Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Here's a study that shows a kids from families that regularly attend worship services have better social and learning skills than those who do not.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ok Wows

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

but the original premise is still based on your subjective interpretations and authority claims - not on anything it's possible to empirically know. 

As far as I know, I'm basing what I've said something that is empirical....

But what does subjective interpretation and authority claims have to do with "wanting to believe" something? And to what subjective interpretations and authority claims are you referring?

And how do I know that you're not doing the same thing? In either case, this is impossible to know because you do not know the contents of my brain other than what I have written and vice versa. I have made no such claim that I "want to believe". This is only assumed and it is not empirical. I would be on the same sort of ground if I said that you don't want to believe something. Because I could pull the same fallacy, I have all the more reason to think that it really is a circumstantial ad hominem.

You say it's an empirical truth that jesus died for me on the cross, spent three days in hell carrying the sins of the world and rose again on the third day. Prove this using some empirical method. Until then I'll continue to believe your argument is subjective and based on authority claims - backed with a threat if Jesus' own words are to be believed.

Further, I think there's veracity in the argument that your position, based as it is on subjective personal belief and authority claims based on the god inspired writings of the bible, encumber you with a conflict of interest which free cj's observations from being circumstantial adhominem. She is justified in suggesting there is a bias in your position.

Authorities need to be free of bias and beyond conflict of interest as far as is possible. The bible that directs your opinions is not an objective source. If there are indisputable facts that are widely accepted somewhere here, direct me to them.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:You

Atheistextremist wrote:

You say it's an empirical truth that jesus died for me on the cross, spent three days in hell carrying the sins of the world and rose again on the third day. Prove this using some empirical method. Until then I'll continue to believe your argument is subjective and based on authority claims - backed with a threat if Jesus' own words are to be believed.

You're mixing categories: the events with the implications of the events.

The empirical methods for proving that Jesus died on the cross and resurrected from the dead are verified through historical methods.

And who said anything about Jesus going to hell?

Atheistextremist wrote:

Further, I think there's veracity in the argument that your position, based as it is on subjective personal belief and authority claims based on the god inspired writings of the bible, encumber you with a conflict of interest which free cj's observations from being circumstantial adhominem. She is justified in suggesting there is a bias in your position.

Authorities need to be free of bias and beyond conflict of interest as far as is possible. The bible that directs your opinions is not an objective source. If there are indisputable facts that are widely accepted somewhere here, direct me to them.

If someone cannot write about himself because of a conflict of interest, then everyone needs a scribe or someone else looking over his shoulder. Scientist cannot write about his discoveries etc. A person cannot write autobiographies Reporters cannot  write about what they saw etc. You'd have to say this in order consistent and not special plead.

But what do "inspired writings" have to do with anything in the first place? That's a red herring.

And CJ clarified her remarks concerning what I called a circumstantial ad hominem.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:And then if you

cj wrote:

And then if you don't believe, you go to hell for eternity - lovingly.

If you don't accept his provision, that's your perogative...

cj wrote:

My mother used to do that to me - "I'm spanking you for your own good - it hurts me as much as it hurts you."  And then she would cry while she whomped the bejesus out of me.  You know what my therapist calls that?  Abuse.  

So...what does this have to do with anything I just said?

cj wrote:

Do you not believe that all nonbelievers will not go to heaven?  Is there no hell?  Love me or die for eternity - you may not burn, you may not be tortured, but hey, you didn't love me so too bad, so sad.

I believe that those who do not accept Jesus' provision will be punished accordingly, yes. But the "love me or die" charciture is does not describe Jesus accurately...

cj wrote:

And evidence of his provision on my behalf is so --- nonexistant. 

If you want to deny historical facts, go ahead...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It matters not

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

You say it's an empirical truth that jesus died for me on the cross, spent three days in hell carrying the sins of the world and rose again on the third day. Prove this using some empirical method. Until then I'll continue to believe your argument is subjective and based on authority claims - backed with a threat if Jesus' own words are to be believed.

You're mixing categories: the events with the implications of the events.

The empirical methods for proving that Jesus died on the cross and resurrected from the dead are verified through historical methods.

And who said anything about Jesus going to hell?

Atheistextremist wrote:

Further, I think there's veracity in the argument that your position, based as it is on subjective personal belief and authority claims based on the god inspired writings of the bible, encumber you with a conflict of interest which free cj's observations from being circumstantial adhominem. She is justified in suggesting there is a bias in your position.

Authorities need to be free of bias and beyond conflict of interest as far as is possible. The bible that directs your opinions is not an objective source. If there are indisputable facts that are widely accepted somewhere here, direct me to them.

If someone cannot write about himself because of a conflict of interest, then everyone needs a scribe or someone else looking over his shoulder. Scientist cannot write about his discoveries etc. A person cannot write autobiographies Reporters cannot  write about what they saw etc. You'd have to say this in order consistent and not special plead.

But what do "inspired writings" have to do with anything in the first place? That's a red herring.

And CJ clarified her remarks concerning what I called a circumstantial ad hominem.

 

 

that cj clarified her remarks - it was obvious at the time she was being exceedingly balanced, anyway.

You, however, claimed what you were saying was based on empirical evidence -  if this evidence was generally accepted to be unbiased and shown to be true then circumstantial  adhom applies. If not, if the evidence purported to be true is infected with bias, then criticism on the basis of pointing out such bias is acceptable.

No scientist would insist they were right as you insist you are right about the bible. Do you admit the accounts of jesus rising of the dead are empirically unfounded? Or are they absolutely and undoubtedly true? And if so, on what basis?

It seems to me you are confusing empiricism with historicism.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

God's judgment is because Adam and Eve sinned he is going to beat the shit out of you if you don't accept him.  You say that god does not own you but you have a choice of being his slave or not. Being his slave means you live as his slave. Choosing not to means death or eternal punishment. If there's a god you are owned by him or at least your fate. Actually Jesus was not killed by someone else in the sense that he could have chosen not to be killed and could have called legions of angels supposedly.  So self sacrifice is still a suicide by non-action. He even tells Judas to do what he must do.  To be aware of jeopardy toward your life and to ignore it is suicidal.  Like sitting in the middle of the road. The car did not kill you. Your action or inaction did.  Childish tyrant in the sense that there is only following the dictatorial commands or hell some freedom of choice. The only difference between this and determinism as a puppet you must act like the puppet or burn in hell. 

Who said anything about Adam and Eve's sin having any bearing on what God does to an individual?

Self-sacrifice as suicide is a stretch though... Jesus' action was not "non-action", rather an acceptance of judgement on the part of the condemned although it was not due him. What you'd be suggesting otherwise that criminals should go to punishment kicking and screaming the whole way...

I guess I brought up Adam and Eve otherwise why would a debt be owed by everyone and that is the biblical posturing that as all have died through Adam all are made alive through Christ. The structure of Christian theism assumes a fall in  Eden which is the cause of all sinning and requires a propitiation in Paul's Christianity which pretty much became standard. The individual is considered a sinner because of this myth that does not hold up to evolution. Why should not and many criminals do go kicking and screaming on the way to execution but that was not the point. Jesus asked that the "cup" be taken from him but god required it so he volunteered to do it even though he could have chosen not to anyway.  So if anyone killed Jesus it was his father. Why ...based upon a primitive concept of animal sacrifice for sin transposed to human sacrifice. If god was all powerful and more humane he could have just forgiven humanity or the individual by himself repenting of his archaic sacrifice requirements.  So to do god's will requires that you be a slave to his will and not consider alternatives. If I know that I need to respond in a defense situation in court but take no action to being wrongfully accused anyway then I am allowing injustice of the system and it is my act not the act of the judical system or prosecution. And it is the same with Jesus he spoke not to Pilot in some of the gospel presentation and is brought out well by the way in Jesus Christ Superstar ( great musical ).

 

EDIT: The idea of us as slaves and God as master is a biblical one. We often translate doulos as servant and it means slave.   The various writings in the bible are culturally based and reflect no problem with slavery depending on the book or epistle that you are reading. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:that

Atheistextremist wrote:

that cj clarified her remarks - it was obvious at the time she was being exceedingly balanced, anyway.

She didn't intend it to be what I though she said... What she said and how I interpreted were two different things...

Atheistextremist wrote:

You, however, claimed what you were saying was based on empirical evidence -  if this evidence was generally accepted to be unbiased and shown to be true then circumstantial  adhom applies. If not, if the evidence purported to be true is infected with bias, then criticism on the basis of pointing out such bias is acceptable.

What qualifies something as being "generally unbiased"... and earlier you said something was "from premises that are generally accepted"... you're moving the goal posts here...

In any case, I'm beginning to think that you don't know what a circumstantial ad hominem is...

Atheistextremist wrote:

No scientist would insist they were right as you insist you are right about the bible. Do you admit the accounts of jesus rising of the dead are empirically unfounded? Or are they absolutely and undoubtedly true? And if so, on what basis?

Whose insisting that I'm right other than you? I think you might be the one making baseless assertions...

In any case, I think you're pitching a false dichotomy: "Empirically unfounded" vs "absolutely and undoubtedly true". I think the resurrection if Jesus is a historical event that substantiated by historical evidence. Am I 100% beyond of the shadow of a doubt absolutely and undoubtedly certain that this event took place? No.

Atheistextremist wrote:

It seems to me you are confusing empiricism with historicism.

I'm talking about historical evidence... Empiricism says that knowledge is gained from experience. Historicism is a view of history that says that history is shaped by events rather than people. What does that have to do wit anything?

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I guess I

TGBaker wrote:

I guess I brought up Adam and Eve otherwise why would a debt be owed by everyone and that is the biblical posturing that as all have died through Adam all are made alive through Christ.

I see... I don't think that's relevant to what I was saying though.

TGBaker wrote:

The structure of Christian theism assumes a fall in  Eden which is the cause of all sinning and requires a propitiation in Paul's Christianity which pretty much became standard. The individual is considered a sinner because of this myth that does not hold up to evolution.

This might be true if one holds to an Agustian view of original sin... I hold a more eastern orthodox view that suggests people are born tabula rosa, and then learn sin...

TGBaker wrote:

Why should not and many criminals do go kicking and screaming on the way to execution but that was not the point. Jesus asked that the "cup" be taken from him but god required it so he volunteered to do it even though he could have chosen not to anyway.  So if anyone killed Jesus it was his father. Why ...based upon a primitive concept of animal sacrifice for sin transposed to human sacrifice. If god was all powerful and more humane he could have just forgiven humanity or the individual by himself repenting of his archaic sacrifice requirements. 

God is both just and loving. If God just merely forgave and did nothing about the sin, he wouldn't be just.  I don't think I'd want to follow a God who wasn't both...

TGBaker wrote:

So to do god's will requires that you be a slave to his will and not consider alternatives. If I know that I need to respond in a defense situation in court but take no action to being wrongfully accused anyway then I am allowing injustice of the system and it is my act not the act of the judical system or prosecution. And it is the same with Jesus he spoke not to Pilot in some of the gospel presentation and is brought out well by the way in Jesus Christ Superstar ( great musical ). 

JCS is a good Smiling

The injustice Jesus endured was so that he could forgive them...

TGBaker wrote:

EDIT: The idea of us as slaves and God as master is a biblical one. We often translate doulos as servant and it means slave.   The various writings in the bible are culturally based and reflect no problem with slavery depending on the book or epistle that you are reading. 

God is the emancipator for those who he saves...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I guess I brought up Adam and Eve otherwise why would a debt be owed by everyone and that is the biblical posturing that as all have died through Adam all are made alive through Christ.

I see... I don't think that's relevant to what I was saying though.

TGBaker wrote:

The structure of Christian theism assumes a fall in  Eden which is the cause of all sinning and requires a propitiation in Paul's Christianity which pretty much became standard. The individual is considered a sinner because of this myth that does not hold up to evolution.

This might be true if one holds to an Agustian view of original sin... I hold a more eastern orthodox view that suggests people are born tabula rosa, and then learn sin...

TGBaker wrote:

Why should not and many criminals do go kicking and screaming on the way to execution but that was not the point. Jesus asked that the "cup" be taken from him but god required it so he volunteered to do it even though he could have chosen not to anyway.  So if anyone killed Jesus it was his father. Why ...based upon a primitive concept of animal sacrifice for sin transposed to human sacrifice. If god was all powerful and more humane he could have just forgiven humanity or the individual by himself repenting of his archaic sacrifice requirements. 

God is both just and loving. If God just merely forgave and did nothing about the sin, he wouldn't be just.  I don't think I'd want to follow a God who wasn't both...

TGBaker wrote:

So to do god's will requires that you be a slave to his will and not consider alternatives. If I know that I need to respond in a defense situation in court but take no action to being wrongfully accused anyway then I am allowing injustice of the system and it is my act not the act of the judical system or prosecution. And it is the same with Jesus he spoke not to Pilot in some of the gospel presentation and is brought out well by the way in Jesus Christ Superstar ( great musical ). 

JCS is a good Smiling

The injustice Jesus endured was so that he could forgive them...

TGBaker wrote:

EDIT: The idea of us as slaves and God as master is a biblical one. We often translate doulos as servant and it means slave.   The various writings in the bible are culturally based and reflect no problem with slavery depending on the book or epistle that you are reading. 

God is the emancipator for those who he saves...

And many protestants hold to the tabula rosa idea of sin as well not so much by doctrine as by default. I think a god could and should forgive. But the taking care of sin by an animal sacrifice or in the case of some theologies in the NT  the sacrifice of the Son of God seems based on the primitive cultural belief of the scapegoat and general sacrifice of animals.  If sin is a moral lapse rather than an active agent inherited or continuing from a mythological fall then it is a question of corrective behavior or learning as with our own children. I never sacrificed one on my children to take care of the others sin. I forgave them and continued to discipline them.  Could not jesus have forgiven "them" without enduring injustice. How was that necessary so that he could forgive them? Could he not forgive them anyway.  If you read most of the gospel sections there is a theme where Jesus endures rather than corrects the situation so that he will be killed because it is required by god and he follows the father's will.  But again we turn back to the earlier question of slavery. The classical omnscient, omnipotent and all good god we have philosophically created makes a either/or category. We follow gods will ( and as in biblical language are his slaves/servants) or we are cast in hell. And certainly for those who believe they can use the terminology that god is an emancipator that is from their old sinful lives and from the deception of delusion in the finding of truth.  Slavery was part of the culture from the writing of Genesis to the last of the NT writings and was accepted. Cruelty of a master was moderated.  SO the idea of freedom and the immorality of slavery evolved in our ethics in fairly recent times.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I guess I brought up Adam and Eve otherwise why would a debt be owed by everyone and that is the biblical posturing that as all have died through Adam all are made alive through Christ.

I see... I don't think that's relevant to what I was saying though.

TGBaker wrote:

The structure of Christian theism assumes a fall in  Eden which is the cause of all sinning and requires a propitiation in Paul's Christianity which pretty much became standard. The individual is considered a sinner because of this myth that does not hold up to evolution.

This might be true if one holds to an Agustian view of original sin... I hold a more eastern orthodox view that suggests people are born tabula rosa, and then learn sin...

TGBaker wrote:

Why should not and many criminals do go kicking and screaming on the way to execution but that was not the point. Jesus asked that the "cup" be taken from him but god required it so he volunteered to do it even though he could have chosen not to anyway.  So if anyone killed Jesus it was his father. Why ...based upon a primitive concept of animal sacrifice for sin transposed to human sacrifice. If god was all powerful and more humane he could have just forgiven humanity or the individual by himself repenting of his archaic sacrifice requirements. 

God is both just and loving. If God just merely forgave and did nothing about the sin, he wouldn't be just.  I don't think I'd want to follow a God who wasn't both...

TGBaker wrote:

So to do god's will requires that you be a slave to his will and not consider alternatives. If I know that I need to respond in a defense situation in court but take no action to being wrongfully accused anyway then I am allowing injustice of the system and it is my act not the act of the judical system or prosecution. And it is the same with Jesus he spoke not to Pilot in some of the gospel presentation and is brought out well by the way in Jesus Christ Superstar ( great musical ). 

JCS is a good Smiling

The injustice Jesus endured was so that he could forgive them...

TGBaker wrote:

EDIT: The idea of us as slaves and God as master is a biblical one. We often translate doulos as servant and it means slave.   The various writings in the bible are culturally based and reflect no problem with slavery depending on the book or epistle that you are reading. 

God is the emancipator for those who he saves...

And many protestants hold to the tabula rosa idea of sin as well not so much by doctrine as by default. I think a god could and should forgive. But the taking care of sin by an animal sacrifice or in the case of some theologies in the NT  the sacrifice of the Son of God seems based on the primitive cultural belief of the scapegoat and general sacrifice of animals.  If sin is a moral lapse rather than an active agent inherited or continuing from a mythological fall then it is a question of corrective behavior or learning as with our own children. I never sacrificed one on my children to take care of the others sin. I forgave them and continued to discipline them.  Could not jesus have forgiven "them" without enduring injustice. How was that necessary so that he could forgive them? Could he not forgive them anyway.  If you read most of the gospel sections there is a theme where Jesus endures rather than corrects the situation so that he will be killed because it is required by god and he follows the father's will.  But again we turn back to the earlier question of slavery. The classical omnscient, omnipotent and all good god we have philosophically created makes a either/or category. We follow gods will ( and as in biblical language are his slaves/servants) or we are cast in hell. And certainly for those who believe they can use the terminology that god is an emancipator that is from their old sinful lives and from the deception of delusion in the finding of truth.  Slavery was part of the culture from the writing of Genesis to the last of the NT writings and was accepted. Cruelty of a master was moderated.  SO the idea of freedom and the immorality of slavery evolved in our ethics in fairly recent times.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:And many

TGBaker wrote:

And many protestants hold to the tabula rosa idea of sin as well not so much by doctrine as by default. I think a god could and should forgive. But the taking care of sin by an animal sacrifice or in the case of some theologies in the NT  the sacrifice of the Son of God seems based on the primitive cultural belief of the scapegoat and general sacrifice of animals.  If sin is a moral lapse rather than an active agent inherited or continuing from a mythological fall then it is a question of corrective behavior or learning as with our own children. I never sacrificed one on my children to take care of the others sin. I forgave them and continued to discipline them. 

Jesus sacrifice was as much a sacrifice of his son as it was himself -- that is Jesus is God.

And animal sacrifice was used to foreshadow what was to come. Even the OT, animal sacrifice was not what God wanted... rather a contrite heart and a broke spirit because of one's sin.

TGBaker wrote:

Could not jesus have forgiven "them" without enduring injustice. How was that necessary so that he could forgive them? Could he not forgive them anyway.  If you read most of the gospel sections there is a theme where Jesus endures rather than corrects the situation so that he will be killed because it is required by god and he follows the father's will. 

Simply forgiving one does not deal with the requirements of the law... God upheld the law by sacrificing Jesus.

TGBaker wrote:

But again we turn back to the earlier question of slavery. The classical omnscient, omnipotent and all good god we have philosophically created makes a either/or category. We follow gods will ( and as in biblical language are his slaves/servants) or we are cast in hell. And certainly for those who believe they can use the terminology that god is an emancipator that is from their old sinful lives and from the deception of delusion in the finding of truth.  Slavery was part of the culture from the writing of Genesis to the last of the NT writings and was accepted. Cruelty of a master was moderated.  SO the idea of freedom and the immorality of slavery evolved in our ethics in fairly recent times.

I've been over the issue of slavery in NT times with Bob and others already... if you want to read my positions, read back through pages 3 and 4 of this thread.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
It is still a conception of

It is still a conception of primitive times that there was/is a 'law' that required something like a blood sacrifice to justify the act of forgiveness, to somehow 'balance the books' so to speak. It is an emotional, instinctive feeling, not something logically implied.

There is certainly a feeling of a need for 'closure' in the mind of many victims or their friends/relatives, deriving from our evolved sense of 'fairness', and it is clearly a source of the doctrines embodied in many religions, but there are other ways of dealing with that in those who suffer from it to a crippling degree. There is no actual cosmic or divine balance outside our personal and cultural world. The Universe doesn't care.

The only entity that can rightfully 'forgive' is the party who was the victim of the wrong action.

There is no evidence that anyone benefited or was 'saved' from anything by the execution of the person of JC, except in a psychological sense, and then only if they had bought into the whole idea of a divine regime of 'law' in the first place.

Laws in our modern sense are, or should be, justified to maintain social order and functioning, to deter what are consensually seen as harmful activities. There is clearly an overlap with ethics/morality, but only in certain categories of law. Any convictions/punishments should have appeal mechanisms, and the laws themselves should be subject to continual review.

==========

Only a reality where lesser 'causes' ultimately give rise to 'greater' and more complex entities and processes avoids the problematic infinite regress situation, where an ever 'greater' entity is required to be the cause or reason for any given cause.

Converging infinite series, such as the mathematical series of numbers

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +  .... <to infinity>

where each successive term is half the magnitude of the previous, sums to the value 2.0.

So no actual infinities of time or space are required to accomodate such a series.

If God is not an 'explanation' then what is the point of positing such an entity?

Requiring an explanation for something which itself has been put forward as an explanation works, since a true 'explanation' for something describes its causes in terms of combinations of simpler entities and concepts, leading back to entities that are fundamental and elementally simple. Physics has got back to quarks and leptons, and conceivably simpler things, such as cosmic strings.

Our Universe and its contents are a demonstration of how large collections of interacting simple elements can give rise to structures and processes having attributes and patterns of behaviour not possible to the individual components of which they are formed, whether stars, galaxies, self-replicating chemical systems, life, and ultimately consciousness, self-awareness, which we share with maybe half-a-dozen other species on Earth.

We see examples of this phenomenon of emergence every day, when a thinking person grows from a far simpler and unthinking fertilized cell.

On a cosmic scale, we see evidence of how a formless cloud of gas and dust can collapse into a star with a family of orbitting bodies, under the influence of elemental forces.

That is at least a framework for a workable and demonstrably fruitful understanding of reality, as distinct from the confused mish-mash of primitive intuitions in the bible.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
As Bob says the idea to

As Bob says the idea to someone outside of Christianity thinking about a sacrifice of another living entity is meaningless if not repugnant. It carries weight only as a primitive practice which denotes Christianity as a primitive belief system that has slowly evolved from its graphic violence to something more palatable. There is also the primitive idea of covenant from Semitic tribes that effects the usage in Christianity. An animal was slit in half and sacrificed when a covenant or agreement was made between tribes and/or eventually god. The idea that god sacrificed himself is a much later theology than the original Jesus movements of the first two centuries. The idea of trinity is a slow development from the Logos theology and the respondent Alogoi movement of that period.  The idea of a friend doing wrong is met by forgiveness without sacrifice or conditions or punishment. Discipline may be applied to children but the discipline is for teaching and not punishment as is another primitive concept of this particular type of theism.   The child is forgiven because of love.

Again as Bob points out the idea of an original simplistic boundary condition is far more plausible for the big bang and the limiting conditions of logical and mathematical structure than a complex source that begs interpretation of its origination, development and structure.  Consciousness comes from the slow environmental awareness and response of the organic being preferred by natural selection over resistance to interaction.  We see this chemically in the learning of a single celled organism without a nervous system utilizing a completely chemical/electrical ( ionic) process to the specialization of of multi-cell organisms with nervous systems. 

Bottom line is all of what Bib has pointed out that has evidentiary value from nature is MORE plausible and therefore probable than a hypothetical limitless entity that has no evidentiary value but is postied from supernatural claims that themselves have no evidentiary value. Emergent things can present their own causality as well as the causality of the complexes from which they emerge.  There are two tendencies in nature expansion and the tendency to remain at rest.  The former leads to entropy but the latter arrests locally that entropy for the development of complexity in dissipative structures which exchange their internal entropic tendencies for complexity by exchange through their boundary conditions as an emergent causality to the environment.  Their boundaries are preserved in reaction to the environment as a complex while the energy exchange is balanced internally. One example is a sun and fusion. Another is any living cell. A life force is has been obsolete since Darwin.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Groan

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

that cj clarified her remarks - it was obvious at the time she was being exceedingly balanced, anyway.

She didn't intend it to be what I though she said... What she said and how I interpreted were two different things...

Atheistextremist wrote:

You, however, claimed what you were saying was based on empirical evidence -  if this evidence was generally accepted to be unbiased and shown to be true then circumstantial  adhom applies. If not, if the evidence purported to be true is infected with bias, then criticism on the basis of pointing out such bias is acceptable.

What qualifies something as being "generally unbiased"... and earlier you said something was "from premises that are generally accepted"... you're moving the goal posts here...

In any case, I'm beginning to think that you don't know what a circumstantial ad hominem is...

Atheistextremist wrote:

No scientist would insist they were right as you insist you are right about the bible. Do you admit the accounts of jesus rising of the dead are empirically unfounded? Or are they absolutely and undoubtedly true? And if so, on what basis?

Whose insisting that I'm right other than you? I think you might be the one making baseless assertions...

In any case, I think you're pitching a false dichotomy: "Empirically unfounded" vs "absolutely and undoubtedly true". I think the resurrection if Jesus is a historical event that substantiated by historical evidence. Am I 100% beyond of the shadow of a doubt absolutely and undoubtedly certain that this event took place? No.

Atheistextremist wrote:

It seems to me you are confusing empiricism with historicism.

I'm talking about historical evidence... Empiricism says that knowledge is gained from experience. Historicism is a view of history that says that history is shaped by events rather than people. What does that have to do wit anything?

 

 

It is acceptable to criticise a position as biased without there being circumstantial adhom in situations where the premises being pushed to the audience are not generally accepted to be true/known to be without bias blah, blah. I'm not making this up. I don't know why you would argue with it. You apply this this question of motivation to the believers of other faiths every day.

I can't imagine I ever said absolutely true vs absolutely not true. This is your sort of straw man. No one has ever risen from the dead - ever, ever, ever. Thus the available evidence suggests dead people remain dead. If you can offer some proof they don't, go ahead and do so. If not, then you must feel motivated to believe in this case there has been exception to the immutable rule.

If anything the general thought of the audience is that your position is an assertion based on the dubious authority of the bible and your motivations for accepting the dogma warrant serious questioning.

Historicism is a way of interpreting information (ie The Bible) through the context of itself rather than through empiricism.

Finally, you are saying you are not insisting you are correct? That there may be no god? That jesus might have been a construct of Paul's imagination?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzer1. I've read

Wowzer1. I've read everything of Pannenberg who William Lane Craig studied under at Tubingen. I've studied Geza Vermes a Jewish scholar of the NT who believes that the resurrection happened.  I've discussed with Jurgen Moltmann his ideas.  I have translated and compared the gospel accounts from the original Greek.  The history does not obtain more plausibility than a good ghost story.  The records admitted by the scholars are not historical and I would bet that Craig privately would admit that and the same for the virgin birth stories. The idea of the resurrection as historical is based upon it as the best explanation for the behavior of the disciples and the writings of the stories.  Again this reaches the level though of someone who honestly believes he has seen a ghost, anecdotal at best.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Tommy

 

Sweet pic in your avatar.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sweet pic in your avatar.

Thanks a lot. I kinda got tired of looking at the bald headed one. This was my sons second birthday pic. The other person is my wonderful wife and friend.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It is still

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is still a conception of primitive times that there was/is a 'law' that required something like a blood sacrifice to justify the act of forgiveness, to somehow 'balance the books' so to speak. It is an emotional, instinctive feeling, not something logically implied.

"Conception of primitive times" in what manner? If justice is not about "balancing the books", then what is justice?

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is certainly a feeling of a need for 'closure' in the mind of many victims or their friends/relatives, deriving from our evolved sense of 'fairness', and it is clearly a source of the doctrines embodied in many religions, but there are other ways of dealing with that in those who suffer from it to a crippling degree. There is no actual cosmic or divine balance outside our personal and cultural world. The Universe doesn't care.

What does closure have to do with anything? This is again a circumstantial ad hominem...

BobSpence1 wrote:
The only entity that can rightfully 'forgive' is the party who was the victim of the wrong action.

In the case of God and humanity, this would be God.

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is no evidence that anyone benefited or was 'saved' from anything by the execution of the person of JC, except in a psychological sense, and then only if they had bought into the whole idea of a divine regime of 'law' in the first place.

What sort of benefit are you looking for? This is a red herring, I think...

BobSpence1 wrote:
Laws in our modern sense are, or should be, justified to maintain social order and functioning, to deter what are consensually seen as harmful activities. There is clearly an overlap with ethics/morality, but only in certain categories of law. Any convictions/punishments should have appeal mechanisms, and the laws themselves should be subject to continual review.

I do not think that some laws are up for review...

I don't have a problem with other laws being up review though.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Only a reality where lesser 'causes' ultimately give rise to 'greater' and more complex entities and processes avoids the problematic infinite regress situation, where an ever 'greater' entity is required to be the cause or reason for any given cause.

Converging infinite series, such as the mathematical series of numbers

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +  .... <to infinity>

where each successive term is half the magnitude of the previous, sums to the value 2.0.

So no actual infinities of time or space are required to accomodate such a series.

Performing a integral in calculus is a way to calculate an infinite sum without having to iterate over the sum. Otherwise, you'd have to iterate over the series to calculate the sum...

But the analogy fails when one is talking about a series of explanations.... How would one perform an integral on such to know that it converges on infinity?

But as far as simpler things giving rise to more complex things, I'm not contesting that this happens. The issue was with "ultimate" explanations for things... Why is this mutually exclusive from God as the ultimate explanation of things? I find it quite suiting for how I understand God.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Requiring an explanation for something which itself has been put forward as an explanation works, since a true 'explanation' for something describes its causes in terms of combinations of simpler entities and concepts, leading back to entities that are fundamental and elementally simple. Physics has got back to quarks and leptons, and conceivably simpler things, such as cosmic strings.

And what beyond that? I'm not asking this question because I'm punting to God, but rather that I don't think whatever comprises strings will look anything like strings... In other words, one cannot assume an infinite series that will converge on infinity because there is not a pattern.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Our Universe and its contents are a demonstration of how large collections of interacting simple elements can give rise to structures and processes having attributes and patterns of behaviour not possible to the individual components of which they are formed, whether stars, galaxies, self-replicating chemical systems, life, and ultimately consciousness, self-awareness, which we share with maybe half-a-dozen other species on Earth.]

We see examples of this phenomenon of emergence every day, when a thinking person grows from a far simpler and unthinking fertilized cell.

On a cosmic scale, we see evidence of how a formless cloud of gas and dust can collapse into a star with a family of orbitting bodies, under the influence of elemental forces.

That is at least a framework for a workable and demonstrably fruitful understanding of reality, as distinct from the confused mish-mash of primitive intuitions in the bible.

Understanding reality is not diametrically opposed to understanding the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but it is not mutually exclusive from science either. I think this is another false dichotomy.

But "emergence" creates from interesting problems for naturalism, I think, on the grounds of teleology.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:It is

Atheistextremist wrote:

It is acceptable to criticise a position as biased without there being circumstantial adhom in situations where the premises being pushed to the audience are not generally accepted to be true/known to be without bias blah, blah. I'm not making this up. I don't know why you would argue with it. You apply this this question of motivation to the believers of other faiths every day.

But this seems to be a favorite means of disqualification among atheists, so it seems, as it has manifested itself in numerous ways by numerous people on this forum since I joined. I'm not above being baised, but to right off every thing one believes because he is biased without addressing his truth claims in and of themselves is why it is fallacious...

Atheistextremist wrote:

I can't imagine I ever said absolutely true vs absolutely not true. This is your sort of straw man. No one has ever risen from the dead - ever, ever, ever. Thus the available evidence suggests dead people remain dead. If you can offer some proof they don't, go ahead and do so. If not, then you must feel motivated to believe in this case there has been exception to the immutable rule.

I would agree that the evidence suggests that people who are dead stay  dead. But on at least one occasion, this didn't happen, and why it is such a momentous historical event. There is evidence for at least one many raising from the dead, but you just don't accept it.

Atheistextremist wrote:

If anything the general thought of the audience is that your position is an assertion based on the dubious authority of the bible and your motivations for accepting the dogma warrant serious questioning.

When have I ever appealed to authority or dogma? If you are dismissing my arguments for this reason it is because you are creating a straw man out of what I've said.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Historicism is a way of interpreting information (ie The Bible) through the context of itself rather than through empiricism.

I thought you were calking about the philosophical school among historians...

How are you suggesting that one approach the Bible through empiricism?

Atheistextremist wrote:

Finally, you are saying you are not insisting you are correct? That there may be no god? That jesus might have been a construct of Paul's imagination?

I'm open to the possibility should the evidence lead that way. I'm not convinced it does though.

That is to say, if some one were to dig up Jesus' bones in Jerusalem tomorrow and ID positively ID them as Jesus bones, then Christianity would be for naught.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Wowzer1. I've

TGBaker wrote:

Wowzer1. I've read everything of Pannenberg who William Lane Craig studied under at Tubingen. I've studied Geza Vermes a Jewish scholar of the NT who believes that the resurrection happened.  I've discussed with Jurgen Moltmann his ideas.  I have translated and compared the gospel accounts from the original Greek.  The history does not obtain more plausibility than a good ghost story.  The records admitted by the scholars are not historical and I would bet that Craig privately would admit that and the same for the virgin birth stories. The idea of the resurrection as historical is based upon it as the best explanation for the behavior of the disciples and the writings of the stories.  Again this reaches the level though of someone who honestly believes he has seen a ghost, anecdotal at best.

I'm glad you've at least worked with the original languages and studied it at length. I think that is reflected in your responses... Smiling

There's scholars on all sides of the debate who would agree with both you and with me... I've read Habermas and N.T. Wright on the issue who have different opinions on the matter. N.T. Wright for one evaluates many of the possible behaviors of the disciples and is convinced that they really and positively believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker

TGBaker wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sweet pic in your avatar.

Thanks a lot. I kinda got tired of looking at the bald headed one. This was my sons second birthday pic. The other person is my wonderful wife and friend.

Really nice looking fam...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Wowzer1. I've read everything of Pannenberg who William Lane Craig studied under at Tubingen. I've studied Geza Vermes a Jewish scholar of the NT who believes that the resurrection happened.  I've discussed with Jurgen Moltmann his ideas.  I have translated and compared the gospel accounts from the original Greek.  The history does not obtain more plausibility than a good ghost story.  The records admitted by the scholars are not historical and I would bet that Craig privately would admit that and the same for the virgin birth stories. The idea of the resurrection as historical is based upon it as the best explanation for the behavior of the disciples and the writings of the stories.  Again this reaches the level though of someone who honestly believes he has seen a ghost, anecdotal at best.

I'm glad you've at least worked with the original languages and studied it at length. I think that is reflected in your responses... Smiling

There's scholars on all sides of the debate who would agree with both you and with me... I've read Habermas and N.T. Wright on the issue who have different opinions on the matter. N.T. Wright for one evaluates many of the possible behaviors of the disciples and is convinced that they really and positively believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

No I do not question they believed that they saw Jesus after his death. I find the stories to reflect an apparitional experience rather than a physically raised body which was a secondary development and reworking of the story.  I thus put it in the category of ghost story. My focus at Emory was the historical Jesus and my mentor was Hendrikus Boers. I also studied under top conservative scholars of the Christian Church at Atlanta Christian Scholars.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:No I do not

TGBaker wrote:


No I do not question they believed that they saw Jesus after his death. I find the stories to reflect an apparitional experience rather than a physically raised body which was a secondary development and reworking of the story.  I thus put it in the category of ghost story. My focus at Emory was the historical Jesus and my mentor was Hendrikus Boers. I also studied under top conservative scholars of the Christian Church at Atlanta Christian Scholars. 

I respect you're studies... that's not a bad thing. I've studied it too, mostly in the form of reading books by scholars. Ive met and spoke with Crossan, Wright, Habermas, WLC, Erhman,  among others at conferences I've been too. My focus has been on philosophical theology though. I have studied Greek, Hebrew, and Latin too. 

I don't find it characteristic of a ghost story.... In fact the way they are written would suggest otherwise... they thought they might be seeing a ghost be ruled that possibility out. And even so, they doesn't not explain the empty tomb either.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 

No I do not question they believed that they saw Jesus after his death. I find the stories to reflect an apparitional experience rather than a physically raised body which was a secondary development and reworking of the story.  I thus put it in the category of ghost story. My focus at Emory was the historical Jesus and my mentor was Hendrikus Boers. I also studied under top conservative scholars of the Christian Church at Atlanta Christian Scholars. 

I respect you're studies... that's not a bad thing. I've studied it too, mostly in the form of reading books by scholars. Ive met and spoke with Crossan, Wright, Habermas, WLC, Erhman,  among others at conferences I've been too. My focus has been on philosophical theology though. I have studied Greek, Hebrew, and Latin too. 

I don't find it characteristic of a ghost story.... In fact the way they are written would suggest otherwise... they thought they might be seeing a ghost be ruled that possibility out. And even so, they doesn't not explain the empty tomb either.

I understand your position. I look at Paul's writings, his meeting with the Pillars and see his terminology of the resurrected body in  I Cor 15 using pseukikos instead of pneuma or soma as apparition like.  So are elements in the gospels. I think the gospels have later developments to move toward a physical resurrection.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I understand

TGBaker wrote:

I understand your position. I look at Paul's writings, his meeting with the Pillars and see his terminology of the resurrected body in  I Cor 15 using pseukikos instead of pneuma or soma as apparition like.  So are elements in the gospels. I think they are later developments to move toward a physical resurrection. 

Do you mean "πνευματικος"? Paul uses this with "σωμα".... It's a descriptor of the sort of body one would have in the future. And the word σωμα appears all over 1 Cor 15 with other descriptors.

But my contention is with the word "αναστασις" as they understood this to mean one who was dead coming back to life. I think one would be hard pressed to think that they understood this to have some other meaning than Jesus physically dying and then physically coming back to life.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sweet pic in your avatar.

Thanks a lot. I kinda got tired of looking at the bald headed one. This was my sons second birthday pic. The other person is my wonderful wife and friend.

Really nice looking fam...

Thanks today is mother's day and my wife's birthday at the same time.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Thanks today

TGBaker wrote:

Thanks today is mother's day and my wife's birthday at the same time. 

Happy birthday to her too!

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

It is acceptable to criticise a position as biased without there being circumstantial adhom in situations where the premises being pushed to the audience are not generally accepted to be true/known to be without bias blah, blah. I'm not making this up. I don't know why you would argue with it. You apply this this question of motivation to the believers of other faiths every day.

But this seems to be a favorite means of disqualification among atheists, so it seems, as it has manifested itself in numerous ways by numerous people on this forum since I joined. I'm not above being baised, but to right off every thing one believes because he is biased without addressing his truth claims in and of themselves is why it is fallacious...

Atheistextremist wrote:

I can't imagine I ever said absolutely true vs absolutely not true. This is your sort of straw man. No one has ever risen from the dead - ever, ever, ever. Thus the available evidence suggests dead people remain dead. If you can offer some proof they don't, go ahead and do so. If not, then you must feel motivated to believe in this case there has been exception to the immutable rule.

I would agree that the evidence suggests that people who are dead stay  dead. But on at least one occasion, this didn't happen, and why it is such a momentous historical event. There is evidence for at least one many raising from the dead, but you just don't accept it.

Atheistextremist wrote:

If anything the general thought of the audience is that your position is an assertion based on the dubious authority of the bible and your motivations for accepting the dogma warrant serious questioning.

When have I ever appealed to authority or dogma? If you are dismissing my arguments for this reason it is because you are creating a straw man out of what I've said.

 

Right here.  You don't see it, do you?

What evidence do you have for a resurrection except the bible?  What other historical source mentions the specific resurrection of a Jewish person named Jesus?  Josephus doesn't count as a) it was long after the supposed event and b) scholars generally agree the references by Josephus of a Christ were inserted by a copyist even later than that.  Funny, we only have copies and not the original of Josephus and so have no way of verifying this one way or the other.  Except for linguistics and other internal clues.

The supposed ossuary was determined to be a fake.  The supposed empty tomb?  We don't have Jewish tombs with bodies in them - because the bodies  were removed once they were skeletonized.  So finding an empty tomb now is easy as they are all empty.  And there is a lot of disagreement over which bit of rock might possibly be the "empty tomb". 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-cut_tombs_in_ancient_Israel wrote:

Bodies were laid out on stone benches. After a generation, the bones were moved to a bone chamber or, later, into ossuaries and the benches used for new burials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Tomb wrote:

Barkay concluded that:

  • The waterproofing on the cistern is of the type used by the Crusaders, and the cistern must date to that era[16]
  • The groove was a water trough, built by the 11th century Crusaders for donkeys/mules[16]
  • The cistern was built as part of the same stable complex as the groove[16]
  • The design of the interior of the tomb is typical of the 8th-7th centuries BC, and fell out of use later.

As the Bible describes Jesus' tomb as "a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid,"[17] it is unlikely to be the Garden Tomb.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#Challenges_to_authenticity wrote:

The Bible describes Jesus' tomb as being outside the city wall,[39] but the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is in the heart of Hadrian's city, well within the Old City walls, which were built by Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in 1538.

 

There are plenty of resurrection stories from other cultures about other people who died or went to hell and returned.  And we don't have any evidence for them except what is in the story, either.  And we have many different written examples of some of these stories.

Why do you evaluate the bible as "truth" when all of these other stories are just "myths"?  Because the bible says it is the written word of god?  And what proof do you have for that?  Your faith? 

For me, that is no proof at all.  That is wishful thinking.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Wowzers1,The summation of

Wowzers1,

The summation of mathematically defined infinite series, such as the simple geometric series I gave as an example, does not necessarily require integration or iteration over the series. Some may require some form of integration, but not the one I showed. You betray a lack of understanding of high school math.

The point is that as long as each earlier 'cause' or event in a sequence is known to be, on average, lesser than the following one, no infinite sums will arise. The only further qualification is that the relative magnitude of adjacent events does not asymptotically approach unity as we progress back.

There is simply no point inserting a God figure into any 'explanation' or insight into reality - it destroys any degree of certainty about the way things are, or will progress, since such an entity can change things fundamentally at a whim. So it would require very strong evidentiary justification. Even then, it would be intrinsically impossible to prove infinite extent in any sense. Indefinitely large, maybe , but not demonstrably infinite.

But to prove anything about a being who has total control over what we perceive - no. All we could demonstrate is that there are things which run counter to our current understanding of reality, which is just a form of 'God-of-the-gaps'. A giant voice in the heavens, writing on the clouds, or the stars, would only provide evidence of the existence of a being, or beings, of great power, nothing else.

The idea of blood sacrifice simply IS an ancient primitive idea, based on the instinctive reactions to blood, so clearly associated with life and death.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I understand your position. I look at Paul's writings, his meeting with the Pillars and see his terminology of the resurrected body in  I Cor 15 using pseukikos instead of pneuma or soma as apparition like.  So are elements in the gospels. I think they are later developments to move toward a physical resurrection. 

Do you mean "πνευματικος"? Paul uses this with "σωμα".... It's a descriptor of the sort of body one would have in the future. And the word σωμα appears all over 1 Cor 15 with other descriptors.

But my contention is with the word "αναστασις" as they understood this to mean one who was dead coming back to life. I think one would be hard pressed to think that they understood this to have some other meaning than Jesus physically dying and then physically coming back to life.

I am going from memory but I guess I could get out a bible.... Yea pseukikos for living body and neumatikos for a spiritual body.  So your right about the term. But it is a spiritual body which was my point. Do you paste your Greek text in?  It would seem the more Hellenistic the movement became (including Paul's influence)the more acceptable the Greek as opposed to Semitic idea.  How do you take I Cor 15:51ff?  Again to me  a ghost story revisioned toward orthodox physical and then toward a Hellenistic development.

EDIT ADDITION: Do you go with the two body theory?

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The only entity that can rightfully 'forgive' is the party who was the victim of the wrong action.

In the case of God and humanity, this would be God.

The idea that God can be a victim, implying that he can be 'harmed', in any sense is the utter height of absurdity....

That idea is the clearest proof that the god concept here is a human concept, as an imagined supreme version of some 'ideal' human personality.

'Balancing the books' is not a necessity, it implies that 'justice' can be quantitatively measured, which is nonsense. Even more nonsensical that shedding of blood can be offset against a crime against another person.

Justice is ultimately a subjective matter, all we can strive for is that severity of punishment has some progression as the perceived harm caused by the 'wrongful' action becomes more severe. That is if punishment, rather than some form of therapy or socialization, such as clearly expressed forgiveness from the aggrieved persons(s), is even appropriate.

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


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Right here.  You

cj wrote:

Right here.  You don't see it, do you?

What evidence do you have for a resurrection except the bible?  What other historical source mentions the specific resurrection of a Jewish person named Jesus?  Josephus doesn't count as a) it was long after the supposed event and b) scholars generally agree the references by Josephus of a Christ were inserted by a copyist even later than that.  Funny, we only have copies and not the original of Josephus and so have no way of verifying this one way or the other.  Except for linguistics and other internal clues.

Citing the Bible as a source is not an appeal to authority and more than citing the NYT or the LA Posts...

And why cannot it be a source?

And saying Josephus "doesn't count" is special pleading...

The extreme positions concerning Jesus would say that both accounts of Jesus in Josephus' writings were inserted, but most would say that they are central...

cj wrote:

The supposed ossuary was determined to be a fake.  The supposed empty tomb?  We don't have Jewish tombs with bodies in them - because the bodies  were removed once they were skeletonized.  So finding an empty tomb now is easy as they are all empty.  And there is a lot of disagreement over which bit of rock might possibly be the "empty tomb". 

Which one? There's three proposed sites in Jerusalem for the burial site of Jesus. I think the Catholics have the right one... it was customary that when Romans expelled a group from a land as they did the Jews post 70 AD, they would build temples to their gods on sites were holy places of were. They built a temple to Zeus on the temple mount and a temple to Aphrodite on the site were the Church of the Holy Sepulcher sits today.

And the concerning the Wall,  there is a possibility that the site was indeed outside the wall. Many other first century graves were found in the vicinity of the church, meaning that it is likely that the site was indeed outside the wall of the city.

cj wrote:

There are plenty of resurrection stories from other cultures about other people who died or went to hell and returned.  And we don't have any evidence for them except what is in the story, either.  And we have many different written examples of some of these stories.

Why do you evaluate the bible as "truth" when all of these other stories are just "myths"?  Because the bible says it is the written word of god?  And what proof do you have for that?  Your faith? 

For me, that is no proof at all.  That is wishful thinking. 

Other resurrection myths do not mitigate the story of Jesus because it does not disprove that Jesus resurrected from the dead. This is a diversion tactic and another circumstatial ad hominem really.

I think that the evidence for Christianity is very much grounded in history. The writings that describe the death, burial, and resurrection come from people that sound like they were convinced that this event really happened.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:
The summation of mathematically defined infinite series, such as the simple geometric series I gave as an example, does not necessarily require integration or iteration over the series. Some may require some form of integration, but not the one I showed. You betray a lack of understanding of high school math.

The short hand (sigma notation) notation implies an iteration over and infinite series. The sum is an estimation as it converges on infinity. The only way to know for certain is either iterate the series or integrate it.

It implies that, but it is not necessary to actually perform the iteration to evaluate the summation:

Let S =  1 + r

1

+ r

2

+ r

3

+ ... + r

n

  ................(1)

then r X S =  r1 + r2 + r3 + ... + rn + rn+1 ....(2)

subtracting (2) from (1):

S - r X S = 1 - rn+1

 ie (1 - r ) X S = 1 - rn+1

so S = (1 - rn+1)/(1 - r )

if 0 < r < 1, then rn+1 -> 0 as n -> infinity,

so S -> 1/(1 - r) if 0< r < 1 as n -> infinity.

No iteration necessary.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The point is that as long as each earlier 'cause' or event in a sequence is known to be, on average, lesser than the following one, no infinite sums will arise. The only further qualification is that the relative magnitude of adjacent events does not asymptotically approach unity as we progress back.

But how can this be known without a predictable pattern? This is my point....

It can't be known, but my point is that an infinite regress does not necessitate any actual quantitative infinities.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is simply no point inserting a God figure into any 'explanation' or insight into reality - it destroys any degree of certainty about the way things are, or will progress, since such an entity can change things fundamentally at a whim. So it would require very strong evidentiary justification. Even then, it would be intrinsically impossible to prove infinite extent in any sense. Indefinitely large, maybe , but not demonstrably infinite.

Inserting God as an explanation only mitigates degree of certainly or progress if one stops trying to progress. As I have said, I'm not against God acting through material causes to bring about the universe as it is. And I'm all for science trying to understand whatever material causes brought the universe as we know it. You don't see me positing any sort of cosmological arguments do you?

It acts against certainty once God is assumed. We can't disprove some kind of super being, but until we find some positive evidence for something occurring in our universe, in any form, which can only be 'explained' by such an entity, it is an unjustified assumption.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But to prove anything about a being who has total control over what we perceive - no. All we could demonstrate is that there are things which run counter to our current understanding of reality, which is just a form of 'God-of-the-gaps'. A giant voice in the heavens, writing on the clouds, or the stars, would only provide evidence of the existence of a being, or beings, of great power, nothing else.

This is precisely what I'm opposed to. I'm not suggesting one propose a god of the gaps or anything like it.

I did not suggest you were proposing a 'God of the Gaps'. That would not make sense.

'God-of-the-Gaps' is not a version of God, it describes one form of argument for God, based on our inability to come up with a natural explanation for some phenomenon or event. Which applies to all the miracles of the Bible, even if they could be verified to have taken place.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The idea of blood sacrifice simply IS an ancient primitive idea, based on the instinctive reactions to blood, so clearly associated with life and death.

Appealing to novelty....

The association of blood with life and death is very much a modern idea as it is primitive one too, but I'm not sure that the notion of something as "primitive" or "modern" is really the point I was making. The issue is with sin leading to death, and the death (the shedding of blood that is) is the atonement.

I was not saying that the "association of blood with life and death" is an ancient idea, I was saying that "the idea of blood sacrifice" is primitive, based on the natural association of blood with life and death.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I am going

TGBaker wrote:
I am going from memory but I guess I could get out a bible.... Yea pseukikos for living body and neumatikos for a spiritual body.  So your right about the term. But it is a spiritual body which was my point. Do you paste your Greek text in?  It would seem the more Hellenistic the movement became (including Paul's influence)the more acceptable the Greek as opposed to Semitic idea.  How do you take I Cor 15:51ff?  Again to me  a ghost story revisioned toward orthodox physical and then toward a Hellenistic development.

I understand the 1 Cor 15:51 through Romans and Paul's description of sanctification. The perishable/worldly/fleshly/sinful body that leads to death and the resurrected/imperishable/perfected body that is of eternal life. (I did paste in the Greek text BTW).

What I see Paul doing is bridging Semitic thought into Greek thought... that is using the familiar to help one understand the unfamiliar. I do not think Paul was platonic though.

TGBaker wrote:

EDIT ADDITION: Do you go with the two body theory?

I don't... I think the same body Jesus lived in while on earth is the same one that was resurrected. The transfiguration though shows this same body in a glorified state.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The idea

BobSpence1 wrote:

The idea that God can be a victim, implying that he can be 'harmed', in any sense is the utter height of absurdity....

How so?

BobSpence1 wrote:

That idea is the clearest proof that the god concept here is a human concept, as an imagined supreme version of some 'ideal' human personality.

Such a notion does not entail that God is human concept. Ideals do not create beings... And besides, I think most ancient conceptions of gods make them more like humans than the perfect being theology enspoused by monotheistic Yahwehism...

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Balancing the books' is not a necessity, it implies that 'justice' can be quantitatively measured, which is nonsense. Even more nonsensical that shedding of blood can be offset against a crime against another person.

So how do you suppose justice is measured? Quantitatively?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Justice is ultimately a subjective matter, all we can strive for is that severity of punishment has some progression as the perceived harm caused by the 'wrongful' action becomes more severe. That is if punishment, rather than some form of therapy or socialization, such as clearly expressed forgiveness from the aggrieved persons(s), is even appropriate.

I don't think Justice is so subjective...

But ascribing value to some particular crime can be a tough gambit. Sometimes, it is not so hard.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The idea that God can be a victim, implying that he can be 'harmed', in any sense is the utter height of absurdity....

How so?

Are you kidding?? A mortal being can harm an infinite omnipotent being???

Even if you are thinking in terms of 'offense' rather than physical harm, it betrays a being with all too human sensibilities.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That idea is the clearest proof that the god concept here is a human concept, as an imagined supreme version of some 'ideal' human personality.

Such a notion does not entail that God is human concept. Ideals do not create beings... And besides, I think most ancient conceptions of gods make them more like humans than the perfect being theology enspoused by monotheistic Yahwehism...

Ideals do lead to the formation of concepts, which is all God is. Obviously, the God of the Jews and Christians has mutated from the original concept, but still retains many primitive aspects.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Balancing the books' is not a necessity, it implies that 'justice' can be quantitatively measured, which is nonsense. Even more nonsensical that shedding of blood can be offset against a crime against another person.

So how do you suppose justice is measured? Quantitatively?

You continue to misread me.

I said in that post that you can't measure Justice, because of its subjectivity. You can possibly get a rough scale by recording the opinions and reactions of a cross-section of society. But that's about as much as you can do.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Justice is ultimately a subjective matter, all we can strive for is that severity of punishment has some progression as the perceived harm caused by the 'wrongful' action becomes more severe. That is if punishment, rather than some form of therapy or socialization, such as clearly expressed forgiveness from the aggrieved persons(s), is even appropriate.

I don't think Justice is so subjective...

But ascribing value to some particular crime can be a tough gambit. Sometimes, it is not so hard.

I realize that it is your subjective opinion that Justice is not so subjective..

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
I am going from memory but I guess I could get out a bible.... Yea pseukikos for living body and neumatikos for a spiritual body.  So your right about the term. But it is a spiritual body which was my point. Do you paste your Greek text in?  It would seem the more Hellenistic the movement became (including Paul's influence)the more acceptable the Greek as opposed to Semitic idea.  How do you take I Cor 15:51ff?  Again to me  a ghost story revisioned toward orthodox physical and then toward a Hellenistic development.

I understand the 1 Cor 15:51 through Romans and Paul's description of sanctification. The perishable/worldly/fleshly/sinful body that leads to death and the resurrected/imperishable/perfected body that is of eternal life. (I did paste in the Greek text BTW).

What I see Paul doing is bridging Semitic thought into Greek thought... that is using the familiar to help one understand the unfamiliar. I do not think Paul was platonic though.

TGBaker wrote:

EDIT ADDITION: Do you go with the two body theory?

I don't... I think the same body Jesus lived in while on earth is the same one that was resurrected. The transfiguration though shows this same body in a glorified state.

I think that Paul was perhaps versed in Seneca and may have been working his way to Spain to debate with him. He did not make if so.  There are elements of neo-platonic thought that were everyday common beliefs in Hellenism that show up in Paul or either Deutero-Pauline writings. The concept of Logos is Stoic but nonetheless has Platonic aspects because of the Stoic apologetics toward Platonism.  These wind up in Palestinian Judaism through Hellenistic influence. Philo of Alexandria who had a nicely developed idea of Logos is a mixture. I think it finds its way into Johannine literature and Judaism as a whole. The Jewish Wisdom motif of Proverbs 8 and Apocrapha literature finds its way into Paul and is little altered by its transformation into Logos Christology. Again in Egypt on the island of Elephantine you find Jews who worshipped both Yahweh and Sophia/Wisdom as his consort. The interchangibility of Logos, pneuma and Sophia  as witnessed by Philo's stuff shows how these things were later applied to the historical Jesus. 

As for the two body thingy some people ( I think N. T. Wright for example ) go with the mention by Paul of a new garment as a new body constructed at the resurrection.   Paul is certainly earlier than the gospels.  Mark ends without appearances.  The later gospels still have elements of a non-physical or different type of body.  This i think lends itself to the apparition theory. The empty tomb stories are the earliest attempts toward a standard Jewish idea of resurrection ( bodily).  Matthew adds in a mass resurrection in his account.   By the writing of John everything is SO divine.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think that

TGBaker wrote:

I think that Paul was perhaps versed in Seneca and may have been working his way to Spain to debate with him. He did not make if so.  There are elements of neo-platonic thought that were everyday common beliefs in Hellenism that show up in Paul or either Deutero-Pauline writings. The concept of Logos is Stoic but nonetheless has Platonic aspects because of the Stoic apologetics toward Platonism.  These wind up in Palestinian Judaism through Hellenistic influence. Philo of Alexandria who had a nicely developed idea of Logos is a mixture. I think it finds its way into Johannine literature and Judaism as a whole. The Jewish Wisdom motif of Proverbs 8 and Apocrapha literature finds its way into Paul and is little altered by its transformation into Logos Christology. Again in Egypt on the island of Elephantine you find Jews who worshipped both Yahweh and Sophia/Wisdom as his consort. The interchangibility of Logos, pneuma and Sophia  as witnessed by Philo's stuff shows how these things were later applied to the historical Jesus. 

I think his goal in going to Spain was to start churches like he had done so in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Philo adapted it, and John invoked it, probably teaching it to Polycarp who taught Ireneus. I'm not sure who John's gospel was addressed to, but I think it was probably Hellenistic Jews who had coverted as it contains many references to the diaspora. But in any case, the Logos was a familiar concept to Hellenists and a bridge to Jesus.

TGBaker wrote:

As for the two body thingy some people ( I think N. T. Wright for example ) go with the mention by Paul of a new garment as a new body constructed at the resurrection.   Paul is certainly earlier than the gospels.  Mark ends without appearances.  The later gospels still have elements of a non-physical or different type of body.  This i think lends itself to the apparition theory. The empty tomb stories are the earliest attempts toward a standard Jewish idea of resurrection ( bodily).  Matthew adds in a mass resurrection in his account.   By the writing of John everything is SO divine.

I don't think it was apparitions, and "otherness" and why Paul does not use "pneuma", rather "soma pneumatikos" -- a glorified state free from the taint of death caused by sin. I think is very consistent throughout the New Testament.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Let S =  1

BobSpence1 wrote:
Let S =  1 + r

1

+ r

2

+ r

3

+ ... + r

n

  ................(1)

then r X S =  r1 + r2 + r3 + ... + rn + rn+1 ....(2)

subtracting (2) from (1):

S - r X S = 1 - rn+1

 ie (1 - r ) X S = 1 - rn+1

so S = (1 - rn+1)/(1 - r )

if 0 < r < 1, then rn+1 -> 0 as n -> infinity,

so S -> 1/(1 - r) if 0< r < 1 as n -> infinity.

No iteration necessary.

-> = "approaches", that is, it implies iteration (as N approaches infinity by each successive iteration)... Just because you estimate the sum, does not mean that you aren't iterating...

BobSpence1 wrote:

It can't be known, but my point is that an infinite regress does not necessitate any actual quantitative infinities.

Who's pressing for actual quantitative infinities? I don't believe that I've ever defined God as an actual quantitative infinities

BobSpence1 wrote:
It acts against certainty once God is assumed. We can't disprove some kind of super being, but until we find some positive evidence for something occurring in our universe, in any form, which can only be 'explained' by such an entity, it is an unjustified assumption.

Why is that so? There's not reason to think that unless you're pitching them as two mutually exclusive explanations. Are you?

BobSpence1 wrote:
'God-of-the-Gaps' is not a version of God, it describes one form of argument for God, based on our inability to come up with a natural explanation for some phenomenon or event. Which applies to all the miracles of the Bible, even if they could be verified to have taken place.

God-of-the-gaps is invoked to fill gaps in explanations where natural explanations should exist. Ascribing something as a "miracle" is when a particular event defies what is perceived to be common experience.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I was not saying that the "association of blood with life and death" is an ancient idea, I was saying that "the idea of blood sacrifice" is primitive, based on the natural association of blood with life and death.

I see. So why bring it up?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Are you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Are you kidding?? A mortal being can harm an infinite omnipotent being???

Even if you are thinking in terms of 'offense' rather than physical harm, it betrays a being with all too human sensibilities.

I have not problem accepting that moral beings can harm God. They did a pretty good job of harming him by toturing him and hanging him on a cross...

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ideals do lead to the formation of concepts, which is all God is. Obviously, the God of the Jews and Christians has mutated from the original concept, but still retains many primitive aspects.

Have they? How so?

BobSpence1 wrote:

You continue to misread me.

I said in that post that you can't measure Justice, because of its subjectivity. You can possibly get a rough scale by recording the opinions and reactions of a cross-section of society. But that's about as much as you can do.

Sorry if I "misread" you, but I don't see where you say justice can't be measured... only that it can't be measured qualitatively...

BobSpence1 wrote:

I realize that it is your subjective opinion that Justice is not so subjective..

The content of my "opinion" and the what defines justice are not the same thing. In other words, what I think about justice does not define justice. A subjective justice seems rather dubious, and really begs the question as to if it can be called "justice" at all...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
So what the heck do

 

 

you believe in, Wows. Your definition of god seems so nebulous that nothing anyone disagrees with ever bears clear resemblance to what you say are your actual beliefs. No matter what they claim you are untouchable. God is, he's not, he's half way in between. Certainties - what certainties? I preach no certainties! No doubt you'll deny this observation, too. 

What's the point in conjecturing with you if your position is drivable? In the past you've defined god as having various omni attributes (I think - perhaps I'm thinking of another). Do you think of god as existing in any way we can understand? Is there a concrete belief with you or is your position based on what you see as the best thing supported by the available evidence? You clearly think of jesus of having been god and man, yes?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
DP

 

Butter fingers. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:you

Atheistextremist wrote:

you believe in, Wows. Your definition of god seems so nebulous that nothing anyone disagrees with ever bears clear resemblance to what you say are your actual beliefs. No matter what they claim you are untouchable. God is, he's not, he's half way in between. Certainties - what certainties? I preach no certainties! No doubt you'll deny this observation, too. 

Of course I'm going to deny this observation because you're making a hasty generalization about me...

And I think the reason I haven't offered any definitive statements about God is because no one has asked, rather everyone assumed that I think a particular way...

Atheistextremist wrote:

What's the point in conjecturing with you if your position is drivable? In the past you've defined god as having various omni attributes (I think - perhaps I'm thinking of another). Do you think of god as existing in any way we can understand? Is there a concrete belief with you or is your position based on what you see as the best thing supported by the available evidence? You clearly think of jesus of having been god and man, yes?

I don't claim to have an infalable understanding of God.

Nor do I claim that God is understandable in certain terms either. Not because I refuse to understand God, rather that I don't think I can understand God in the fullest sense. I do think that God is tenable though.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I feel like you're

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

you believe in, Wows. Your definition of god seems so nebulous that nothing anyone disagrees with ever bears clear resemblance to what you say are your actual beliefs. No matter what they claim you are untouchable. God is, he's not, he's half way in between. Certainties - what certainties? I preach no certainties! No doubt you'll deny this observation, too. 

Of course I'm going to deny this observation because you're making a hasty generalization about me...

And I don't think the reason I've offered any definitive statements about God is because no one has asked, rather everyone assumed that I think a particular way...

Atheistextremist wrote:

What's the point in conjecturing with you if your position is drivable? In the past you've defined god as having various omni attributes (I think - perhaps I'm thinking of another). Do you think of god as existing in any way we can understand? Is there a concrete belief with you or is your position based on what you see as the best thing supported by the available evidence? You clearly think of jesus of having been god and man, yes?

I don't claim to have an infalable understanding of God.

Nor do I claim that God is understandable in certain terms either. Not because I refuse to understand God, rather that I don't think I can understand God in the fullest sense. I do think that God is tenable though.

 

 

disagreeing with me and then agreeing that yes - "I don't think god is understandable in certain terms...I don't think I can understand god in the fullest sense...I do think god is tenable..."

So you can see how hard it is to debate your position when it chiefly consists of denials of what it consists of. I don't really understand what god could possibly be that's not an anthropomorphic projection of some sort.

Anyway, reading your discussion with Bob I just wondered what your base position was. You seem in some ways at least, to be similar to my epistemologist brother in holding a position based heavily in bible history, that rejects certain salient elements of the doctrine of major denominations of christian faith - in his case that's hell, the existence of satan - in fact anything that he feels can't be reliably proven through scripture and common sense.

He sees a lot of mythology in some parts of the bible (garden of eden) but Walkley Journalism in other parts - especially the NT, which seems special pleading to me. He thinks of god as omni-powerful and has no trouble positing a god outside space/time based no doubt on the cosmological and ontological arguments, which build the requirement of a prime mover into material reality. Another key thing for him is what he sees as the unassailable god-proof of human morality. 

Needless to say, despite the private nature of his faith, he is strong on calvary and has a personal relationship with jesus. From the perspective of an onlooker, even a former christian like myself, his beliefs seem to be 2 religions in one. The first being a general sense that there must be a driving force of nature, that a lack of knowledge proves complexity humans can never comprehend and that the existence of morality proves a moral god. The second religion is based on a personal connection to the lamb of god as a result of his sacrifice of his own life for the evils of my brother, which I concede, are legion. 

On top of all this, and unlike you Wows, he claims evolution is fraught with difficulty and possibly not true, in essence lending more credibility as a source to the stories of the bible than to the stories of sedimentary rocks, despite the fact fossils are far less open to interpretation than is ambiguous language replete with its overlays of subjective translation and the certainty of accidental and deliberate manipulation. 

Moving on, I was interested to see you claim the passage in Josephus that encapsulates the entire christian doctrine in a paragraph was not a rank forgery and that suggesting it was forged is "extreme". Tell me, how could a practising Jew make a statement like this: "If it be right to call him a man for he was the christ"?

Adding colour to this, Josephus was not even born when jesus was crucified and this makes his purported statement "He was the christ" a naked assertion which in my opinion seems likely to have been the work of church historian, Eusebius, in the third century. The passage was first quoted by him and the only copies of the Jewish War in existence now are medieval. Eusebius also encouraged forgery for the faith making him a factual source of dubious quality. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 disagreeing with me and then agreeing that yes - "I don't think god is understandable in certain terms...I don't think I can understand god in the fullest sense...I do think god is tenable..."

So you can see how hard it is to debate your position when it chiefly consists of denials of what it consists of. I don't really understand what god could possibly be that's not an anthropomorphic projection of some sort.

I'm telling you how I hold what I do, not what I hold. This discussion as drifted too and fro, and largely because I have let it, and that's my fault. I generally like to focus a discussion so the entities that are being discussed can be defined, much like I did on the other thread I was heavily involved with. The uncertainty of open ended discussions such as these end up drifting aimlessly. I probably should have reigned in the discussion more as to focus on one entity or another... I don't think this forum resembles a "debate" in any form as it stands now because it has gone way off topic from the OP.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Anyway, reading your discussion with Bob I just wondered what your base position was. You seem in some ways at least, to be similar to my epistemologist brother in holding a position based heavily in bible history, that rejects certain salient elements of the doctrine of major denominations of christian faith - in his case that's hell, the existence of satan - in fact anything that he feels can't be reliably proven through scripture and common sense.

I don't reject the concept of Satan or Hell if you must know. But again, because of the dubious nature of these concepts, I don't understand them in certain terms. I think hell is a place of torment and suffering and Satan is  a deceiver and tempter, a created being, and "ruler" of that which is opposed to God.

Atheistextremist wrote:

He sees a lot of mythology in some parts of the bible (garden of eden) but Walkley Journalism in other parts - especially the NT, which seems special pleading to me. He thinks of god as omni-powerful and has no trouble positing a god outside space/time based no doubt on the cosmological and ontological arguments, which build the requirement of a prime mover into material reality. Another key thing for him is what he sees as the unassailable god-proof of human morality. 

I see the early parts of as mythological, but not myth. I do not think it is historical in the sense of recorded history, rather poetic and parabolic accounts of something real, that is creation and the fall of man.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Needless to say, despite the private nature of his faith, he is strong on calvary and has a personal relationship with jesus. From the perspective of an onlooker, even a former christian like myself, his beliefs seem to be 2 religions in one. The first being a general sense that there must be a driving force of nature, that a lack of knowledge proves complexity humans can never comprehend and that the existence of morality proves a moral god. The second religion is based on a personal connection to the lamb of god as a result of his sacrifice of his own life for the evils of my brother, which I concede, are legion.

On top of all this, and unlike you Wows, he claims evolution is fraught with difficulty and possibly not true, in essence lending more credibility as a source to the stories of the bible than to the stories of sedimentary rocks, despite the fact fossils are far less open to interpretation than is ambiguous language replete with its overlays of subjective translation and the certainty of accidental and deliberate manipulation. 

I think you're observation about "2 religions" for an onlooker is probably is a reasonable one. There is the philosophical religion and the personal religion. But to the person adhering to such, these are one in the same.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Moving on, I was interested to see you claim the passage in Josephus that encapsulates the entire christian doctrine in a paragraph was not a rank forgery and that suggesting it was forged is "extreme". Tell me, how could a practising Jew make a statement like this: "If it be right to call him a man for he was the christ"?

So you're problem is with the content of Josephus' writings then? Calling him the Christ within the context of Judaism would not necessarily deny his Jewish identity, as early Christianity was largely seen as a Jewish sect.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Adding colour to this, Josephus was not even born when jesus was crucified and this makes his purported statement "He was the christ" a naked assertion which in my opinion seems likely to have been the work of church historian, Eusebius, in the third century. The passage was first quoted by him and the only copies of the Jewish War in existence now are medieval. Eusebius also encouraged forgery for the faith making him a factual source of dubious quality. 

What does Josephus' birthdate have to do with his credibility as a historian?

And how close to the date of the events do writing have to be to be considered compelling?

And where does Eusebius encourage forgery?

And where is the connection between Eusebius' writings and Josepheus' writings? 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think that Paul was perhaps versed in Seneca and may have been working his way to Spain to debate with him. He did not make if so.  There are elements of neo-platonic thought that were everyday common beliefs in Hellenism that show up in Paul or either Deutero-Pauline writings. The concept of Logos is Stoic but nonetheless has Platonic aspects because of the Stoic apologetics toward Platonism.  These wind up in Palestinian Judaism through Hellenistic influence. Philo of Alexandria who had a nicely developed idea of Logos is a mixture. I think it finds its way into Johannine literature and Judaism as a whole. The Jewish Wisdom motif of Proverbs 8 and Apocrapha literature finds its way into Paul and is little altered by its transformation into Logos Christology. Again in Egypt on the island of Elephantine you find Jews who worshipped both Yahweh and Sophia/Wisdom as his consort. The interchangibility of Logos, pneuma and Sophia  as witnessed by Philo's stuff shows how these things were later applied to the historical Jesus. 

I think his goal in going to Spain was to start churches like he had done so in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Philo adapted it, and John invoked it, probably teaching it to Polycarp who taught Ireneus. I'm not sure who John's gospel was addressed to, but I think it was probably Hellenistic Jews who had coverted as it contains many references to the diaspora. But in any case, the Logos was a familiar concept to Hellenists and a bridge to Jesus.

TGBaker wrote:

As for the two body thingy some people ( I think N. T. Wright for example ) go with the mention by Paul of a new garment as a new body constructed at the resurrection.   Paul is certainly earlier than the gospels.  Mark ends without appearances.  The later gospels still have elements of a non-physical or different type of body.  This i think lends itself to the apparition theory. The empty tomb stories are the earliest attempts toward a standard Jewish idea of resurrection ( bodily).  Matthew adds in a mass resurrection in his account.   By the writing of John everything is SO divine.

I don't think it was apparitions, and "otherness" and why Paul does not use "pneuma", rather "soma pneumatikos" -- a glorified state free from the taint of death caused by sin. I think is very consistent throughout the New Testament.

I  think his dichotomy is "soma psuchikon" vs "soma pneumatikon" is a comparison between a living (soul ) body and a spiritual body.  The sme thing we would say if we saw a ghost it was a form, a body but spiritual. We saw a spirit. Others within you faith view it as a metamorphosis or transformation from a physical body to perhaps dust with a second body being made by god during the resurrection. It certainly make more sense of the first man was made out of earth and dust but the second is made out of heaven. This is a dualistic statement 15: 47ff

The idea of Seneca is just a conjecture obviously Paul was evangelical wher eever he went.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I  think his

TGBaker wrote:
I  think his dichotomy is "soma psuchikon" vs "soma pneumatikon" is a comparison between a living (soul ) body and a spiritual body.  The sme thing we would say if we saw a ghost it was a form, a body but spiritual. We saw a spirit. Others within you faith view it as a metamorphosis or transformation from a physical body to perhaps dust with a second body being made by god during the resurrection. It certainly make more sense of the first man was made out of earth and dust but the second is made out of heaven. This is a dualistic statement 15: 47ff

The idea of Seneca is just a conjecture obviously Paul was evangelical wher eever he went.

There's certainly a dualism going on there -- that's undeniable. But it is body (soma), nevertheless -- that is not entirely natural (psuchikos) , but not entirely spirit (pneumatikon) or spirit (pneuma) either. As I mentioned, think the synoptic accounts of the transfiguration and the commentary on it in 2 Peter 1:16-18 give likeness to a sort of glorified, heavenly state. Paul's incident on the road to Demascus and his recount in Acts 22, at Stephen's stoning, and John's Revelation 1 vision are images of Jesus in his glorified state. The resurrected bodies will bear the image of the heavenly man and will be something of this nature.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 disagreeing with me and then agreeing that yes - "I don't think god is understandable in certain terms...I don't think I can understand god in the fullest sense...I do think god is tenable..."

So you can see how hard it is to debate your position when it chiefly consists of denials of what it consists of. I don't really understand what god could possibly be that's not an anthropomorphic projection of some sort.

I'm telling you how I hold what I do, not what I hold. This discussion as drifted too and fro, and largely because I have let it, and that's my fault. I generally like to focus a discussion so the entities that are being discussed can be defined, much like I did on the other thread I was heavily involved with. The uncertainty of open ended discussions such as these end up drifting aimlessly. I probably should have reigned in the discussion more as to focus on one entity or another... I don't think this forum resembles a "debate" in any form as it stands now because it has gone way off topic from the OP.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Anyway, reading your discussion with Bob I just wondered what your base position was. You seem in some ways at least, to be similar to my epistemologist brother in holding a position based heavily in bible history, that rejects certain salient elements of the doctrine of major denominations of christian faith - in his case that's hell, the existence of satan - in fact anything that he feels can't be reliably proven through scripture and common sense.

I don't reject the concept of Satan or Hell if you must know. But again, because of the dubious nature of these concepts, I don't understand them in certain terms. I think hell is a place of torment and suffering and Satan is  a deceiver and tempter, a created being, and "ruler" of that which is opposed to God.

Atheistextremist wrote:

He sees a lot of mythology in some parts of the bible (garden of eden) but Walkley Journalism in other parts - especially the NT, which seems special pleading to me. He thinks of god as omni-powerful and has no trouble positing a god outside space/time based no doubt on the cosmological and ontological arguments, which build the requirement of a prime mover into material reality. Another key thing for him is what he sees as the unassailable god-proof of human morality. 

I see the early parts of as mythological, but not myth. I do not think it is historical in the sense of recorded history, rather poetic and parabolic accounts of something real, that is creation and the fall of man.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Needless to say, despite the private nature of his faith, he is strong on calvary and has a personal relationship with jesus. From the perspective of an onlooker, even a former christian like myself, his beliefs seem to be 2 religions in one. The first being a general sense that there must be a driving force of nature, that a lack of knowledge proves complexity humans can never comprehend and that the existence of morality proves a moral god. The second religion is based on a personal connection to the lamb of god as a result of his sacrifice of his own life for the evils of my brother, which I concede, are legion.

On top of all this, and unlike you Wows, he claims evolution is fraught with difficulty and possibly not true, in essence lending more credibility as a source to the stories of the bible than to the stories of sedimentary rocks, despite the fact fossils are far less open to interpretation than is ambiguous language replete with its overlays of subjective translation and the certainty of accidental and deliberate manipulation. 

I think you're observation about "2 religions" for an onlooker is probably is a reasonable one. There is the philosophical religion and the personal religion. But to the person adhering to such, these are one in the same.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Moving on, I was interested to see you claim the passage in Josephus that encapsulates the entire christian doctrine in a paragraph was not a rank forgery and that suggesting it was forged is "extreme". Tell me, how could a practising Jew make a statement like this: "If it be right to call him a man for he was the christ"?

So you're problem is with the content of Josephus' writings then? Calling him the Christ within the context of Judaism would not necessarily deny his Jewish identity, as early Christianity was largely seen as a Jewish sect.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Adding colour to this, Josephus was not even born when jesus was crucified and this makes his purported statement "He was the christ" a naked assertion which in my opinion seems likely to have been the work of church historian, Eusebius, in the third century. The passage was first quoted by him and the only copies of the Jewish War in existence now are medieval. Eusebius also encouraged forgery for the faith making him a factual source of dubious quality. 

What does Josephus' birthdate have to do with his credibility as a historian?

And how close to the date of the events do writing have to be to be considered compelling?

And where does Eusebius encourage forgery?

And where is the connection between Eusebius' writings and Josepheus' writings? 

Debunked pony loaf. After the fact and still having nothing to do with proving the alleged "powers" of this magic man.

This "historian" was not contemporary and it wouldn't matter to me if we found the grave of the alleged Jesus character.

We know that George Washington existed, but no sane person goes around claiming he could fart a Lamborghini out of his ass.

We see Superman flying around New York city in movies but no sane person believes Superman is real because New York city is a real city.

I don't bother with this "history" distraction.

Even before you get to that convoluted pile of myth, written over 1,000 year period by 40 authors with books left out. Even before you get to this tribal gang manual, you haven't even established that any kind of invisible brain with magical super powers is a credible measurable part of reality.

It makes much more sense to me that Christianity is merely a splinter spin off religion invented from the prior Hebrews who got their ideas and motifs from the prior and surrounding polytheism of the time.

Christianity is the greatest scam sold in human history and is only rivaled by Islam. The only difference between the god/s of the Abraham traditions, and Big Foot fans are numbers of fans these conspiracies have.

Arguing over the existence of Jesus is like arguing over the first president of the first Star Trec fan club. Klingons will never be real no matter how many people love that series.

Virgin birth claims are bullshit, no matter who claims them or how many people claim it.

And the morality of this god, even when not addressing the hocus pocus of the bible, is one of self centered selfishness.

Not only are the claims in the bible absurd, the omni-concepts before you get to these scientific absurdities, says everything about why I would not worship such a selective deadbeat. I am glad such a critter is not real. I am sad that humanity still clings to these myths.

Josephus has been beaten like a rented mule, and still would not in any case make God tap Barry White on the shoulder to play mood music so he could inject his non material sperm into Mary. I hate to burst your bubble but it takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote.

I like my evidence with a little more meat on it than "POOF, GOD DID IT"

When a believer claims their god did it, I hear Charley Brown's teacher.

"Wa wa wa wa wa Jesus"

"Wa wa wa wa wa Allah"

"Wa wa wa wa wa Yahwey"

"Wa wa wa wa wa Vishnu"

A history of making claims does not make any of these god/s real. Nor do any of these fans have any lick of evidence that a non-material human like magical super brain exists. No one in human history by any label has had any lick of evidence for the god/s they claim.

I hate to tell you this but every god ever claimed in human history will die in the future when our species goes extinct  because there will not be another generation for these delusions to be passed onto.

Claims of the super natural are merely the rantings of human ignorance because we as a species do not want to face our finite existence in a universe that is a thing, not a being, that will go on long after this planet and all life on it dies.

Don't get angry at the fact that more and more people are stating the fact that the earth is not flat and reality is all there is and no amount of wishful thinking will change our finite existence.

Others here may take the time to address your "history" tactic. I have absolutely no patience for this when the real issue is the believer's inability to test and falsify their hocus pocus "poof" logic.

To me you could be claiming invisible pink unicorns exist and quote the first person to claim such and you'd have as much evidence. Lightening existing does not make Thor real. The moon is not made of cheese. We live in a day of cell phones, modern medicine, space exploration and computers. Why humans still cling to Superman vs Kriptonite mythology, by any name, is sad to me. Reality is much more awesome in both its beauty and destruction than any old book of myth.

Wake up. You bought a story because you like the story because it is a popular story. Your pet deity is not special and your tactic of claiming history is not special. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with proving the existence of a giant invisible brain with magical super powers, BY ANY NAME.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This

Brian37 wrote:

This "historian" was not contemporary and it wouldn't matter to me if we found the grave of the alleged Jesus character.

But what does being a contemporary have to do with credibility?

And are you one of the type who says Jesus never existed?

Brian37 wrote:

It makes much more sense to me that Christianity is merely a splinter spin off religion invented from the prior Hebrews who got their ideas and motifs from the prior and surrounding polytheism of the time.

Christianity is the greatest scam sold in human history and is only rivaled by Islam. The only difference between the god/s of the Abraham traditions, and Big Foot fans are numbers of fans these conspiracies have.

The "spin off" accusation sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me than it does a substantiated position.


 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Wowzers1 wrote:Brian37

Wowzers1 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

This "historian" was not contemporary and it wouldn't matter to me if we found the grave of the alleged Jesus character.

But what does being a contemporary have to do with credibility?

And are you one of the type who says Jesus never existed?

Brian37 wrote:

It makes much more sense to me that Christianity is merely a splinter spin off religion invented from the prior Hebrews who got their ideas and motifs from the prior and surrounding polytheism of the time.

Christianity is the greatest scam sold in human history and is only rivaled by Islam. The only difference between the god/s of the Abraham traditions, and Big Foot fans are numbers of fans these conspiracies have.

The "spin off" accusation sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me than it does a substantiated position.

 

 

Way to miss the point AGAIN,

You are arguing history, I am saying SO THE FUCK WHAT.

Do you find it credible when Muslims claim the existence of Muhammad as being absolute proof that Allah is the one true god?

GET IT?

We can prove lightening exists, but that would not make Thor real.

Arguing Josephus means nothing. He was AFTER THE FACT and basing his "evidence" on second hand hearsay. But that is irrelevant. The entire MYTH of the Jesus character is based on the naked assertion that an invisible being with no material cloned himself and committed a fake suicide. The entire MOTIF is a bullshit claim.

The only credible truth to the history of Christianity is that there was a man, or group of people who decided to start a new club. Other than that, the there is no such thing as virgin births, cloning bread or fish, curing blindness via touch, raising the dead, or rising from the dead. ALL BULLSHIT MYTH.

Someone started a new club, so what? The Egyptians falsely believed that the sun was a god. Just because we can prove their Pharaohs existed and their "historians" existed and we can prove they wrote their claims down, did not make Horus or Isis or Osirus real.

"Josephus existed"

My response, I don't give a fuck. Virgin births and zombie gods, much less any claim of invisible sky friends, are bullshit claims. A history of making claims doesn't make something true, otherwise the earth would be flat because it was once a popular belief.

He was not credible and the only thing you could prove about his claims is that he bought the prior claims sold to him and sold them himself. It doesn't make invisible split personality fake suicides real, much less one  done by a non-material fictional being.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Wowzers1 wrote:Brian37

Wowzers1 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

This "historian" was not contemporary and it wouldn't matter to me if we found the grave of the alleged Jesus character.

But what does being a contemporary have to do with credibility?

And are you one of the type who says Jesus never existed?

Brian37 wrote:

It makes much more sense to me that Christianity is merely a splinter spin off religion invented from the prior Hebrews who got their ideas and motifs from the prior and surrounding polytheism of the time.

Christianity is the greatest scam sold in human history and is only rivaled by Islam. The only difference between the god/s of the Abraham traditions, and Big Foot fans are numbers of fans these conspiracies have.

The "spin off" accusation sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me than it does a substantiated position.

 

 

Where did Coke  from? Did they suddenly magically exist via "poof"? No. "Soda" as an idea actually started out as a snake oil cure all. It came from the idea that carbonated water was a medicine. Someone decided to take that horrible taste and ad not only flavor to it, but COCAINE. Once that was outlawed they stopped selling it as a medicine and sold it as a beverage.

The other soda companies popped up and competed with Coke. But water, and carbon existed separately before someone combined them to make soda.

RELIGION, all religions in human history, exist, not because god/s are real, but because of successful human marketing. Nothing more and no conspiracy involved.

Is it a conspiracy that Ford and Chevy compete for customers? Did car exist before the wheel?

You have bought a myth just like every other human today and in the past. You are no different than a Muslim or Jew or the Ancient Egyptians or ancient Romans and their fictional god/s.

Mundane human reality is not a "conspiracy". Saying that the earth is a globe and not flat is not a "conspiracy".

Marketing shit as ice cream only means you are successful at marketing shit as ice cream, it does not make the shit ice cream just because you are good at selling it.

 

Your religion is merely a product of prior religions. I am sorry that you cannot see how ignorant you are being.

You are merely a victim of successful marketing, you are NOT selling a real product. Wanting a super hero to be real doesn't make a super hero real.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37