Email from jlcopp3915 (YouTube)

Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Email from jlcopp3915 (YouTube)

I got this in response to some comments I made on a YT video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTwJ-d2ODFQ). I have no interest in private debates, so here it is in public. Feel free to respond.

jlcopp3915 wrote:

A God vs NO God OK, since the burden of proof is on the one making the claim....

Can we begin with how you have determined that the Bible is a Lie? To begin with, I'll make the claim that the Bible is at least a Great Historical Document composed with over 60 Authors spanning a period of 5000 years. Would you begin to accept this small Fact?

Would you also hold the same in regards to the "Satanic bible". Is this a book of Lies?

Would you accept that the Old Testament Books document the beginning of a civilization and how they dealt with the world around them? Would you accept that such accounts have to be viewed with the language and context of that civilization and what they knew at that time to be "True".

Would the Hundreds if not thousands of First Hand Accounts of Jesus and His early followers be discounted as Lies or should their lives be viewed within the Historical Context of the times of which they lived?

My favorite passages of Jesus is when he dealt with the Religious Leaders of the Day. How he answered them was quite powerful. Should such encounters be treated as Lies? I personally like St. Thomas in such matters. He needed the physical proof that Atheists require today. Since St. Thomas was a fierce skeptic, would his faith be a consideration for a modern day Atheist?

Would you consider that Jesus was a Liar? Is there any evidence that Jesus Lied even in the smallest of matters? Would you consider that he received a Righteous and justifiable sentence of death, considering the context of his accusers?

Were all those People Deceived that Jesus met? I'll admit it sure would have been cool to have video cameras back then. However, we still have thousands of people that had their lives altered and they WENT to their deaths for such Eye Witness Accounts.

I'll also ask if you are 100% sure of your NO God Claim? Are you a Strong Atheist or a Weak One? Or do you hold to being an Agnostic and require some form of Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Would you hold that the A God vs NO God is Mutually Exclusive and that ONLY 1 position is True?

How much weight must be given to Atheists and Agnostics that have changed their positions bare on your own position? Would the Evidence they accepted be of interest?

If so, then with each possibility having a chance to be true, then what would you conclude from examining the evidence of the other position? How would a God position Alter your own World-view?

 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I give ... talking to

I give ... talking to complete egotistical retards is not my forte, but I do sympathize. Not all sickness is curable.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
jlcopp3915 wrote: A God vs

jlcopp3915 wrote:

A God vs NO God

OK, since the burden of proof is on the one making the claim....

Can we begin with how you have determined that the Bible is a Lie?

The Bible contains lies, such as the story of Noah's Ark. To say the Bible is a lie is shorthand for saying it is full of lies. Pretty much the whole thing is mythology pretending to be fact. In my view, that's lying.

Quote:
To begin with, I'll make the claim that the Bible is at least a Great Historical Document composed with over 60 Authors spanning a period of 5000 years. Would you begin to accept this small Fact?

No, the Bible is not historical. It is mythological. And I doubt it is 5000 years old.

Quote:
Would you also hold the same in regards to the "Satanic bible". Is this a book of Lies?

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:
Would you accept that the Old Testament Books document the beginning of a civilization and how they dealt with the world around them? Would you accept that such accounts have to be viewed with the language and context of that civilization and what they knew at that time to be "True".

You mean it was a mythology just like Chinese mythology or Egyptian mythology or Greek mythology? Yes, I accept that.

Quote:
Would the Hundreds if not thousands of First Hand Accounts of Jesus and His early followers be discounted as Lies or should their lives be viewed within the Historical Context of the times of which they lived?

There are ZERO first hand accounts of Jesus. There are 4 canonical gospel *stories* about Jesus, and within those stories are claims that there were witnesses, but that's just a claim in a story. No contemporary historians mentioned anything about Jesus until long *after* his supposed death. And the gospels were also written much later, and not by any real disciples named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. The authors of the gospels are anonymous and unknown, written in Greek, not Aramaic.

Quote:
My favorite passages of Jesus is when he dealt with the Religious Leaders of the Day. How he answered them was quite powerful. Should such encounters be treated as Lies? I personally like St. Thomas in such matters. He needed the physical proof that Atheists require today. Since St. Thomas was a fierce skeptic, would his faith be a consideration for a modern day Atheist?

Thomas also is a fictional character in your gospel mythology. To say that mythology is historical is a lie, yes.

Quote:
Would you consider that Jesus was a Liar? Is there any evidence that Jesus Lied even in the smallest of matters? Would you consider that he received a Righteous and justifiable sentence of death, considering the context of his accusers?

Is there any evidence that Jesus even existed? No.

Quote:
Were all those People Deceived that Jesus met? I'll admit it sure would have been cool to have video cameras back then. However, we still have thousands of people that had their lives altered and they WENT to their deaths for such Eye Witness Accounts.

Jesus is a fictional character in a mythological story. He's like Superman or Buck Rogers. He's probably not even based on a real person.

Quote:
I'll also ask if you are 100% sure of your NO God Claim?

I made no such claim. I do not believe in any gods. I can only be as sure of that as I am sure I don't live in the Matrix.

Quote:
Are you a Strong Atheist or a Weak One? Or do you hold to being an Agnostic and require some form of Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I am both a strong and weak atheist, as it suits my mood. I am also agnostic. And I don't believe it is possible for anyone to have proof of anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Quote:
Would you hold that the A God vs NO God is Mutually Exclusive and that ONLY 1 position is True?

Logically, they are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
How much weight must be given to Atheists and Agnostics that have changed their positions bare on your own position?

None. Only evidence should be given weight.

Quote:
Would the Evidence they accepted be of interest?

Absolutely. But I have higher standards of evidence than a credulous person does, so I doubt their evidence would be compelling to me.

Quote:
If so, then with each possibility having a chance to be true, then what would you conclude from examining the evidence of the other position? How would a God position Alter your own World-view?

Either a god exists or it doesn't. Show me the evidence and I will consider it. But if all you have is faith and dogma, consider me unpersuadable.

So, now my question to you: Is all you have to base your belief on merely faith and dogma?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
My only quibble would be I

My only quibble would be I would tend in many case to think of people as being deluded rather than lying...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eh, I'll take a swipe at

Eh, I'll take a swipe at this.

jlcopp3915 wrote:

A God vs NO God

OK, since the burden of proof is on the one making the claim....

Okay, but don't forget that the burden of proof is on the theist for the existence of God. 

Quote:
Can we begin with how you have determined that the Bible is a Lie?

Let's start with Genesis.

God created light before he created the sun and the moon. Where did the light come from?

The moon does not produce light.

God punished a naked man and a naked woman that he created without the knowledge of right and wrong for being tricked by a talking snake with legs into eating a fruit that would give them the knowledge of right and wrong. God punished Adam and Eve for not having knowledge that he didn't give them. This is called an internally inconsistent argument.    

Let's see. God's punishment for the snake was to take away its legs. This is bullshit.

Noah's Ark is bullshit. Tower of Babel is bullshit. Lot telling people to rape his two daughters is atrocious. 

Quote:
To begin with, I'll make the claim that the Bible is at least a Great Historical Document composed with over 60 Authors spanning a period of 5000 years. Would you begin to accept this small Fact?

The Bible contains real locations, real events, and people that might have actually existed, just like the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, just like the Book of Mormon, it is primarily a religious text, and thus, everything it says is unreliable and cannot be trusted unless verified by other sources.

Quote:
Would you also hold the same in regards to the "Satanic bible". Is this a book of Lies?

What is the Satanic Bible? Sorry, I didn't know such a book existed.

Quote:
Would you accept that the Old Testament Books document the beginning of a civilization and how they dealt with the world around them?

Certainly, you need some qualifiers on this question. Is some of it true? Yes. Is the rest of it bullshit? Yes.

Quote:
Would you accept that such accounts have to be viewed with the language and context of that civilization and what they knew at that time to be "True".

Aw, you're going to make that ragged old argument. I don't understand why God has to adapt to human society and culture.

Quote:
Would the Hundreds if not thousands of First Hand Accounts of Jesus and His early followers be discounted as Lies or should their lives be viewed within the Historical Context of the times of which they lived?

First hand accounts? You mean the ones that popped up decades after Jesus's death? 

Quote:
My favorite passages of Jesus is when he dealt with the Religious Leaders of the Day. How he answered them was quite powerful. Should such encounters be treated as Lies?

Oh my, you have an obsession with capitalizing certain words. If there's no evidence that they occurred, yes. 

Quote:
I personally like St. Thomas in such matters. He needed the physical proof that Atheists require today. Since St. Thomas was a fierce skeptic, would his faith be a consideration for a modern day Atheist?

Um, aren't you using the Bible to.......

Quote:
Would you consider that Jesus was a Liar? Is there any evidence that Jesus Lied even in the smallest of matters?

Jesus stated that kids who disrespect their parents should be condemned to death. Well, God lied a lot and God=Jesus. So, does that count? 

Quote:
Would you consider that he received a Righteous and justifiable sentence of death, considering the context of his accusers?

Assuming the veracity of the Bible for this question, no.

Quote:
Were all those People Deceived that Jesus met? I'll admit it sure would have been cool to have video cameras back then. However, we still have thousands of people that had their lives altered and they WENT to their deaths for such Eye Witness Accounts.

People die for their religion all the time. It doesn't mean anything.

Quote:
I'll also ask if you are 100% sure of your NO God Claim? Are you a Strong Atheist or a Weak One? Or do you hold to being an Agnostic and require some form of Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Agnostic atheist. Secular humanism.

Quote:
Would you hold that the A God vs NO God is Mutually Exclusive and that ONLY 1 position is True?

Um, yeah?

Quote:
How much weight must be given to Atheists and Agnostics that have changed their positions bare on your own position?

Not much. 

Would the Evidence they accepted be of interest?

Definitely, but there's usually no evidence. Born again Christians are annoying. 

Quote:
If so, then with each possibility having a chance to be true, then what would you conclude from examining the evidence of the other position?

Conclusion: not true.

Quote:
How would a God position Alter your own World-view?

Um, a lot?

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:My only

BobSpence1 wrote:

My only quibble would be I would tend in many case to think of people as being deluded rather than lying...

I normally also shy away from the word 'lie'. However, in the context of the original video and my initial comment that God lied in Genesis when he claimed Adam would die the day he ate the apple, the word just seeped into the comments after that.

Normally I would use the word 'deception'. So, to be clear, I am using 'lie' in the more general sense of deception, not necessarily intentional.

The key point about that word is that something can actually start out as an intentional lie and if it is repeated by people, they may not know they are repeating a lie, and so they are merely unintentionally deceiving others.

So, I stand by my claim that God lied (how would it be possible for God to deceive without it being intentional?), and also that the Bible is full of lies, both intentional and merely-repeated. However, I'll refrain from calling Christians/theists liars. I'll instead point out that they are self-deceived.

Paraphrasing James Randi, it is easy to deceive people, and the easiest person to deceive is yourself. All the more reason to be skeptical of your own beliefs and to apply rational thinking to weed out self-deception.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh, I have no problem

Oh, I have no problem applying the word "liar" to God - if He is remotely what the believers propose in knowledge and power, he ain't gonna be deceived...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yep , no deceiving I god

Yep , no deceiving I god .... such silly childish delusioned unknowing liers   


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 

 


   A God vs NO God OK, since the burden of proof is on the one making the claim....

   Can we begin with how you have determined that the Bible is a Lie? To begin with, I'll make the claim that the Bible is at least a Great Historical Document composed with over 60 Authors spanning a period of 5000 years. Would you begin to accept this small Fact?

Disagree. The Bible is a notoriously poor historical document. I agree about the multiple authors. I estimate the composition timespan to be between 2,500 and 3,000 years.


Would you also hold the same in regards to the "Satanic bible". Is this a book of Lies?

Never read it. Couldn't say.

Would you accept that the Old Testament Books document the beginning of a civilization and how they dealt with the world around them?

No, I would not accept this at all. It seems that a lot of the OT was written well after the fact and was likely based on multiple oral accounts that did not all agree.

Would you accept that such accounts have to be viewed with the language and context of that civilization and what they knew at that time to be "True".

Amazingly enough, yes, I do accept this. All save for the "...and what they knew at that time to be true. " part. Rephrase that to " what they thought to be true. " and I'm game.

Would the Hundreds if not thousands of First Hand Accounts of Jesus and His early followers be discounted as Lies or should their lives be viewed within the Historical Context of the times of which they lived?

Since those " hundreds if not thousands of firsthand accounts " somehow managed, despite the odds, to avoid being written down, then yes, I discount them on exactly the same grounds that I discount the allegations in the Bhagavad Gita claiming that thousands witnessed the resurrection of Krishna. Just because someone claims that thousands of people witnessed something doesn't mean that anyone saw anything. I could just as easily claim that ten million witnesses heard Jesus say it was all a lie. Since the hundreds or thousands of alleged witnesses failed to relay their stories to anyone thinking it worth writing down, I assume the person making the claim is simply a liar.

My favorite passages of Jesus is when he dealt with the Religious Leaders of the Day. How he answered them was quite powerful. Should such encounters be treated as Lies? I personally like St. Thomas in such matters. He needed the physical proof that Atheists require today. Since St. Thomas was a fierce skeptic, would his faith be a consideration for a modern day Atheist?

Powerful answers do not a god make. Since We don't have a first hand account of Thomas. To me, the figure of Thomas reads like a preemptive strike against skeptics. It is something to be expected in a story whose authors want believed, much like UFO proponents including someone saying " I was a skeptic until I saw a light in the sky. " in their documentaries.

Would you consider that Jesus was a Liar? Is there any evidence that Jesus Lied even in the smallest of matters?

Lets see, Matthew 24:34 read in context tells us that the end of the world would happen and the kingdom of heaven would come in his then current listeners lifetime. " I tell you with certainty, this generation will not disappear until these things happen. "
So yes, Jesus was a liar.

Would you consider that he received a Righteous and justifiable sentence of death, considering the context of his accusers?

I have no authority to say what is righteous and justifiable punishment, but since according to the Bible he was strutting around in purple robes and claiming to be king of the Jews, the Roman's weren't going to give him a slap on the wrist and a cookie.

Were all those People Deceived that Jesus met?

Since we have already established that he was a liar, yes, they were deceived.


I'll admit it sure would have been cool to have video cameras back then. However, we still have thousands of people that had their lives altered and they WENT to their deaths for such Eye Witness Accounts.

Your point? David Koresh had a few people go to their death for his spiel. Does this mean that he was right? Hitler had hundreds of thousands go to their deaths believing in him. Using your logic, Hitler must have been an upright, truthful Joe, otherwise nobody would have died for him.

I'll also ask if you are 100% sure of your NO God Claim? Are you a Strong Atheist or a Weak One? Or do you hold to being an Agnostic and require some form of Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I am an atheist, period. I can't claim 100% that there are no gods, but after studying the Bible and Mesopotamian history, I can say with 99.999% certainty that the god in the Bible is a hodge podge amalgamation of Sumerian, Canaanite, and Egyptian gods, a purely fictional invention.

Would you hold that the A God vs NO God is Mutually Exclusive and that ONLY 1 position is True?

Nope. What if both of us are wrong, and Baal Hadad is the one true god? What if it turns out to be Zeus, Osiris, Mot, Shamash, Ahura Mazda, Wotan, or even a pantheon of gods? Pascal's wager works only if you pay lip service to every single god and goddess ever created. Even then if one of the monotheistic ones is the right one, you could still be screwed.

How much weight must be given to Atheists and Agnostics that have changed their positions bare on your own position? Would the Evidence they accepted be of interest?

Depends on the ' atheist ', since a lot of numbskulls show their stupidity by saying things like " I don't believe in God 'cause God don't believe in me. ". Those people are not atheists. Other than that, depends on the ' evidence '. Warm fuzzy feelings do not constitute evidence to me.

If so, then with each possibility having a chance to be true, then what would you conclude from examining the evidence of the other position? How would a God position Alter your own World-view?

Since I am a better person as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian, I have to suspect that it would hurt my world view considerably.

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:I got this in

natural wrote:

I got this in response to some comments I made on a YT video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTwJ-d2ODFQ). I have no interest in private debates, so here it is in public. Feel free to respond.

jlcopp3915 wrote:

A God vs NO God

OK, since the burden of proof is on the one making the claim....

Can we begin with how you have determined that the Bible is a Lie? To begin with, I'll make the claim that the Bible is at least a Great Historical Document composed with over 60 Authors spanning a period of 5000 years. Would you begin to accept this small Fact?

How is the bible "great" or "historical"? The Hindu vedas are much older and this does not make them great or historical.  

jlcopp3915 wrote:


Would you also hold the same in regards to the "Satanic bible". Is this a book of Lies?

 

Have YOU read the satanic bible? If you believe that satan is real why can't he have his own version of what transpired as well? Actually, the satanic bible was written by an atheist. The church of satan is nothing more than a group of atheists who were tired of religion and are making fun of organized religion. They are not satanists!

jlcopp3915 wrote:


Would you accept that the Old Testament Books document the beginning of a civilization and how they dealt with the world around them? Would you accept that such accounts have to be viewed with the language and context of that civilization and what they knew at that time to be "True".

Sure, I could buy this, but it does not mean many of the ridiculous stories in the OT are true either. I believe even you have said something very similiar.

jlcopp3915 wrote:


Would the Hundreds if not thousands of First Hand Accounts of Jesus and His early followers be discounted as Lies or should their lives be viewed within the Historical Context of the times of which they lived?

My favorite passages of Jesus is when he dealt with the Religious Leaders of the Day. How he answered them was quite powerful. Should such encounters be treated as Lies? I personally like St. Thomas in such matters. He needed the physical proof that Atheists require today. Since St. Thomas was a fierce skeptic, would his faith be a consideration for a modern day Atheist?

Outside of the bible there are no historical accounts of jesus. If you can provide us with one contemporary account you would be quite famous. The killing of children by king herod to destroy jesus would have been quite a notable account and yet history outside the bible is blind to such an event. Contrary to popular belief there were many historians documenting important events in Judea during this time and yet strangely silent to this culling. HMMMMMMMMMM.

jlcopp3915 wrote:
 

Would you consider that Jesus was a Liar? Is there any evidence that Jesus Lied even in the smallest of matters? Would you consider that he received a Righteous and justifiable sentence of death, considering the context of his accusers?

Were all those People Deceived that Jesus met? I'll admit it sure would have been cool to have video cameras back then. However, we still have thousands of people that had their lives altered and they WENT to their deaths for such Eye Witness Accounts.

You're still assuming that jesus is an actual person. If you say jesus existed then what proof do you have to support this assertion? The burden of proof is a bitch when you are the one making a claim and we are the ones denying said claim. If I told you the income tax was unconstitutional I would have to give proof as to why it may be. It is not a requirement for you to provide facts to support a position of doubt.

jlcopp3915 wrote:


How much weight must be given to Atheists and Agnostics that have changed their positions bare on your own position? Would the Evidence they accepted be of interest?

If so, then with each possibility having a chance to be true, then what would you conclude from examining the evidence of the other position? How would a God position Alter your own World-view?

 I would be willing to listen to why other atheists have changed their minds to the existence of god. That being said there are many christians who have changed their minds as well and I find many of their reasons mirror my own understanding of religion. Most of us are weak atheists and I have no problem with the existence of some creator being, but I find the god of the bible to be too crude and repulsive to be anything other than a manmade creation like every other god.

 

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A God vs NO God

Quote:
A God vs NO God OK, since the burden of proof is on the one making the claim....

Can we begin with how you have determined that the Bible is a Lie?

No, we can't. Why?

Because otherwise we run the risk of engaging in a circular argument. If we're addressing 'God exists vs No God exists', and you're the claimant in favor of the positive stipulation that God exists, the discussion must start with you presenting evidence for your case!

Quote:

To begin with, I'll make the claim that the Bible is at least a Great Historical Document composed with over 60 Authors spanning a period of 5000 years. Would you begin to accept this small Fact?

No, I won't 'accept that small fact'. Why? Because you've provided no supporting evidence that would agree with your assertion that what you've stated is factual.

Quote:
Would you also hold the same in regards to the "Satanic bible". Is this a book of Lies?

...Would I agree that the Satanic Bible is over 5,000 years old and was composed by 60 different authors?

No.

 

The Satanic Bible was written in 1969 by a singular author, Anton LaVey, an occultist and pseudo-philosopher who loved making media appearances and garnering attention with shocking claims and behavior. The bible itself was largely a collection of his personal perspectives on the world (most of them fairly secular and materialistic) as well as the ethics he thought one should live by and various dialogues as to why (it's actually a very interesting read, if not academically sound).

Quote:
Would you accept that the Old Testament Books document the beginning of a civilization and how they dealt with the world around them? Would you accept that such accounts have to be viewed with the language and context of that civilization and what they knew at that time to be "True".

PRECISELY.

This is not a tome of knowledge, written by/inspired by a supreme being; it was a book written by men from the Bronze Age, attempting to reason how the world worked using mythical stories and allegory.

 

Now we know better than them, and should move forward.

Quote:
Would the Hundreds if not thousands of First Hand Accounts of Jesus and His early followers be discounted as Lies or should their lives be viewed within the Historical Context of the times of which they lived?

None of the gospels are first-hand accounts. How could they be? They involved Jesus doing shit like flying into the sky and transmuting matter and risng from the freaking dead! At best, these are mythical popularizations of a man who was well-known at one point in time (I myself am dubious of this argument as well, given - again - a lack of substantial evidence to support it) - and this, the best line of reasoning one can put forward, still leaves us with a very different figure in history than the popularized Jesus Christ of Nazareth put forth in the Bible.

Quote:
My favorite passages of Jesus is when he dealt with the Religious Leaders of the Day. How he answered them was quite powerful. Should such encounters be treated as Lies? I personally like St. Thomas in such matters. He needed the physical proof that Atheists require today. Since St. Thomas was a fierce skeptic, would his faith be a consideration for a modern day Atheist?

My favorite part in the Spiderman mythos is when Peter Parker unmasks the first criminal he'd ever caught - the man who shot his uncle - only to see that it's the same crook he'd apathetically refused to do anything about earlier that day, thus enabling him (through inaction) to commit the murder.

Just because a work includes messages or motifs or imagery that you find provactive or profound doesn't mean you need to see said work as more 'real'. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that something very ordinary can't also be very meaningful.

Quote:
Would you consider that Jesus was a Liar? Is there any evidence that Jesus Lied even in the smallest of matters? Would you consider that he received a Righteous and justifiable sentence of death, considering the context of his accusers?

Now you're begging the question.

Jesus was not a real person - he was a fictional character. Fictional characters are incapable of 'telling lies', because they're static entities. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
Were all those People Deceived that Jesus met? I'll admit it sure would have been cool to have video cameras back then. However, we still have thousands of people that had their lives altered and they WENT to their deaths for such Eye Witness Accounts.

None of the accounts where Jesus met people in the gospels were factual. Again, you're begging the question.

And yes, anyone today that claims to have seen Jesus or had Jesus 'alter their lives' is delusional.

Quote:
I'll also ask if you are 100% sure of your NO God Claim? Are you a Strong Atheist or a Weak One? Or do you hold to being an Agnostic and require some form of Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I, personally, am a strong atheist. 'God' is an incoherent, ridiculous concept - and I'm certain that no deity exists (much less somehow 'created the universe'). I am, by definition, an agnostic atheist (someone who does not know, nor believes) - as are most people who claim strictly to be strictly 'agnostic' just because they don't like the 'atheist' label (...it would, frankly, be outright impossible for anyone not to be agnostic on the issue unless the entirety of the universe was perfectly and completely understood).

Yes, I am 100% certain (for all intents and purposes) that no deity exists who can magically conjure things into existence out of nothing (through mechanisms that not a single person has ever been able to detail), violating known principles of physics, and influences our daily lives through some enigmatic force.

Quote:
Would you hold that the A God vs NO God is Mutually Exclusive and that ONLY 1 position is True?

Uh. Yeah, pretty much.

Quote:
How much weight must be given to Atheists and Agnostics that have changed their positions bare on your own position? Would the Evidence they accepted be of interest?

In terms of establishing an argument's validity, a person in andof themselves has no weight! I wouldn't care if Stephen Hawkings went on TV tomorrow and declared himself a Young Earth Creationist; if he had no more evidence than any other creationist to support the claim, his argument would be no more valid.

Quote:
If so, then with each possibility having a chance to be true, then what would you conclude from examining the evidence of the other position? How would a God position Alter your own World-view?

...What evidence?

If there's good evidence in circulation, I'd sure like to see it.

 

Compelling evidence in favor of God would likely alter my world-view in favor of seeing if anything could be done to dethrone our maligned dictator. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
WE are G-O-D said many wise

WE are G-O-D said many wise ones thru all history, which is both an allegoric and scientific statement. The ancient Bibles are pretty equivalent to today's "Twilight Zone" ... Why all the denial and suppression of what we are is the most important question for me.


jlcopp3915 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I've often found it

I've often found it interesting in looking at what it took to develop cheaper forms of paper and pen.

Anyway, Mathew was a Jew who collected Taxes for the Roman Government, He was thus despised by loyal Jews.  Very interesting character, anyway Mathew (ie Levi) wrote his Gospel account around 50 AD that puts his writing 20 years after the death and rising of Christ.

Mark was a very young Jewish Native of Jerusalem.  He originally met Christ through Peter.  After the death he traveled with Barnabas and also with Paul.  His gospel was written in 68 AD.  He spent a lot of his time documenting the works of Paul.

Luke was a Physician, very skilled in the medicine of the day.  He also wrote Acts and witnessed the Healings of the Sick.  He is more noted as the writer of ACTS as he documented the Works of the core Disciples and Apostles of the Early Church.  The Gospel According to Luke was written in 60 AD.  As well writing The Acts of the Apostles in 60 AD.

John was one of the original 12 Disciples and was with Christ since the beginning of his worldly ministry, he also was the Last Apostle his primary Gospel was written last around 85 AD.

When viewing these people historically it is quite clear that writing wasn't their first priority in building and spreading the "Word".  However, as the advent of the Church grew, it became evident that these First Hand Accounts needed to be written down.

 

I like how the simple arguments unfold that these people are mythical in nature or liars.

 

If the A God position is True, how might these mens words and witness be validated?  How should one view their world-view in light of these men's encounters and belief?  If this holds TRUE, then it must demand a verdict from the NO God position?

 

Isn't such a verdict easier to deny as FALSE than to examine a reality that holds out a very profound message?

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Well, I find not one single

Well, I find not one single "profound" message in them ancient story books. As to my favorite story character jesus sayings, "I am one with the father (meaning cosmos), ye are gods, this is the kingdom of god and heaven now", is smart, but still so very simple, as to not be profound, but indeed a brave bold daring writing in those past superstitious dangerous times and place of dogmatic gov/church control.

  As in any age we have our wiser, usually not soon understood and even mocked.

 For me and others to say "we are god" as all is connected, is a no brainer, as separate idol gods of any such dogma religion are absurd.

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
jlcopp3915 wrote:Anyway,

jlcopp3915 wrote:
Anyway, Mathew was a Jew who collected Taxes for the Roman Government, He was thus despised by loyal Jews.  Very interesting character, anyway Mathew (ie Levi) wrote his Gospel account around 50 AD that puts his writing 20 years after the death and rising of Christ.

Mark was a very young Jewish Native of Jerusalem.  He originally met Christ through Peter.  After the death he traveled with Barnabas and also with Paul.  His gospel was written in 68 AD.  He spent a lot of his time documenting the works of Paul.

Luke was a Physician, very skilled in the medicine of the day.  He also wrote Acts and witnessed the Healings of the Sick.  He is more noted as the writer of ACTS as he documented the Works of the core Disciples and Apostles of the Early Church.  The Gospel According to Luke was written in 60 AD.  As well writing The Acts of the Apostles in 60 AD.

John was one of the original 12 Disciples and was with Christ since the beginning of his worldly ministry, he also was the Last Apostle his primary Gospel was written last around 85 AD.

When viewing these people historically it is quite clear that writing wasn't their first priority in building and spreading the "Word".  However, as the advent of the Church grew, it became evident that these First Hand Accounts needed to be written down.

This is dogma. You are getting your beliefs from apologists, rather than from real historians. Educate yourself. Learn the facts. It is known by all reputable historians that the gospels were anonymously written, and definitely cannot be shown to have been written by any apostles. And you have your dates wrong, too.

So, all you have to base your beliefs on is dogma and faith, as I suspected. Is this the best you have?

If you are so easily mislead, and so easy to shout out dogma, why should anyone listen to anything you say?

If you do not make the effort to educate yourself, why do you think we should respect your uneducated opinions, which are merely faith and dogma?

Muslims have faith and dogma too. So why don't you believe that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a horse, as Muslims believe? If you don't believe the Muslim faith and dogma, why do you expect that I should believe your faith and dogma?

If you are going to make claims, we are going to demand evidence. You claimed that someone named Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew in 50 AD. Prove it. Show us the evidence. Likewise with Mark in 68 AD, Luke in 60 AD and John in 85 AD.

Prove that you have more than just faith and dogma. Prove your claims. Show us the evidence.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
jlcopp3915 wrote:I've often

jlcopp3915 wrote:

I've often found it interesting in looking at what it took to develop cheaper forms of paper and pen.

Anyway, Mathew was a Jew who collected Taxes for the Roman Government, He was thus despised by loyal Jews.  Very interesting character, anyway Mathew (ie Levi) wrote his Gospel account around 50 AD that puts his writing 20 years after the death and rising of Christ.

Mark was a very young Jewish Native of Jerusalem.  He originally met Christ through Peter.  After the death he traveled with Barnabas and also with Paul.  His gospel was written in 68 AD.  He spent a lot of his time documenting the works of Paul.

Luke was a Physician, very skilled in the medicine of the day.  He also wrote Acts and witnessed the Healings of the Sick.  He is more noted as the writer of ACTS as he documented the Works of the core Disciples and Apostles of the Early Church.  The Gospel According to Luke was written in 60 AD.  As well writing The Acts of the Apostles in 60 AD.

John was one of the original 12 Disciples and was with Christ since the beginning of his worldly ministry, he also was the Last Apostle his primary Gospel was written last around 85 AD.

When viewing these people historically it is quite clear that writing wasn't their first priority in building and spreading the "Word".  However, as the advent of the Church grew, it became evident that these First Hand Accounts needed to be written down.

 

I like how the simple arguments unfold that these people are mythical in nature or liars.

 

If the A God position is True, how might these mens words and witness be validated?  How should one view their world-view in light of these men's encounters and belief?  If this holds TRUE, then it must demand a verdict from the NO God position?

 

Isn't such a verdict easier to deny as FALSE than to examine a reality that holds out a very profound message?

 

    Mark is considered to be the earliest of the gospels. Written around 70 A.D., immediately before or immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem. It makes one wonder as to the accuracy of a story recounted nearly 40 years after the death of Jesus.  Mark also displays a very poor knowledge of Palestinian geography, and was most likely written in Rome.  According to Reginald H. Fuller, professor Emeritus of the Virginia Theological Seminary, the earliest writings of Mark contain no story of Jesus' appearance after his death. The myth seems to have been added later.  The writer of Mark might have been named Mark, but the one referred to by Peter as " Marcus my son " in  1 Peter 5:13, not the disciple Mark.


     Luke was written, we think, around 85 A.D., some 50 years after the fact. It's author is unknown, but his poor knowledge of Palestine indicates he was never there, making it certain that Luke didn't write it.


     Matthew was written around 90 A.D., and the author exhibits a theological outlook, command of Greek language, and rabbinic training that indicates a second generation Christian Jew. This definitely excludes Matthew as it's author.


     John was written between 100 and 150 A.D.  It's author is, like the other three, unknown, but it's age makes it apparent that John didn't write it.

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
jlcopp3915 wrote:I've often

jlcopp3915 wrote:

I've often found it interesting in looking at what it took to develop cheaper forms of paper and pen.

Anyway, Mathew was a Jew who collected Taxes for the Roman Government, He was thus despised by loyal Jews.  Very interesting character, anyway Mathew (ie Levi) wrote his Gospel account around 50 AD that puts his writing 20 years after the death and rising of Christ.

Mark was a very young Jewish Native of Jerusalem.  He originally met Christ through Peter.  After the death he traveled with Barnabas and also with Paul.  His gospel was written in 68 AD.  He spent a lot of his time documenting the works of Paul.

Luke was a Physician, very skilled in the medicine of the day.  He also wrote Acts and witnessed the Healings of the Sick.  He is more noted as the writer of ACTS as he documented the Works of the core Disciples and Apostles of the Early Church.  The Gospel According to Luke was written in 60 AD.  As well writing The Acts of the Apostles in 60 AD.

John was one of the original 12 Disciples and was with Christ since the beginning of his worldly ministry, he also was the Last Apostle his primary Gospel was written last around 85 AD.

When viewing these people historically it is quite clear that writing wasn't their first priority in building and spreading the "Word".  However, as the advent of the Church grew, it became evident that these First Hand Accounts needed to be written down.

 

I like how the simple arguments unfold that these people are mythical in nature or liars.

 

If the A God position is True, how might these mens words and witness be validated?  How should one view their world-view in light of these men's encounters and belief?  If this holds TRUE, then it must demand a verdict from the NO God position?

 

Isn't such a verdict easier to deny as FALSE than to examine a reality that holds out a very profound message?

 

 

There is no authorship you can apply to the gospels - they are anonymous.  Just as the writers of the bhagavad gita and many other religious texts.

 

Sure, they all hold some truths - even the most wildly imaginative story holds some truths.  Baron Munchenhausen has some important moral tales.

 

Anyhow, it's all just Special Pleading.  You believe because you want to believe, and you want others to join in your delusion because it makes you feel better.  First, prove that a god exists, THEN you can try to show that your god is the X'n god.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov