible were not so important and outrageous, no one would think twice about whether its testimony was valid or not" is a perfectly reasonable method for perpetuating a myth. Don't you think its suspicious that as soon as things become well documented that all of these "miracles" become shown for what they truly are (That is to say, not true)?

 

[Diakonos]

Your last sentence sums it up. If you want it to be true, you look it and look at the thin evidence, say how wonderful it is and then say the lack of solid evidence is due to the way God works. If you look at it not believing, you think either it's BS or would like some more evidence.

I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that one should fix up their minds about reading scripture, and read into it a certain way. I am only saying that the tendency is to read it one way or another-- especially when the content has important implications. It is easy to read the bible with said undue skepticism. I don't say that there is thin evidence-- only that it's philosophically dishonest to know one's limitations and assumptions and still pretend they aren't there, building momentum on unconquered conclusions. I am not ignorant of alternative explanations, some of which I don't contest and still others that don't convince me as well. Sheer probability leads me to some conclusions over others. I don't think you correctly addressed what I was saying -- sorry if I was unclear.

Personally, I don't think a single text which has been modified over time (look at the ****storm the Dead Sea Scrolls caused) can be taken as a reliable text, given the magnitude of what supposedly happened. Especially when it contradicts itself over several major areas. The Gospels are not consistent at all over the rising from the dead, which is the most important part of the faith. If the books don't agree, how can it be trusted?

Christian scripture has only very briefly changed over time. Most inconsistencies in manuscripts are only a word mispelled here and there, or a missed comma, etc. Considering we have 14 000 copies of the New Testament scribed within more than acceptable historical time gap, this is very impressive. Anyway, even secular historians agree that virtually none of these deviations affect any major theme of Christian theology.

1 Corinthians 15: 3-6
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

The writing time of this is accepted to be 53 to 57 AD (even the overwhelmingly secular wikipedia agrees!). This generous dating leaves only about 20 years after Christ's supposed death. Paul even says "hey, he even appeared to like 500 people at once. Most of them are alive, go ask them yourself".

I'm not out to convince anyone of anything here, I'm just trying to make sure all things are considered. Regarding the Gospels not agreeing, I'm not sure what you mean! Matthew and John don't explicitly speak about Jesus' ascension, but they are consistent in saying Christ was resurrected. The tomb accounts are reconciled easily, too. Here is a typical problem with skeptical reading of the gospels:
(a) If the gospels agree, then the authors conspired together, and shouldn't be trusted
(b) If the gospels give different accounts, then the story is inconsistent, and shouldn't be trusted

In reality, the gospels agree, but give different views of the same picture. They write with different lenses. I'd be open to investigating with you any other troubles with scriptural account.

Personally, I would ask religious people to pray to God as per normal for a month, write down all their prayers, and see how many happen. Then, do the same, but replace god with Chuck Norris. If you keep it unbiased and give the same standard of prayers (i.e. no asking one for your mum to get better from a mild flu and asking the other to cure world poverty within a week) and then compare the success rates. I think it should give about the same ratio, depending on how ambitious your praying is. Why Chuck Norris you ask? He's a guy who looks like he can get stuff done.

I think something of this nature was addressed earlier. I take it to be folly to try to make God the lab rat, because if he is who he is claimed to be, then our accounts are futile-- God doesn't play by your rules or mine. I hate to paraphrase, but this is what I tried to address earlier.

Why don't you believe the other prophets? Some examples are Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama, and Kim Il-Sung. Why does one guy claiming to be God or the son of God deserve merit over the others?

That's a good question. I would explain it like this. Say I had a bag of marbles, and I knew that only one of the marbles is red, and the rest are blue. I take one out, it's blue, I put it away. I draw another one and see that it is red. Would I then continue drawing marbles? If truth is by definition exclusive, and I take Jesus Christ to be truth, I need not keep drawing blue marbles. As well, what I experience needs to be lined up against what I've accepted as true. It's not that I read Christ first and so I don't care about the rest, it's that I have found his statements to be true and exclusive. For that reason, I consider what the rest say, but the truth is already secured.

And no, his miracles and resurrection are not well credited. And as someone already said, it is not documented from an independent source (or contemporary for that matter). And as someone has already said, the reason "that if the claims of the bible were not so important and outrageous, no one would think twice about whether its testimony was valid or not" is a perfectly reasonable method for perpetuating a myth. Don't you think its suspicious that as soon as things become well documented that all of these "miracles" become shown for what they truly are (That is to say, not true)?

I gave an example above of how it was well credited. There are extra-biblical sources that speak of Jesus as a miracle-maker, albeit they depict him in very negative terms. There are Jewish accounts that describe Jesus as some sort miracle maker, but one that is to be despised. I can link to extra-biblical sources crediting the miraculous nature of Jesus' walk on earth.

I'm very sorry, I have to run to class but I'll finish pitching my two cents later!

 

[SwastikaPyle]

It should also be noted that, up until about the last 200 years or so, it was customary to torture and burn anyone who questioned the church. So if you're wondering how an idea could have spread so far and lasted so long, somehow fooling so many people for hundreds of years......it's because there was no such thing as going 'against' the church back in the day. There was no dissent, because dissenters didn't last very long.

Also, Diakanos, believing in a personal God of some kind is nothing to be ashamed of, but believing in an organized religion carries with it a huge amount of responsibility. I notice you are really struggling to reconcile the evidence with the belief some of the time, so I'd like to point out that the New Testament actually is NOT very reliable.

The 4 Gospels are each eyewitness accounts written by Luke, Mark, John and Matthew. None of their original manuscripts remain, supposedly written more than 50 years after Jesus's death (John lived to be over 110, coincidentally, in a time when the average lifespan was 35). The earliest evidence we have was found in Rome, published more than 100 years after Jesus died, a fragment of a copy of a copy of a copy: http://www.historian.net/P52.html

Helpful chart to show which books are likely authentic and which were probably added, edited, and/or tampered with throughout history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism#New_Testament


Here is a short, easy to read list of various contradictions and disagreement in the four Gospels:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

When all this evidence is placed before me, the chemicals in my brain are hardwired to make me think this is obviously the work of humans, not a deity.

 

[rvkevin]

If truth is by definition exclusive, and I take Jesus Christ to be truth, I need not keep drawing blue marbles. As well, what I experience needs to be lined up against what I've accepted as true. It's not that I read Christ first and so I don't care about the rest, it's that I have found his statements to be true and exclusive. For that reason, I consider what the rest say, but the truth is already secured.

The question was "Why does one guy claiming to be God or the son of God deserve merit over the others?" I acknowledge that if one says "I am god and there are no other gods" and that claim is true then all the other ones are false. What I'm asking is why do you take his claim to be true over everyone else making a similar claim? And what new evidence would convince you to be wrong? If there is none, then having "the truth secured" is a pretty dangerous concept if means you are able to hold a position even if new evidence points to the contrary.

I gave an example above of how it was well credited. There are extra-biblical sources that speak of Jesus as a miracle-maker, albeit they depict him in very negative terms. There are Jewish accounts that describe Jesus as some sort miracle maker, but one that is to be despised. I can link to extra-biblical sources crediting the miraculous nature of Jesus' walk on earth.

I look forward to seeing those sources. But I'm not sure if ancient hearsay would be convincing. I don't doubt some accounts would say that there were miracles, but I doubt that they were actually supernatural events. After all, miracle is fairly synonymous with magic, some event that is unable to be explained by the group of people considering the claim. There are numerous things that cultures at that time wouldn't have been able to explain, that doesn't mean that their accounts of what actually happened are accurate. For example, when the Portuguese emigrated to South America, they convinced the natives that they were deities by threatening to burn their water supply and actually exemplified their threat by turning a small amount of water on fire. Now this might appear to be a miracle making the Portuguese worthy of worship, but with the right facts, the explanation is so mundane as to not warrant a second glance and this was in the 16th century.

"The lowest form of evidence in this world is eye-witness testimony" -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k
There's a reason why we don't accept people's claims about being abducted by UFOs, sighting Big Foot, or the Loch Ness monster, and these claims are made in modern times! People have been making extraordinary claims since there have been people, that does not mean there is a reason to accept their claims as true without evidence. Unless you believe accounts of UFOs, Big Foot, etc. what makes the accounts of Jesus's miracles any more credible?

 

[gm jack]

Undue skepticism? On the contrary, good science means that you should approach with a skeptic mindset and have to be convinced what is said is true. Many great idea that make sense are put out every year, but they aren't accepted as anything more than an idea until sufficient evidence is presented. Especially true when reading anything that may be biased, which includes research papers (they want their ideas recognised).

And by changing, I mean one of the gospels got several sentences added. As I mentioned earlier, one used to end with them finding the tomb empty. A bit of a missing chunk when Jesus supposedly appeared to all the disciples. And the other gospels can't agree who he appear to and how many times.

On your marble analogy, it doesn't work. You've taken faith that certain prophets are right and the rest are wrong. Saying "I just know" isn't a good argument. Logic has been abandoned and every other prophet, who may have equal credentials has been dismissed while others have been kept.

I would like to see these extra biblical sources though, to see how strong a source it is.

 

[Diakonos]

I'm sorry, I realize multi-quoting gives of an adversarial impression.

It should also be noted that, up until about the last 200 years or so, it was customary to torture and burn anyone who questioned the church. So if you're wondering how an idea could have spread so far and lasted so long, somehow fooling so many people for hundreds of years......it's because there was no such thing as going 'against' the church back in the day. There was no dissent, because dissenters didn't last very long.

Thanks for your response.

First, let's make it clear that the conversation has shifted from philosophical discussion about the existence of God to a series of attacks for the rational belief in the Christian God, and, more particularly, the Bible. That's all fine, but I think it should be noted that we're doing that . I don't remember asking why the reign of the church has lasted for so long, but yes, Christendom has been heavily stained by those claiming to act in name of God. I consider it a shame, but also to be expected as spiritual conviction was used as a political tool upon adoption into the roman empire. Therefrom, it is clear that people desiring to manipulate things for their own end, have used anything they can, including religion and faith in God.

If you're going to drop that bomb, though, let's also not forget that Christians were heavily, heavily persecuted at the birth of the faith. In that case, Christians were savaged for their beliefs.

Also, Diakanos, believing in a personal God of some kind is nothing to be ashamed of, but believing in an organized religion carries with it a huge amount of responsibility. I notice you are really struggling to reconcile the evidence with the belief some of the time, so I'd like to point out that the New Testament actually is NOT very reliable.

No, I'm not ashamed of believing in God, and I'm also not ashamed of participating in a body of believers. The issue with organized religion (as opposed to disorganized religion, apparently) is that not everyone who wears the pin follows through with the spiritual conviction it implies. You see, if everyone who called him or herself a Christian were walking around feeding the poor, selling all they had to love others, turning the other cheek, praying for and counseling one another, considered others better than him or herself, and were united in one mind, you probably wouldn't be saying that. For this I have no response, except to say that a Jew is not one outwardly, but one inwardly -- what is in the heart works itself out logically in our actions or works.

We agree that law is good, but not all lawyers live to expand justice. We agree that having a police is effective (maybe necessary?), but there are crooked cops as well. For this reason alone we do not discredit law and the police force altogether. The same is true of Christianity.

I'm not struggling to reconcile evidence with belief, friend. I only adhere to being aware of the limitations of the evidence I (or you) can provide, and taking that in its context. I accept that there are some things that I cannot prove or disprove, and some things that need further elaboration. I'm aware of the shortcomings of much of what I put forth, but it is sufficient enough for me to leave a reasonable doubt to utter skepticism. I do not argue so as to convince, but as to allow some degree of thought which is not violated by excessive skepticism and (possible) hardness of heart. I hope that I don't appear to be militant or trying to convince you of anything, and if I do, please forgive me.

The 4 Gospels are each eyewitness accounts written by Luke, Mark, John and Matthew. None of their original manuscripts remain, supposedly written more than 50 years after Jesus's death (John lived to be over 110, coincidentally, in a time when the average lifespan was 35). The earliest evidence we have was found in Rome, published more than 100 years after Jesus died, a fragment of a copy of a copy of a copy: http://www.historian.net/P52.html

Given that the original writings were nearly 2000 years ago, and that the texts were meant to be shared so that the news could be spread, it is very good that we have the kind of historicity that we do. In our literary canon, we -barely- have the original copy of... anything that goes back that far. I haven't heard of the website you are quoting, and it seems to be more of a home-run marketplace to buy copies of what are claimed to be the original writings of various religious texts. I don't really consider this scholarship, and I'd love to have some more verification for what you are saying, as evidenced by other accepted scholars (this is the scientific way, no?).

I actually didn't know that John lived to be 110, thanks for the new fact. How'd you learn about that?

Helpful chart to show which books are likely authentic and which were probably added, edited, and/or tampered with throughout history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism#New_Testament

There is no evidence given there at all, man. Only that a few scholars disagree with the generally accepted authorship of the accepted canon. I never contested that there was opposition. This "higher criticism", the Jesus Seminar, advocates of Q come up again and again, with less and less to offer. There is no proof of Q, for example, apart from the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar. You made no reference to this:

Here is a typical problem with skeptical reading of the gospels:
(a) If the gospels agree, then the authors conspired together, and shouldn't be trusted
(b) If the gospels give different accounts, then the story is inconsistent, and shouldn't be trusted

Your cited page here offers sheer controversy with plausible alternatives for what is generally accepted. That's all very good, but just because something is plausible doesn't mean I need to accept it, no? I mean, I'm sure that's an argument you'd just as quickly press on me.

Here is a short, easy to read list of various contradictions and disagreement in the four Gospels:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

When all this evidence is placed before me, the chemicals in my brain are hardwired to make me think this is obviously the work of humans, not a deity.

I will point out again that you transitioned from the historicity of the bible to the evaluation of its claims. This was a different argument, which is in turn different from the philosophical exploration of the existence of God. That link and the article there was very, very good. I cannot say I have an answer for every problem there, and it gave me lots to ponder. Thanks for the link. Many of arguments put forth are poor though, in assuming that because John says A and Matthew says B, that they contradict each other. This is only the case if A negates B, which in many of the quoted "contradictions", it doesn't. It is possible that John comments on something that Matthew didn't decide to put in. It is possible that an alternate perspective is given so that more is understood. Some of the arguments stem from the author of the article using a specific translation of a word that is not always translated that way. The literal word should prevail there, I think. Either way, the point is well taken.

The question was "Why does one guy claiming to be God or the son of God deserve merit over the others?" I acknowledge that if one says "I am god and there are no other gods" and that claim is true then all the other ones are false. What I'm asking is why do you take his claim to be true over everyone else making a similar claim? And what new evidence would convince you to be wrong? If there is none, then having "the truth secured" is a pretty dangerous concept if means you are able to hold a position even if new evidence points to the contrary.

The truthful answer is that it's largely experiential. I find Christ's claims to be consistent with life as I see it. His commentary on the nature of man, and how we relate to God strike a deep chord in me. This is not definite proof of Jesus' claims by any means. As well, if you couple Christ's claims with his evidence of miracles, you start thinking twice. If this guy claims to be God, gets owned, but somehow comes back to life, you look at that twice. I'm quite convinced of Jesus' resurrection historically, and that beckons me to look closer at what Jesus says.

Not everyone makes a similar claim. As well, not everyone else's claims have had the same impact on the world. I'm also going to go Christian on you and say that I felt spiritual conviction as I consider Christ and God as revealed in scripture. Call that bologna if you will (I would), but we can only measure what we witness and experience.

I could go on and try to discredit others who make the same claim, but I feel no need. Again, my purpose isn't to convince you into one thing. It's to share my personal conviction, and allow for philosophically honest discussion about the existence of God-- why I think it is certainly not out of the question and also far from irrational.

I look forward to seeing those sources. But I'm not sure if ancient hearsay would be convincing. I don't doubt some accounts would say that there were miracles, but I doubt that they were actually supernatural events. After all, miracle is fairly synonymous with magic, some event that is unable to be explained by the group of people considering the claim. There are numerous things that cultures at that time wouldn't have been able to explain, that doesn't mean that their accounts of what actually happened are accurate. For example, when the Portuguese emigrated to South America, they convinced the natives that they were deities by threatening to burn their water supply and actually exemplified their threat by turning a small amount of water on fire. Now this might appear to be a miracle making the Portuguese worthy of worship, but with the right facts, the explanation is so mundane as to not warrant a second glance and this was in the 16th century.

"The lowest form of evidence in this world is eye-witness testimony" -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k
There's a reason why we don't accept people's claims about being abducted by UFOs, sighting Big Foot, or the Loch Ness monster, and these claims are made in modern times! People have been making extraordinary claims since there have been people, that does not mean there is a reason to accept their claims as true without evidence. Unless you believe accounts of UFOs, Big Foot, etc. what makes the accounts of Jesus's miracles any more credible?

I couldn't find the site I found when considering this stuff a while ago, but this site seems fine.

Part of the issue I've encountered when talking to my peers on these kinds of matters is that we know we want proof, but we can't seem to agree on what good proof is or whether we'd be satisfied. Because the events we're discussing happened in the past, it is always easy to conjure a situation to discredit proof that it happened.
(1) how do you know it happened? typical answer: well, the bible says so
(2) oh yeah, well of course the bible would say so, it needs to cover itself, no? typical answer: here are some other sources
(3) yeah well, those sources probably aren't credible, and if they are, then the people were probably deceived or were lying. answer: I'm not sure they were lying, else they would(n't) have done this and this.
(4) They probably believed it, but they were mistaken. After all, they were ignorant this time anyway. Answer: none.

There is no justifiable answer because it can be pushed and pushed so that no answer given is good enough except perhaps a time machine. I'm not saying this about you in particular, but it is common to have in one's philosophy a structure made such that it is not really possible to prove the supernatural. Often one would rather stretch probability to its utter ends than accept or invoke the supernatural. This makes sense logically, but it is grievous to the logical system as a whole.

There are numerous things that cultures at that time wouldn't have been able to explain, that doesn't mean that their accounts of what actually happened are accurate. For example, when the Portuguese emigrated to South America, they convinced the natives that they were deities by threatening to burn their water supply and actually exemplified their threat by turning a small amount of water on fire. Now this might appear to be a miracle making the Portuguese worthy of worship, but with the right facts, the explanation is so mundane as to not warrant a second glance and this was in the 16th century.

You're absolutely right. This is a possibility. I mean, we have to stretch without any evidence and say, yeah, the people were just deceived, but sure, it's possible. There are some miracles that can hardly be taken to be illusions, though. It's hard to hypnotize 500 people. I'm not ruling this out as an option, but it's just very unlikely that all the mentioned miracle accounts were based in mere deception.

Humour me for a moment. You are a follower of this Jewish rebel, Jesus. They took him and killed him. Crud, what do you do now? Like, didn't he say he was going to have his kingdom and dominion here on earth, and that he is (son of) God? What the hell.

I want to know why you, Peter, or you, Paul, decided to keep going on with a lie. Why be beaten so brutally, why try to turn people away from the faith of your fathers, the God that you probably fear, why suffer and die for a lie? For fun? For failed glory? Paul, why go from hating these ruddy Jesus followers to spending the rest of your life in service to him (or his lie)? It appears to me that the disciples, at least, believed. And they should have had no reason to, apart from his revelation to them. This is not proof of Christ's resurrection, but autoepistemic reasoning. You really have to ask yourself.

Undue skepticism? On the contrary, good science means that you should approach with a skeptic mindset and have to be convinced what is said is true. Many great idea that make sense are put out every year, but they aren't accepted as anything more than an idea until sufficient evidence is presented. Especially true when reading anything that may be biased, which includes research papers (they want their ideas recognised).

I'm familiar to the scientific method, friend. A Kantian approach towards epistemology is not endorsed by all scientists. Good science is observation, proposition, experimentation, documentation, and subsequent corroboration. That doesn't mean one approaches everything cynically, looking for and reading for errors. That is rather post-modernist, and extends beyond the scope of science. Science is useful and effective, and within its limitations, one of the best tools we have to acquire knowledge.

I hate to do this, but I feel like we don't always consider what it is we know and how we actually know it. Right now, you are looking into a computer screen. You have what you call sensory devices to understand what you think is happening around you. You think that you see, that you feel. You are convinced, probably, that I am real. You don't really know that, though. I am actually not real. I am one of the characters in your life, sent to play this role by the something or a group of people. You are plugged into the matrix, and all you experience is just that-- experience. It is not real, and this is hyper-reality.

You do not know that your mom and dad aren't actually just visualizations. They appear to have feelings, and when you touch them, you experience the familiar sense of "touch" and "skin". You cannot prove this is real. You probably have never seen the artefacts and scripts that you talk about. The encyclopedia brittanica, you cannot prove that what it says is actually what happened. Everyone could just be acting, playing their part, and observing you. You cannot see behind you right now. You just assume that things don't change when you're not looking at them. When you are sleeping, truly sleeping, you do not know whether 20 people are hovering above you, looking at you. You just assume that they aren't. Your dog is actually a cat, but whenever you come into contact with it in any way, it likens itself to a dog.

Now, I don't believe this is the case. But you can't prove it isn't. Neither can you prove that everyone isn't acting, and you are actually the only one who appears to be conscious. This is what I mean by epistemology. This is what I mean by the limits of what we can know. It is so important to remember that when you are talking about such enormous topics as the existence of God, we remember what we are, what our consciousness is, and what our attainment of knowledge truly is, because these ideas may have eternal consequences.

 

[Blunted_object10]

Thanks for your response.

First, let's make it clear that the conversation has shifted from philosophical discussion about the existence of God to a series of attacks for the rational belief in the Christian God, and, more particularly, the Bible. That's all fine, but I think it should be noted that we're doing that . I don't remember asking why the reign of the church has lasted for so long, but yes, Christendom has been heavily stained by those claiming to act in name of God. I consider it a shame, but also to be expected as spiritual conviction was used as a political tool upon adoption into the roman empire. Therefrom, it is clear that people desiring to manipulate things for their own end, have used anything they can, including religion and faith in God.

If you're going to drop that bomb, though, let's also not forget that Christians were heavily, heavily persecuted at the birth of the faith. In that case, Christians were savaged for their beliefs.


No, I'm not ashamed of believing in God, and I'm also not ashamed of participating in a body of believers. The issue with organized religion (as opposed to disorganized religion, apparently) is that not everyone who wears the pin follows through with the spiritual conviction it implies. You see, if everyone who called him or herself a Christian were walking around feeding the poor, selling all they had to love others, turning the other cheek, praying for and counseling one another, considered others better than him or herself, and were united in one mind, you probably wouldn't be saying that. For this I have no response, except to say that a Jew is not one outwardly, but one inwardly -- what is in the heart works itself out logically in our actions or works.

We agree that law is good, but not all lawyers live to expand justice. We agree that having a police is effective (maybe necessary?), but there are crooked cops as well. For this reason alone we do not discredit law and the police force altogether. The same is true of Christianity.

I'm not struggling to reconcile evidence with belief, friend. I only adhere to being aware of the limitations of the evidence I (or you) can provide, and taking that in its context. I accept that there are some things that I cannot prove or disprove, and some things that need further elaboration. I'm aware of the shortcomings of much of what I put forth, but it is sufficient enough for me to leave a reasonable doubt to utter skepticism. I do not argue so as to convince, but as to allow some degree of thought which is not violated by excessive skepticism and (possible) hardness of heart. I hope that I don't appear to be militant or trying to convince you of anything, and if I do, please forgive me.
Given that the original writings were nearly 2000 years ago, and that the texts were meant to be shared so that the news could be spread, it is very good that we have the kind of historicity that we do. In our literary canon, we -barely- have the original copy of... anything that goes back that far. I haven't heard of the website you are quoting, and it seems to be more of a home-run marketplace to buy copies of what are claimed to be the original writings of various religious texts. I don't really consider this scholarship, and I'd love to have some more verification for what you are saying, as evidenced by other accepted scholars (this is the scientific way, no?).

I actually didn't know that John lived to be 110, thanks for the new fact. How'd you learn about that?
There is no evidence given there at all, man. Only that a few scholars disagree with the generally accepted authorship of the accepted canon. I never contested that there was opposition. This "higher criticism", the Jesus Seminar, advocates of Q come up again and again, with less and less to offer. There is no proof of Q, for example, apart from the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are similar. You made no reference to this:

Here is a typical problem with skeptical reading of the gospels:
(a) If the gospels agree, then the authors conspired together, and shouldn't be trusted
(b) If the gospels give different accounts, then the story is inconsistent, and shouldn't be trusted

Your cited page here offers sheer controversy with plausible alternatives for what is generally accepted. That's all very good, but just because something is plausible doesn't mean I need to accept it, no? I mean, I'm sure that's an argument you'd just as quickly press on me.



I will point out again that you transitioned from the historicity of the bible to the evaluation of its claims. This was a different argument, which is in turn different from the philosophical exploration of the existence of God. That link and the article there was very, very good. I cannot say I have an answer for every problem there, and it gave me lots to ponder. Thanks for the link. Many of arguments put forth are poor though, in assuming that because John says A and Matthew says B, that they contradict each other. This is only the case if A negates B, which in many of the quoted "contradictions", it doesn't. It is possible that John comments on something that Matthew didn't decide to put in. It is possible that an alternate perspective is given so that more is understood. Some of the arguments stem from the author of the article using a specific translation of a word that is not always translated that way. The literal word should prevail there, I think. Either way, the point is well taken.


The truthful answer is that it's largely experiential. I find Christ's claims to be consistent with life as I see it. His commentary on the nature of man, and how we relate to God strike a deep chord in me. This is not definite proof of Jesus' claims by any means. As well, if you couple Christ's claims with his evidence of miracles, you start thinking twice. If this guy claims to be God, gets owned, but somehow comes back to life, you look at that twice. I'm quite convinced of Jesus' resurrection historically, and that beckons me to look closer at what Jesus says.

Not everyone makes a similar claim. As well, not everyone else's claims have had the same impact on the world. I'm also going to go Christian on you and say that I felt spiritual conviction as I consider Christ and God as revealed in scripture. Call that bologna if you will (I would), but we can only measure what we witness and experience.

I could go on and try to discredit others who make the same claim, but I feel no need. Again, my purpose isn't to convince you into one thing. It's to share my personal conviction, and allow for philosophically honest discussion about the existence of God-- why I think it is certainly not out of the question and also far from irrational.



I couldn't find the site I found when considering this stuff a while ago, but this site seems fine.

Part of the issue I've encountered when talking to my peers on these kinds of matters is that we know we want proof, but we can't seem to agree on what good proof is or whether we'd be satisfied. Because the events we're discussing happened in the past, it is always easy to conjure a situation to discredit proof that it happened.
(1) how do you know it happened? typical answer: well, the bible says so
(2) oh yeah, well of course the bible would say so, it needs to cover itself, no? typical answer: here are some other sources
(3) yeah well, those sources probably aren't credible, and if they are, then the people were probably deceived or were lying. answer: I'm not sure they were lying, else they would(n't) have done this and this.
(4) They probably believed it, but they were mistaken. After all, they were ignorant this time anyway. Answer: none.

There is no justifiable answer because it can be pushed and pushed so that no answer given is good enough except perhaps a time machine. I'm not saying this about you in particular, but it is common to have in one's philosophy a structure made such that it is not really possible to prove the supernatural. Often one would rather stretch probability to its utter ends than accept or invoke the supernatural. This makes sense logically, but it is grievous to the logical system as a whole.

You're absolutely right. This is a possibility. I mean, we have to stretch without any evidence and say, yeah, the people were just deceived, but sure, it's possible. There are some miracles that can hardly be taken to be illusions, though. It's hard to hypnotize 500 people. I'm not ruling this out as an option, but it's just very unlikely that all the mentioned miracle accounts were based in mere deception.

Humour me for a moment. You are a follower of this Jewish rebel, Jesus. They took him and killed him. Crud, what do you do now? Like, didn't he say he was going to have his kingdom and dominion here on earth, and that he is (son of) God? What the hell.

I want to know why you, Peter, or you, Paul, decided to keep going on with a lie. Why be beaten so brutally, why try to turn people away from the faith of your fathers, the God that you probably fear, why suffer and die for a lie? For fun? For failed glory? Paul, why go from hating these ruddy Jesus followers to spending the rest of your life in service to him (or his lie)? It appears to me that the disciples, at least, believed. And they should have had no reason to, apart from his revelation to them. This is not proof of Christ's resurrection, but autoepistemic reasoning. You really have to ask yourself.

I'm familiar to the scientific method, friend. A Kantian approach towards epistemology is not endorsed by all scientists. Good science is observation, proposition, experimentation, documentation, and subsequent corroboration. That doesn't mean one approaches everything cynically, looking for and reading for errors. That is rather post-modernist, and extends beyond the scope of science. Science is useful and effective, and within its limitations, one of the best tools we have to acquire knowledge.

I hate to do this, but I feel like we don't always consider what it is we know and how we actually know it. Right now, you are looking into a computer screen. You have what you call sensory devices to understand what you think is happening around you. You think that you see, that you feel. You are convinced, probably, that I am real. You don't really know that, though. I am actually not real. I am one of the characters in your life, sent to play this role by the something or a group of people. You are plugged into the matrix, and all you experience is just that-- experience. It is not real, and this is hyper-reality.

You do not know that your mom and dad aren't actually just visualizations. They appear to have feelings, and when you touch them, you experience the familiar sense of "touch" and "skin". You cannot prove this is real. You probably have never seen the artefacts and scripts that you talk about. The encyclopedia brittanica, you cannot prove that what it says is actually what happened. Everyone could just be acting, playing their part, and observing you. You cannot see behind you right now. You just assume that things don't change when you're not looking at them. When you are sleeping, truly sleeping, you do not know whether 20 people are hovering above you, looking at you. You just assume that they aren't. Your dog is actually a cat, but whenever you come into contact with it in any way, it likens itself to a dog.

Now, I don't believe this is the case. But you can't prove it isn't. Neither can you prove that everyone isn't acting, and you are actually the only one who appears to be conscious. This is what I mean by epistemology. This is what I mean by the limits of what we can know. It is so important to remember that when you are talking about such enormous topics as the existence of God, we remember what we are, what our consciousness is, and what our attainment of knowledge truly is, because these ideas may have eternal consequences.

No u !

 

[SwastikaPyle]

God dayam that's a lotta words.

Placeholder post for later when I write my million word response too lol.

Sorry if I seem condescending in that post about 'nothing to be ashamed of,' I worded that really poorly.


edit: here is a link I found confirming John's long life:
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=228

From wiki: It is traditionally believed that John survived his contemporary apostles and lived to an extreme old age, dying at Ephesus in about A.D. 100.

 

[rvkevin]

Not everyone makes a similar claim. As well, not everyone else's claims have had the same impact on the world. I'm also going to go Christian on you and say that I felt spiritual conviction as I consider Christ and God as revealed in scripture. Call that bologna if you will (I would), but we can only measure what we witness and experience.

I don’t doubt you felt spiritual conviction, but do you really think that your experience is exclusive to your religion? People of other religions are convicted in their beliefs too. I’m not sure what you mean by impact, whether it refers to qualitative or quantitative, but I would say Islam makes a bigger impact on the world purely by having the largest population and would propose Buddhism as having the best qualitative impact on the world. Not to mention that they have a lot of conviction…Personal experiences are never reasons for anyone else to believe something.

You're absolutely right. This is a possibility. I mean, we have to stretch without any evidence and say, yeah, the people were just deceived, but sure, it's possible. There are some miracles that can hardly be taken to be illusions, though. It's hard to hypnotize 500 people. I'm not ruling this out as an option, but it's just very unlikely that all the mentioned miracle accounts were based in mere deception.

Do you think George Washington chopped down a cherry tree? Do you think George Washington had wooden teeth? It’s been proposed that King Arthur was mostly legend. The fact of the matter is that rumors get started, and they turn into myth. You’re assuming that 500 personally saw Jesus afterward. It could have just been easily one person mistakenly saying they saw him alive ("The lowest form of evidence in this world is eye-witness testimony"), and the story spreads throughout the village (Changing each time it is told like in the Telephone game). Again, a simple change in the reporting of the story makes the explanation so mundane as to not deserve a second glance.

Humour me for a moment. You are a follower of this Jewish rebel, Jesus. They took him and killed him. Crud, what do you do now? Like, didn't he say he was going to have his kingdom and dominion here on earth, and that he is (son of) God? What the hell.
I want to know why you, Peter, or you, Paul, decided to keep going on with a lie. Why be beaten so brutally, why try to turn people away from the faith of your fathers, the God that you probably fear, why suffer and die for a lie? For fun? For failed glory? Paul, why go from hating these ruddy Jesus followers to spending the rest of your life in service to him (or his lie)? It appears to me that the disciples, at least, believed. And they should have had no reason to, apart from his revelation to them. This is not proof of Christ's resurrection, but autoepistemic reasoning. You really have to ask yourself.

So…prediction gets made, prediction doesn’t come true, shouldn’t the believers leave the religion? You’d think so, but it doesn’t always happen. It’s seen in cults all the time, the leader will predict the date for the end times, date comes and passes and the believers are still dedicated to the dogma. The leader says he made an arithmetic mistake and picks a new date, date comes and passes, and the followers are still sheep. I can’t explain why they don’t open their eyes, but I can definitely see the relation. Now, there might be a difference since the leader would not be present, but he was supposed to return in their lifetime, wasn’t he, to fulfill the prophecy (which would be the hope in the followers life and like the cult followers, be unfazed by the lack of fulfillment of the initial prophecy)? Modern day examples show that the conviction of the followers is not evident of the truth of the dogma.

 

[Diakonos]

I'm not sure what I'm saying is being read in the context of my entire post.

I lol'd real hard when I read your post, swastika :D. I guess I'll use this as a placeholder post as well. Organic chemistry is going to own me if I don't take care of its needs in a personal way. I'm sorry in advance if I don't respond promptly-- my gf forbade me from checking this site before doing my homework. Man I'm whipped.

And thanks very much for corresponding with me!

 

[Sucumbio]

blast my schedule, keeping up with this will be difficult.

Depends on what the God is claimed to do. If he is claimed to grant prayer, then studies concerning prayer should be able to show a significant difference between no prayer, prayer, and the placebo effect (They have not shown such a difference). So, what evidence would you require in order to change your mind and decide that God does [not] exist?

So you're going to base your evidence on Man's observation of God? That seems foolish, no? I mean, who are we to evaluate what God's Works are, or even to quantify them in Human terms? Just because someone says "God grants prayers" doesn't mean its true. And yet God could still exist!

My original question was a trick question if you didn't notice. "Lack of Evidence" is not a valid reason to deny or discount the existence of a higher being, because evidence, regardless of how scientifically and logically foolproof it is, is still a human observation. By believing in a higher being, such as God, one is believing in something that cannot ever be quantified in Human terms. Its only when THEY bring themselves down to -our- level, that such "evidence" is present, or quantifiable.

God may never come to you, friend. But that's the whole point. He shouldn't have to for you to believe in him.

Are you saying that non-belief is itself a belief, because I'm believing in non-belief?

Do you think that 'off' is just one more TV channel?

uh, not sure what you mean with the TV thing, but yes... choosing to not believe is in itself a belief. You cannot KNOW you're right either way, because the answer is itself an opinion. It's not like... what goes up must come down. A law. It's an opinion based on your faith in that opinion being the right one, and unless you enjoy being delusional that's all it'll ever be, regardless of how strongly you feel about which ever choice you've made. And yes, the same goes for me. It is my belief, my opinion, that God exists. And not just any old God, but one God, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, aka. YHWH (in Hebrew) which translates as "Yahweh."

Also, don't forget that the real argument here is against organized religion. If we're just asking 'does god exist,' there's already 8 pages of it.

Wait, so now Atheism means belief that Organized Religions don't exist? I don't follow. This whole thread is a panel discussion for believers to ask atheists why they seem like jerks, and I for one have never thought that, but I think I mentioned that...

Why don't you believe the other prophets? Some examples are Muhammad, Siddhartha Gautama, and Kim Il-Sung. Why does one guy claiming to be God or the son of God deserve merit over the others?

Wow... you know kids in Sunday school ask this like, the first week. It's not about discounting what other holy people have done or said. It's about whether or not you believe Jesus fulfilled prophesy. Remember, the New Testament follows the Old Testament. Jesus' coming was foretold. What he did when he arrived, was foretold. The decision between a Jew and a Catholic is in whether or not Jesus did or did not fulfill prophecy, and do what was said he was supposed to do. -source

I was raised Catholic and I think it's a load of BS. Recently, a parish in Ireland has asked it's members to help pay for its legal fees in a case where several priests were convicted of child abuse.

So like rvkevin, you're going to allow a human being's actions to determine the validity of a super-natural being. I question the logic of this decision.

And quite frankly, if a divine being came down, yes I would acknowledge the existence of a God. Yes, Jesus was almost certainly a person who preached, but being the son of God seems a step too far. None of the gospels fully agree with each other (especially the earlier versions. One missed out the ascension into heaven entirely, and stopped when the body was missing). Outside of religious texts, there is no evidence for their occurrence.

There is a reason why the Catholic church keeps under lock and key the Gospels that didn't make it into the Bible. Or documents later found, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because even with what they did ultimately use, there is still room for interpretation, the existence of contradiction, etc. They had a tough job back in the day. They had to hand pick the most relevant and important texts, and compile them for mass consumption. It's not unlike what a programmer has to do when coding something. You start with a lot of detritus, and have to constantly whittle and weed out until you have something viable.

There is a reason why "miracles" are investigated very intensely by the Catholic Church's own scientists. These aren't crack pots, mind you. These are degree holding, venerated members of their respective scientific communities. These investigations are done because the last thing we need is mass hysteria on earth, because someone sees a bleeding cheezit in the shape of a heart. And besides, Jesus already came, and went. The next time he comes, as is foretold, will be when the world as we know it ends.

Personally, I believe Jesus did exist and preach, but was nobody special. The disciples decided that after his death the best way to promote the teaching they followed would be to make them holy. After all, if God says he wrote the book, the book must be true.

This is just nonsense. First of all, God didn't write the Bible, nor did he ever say he did, nor does the Catholic Church (or any other church for that matter) say he did. Secondly, the disciples didn't just decide to live-journal themselves, the first Blogs, lol... for the fun of it. They all had different reasons for writing them, and different circumstances under which they were written.

 

[gm jack]

@Diakonos's reply to me earlier.

Actually, I have considered that situation. Other people have seen the Truman show as well. However, as it stands, there is absolutely no evidence for anything you suggest, therefore, no reason to believe it. A few hundred years ago, it would be perfectly acceptable to say we can't make a weapon to flatten a city in a second. While others would eventually be proved right, at the time, it was best to say that you couldn't.

Same here, with God. While I know I may be proved wrong if some studies somehow do seem to show a correlation unproven by anything but a deity, then I would reconsider my view. However, as it stands, that hasn't happened, and the flying spagetti monster has just as much evidence.

@Sucumbio

Well, he did suggest I look at joining the faith.

More on topic, why would they remove perfectly valid documentations of his life, and modify ones over times? The gospels are the most fundamental texts in Christianity, yet they were modified, adding and removing sections, and they still don't agree with each other over huge events in Jesus' life. Again I will bring up this.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

While some details are minor and could obviously be looked over when recalling events, things like a virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension being highly inconsistent really isn't making it a reliable source. If a history textbook contradicted itself this much, you wouldn't use it.

Ok, God writing it was badly phrased. God inspired would better. And while my idea is just an idea, can you actually prove it wrong? All the text saying why it was done is in the bible and associated religious documents themselves. While it is often preached, there really isn't that much outside of the bible that can reliably verify its events. In fact, some things like Herod's slaughter of the young would seem like ideal things to record against him. In no document, including many by authors at the time who listed all the horrible things he did, is this ever confirmed.

 

[Kmar]

So you're going to base your evidence on Man's observation of God? That seems foolish, no? I mean, who are we to evaluate what God's Works are, or even to quantify them in Human terms?

Why does it seem foolish to base one's evidence on Man's observation of God, if one is indeed a man? I am the only person who can make observations for myself; I can't ask YOU to see or hear for me. In fact, I CAN ONLY base my evidence on the world as I have perceived it.

My original question was a trick question if you didn't notice. "Lack of Evidence" is not a valid reason to deny or discount the existence of a higher being, because evidence, regardless of how scientifically and logically foolproof it is, is still a human observation.

Remember that we are not 3rd party spectators on mankind. As a human, it is valid for me to base my rational thought on the observations of humans.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that you're wrong to believe in God. I'm just saying that it's perfectly valid--in fact, required--to base one's judgment off of their own observations. (And to clarify, I'm considering an observation to be any information that enters my brain, not necessarily the direct witnessing of an event.)

I personally am an Atheist (although I prefer to call it just "secular" because "Atheist" has a Satan-loving connotation to it), and this is not because I oppose religion, but rather because I have never found a need to participate in it. I have had no evidence to support the existence of God, and I have never needed to believe in it. And please, to all religious people: don't regard me as "one who has not seen the light" because that's close-minded and it demonstrates that you do not understand my position. I have been highly exposed to religion in my life (I studied Catholicism for 6 years in Catholic schools), and I simply do not need it.

 

[rvkevin]

So you're going to base your evidence on Man's observation of God? That seems foolish, no? I mean, who are we to evaluate what God's Works are, or even to quantify them in Human terms? Just because someone says "God grants prayers" doesn't mean its true. And yet God could still exist!

If God does not manifest in reality, then he is indistinguishable from being non-existent. So the only part we need to figure out is how he does manifest, which is why I said the evidence depends on the claim. For example, if someone claims that God grants prayers, then the studies concerning prayer should be able to show a significant difference between no prayer, prayer, and the placebo effect. If those studies show that prayer is the equivalent of doing nothing, as you say, the "God grants prayers" hypothesis is shown to be not true. The basic point is, what makes your God distinguishable from being non-existent?

My original question was a trick question if you didn't notice. "Lack of Evidence" is not a valid reason to deny or discount the existence of a higher being, because evidence, regardless of how scientifically and logically foolproof it is, is still a human observation.

This is incorrect. Insufficient evidence is sufficient reason to reject a claim (This is not to say that lack of evidence is sufficient to claim the opposite is true.). To say I don't believe that God exists, simply lack of evidence is sufficient. Any claim presented must have evidence to support it, if it doesn't, it can be rejected outright. Similar claims such as Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, the Jersey Devil, UFOs, alien abductions, ghosts, homeopathy, a teapot circling Pluto, the thousands of deities, the Earth is 6,000 years old, and even claims that happen to be true (If I buy a lottery ticket and I claim "This is the winning ticket," and it happens to be the winning ticket, I would not be justified at that time to make that claim) can be dismissed without evidence. If you don't dismiss claims that have no evidence, are you saying that you believe all of these claims?

In science, pretty much every conclusion is qualified with "based on the available evidence at this time." We are open to investigate new claims and new evidence and if the evidence is compelling, to change our view. By the way, if there is lack of evidence where you expect to find evidence, then that is evidence against the claim. In the case that God grants prayers, lack of evidence of prayers being granted where we expect to find prayers being granted is evidence to suggest that specific God does not grant prayers. So the question could be more accurately stated as, "Based on the available evidence at this time, is the belief in the existence of a god justified?"

uh, not sure what you mean with the TV thing, but yes... choosing to not believe is in itself a belief. You cannot KNOW you're right either way, because the answer is itself an opinion. It's not like... what goes up must come down. A law. It's an opinion based on your faith in that opinion being the right one, and unless you enjoy being delusional that's all it'll ever be, regardless of how strongly you feel about which ever choice you've made. And yes, the same goes for me. It is my belief, my opinion, that God exists. And not just any old God, but one God, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, aka. YHWH (in Hebrew) which translates as "Yahweh."

Belief is a subset of knowledge so saying you don't know a certain belief is true is meaningless. But that is not to say that it is an opinion either. Your beliefs should be supported by evidence, end of story.

Wait, so now Atheism means belief that Organized Religions don't exist? I don't follow.

He was probably referring to how some atheists think that organized religions are a net negative to the human race.

http://restrainedfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atheism_motivational_poster_29.jpg
http://scottklarr.com/media/atheism/motivationalPosters/atheism_motivational_poster_20.jpg

Wow... you know kids in Sunday school ask this like, the first week. It's not about discounting what other holy people have done or said. It's about whether or not you believe Jesus fulfilled prophesy. Remember, the New Testament follows the Old Testament. Jesus' coming was foretold. What he did when he arrived, was foretold.

So are you saying that there were prophecies before Jesus existed and he fulfilled them? If that is the case, can I see the source and description of all the prophecies that were claimed and all of the prophecies that were fulfilled?

So like rvkevin, you're going to allow a human being's actions to determine the validity of a super-natural being. I question the logic of this decision.

When did I ever say this to be the case. Belief in the supernatural is not justified based on the evidence, not on human actions. However, human actions is evidence to show some of the claims in the Bible are incorrect, namely Psalm 14:1.

There is a reason why "miracles" are investigated very intensely by the Catholic Church's own scientists. These aren't crack pots, mind you. These are degree holding, venerated members of their respective scientific communities.

So the church investigates miracles. Any success with that? By the way, scientists in North Korea also investigate miracles, and miracles aren't exclusively investigated by religious officials, but are there any results that are worthwhile? If there are, I would like to know.

And besides, Jesus already came, and went. The next time he comes, as is foretold, will be when the world as we know it ends.

Wasn't he supposed to return during the lives of his disciples? If that was the case, then this whole returning prophecy is just false.

I just wrote about this above: "So…prediction gets made, prediction doesn’t come true, shouldn’t the believers leave the religion? You’d think so, but it doesn’t always happen. It’s seen in cults all the time, the leader will predict the date for the end times, date comes and passes and the believers are still dedicated to the dogma. The leader says he made an arithmetic mistake and picks a new date, date comes and passes, and the followers are still sheep. I can’t explain why they don’t open their eyes, but I can definitely see the relation. Now, there might be a difference since the leader would not be present, but he was supposed to return in their lifetime, wasn’t he, to fulfill the prophecy (which would be the hope in the followers life and like the cult followers, be unfazed by the lack of fulfillment of the initial prophecy)?"

What makes you think that this will actually happen?

 

[rvkevin]

Oops. Doubles post.

 

[Sucumbio]

While some details are minor and could obviously be looked over when recalling events, things like a virgin birth, the resurrection and the ascension being highly inconsistent really isn't making it a reliable source. If a history textbook contradicted itself this much, you wouldn't use it.

I'll address those, sure. The following quotes will be from the infidels.org page.

1.) Virgin Birth

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

John 20:30-31

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name.

Luke was one of John's strongest influences for his gospel. It is not far fetched to believe he felt it unnecessary to reiterate, or concentrate on the details of Jesus' actual birth which Luke had already detailed. John's gospel is also far more evangelical in nature, expounding on things like "the holy trinity". In essence, his seemingly purposeful omission of the Virgin Birth account, is actually because it wasn't necessary for him to write about.

]The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

Romans 1:3 (KJV)

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Ergo, he was a decedent of David, not David's kid! -_- terrible argument made by our friend at infidel.org

Galatians 4:4 (KJV)

But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

Ergo, he wasn't a ******* child. That's ALL that means. It speaks nothing to Mary's "immaculate conception."

1. Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."

b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

I hardly see contradiction. All of them agree Mary Magdalene discovered his tomb empty. "The other Mary" is his mother, Mary. John's account is for lack of a better word, a "preemptive" strike against those who would say that Jesus wasn't all that great because the first person to his tomb was the **** he -may- have been banging.

2. Who did they find at the tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).

b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.

c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.

d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.

Again, I don't see any huge contradictions. All four recount seeing something there. Mark's white-robed man could be Mary's observation of her son. Luke, 2 dazzling men could be Matthew's observation of Pilate's guards as illuminated by the presence of an Angel. Once again John tries to play peace maker in an attempt to dumb down these events into a more linear hands-on account and with keeping within his own account. This doesn't invalidate any of it, it just goes to show how different people witness the same event, take from it different things.

3. Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?

a. According to Mark 16:8, "they said nothing to anyone."

b. According to Matthew 28:8, they "ran to report it to His disciples."

c. According to Luke 24:9, "they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

Mark 16:7

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Talk about nit pickers, lol. Again they all agree they saw something amazing and did report it, only Mark's account suggests otherwise, and only if you don't read the preceding passage.

According to Luke 24:51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on the same day as his resurrection.

According to Acts 1:9-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet, forty days after his resurrection.

They're actually written by the same man, Luke. He doesn't contradict himself, either. With the aid of a map, one will find that they're the same place, lol. "Bethany is a town on the eastern side of Mount Olivet." -source more -_-

Ok, God writing it was badly phrased. God inspired would better. And while my idea is just an idea, can you actually prove it wrong?

Your idea is that the gospels were written to paint Jesus as holy so as to promote the Church, right? Well... duh. Obviously their account of Jesus would be one which paints him as super-natural. It's not only the truth, it'd be foolish to expect people to join your church (as they were instructed to promote doing) if your "god" wasn't super-natural. ? I guess I'm just not following you on this one. And I have a bitter taste in my mouth from people who think the Bible is self- ... NO! Darn you Dre. I will not say it.

Why does it seem foolish to base one's evidence on Man's observation of God, if one is indeed a man? I am the only person who can make observations for myself; I can't ask YOU to see or hear for me. In fact, I CAN ONLY base my evidence on the world as I have perceived it.

Ok, it's not foolish to base the evidence that God presents you upon your own observation. As you say, you have no choice but to do that. All of existence is technically based on our own perception of it. What's foolish is expecting God to present himself in such a way that you have no choice but to believe in him. This is why it goes back to the choice. Why do atheists -choose- to believe there is no God, when there's no evidence that says there isn't. It doesn't matter that there's likely no evidence that there is, it's about erring on the side of caution, imho.

I personally am an Atheist (although I prefer to call it just "secular" because "Atheist" has a Satan-loving connotation to it), and this is not because I oppose religion, but rather because I have never found a need to participate in it. I have had no evidence to support the existence of God, and I have never needed to believe in it. And please, to all religious people: don't regard me as "one who has not seen the light" because that's close-minded and it demonstrates that you do not understand my position. I have been highly exposed to religion in my life (I studied Catholicism for 6 years in Catholic schools), and I simply do not need it.

I accept THAT (what's bolded) as a perfectly legitamet reason to be athiest. You, are not a so-called atheist, you're the real deal. The bit about having no evidence, again, having no evidence is irrelevant. I have no evidence God exists, either and yet I believe. We can't both be right, so they nullify each other. But -I- do need God in my life, as you do not, and this is why I am Christian, and you are not. And if I can get rvkevin to understand this, we'll be getting somewhere.

*gears up*

OK

The basic point is, what makes your God distinguishable from being non-existent?

My faith!

This is incorrect. Insufficient evidence is sufficient reason to reject a claim (This is not to say that lack of evidence is sufficient to claim the opposite is true.).

Well sure, if you're willing to accept your own ability to seek evidence is paramount. If I were to tell you that the Earth orbits the Moon, for example, you'd be hard pressed to actually prove me wrong, you'd have to cite other people's observations, calculations, etc. That's why it's silly to try and use science to devalue (or to dismiss) a spiritual belief.

To say I don't believe that God exists, simply lack of evidence is sufficient. Any claim presented must have evidence to support it, if it doesn't, it can be rejected outright. Similar claims such as Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, the Jersey Devil, UFOs, alien abductions, ghosts, homeopathy, a teapot circling Pluto, the thousands of deities, the Earth is 6,000 years old, and even claims that happen to be true (If I buy a lottery ticket and I claim "This is the winning ticket," and it happens to be the winning ticket, I would not be justified at that time to make that claim) can be dismissed without evidence. If you don't dismiss claims that have no evidence, are you saying that you believe all of these claims?

Some things are true whether you believe them or not. All the evidence to the contrary (or non-evidence as it were) may steer you away from believing God exists, but the consideration to make is that you're still wrong, because as much non-evidence you have, I have non-evidence as well, and yet I still believe. In other words, comparing God to Big Foot is an unfair comparison. God embodies an idea. A precept. Big Foot embodies a physical being. God is not a physical being. Big Foot, Loch Ness, The flying spaghetti monster, these are all physical beings that cannot be proven to exist (or not exist).

"Based on the available evidence at this time, is the belief in the existence of a god justified?"

That's usually week 2 of Sunday school. Belief in God is not to be justified, especially based on the state of the world, the suffering of people or the planet. It's to be accepted as Truth of Lie. I choose Truth. You choose Lie. But unlike Kmar (for the most part) your choice is based on God not living up to your expectations, working miracles all over the place, showing himself on the Six o'Clock news, etc. This is what I find fault in. You're looking for evidence when there's none to be found, nor will there ever be. Only within your own personal faith in these things, will there be the evidence you seek, and that would require you to shift from Its a Lie, to Its the Truth, and -that- no one can do for you, you can only do that for yourself.

He was probably referring to how some atheists think that organized religions are a net negative to the human race.

http://restrainedfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atheism_motivational_poster_29.jpg
http://scottklarr.com/media/atheism/motivationalPosters/atheism_motivational_poster_20.jpg

Oh, no doubt. I mean, we have the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. etc. There's plenty of ******** Human fallacies that have spawned due to -misguided- faith.

So are you saying that there were prophecies before Jesus existed and he fulfilled them? If that is the case, can I see the source and description of all the prophecies that were claimed and all of the prophecies that were fulfilled?

There's many. Look here.

When did I ever say this to be the case.

Actually, I apologize, you didn't say that you should question belief in God due to what people do in his name. gm jack had cited child molester priests in Ireland as a reason to not believe in God (or that's how I took it anyway) and I equated this citation to the same mentality/methodology that you are employing in requiring earthly evidence for a super-natural existence.

human actions is evidence to show some of the claims in the Bible are incorrect, namely Psalm 14:1.

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Haha yeah, that seems harsh, doesn't it? Then again it IS form the Old Testament, and King David was specifically attacking "fools" which at the time was mostly meant to be taken as "sinners."

So the church investigates miracles. Any success with that? By the way, scientists in North Korea also investigate miracles, and miracles aren't exclusively investigated by religious officials, but are there any results that are worthwhile? If there are, I would like to know.

Success? Absolutely. It's required during the canonization process.

Wasn't he supposed to return during the lives of his disciples? If that was the case, then this whole returning prophecy is just false.

No.

What makes you think that this will actually happen?

More of that there Faith, son.

 

[gm jack]

I'll address those, sure. The following quotes will be from the infidels.org page.

1.) Virgin Birth



John 20:30-31

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name.

Luke was one of John's strongest influences for his gospel. It is not far fetched to believe he felt it unnecessary to reiterate, or concentrate on the details of Jesus' actual birth which Luke had already detailed. John's gospel is also far more evangelical in nature, expounding on things like "the holy trinity". In essence, his seemingly purposeful omission of the Virgin Birth account, is actually because it wasn't necessary for him to write about.

Fair enough. Still, it is a very key point in his life which should be a massive "watch this guy defy nature" moment. Seems very odd to omit it.

Romans 1:3 (KJV)

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Ergo, he was a decedent of David, not David's kid! -_- terrible argument made by our friend at infidel.org

Galatians 4:4 (KJV)

But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

Ergo, he wasn't a ******* child. That's ALL that means. It speaks nothing to Mary's "immaculate conception."

The point is that he was supposed to be the heir to Davids throne, while also being of a virgin birth, so nothing to do with David. Mary was not a descendant of David. Therefore, as the messiah was supposed to be the descendant of David, either David was the father, and it was not an immaculate conception and the son of god, or it wasn't the messiah.

I hardly see contradiction. All of them agree Mary Magdalene discovered his tomb empty. "The other Mary" is his mother, Mary. John's account is for lack of a better word, a "preemptive" strike against those who would say that Jesus wasn't all that great because the first person to his tomb was the **** he -may- have been banging.

It's the point that it's such a s huge event and they aren't consistent. And the preemptive strike shows their is a lie in the gospels if your idea is true. Hardly allows you to put faith in the rest of it.

Again, I don't see any huge contradictions. All four recount seeing something there. Mark's white-robed man could be Mary's observation of her son. Luke, 2 dazzling men could be Matthew's observation of Pilate's guards as illuminated by the presence of an Angel. Once again John tries to play peace maker in an attempt to dumb down these events into a more linear hands-on account and with keeping within his own account. This doesn't invalidate any of it, it just goes to show how different people witness the same event, take from it different things.

Fair enough.

Mark 16:7

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Talk about nit pickers, lol. Again they all agree they saw something amazing and did report it, only Mark's account suggests otherwise, and only if you don't read the preceding passage.

Not familiar with this section, so no comment.

They're actually written by the same man, Luke. He doesn't contradict himself, either. With the aid of a map, one will find that they're the same place, lol. "Bethany is a town on the eastern side of Mount Olivet." -source more -_-

If they are written by the same man, how the **** do you confuse the next day with nearly 6 weeks later?

Your idea is that the gospels were written to paint Jesus as holy so as to promote the Church, right? Well... duh. Obviously their account of Jesus would be one which paints him as super-natural. It's not only the truth, it'd be foolish to expect people to join your church (as they were instructed to promote doing) if your "god" wasn't super-natural. ? I guess I'm just not following you on this one. And I have a bitter taste in my mouth from people who think the Bible is self- ... NO! Darn you Dre. I will not say it.

If it isn't all truth, why trust any of it? Are you going to pick the bits you like and ignore the rest of it? How can you know what is true and what isn't? If you think they lied to make him seem better, what makes you thing he was the real deal at all? The jews are still waiting for the messiah to come the first time around.

Ok, it's not foolish to base the evidence that God presents you upon your own observation. As you say, you have no choice but to do that. All of existence is technically based on our own perception of it. What's foolish is expecting God to present himself in such a way that you have no choice but to believe in him. This is why it goes back to the choice. Why do atheists -choose- to believe there is no God, when there's no evidence that says there isn't. It doesn't matter that there's likely no evidence that there is, it's about erring on the side of caution, imho.

Do you believe in a flying spaggetti monster (blessed be his noodly appendages) when there is no evidence to disprove it? There is no need to disprove something without any evidence for it. Standard procedures put the burden of proof on the one doing the proving. You have to assume nothing before something. However, technically, as you have to accept a minute possibility, agnostic is the better term, as you are aware enough to accept the idea should proof ever be found.

I accept THAT (what's bolded) as a perfectly legitamet reason to be athiest. You, are not a so-called atheist, you're the real deal. The bit about having no evidence, again, having no evidence is irrelevant. I have no evidence God exists, either and yet I believe. We can't both be right, so they nullify each other. But -I- do need God in my life, as you do not, and this is why I am Christian, and you are not. And if I can get rvkevin to understand this, we'll be getting somewhere.

Having no evidence is irrelevant? In any other field, if you told them you believed something and then said you have no evidence for it, you would be laughed out.

My faith!

Most people with imaginary friends are told to grow up. Make the friend all powerful and suddenly it all changes?

Well sure, if you're willing to accept your own ability to seek evidence is paramount. If I were to tell you that the Earth orbits the Moon, for example, you'd be hard pressed to actually prove me wrong, you'd have to cite other people's observations, calculations, etc. That's why it's silly to try and use science to devalue (or to dismiss) a spiritual belief.

Apart from the fact it is all reproducible values. the stuff you need to prove the Earth orbits the moon is nothing lower that what I assume would be your high school physics and some telescopes. If I really wanted to prove it, I could take the values and get the same result. But we are lazy and don't fancy doing it lots, so we cite peer reviewed articles where they go under the criticism of the scientific community trying to prove each other wrong and their own ideas right (people try to stay unbiased, but in the end, you need to be right to get funding, so if someone else published a different idea in the same field, you don't just accept it). This does routinely involve people repeating the experiments to see if they can confirm the conclusions.

Spiritual beliefs offer none of this. It gives no reproducible values and no firm conclusions. The fact that religion works on anecdotal evidence, as opposed to statistically significant evidence makes it scientifically unsound. Any other idea which is not statistically and/or theoretically sound is generally ignored because it doesn't give anything but a negative (i.e. proves how it doesn't work).

Some things are true whether you believe them or not. All the evidence to the contrary (or non-evidence as it were) may steer you away from believing God exists, but the consideration to make is that you're still wrong, because as much non-evidence you have, I have non-evidence as well, and yet I still believe. In other words, comparing God to Big Foot is an unfair comparison. God embodies an idea. A precept. Big Foot embodies a physical being. God is not a physical being. Big Foot, Loch Ness, The flying spaghetti monster, these are all physical beings that cannot be proven to exist (or not exist).

The flying spagetti monster is yet to touch your heart, as you clearly do not acknowledge it as a spiritual being. What now? The point is, all of them have no evidence (apart from a few blurry photos in the case of some) and are mostly people convinced they do exist. An idea holds no value other than as an idea to anyone. It does not suddenly become true because it is purely a concept. It is just yet another possible way in which things could work, and one which we have yet to find a way to investigate.

That's usually week 2 of Sunday school. Belief in God is not to be justified, especially based on the state of the world, the suffering of people or the planet. It's to be accepted as Truth of Lie. I choose Truth. You choose Lie. But unlike Kmar (for the most part) your choice is based on God not living up to your expectations, working miracles all over the place, showing himself on the Six o'Clock news, etc. This is what I find fault in. You're looking for evidence when there's none to be found, nor will there ever be. Only within your own personal faith in these things, will there be the evidence you seek, and that would require you to shift from Its a Lie, to Its the Truth, and -that- no one can do for you, you can only do that for yourself.

You were born in a well developed country with a good chance of life. What made you a more favourable fetus to the one who was born into a starving family and died of malaria at 6 month old? Neither of you could have done anything to anger a good and possibly gain his wrath (although its a loving god). Yet some people have the world as their oyster and can achieve anything they set their mind to, while others don't even get a chance to realise how bad a situation they are in. Is that the sign of a God who loves anyone?

Oh, no doubt. I mean, we have the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. etc. There's plenty of ******** Human fallacies that have spawned due to -misguided- faith.

What makes your faith any more right than theirs? I'm not defending them, but the lack of killing people does not make a faith right.

There's many. Look here.

Either general, or wrong.

The lineage is all wrong, as David was not suppose to have knocked up Mary, so not giving any of that lineage to Jesus.

Why would be be born in Bethlehem? The laws reuired you stay home, not go the "home of your ancestors". Who are your "ancestors" anyway? How far back do you go? Also, people were often known as the blace they were born in at the time. Jesus of Nazereth doesn't work with that one well, though it's of course debatable. Just doesn't fit.

Pieces of silver was not a currency at the time.

They did not crucify thieves. It was a punishment for only the greatest crimes, as it was more or less the worst a sadistic empire could come up with.

As said, many of these are very general. For example, being betrayed by a friend could be on a huge sliding scale.

Actually, I apologize, you didn't say that you should question belief in God due to what people do in his name. gm jack had cited child molester priests in Ireland as a reason to not believe in God (or that's how I took it anyway) and I equated this citation to the same mentality/methodology that you are employing in requiring earthly evidence for a super-natural existence.

Oh, it wasn't a reason not to believe in God directly. It's just showing what people of faith can do and expect to get away with because they are of faith. If a gang member killed someone, and then the rest of the gang started asking people for the money for his lawyer, they would be uproar. But as it's religion, it was passed off as ok.

I don't believe for 2 main reasons. 1, there is no evidence. 2, the world is far too horrible a place to be created by someone who loves us all equally.

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Haha yeah, that seems harsh, doesn't it? Then again it IS form the Old Testament, and King David was specifically attacking "fools" which at the time was mostly meant to be taken as "sinners."

And then again, everyone is a sinner, due to the event of Genesis. Woops, that's everyone.





This guy actually sums it up pretty well (or certain elements of it) to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Really, it does seem like such a load of rubbish to me.

 

[rvkevin]

The basic point is, what makes your God distinguishable from being non-existent?

My faith!

Are you saying that the only thing that makes God indistinguishable from being non-existent is your faith in his existence? So, you think of God as a concept? After all, saying that God's existence is dependent on your faith is essentially saying that if you didn't exist, then God wouldn't either, meaning that God would be essentially just an idea. If this isn't the case, then how does your God manifest in reality?

Well sure, if you're willing to accept your own ability to seek evidence is paramount. If I were to tell you that the Earth orbits the Moon, for example, you'd be hard pressed to actually prove me wrong, you'd have to cite other people's observations, calculations, etc. That's why it's silly to try and use science to devalue (or to dismiss) a spiritual belief.

If you told me the Earth orbits the Moon, I would ask you for your evidence, the justification for your acceptance of the claim, "The Earth orbits the Moon." If you come up with nothing, then all I can say is that you are not justified in believing such a claim. As I have already said, evidence is not required to reject a claim if the claim itself is not supported by evidence. Not sure what you mean by spiritual, but any belief should be supported by evidence and without that evidence, anyone would not be justified in believing in such a claim.

Belief in God is not to be justified, especially based on the state of the world, the suffering of people or the planet.

Please explain. Why doesn't belief in God not need to be justified? As far as I'm concerned, it’s just an assertion that has no reasoning behind it. All beliefs should be justified, if they are not, then they are illogical by definition.

So are you saying that there were prophecies before Jesus existed and he fulfilled them? If that is the case, can I see the source and description of all the prophecies that were claimed and all of the prophecies that were fulfilled?

There's many. Look here.

There are many that don't come true: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html That’s why prophecy is such a horrible standard to judge a statement's accuracy. It is fraught with so many biases. For example, there is a system that enables you to tell someone the exact winners of every horserace every single time. If you don't hear the misses, every hit makes the person sound so much more credible when they are not, it’s the basis for supernatural mediums and is a flaw in the human mind.

"There is a reason why the Catholic church keeps under lock and key the Gospels that didn't make it into the Bible. Or documents later found, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because even with what they did ultimately use, there is still room for interpretation, the existence of contradiction, etc. They had a tough job back in the day. They had to hand pick the most relevant and important texts, and compile them for mass consumption."

"Your idea is that the gospels were written to paint Jesus as holy so as to promote the Church, right? Well... duh. Obviously their account of Jesus would be one which paints him as super-natural. It's not only the truth, it'd be foolish to expect people to join your church (as they were instructed to promote doing) if your "god" wasn't super-natural."

And does it ever cross your mind that during this process that they manipulate the manuscripts? This is exactly what shouldn't be happening when you're trying to judge the accuracy of a claim, especially one by prophecy. "They had to hand pick the most relevant and important texts, and compile them for mass consumption." This just sounds ripe for manipulation. Its like picking from a book of predictions and choosing only those that hit and claiming the book was divine, its just bad practice.

So the church investigates miracles. Any success with that? By the way, scientists in North Korea also investigate miracles, and miracles aren't exclusively investigated by religious officials, but are there any results that are worthwhile? If there are, I would like to know.

Success? Absolutely. It's required during the canonization process.

The closest thing the article describes as to what they consider being a miracle is "heroic virtues." This is hardly what I consider to be a miracle. A miracle is generally considered to be an event resulting from the suspension of natural laws. Being nice to someone is not a miracle. Low probability events are not miracles. So, have there been any modern miracles?


Wasn't he supposed to return during the lives of his disciples? If that was the case, then this whole returning prophecy is just false.

No.

"This generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." - Matthew*24:34, Mark*13:30, Luke*21:32

"So…prediction gets made, prediction doesn’t come true, shouldn’t the believers leave the religion? You’d think so, but it doesn’t always happen. It’s seen in cults all the time, the leader will predict the date for the end times, date comes and passes and the believers are still dedicated to the dogma. The leader says he made an arithmetic mistake and picks a new date, date comes and passes, and the followers are still sheep. I can’t explain why they don’t open their eyes, but I can definitely see the relation. Now, there might be a difference since the leader would not be present, but he was supposed to return in their lifetime, wasn’t he, to fulfill the prophecy (which would be the hope in the followers life and like the cult followers, be unfazed by the lack of fulfillment of the initial prophecy)?"

How much clearer does it get? Its been more than a generation since his claims. Its false.

 

[Albert.]

Question: Why is the original poster so awesome???

 

[rvkevin]

Either general, or wrong.

The lineage is all wrong, as David was not suppose to have knocked up Mary, so not giving any of that lineage to Jesus.

Why would be be born in Bethlehem? The laws reuired you stay home, not go the "home of your ancestors". Who are your "ancestors" anyway? How far back do you go? Also, people were often known as the blace they were born in at the time. Jesus of Nazereth doesn't work with that one well, though it's of course debatable. Just doesn't fit.

Pieces of silver was not a currency at the time.

They did not crucify thieves. It was a punishment for only the greatest crimes, as it was more or less the worst a sadistic empire could come up with.

As said, many of these are very general. For example, being betrayed by a friend could be on a huge sliding scale.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew some were way too general. Like "He arrived on a donkey." It would hardly be a prediction if I said my friend from out of town would arrive in an automobile if it was the standard mode of transportation at the time. Not to mention that most of them were just copied from the original and are just fictional. And George Carlin is probably one of the best comedians of all time.

 

[Sucumbio]

The site ad engine is hilarious. All this god talk so of course:

Anyway...

The point is that he was supposed to be the heir to Davids throne, while also being of a virgin birth, so nothing to do with David.

Woah woah, hold the phone, you're confused about what the Immaculate Conception means. It means Jospeh and Mary had a baby, without having sex. She's the "virgin" Mary because she'd never had sex before nor afterward. The baby Jesus just showed up in her womb. But it's still her and Joseph's child. And it's through Joseph that the bloodline has been traced back to King David. Now technically Matthew and Luke disagree on the bloodline path from Joseph back to the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel which leads to David, but they both agree it goes back to Zorobabel and then David, regardless.

If they are written by the same man, how the **** do you confuse the next day with nearly 6 weeks later?

Actually I ignored that part, because it says that Acts 1:9 gives the time frame of 40 days and Luke 24:51 the same day, however if you scan here, you'll see that Luke 24:51 does not in fact say it took place on the same day as his resurrection, but "an event which was ten days before the first Pentecost after the resurrection, and thus some forty days after..."

So yeah, basically I have no idea where infidel.org got that from, but it's inaccurate.

If it isn't all truth, why trust any of it? Are you going to pick the bits you like and ignore the rest of it? How can you know what is true and what isn't? If you think they lied to make him seem better, what makes you thing he was the real deal at all? The jews are still waiting for the messiah to come the first time around.

Lets say you, me and 9 other folks all witness the same event, and then we are asked to describe the event in words. Mind you several years have since passed. We agree to tell the truth of our account to the best of our ability. In doing so, it's very likely we will not all say the exact same thing, and we may even contradict one another, and yet everything we said was true to the best of our ability. Does this mean our accounts are totally invalid? What if our accounts of this one event are the only ones even close to being accurate, and what if the event itself is so important that it -must- be written about. I mean, unfortunately there weren't video cameras back in the day, but I'm willing to take them at their word, and I'm willing to forgive their obvious inability to recount the details as perfectly as a machine, and I'm willing to acknowledge the fact that multiple accounts of the same event may very well indeed be somewhat different. But all in all, these differences are minor, and inconsequential, when considering the value of the teachings inherent to the document itself.

Do you believe in a flying spaggetti monster (blessed be his noodly appendages) when there is no evidence to disprove it?

No, and... no? No... yeah. No. No I do not, and that is because I have no need to (thanks, Kmar )

Having no evidence is irrelevant? In any other field, if you told them you believed something and then said you have no evidence for it, you would be laughed out.

Correct, however belief in an all power deity is not "every other field" it's a unique field, and the rules of justification by evidence are null and void. Just because -you- need evidence doesn't mean we all do. It's just you, really. We're all individuals in this, and we all either choose to accept the possibility of God or to not accept the possibility of God. If physical evidence is going to the be the thing you bank your decision on, then you may as well remain a non-believer, lol because as I've stated, there is no true evidence to be had, no real empirical data to be collected, or harnessed. All there is, is faith, which is all there needs be (if you're a believer).

Spiritual beliefs offer none of this. It gives no reproducible values and no firm conclusions. The fact that religion works on anecdotal evidence, as opposed to statistically significant evidence makes it scientifically unsound. Any other idea which is not statistically and/or theoretically sound is generally ignored because it doesn't give anything but a negative (i.e. proves how it doesn't work).

Yep, it's a real *****, ain't it? This is why so many younger folks feel like impostors (myself included when I was younger) when their parents force them to go to church. Cause you're sittin' there... twiddling your thumbs, thinking to yourself, wtf is all this? what I am even doing here? I don't believe in this fairy tale. It's all nonsense. None of it is true! You can't PROVE any of this! Waste. Of. My. Time. It's not until something changes, either within you, or within the world around you, that you decide otherwise. Maybe you read something, for me it was in reading an old hardcover book recounting the Miracle of Our Lady of La Salette, reading it a bit at a time, over several weeks, while accompanying my ex gf on her weekly visits to the catholic church's prayer room. I spent a long time afterward questioning everything about the Church, about its role in the World, and about its origins. I questioned God, his existence and his purpose, and his purpose for us. And I got my answers.

You were born in a well developed country with a good chance of life. What made you a more favourable fetus to the one who was born into a starving family and died of malaria at 6 month old? Neither of you could have done anything to anger a good and possibly gain his wrath (although its a loving god). Yet some people have the world as their oyster and can achieve anything they set their mind to, while others don't even get a chance to realise how bad a situation they are in. Is that the sign of a God who loves anyone?

Excellent question, and very typical of an atheist actually, Mr. Agnostic

"We need also to recognize that our very minds were created by God. We can only use these minds to the extent that He allows, and it is, therefore, utterly presumptuous for us to use them to question Him and His motives.

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25).

“Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast Thou made me thus?” (Romans 9:20).

We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that. We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is, by definition, right.

Having settled this by faith, we are then free to seek for ways in which we can profit spiritually from the sufferings in life as well as the blessings. As we consider such matters, it is helpful to keep the following great truths continually in our minds." -source

The basic point is, what makes your God distinguishable from being non-existent?


Are you saying that the only thing that makes God indistinguishable from being non-existent is your faith in his existence? So, you think of God as a concept? After all, saying that God's existence is dependent on your faith is essentially saying that if you didn't exist, then God wouldn't either, meaning that God would be essentially just an idea. If this isn't the case, then how does your God manifest in reality?

Niiiice. Yeah lets go there, why not. You got it. In fact, if I don't exist, then none of you do either!

If you told me the Earth orbits the Moon, I would ask you for your evidence, the justification for your acceptance of the claim, "The Earth orbits the Moon." If you come up with nothing, then all I can say is that you are not justified in believing such a claim. As I have already said, evidence is not required to reject a claim if the claim itself is not supported by evidence. Not sure what you mean by spiritual, but any belief should be supported by evidence and without that evidence, anyone would not be justified in believing in such a claim.

This is more or less the same thing gm jack pointed out. In summation, spiritual truth is different, it's something that cannot be scientifically proved or disproved.

Please explain. Why doesn't belief in God not need to be justified? As far as I'm concerned, it’s just an assertion that has no reasoning behind it. All beliefs should be justified, if they are not, then they are illogical by definition.

You are not the boss of me. Seriously though, for you that's fine, but for me it's unnecessary. I have no justification for my belief. Only that I know its the right one to have, and I'm stickin' to it.

And does it ever cross your mind that during this process that they manipulate the manuscripts? This is exactly what shouldn't be happening when you're trying to judge the accuracy of a claim, especially one by prophecy. "They had to hand pick the most relevant and important texts, and compile them for mass consumption." This just sounds ripe for manipulation. Its like picking from a book of predictions and choosing only those that hit and claiming the book was divine, its just bad practice.

You misunderstand here.. the purpose for choosing certain gospels over others was to help uneducated people to be a part of the church. There's SO many versions of the Bible now, it's crazy, and sometimes the same passage really does get told differently, and its meaning may even shift a bit, sometimes more's read into it than what was originally there. That's what Church is for, to help guide you through it so you're not all alone trying to figure out the fallacies, the contradictions, the outright omissions. That's also why there are so many different Churches. Catholicism for me, is the root source, the original... and so if I attend Mass, I do so at a Catholic Church. But technically I was raised Episcopal (and hated it most of the time, how boring!).

The closest thing the article describes as to what they consider being a miracle is "heroic virtues." This is hardly what I consider to be a miracle. A miracle is generally considered to be an event resulting from the suspension of natural laws. Being nice to someone is not a miracle. Low probability events are not miracles. So, have there been any modern miracles?

LOL so wait, you're the authority on what a miracle is? Good to know. I don't believe you, btw. And I don't need proof to know I don't believe you, either

How much clearer does it get? Its been more than a generation since his claims. Its false.

Two things:

Acts 1:3-12
After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the city.

What was said is that this generation would not pass until all these things ( described in Luke 21 ) be fulfilled . He was referring to the generation that would see these things take place . Not the generation He was talking to