If what you claim, is correct.

You would be correct if you can find me many 'scholarly' theologians or apolgetics on the 'crusade' who don't claim that they know the 'truth', and that atheism is 'false'.

Can you prove that you are correct?

 

caposkia, it appears you consider yourself a formidable opponent to atheists.

I would like a 1 on 1 debate you.

Just me and you.

 

Do you accept?

Cap, without discussing the god issue, let me explain how easy it is to believe false things.

When I was a kid, I went to a movie documentary about animals. I saw a baby deer being born. But because of the angle of the camera I only saw the event profile. I ended up thinking that the fawn was coming out of the deer's ass, and not her vagina. I proudly proclaimed my new found knowledge to the kids on the bus the next day and everyone laughed at me. I was in tears. BUT they were right.

Just because you are an adult and just because you are smart, does not make you right. ESPECIALLY IN OUR MODERN TIME. If anyone today wants to prove something the entire world has one venue to settle the truth of the matter, and that venue is scientific method.

If I had known physical biology at the time, I never would have made that patiently absurd claim.

Considering when your book was written and the fact that you still defend it, says one thing to me. You are acting no different than I did, not because you are right, but because someone challenged you and the fear of being wrong causes you to cling to your absurdity.

 

TGBaker wrote:

They were intentionally changed very quickly. Scholars for example notice 3 stages in the Gospel of John. Just go to wiki for "the Synoptic problem".  Then read some of the books in the bibliography or we can discuss it here as well. B.F. Streeter's Four Gospels. Commentaries on the greek Testament.  R.E. Brown, J.A. Fitxmyer. Those are believing scholars who nontheless edmit the lack of historicity in the formation of the gospels.

I'll have to see what I can find and get back to this.  Thank you

redneF wrote:

If what you claim, is correct.

You would be correct if you can find me many 'scholarly' theologians or apolgetics on the 'crusade' who don't claim that they know the 'truth', and that atheism is 'false'.

Can you prove that you are correct?

 

Sure.. read this and tell me what you think:

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Ethics-of-Being-a/47442/

It also goes into detail as to why you would assume my claim is false, but goes into what one studying religions should be doing.

redneF wrote:

Are your reasons to believe, more logical than my reluctance to accept god 'beliefs', as being viable?

I don't think they are at all.

I'm sure you don't.

reluctance to accept something is not unreasonable.  

My reasons to believe are accumulative of many avenues... it's likely comparable to why a well researched atheist doesn't believe.

redneF wrote:

Would you like to debate me in a 1 on 1 debate?

I'd prefer to look at it as a discussion, but sure

redneF wrote:

I'm challenging you.

 

Let's do this... I'll let you go first.  For consistency, this should be a new forum

Everyone accepts history at face value

are you saying you have the same reasoning to share with me as to why i shouldn't accept this truth?  i mean something substantial, not a strawman rant that you're stuck on

Dude if the two theists don't show up. I debate ya taking a theistic position.

I guess that would be weird though. 

Let me start.

God is real because the bible says so. I believe the bible because it says its the truth. God is real.

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Dude if the two theists don't show up. I debate ya taking a theistic position.

Deal!

At least you understand science extremely well. And your logic is sound.

TGBaker wrote:

I guess that would be weird though. 

Actually, no. It would be a great exercise.

TGBaker wrote:

Let me start.

This isn't going to involve a banana, is it?

I hate that one.

I just can't beat it...

TGBaker wrote:

God is real because the bible says so. I believe the bible because it says its the truth. God is real.

If you say he's real in your mind. Then you're right.

 

But, the millions of us, are of a different mind.

And we don't wanna hear it, k?

 

What's wrong with leaving it at that?

 

Ohhhhhh......ya, the slaves, the gays, and the wimminz....

Forgot about what's at stake for them...

 

I should think that if a conceptual logic can formulate a rational basis for god then that conceptual model might supervene on an absolute logic for god. Since you grant that he is real in my mind and that conept is of a limitless being then it is either a non-rational construct or it is a rational construct.  If it holds whether it is a modal logic example or what have you and the argument is valid then it as a possible world entity of necessity does exist in all possible worlds beside my mental process.   If a=B B=C therefore A=C is a mental construct it refers to a non-mental and absolute logic that is not existent. It is a either a quality of reality abstracted from relational properties or it is that which conditions those relational properties transcendentally.  The same applies for my  mentally wonderful limitless being.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Dude if the two theists don't show up. I debate ya taking a theistic position.

Deal!

At least you understand science extremely well. And your logic is sound.

TGBaker wrote:

I guess that would be weird though. 

Actually, no. It would be a great exercise.

TGBaker wrote:

Let me start.

This isn't going to involve a banana, is it?

I hate that one.

I just can't beat it...

TGBaker wrote:

God is real because the bible says so. I believe the bible because it says its the truth. God is real.

If you say he's real in your mind. Then you're right.

 

But, the millions of us, are of a different mind.

And we don't wanna hear it, k?

 

What's wrong with leaving it at that?

 

Ohhhhhh......ya, the slaves, the gays, and the wimminz....

Forgot about what's at stake for them...

 

I should think that if a conceptual logic can formulate a rational basis for god then that conceptual model might supervene on an absolute logic for god. Since you grant that he is real in my mind and that conept is of a limitless being then it is either a non-rational construct or it is a rational construct.  If it holds whether it is a modal logic example or what have you and the argument is valid then it as a possible world entity of necessity does exist in all possible worlds beside my mental process.   If a=B B=C therefore A=C is a mental construct it refers to a non-mental and absolute logic that is not existent. It is a either a quality of reality abstracted from relational properties or it is that which conditions those relational properties transcendentally.  The same applies for my  mentally wonderful limitless being.

 

 

Whatever rightful point you make here, is only one part of the formula which ultimately leads to pragmatic testing and falsification. Ultimately that is all humanity has to make discoveries. There is absolutely no substitute for that.

What cap has started in an ignorant age and cap is merely a victim of his own wishful thinking. If cap had anything credible it would be testable BEYOND labels. Cap simply doesn't want to face the fact that he has fallen for a popular myth.

The idea of having a super hero BY ANY LABEL is nothing more than anthropomorphism based on mere human's wishful thinking. This was the case before Christianity and Hebrew monotheism, and it is still the case, even with pantheism today. It merely amounts to "It sounds good, so therefore it must be true".

Humans have always fallen for false claims because they want it to be true so badly they will defend it no matter what.

I only hope cap wakes up before he wastes his entire life on wishful thinking.

It's sad and dangerous that people continue to fall for these myths.  In seminary as I was a theologian neophyte there was a worse myth.   The neo-orthodoxy  of World War I evolved into a theology that would make truth claims such that the bible IS a collection of myth and fables. BUT these myths and narratives are the way that god truly reveals himself in time.  The virgin birth was not historical but it was more truthful than fact in that it revealed Jesus as both god and man.  The resurrection was not historical because the transcendent intersected at that point in history whereby god manifested in the story. IN other words the body stayed dead but the spirit of jesus spread through the world in the mythic story. Die Sache Jesu geht Weider... The cause of Jesus lives on.Willi Marxen  Jesus rose into his on kerygma (gospel or preaching) Rudolf Bultmann,  the resurrection occurred as revelation at communion after jesus's death as disciples  began to understand the meaning of the bread and wine Rudolf Schnackenburg (Catholic).

 

 

When you take a book that was never intended to be a history and make it one aren't you giving it more than face value?

Don't be obtuse.

You still haven't backed up your allegation towards me that I'm ignorant

What's an article written by one guy's about his personal views, got to do with what I said about the 'scholarly' theologians and apologetics who are on the 'crusade' against prominent atheists, making nonsensical statements like 'Atheism is false', and butchering the english language in their other equivocations?

The people who wrote that book over a 1.000 year period and 40 authors with books left out, had no clue of scientific reality.

The earth is billions of years old. The bible is written as if people thought it "poof" suddenly appeared.

It treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light, when the moon in reality bounces the sunlight off of the moon. It treats humans as if they "poof" suddenly appeared out of dirt. Evolution says we came from the same common ancestors as other primates.

And the entire book even without discussing the scientific absurdities claimed in it, is a morally repugnant book all about humans beating the shit out of each other in order to get into a club at the expense of all others only to kiss one guys ass.

You have fallen for a myth. The only reason you cling to it isn't because your god is real, it is because your own ego wont allow you to consider that you are wrong.

If you had anything to prove your claims you could march them into a lab with independent scientists and double blind tests and make it as obvious as the computer you type on. Since you cant do that all you can do is pull shit out of your ass because you had an emotional experience you refuse to accept was nothing more than your own brain allowing you to be fooled.

Wake up before you waste your entire life on wishful thinking.

Cap, let me offer a slightly different perspective if I may. If I came to you saying in a fearful voice that you needed to leave, in a large space outside near your home, a small bag containing gold or gems as well as a good cut of meat you would obviously wonder why, or perhaps if I'm delusional or trying to trick you somehow. When asked why I explain that these things are offerings to the great sky dragon Barashul, in providing these offerings of treasure and fine meat he will be kept from attacking you and your loved ones and might even protect you from coming under attack by others.

This would sound ridiculous, and if I seem to be lucid you might try to figure out why I believe it. I explain that the millions who vanish worldwide every year are Barashul taking prey because he is displeased. I point out that the bags of treasure and meat are usually always gone the next day. You might point out that someone could just come up and steal the loot and that the meat might be eaten by some animal, especially since I place it in a large open area where other creatures could wander in (I choose a big area because I want to make sure that Barashul has proper space to land and conduct himself). I might point out that since I've done it I haven't been robbed or have any crimes against my property, obvious signs that Barashul is watching over my property and rewarding me for my offerings. You might point out that there are nearly no robberies or crimes against property in my neighborhood, so I'm simply making an erroneous link between my actions and the lack of damage to my house. I go on to explain that Barashul is invisible and immaterial, his physical properties and abilities let him hide from sight unless he wishes to be seen and he is simply unable to be detected my mans current technology. It would sound like I was delusional or at least trying to play some elaborate prank. I could point out that you have no way of disproving my beliefs, that we both have a 50/50 chance of being right as you can't disprove Barashul.

Even if that is technically the case disbelief would be the default and far more reasonable track to take. The same thing is true of various religions. If you want to believe this stuff, that's fine, but the problem is that too many people are all too happy to try to make laws based on it as well as shove it into our schools and government as well as using it as an excuse to retard science education and roll back social progress. If religious people would be content to worship privately and make their arguments for law and policy based on the merits of the idea rather than their religious texts I would have no problem with it.

literally everything claimed to have happened before an understanding of scientific reality cannot be understood to be true.

TGBaker wrote:

What one thing indicates there is a god?????? There is no logic, scripture, observation that validates an ancient myth as a contemporary ontological, cosmological or epistemological proposition.  One there is no need for it. It does not come about because of a need to explain the contemporary world. It comes about ina dark primitive mind that had tribal gods that competed with other tribal gods. A supreme god ( henotheism) shows through verses in the OT. Monotheism is even later and results from Judaism's infection with Zorastrianism.  Why should I believe that such a thing warrants a theism to explain a world that we now know is not flat, that air is matter, that the earth is a sphere. The blue in the sky is not another ocean of water. Evolution means creation of species and not a sculpting from clay.

 

This particular post was answering a challenge to prove a non-bias skilled theologian, not proof of god.  Though a non-bias theologian could have research supporting the idea.

 Edited: Taken from the previous post to this question: 

They were intentionally changed very quickly. Scholars for example notice 3 stages in the Gospel of John. Just go to wiki for "the Synoptic problem".  Then read some of the books in the bibliography or we can discuss it here as well. B.F. Streeter's Four Gospels. Commentaries on the greek Testament.  R.E. Brown, J.A. Fitzmyer. Those are believing scholars who nontheless admit the lack of historicity in the formation of the gospels.

There are also pure historians like Crossan who has written extensively and sometimes definitively.  Look at R.E. Brown on the Gospel of John, Oscar Cllman, Rudolf Bultmann.  Check out the evangelical Vincent Taylor on Mark or C.E. B. Cranfield.  Look at Fitzmyer on Luje.

 Go to wiki synoptic problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

 http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Q_Document/The_Synoptic_Gospels

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm        about the canon

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Don't be obtuse.

You still haven't backed up your allegation towards me that I'm ignorant

What's an article written by one guy's about his personal views, got to do with what I said about the 'scholarly' theologians and apologetics who are on the 'crusade' against prominent atheists, making nonsensical statements like 'Atheism is false', and butchering the english language in their other equivocations?

you wanted me to show you that there are 'scholarly' theologians who are non-bias toward any particular point of view... this is one particular theologian.  how many do you need? 

I thought it would have been clear to you when I said the ones who were on the 'crusade', it meant high profile theists like WL Craig, John Atkins, Ray Comfort, Ravi Whatshisname etc...that are on the high profile circuit, arguing against high profile atheists, such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

That'll be the topic.

And we shall see which one of us has perched himself precariously.

we need to be more focused than that.  You want to see what happens to a discussion/debate that discusses belief on a broad scale such as what you are offering?  Review this forum, see where it got.

The debate you're asking for would take a lifetime to get through.

I don't think so. I'm not interested in every nit picking detail a theist can use from the bible stories.

I've never read those stories. I've never been to church, except for funerals, weddings, and baptisms.

I'm only familiar with the broad claims, like the supposed existence and resurrection of Jesus, Genesis, and the overall concept of an Ambrahamic god.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

Patently false.

Strawman.

I don't know where you went to school. But, they never told us that history was 'science', and that it wasn't anecdotal and suspect.

so science is what we take at face value?  no wonder everyone accepts theory as fact.  

Everyone?

I guess I would be justified in labelling you as incredibly ignorant, since science labels things as either 'theories', or 'universals' as 'laws'.

There is no 'law' of evolution. Because science is still accumulating evidence, and scientific methods are improving, with better tools and methods, to look deeper into biology.

Gravity is a law, in that it is constant, and physically affects all particles directly. It behaves consistently, and predictably. So , we call it's 'effects' a law. But, science has not concluded what it is, exactly, or how exactly it works, or how it came to be. As far as I know.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

How are you going to teach ancient Egyptian history as 'facts', or 'science', or anything more than anecdotal, when the only recordings made by them, were personal accounts, and are modern attempts at deciphering from hieroglyphics?

probability and reasoning.  

That would only mean that it's theoretical, or anecdotal.

 

caposkia wrote:

if all history is that subjective, then nothing is really for sure.  

We were never taught that history wasn't completely subjective.

Your school taught you that ancient history in history books was all 100% 'facts'???

 

That explains a WHOLE bunch.

We were 'given' historical accounts. We were NOT taught that they were the 'gospel' (sic), or to take them as absolute truths.

We were NOT 'preconditioned' to not be skeptical of them, at all. They were always postulated as "To the best of our current knowledge".

 

I guess you're not aware of all the controversy of incompatible claims between European historians and American ones, and the political agendas in written history, and with the patent offices.

The controversies between inventions being attributed to Americans, when they appear to have been done before by Europeans.

Ever read the different histories about Nikola Tesla? Thomas Edison? Henry Ford?

The controversy surrounding the invention of radio? The controversy surrounding DC and AC electrical currents? Light bulbs? Electrical motors and generators? The automobile? The airplane?

 

caposkia wrote:

Sidenote:  Rednef, you claim TGBaker to be sound, logical and well versed in science... i agree with his approach to logic and am understanding  of his state of mind, i only disagree with his belief in God, so how are we so different?  

Apart from the obvious difference, that he is an atheist, and you are a theist, I would say that he is obviously much more skeptical, and has come to the conclusion, that ancient scriptures are equivocations (if I interpret him correctly).

Also, if I'm not mistaken, he does not think Jesus was a real person, and is only a legend.

Thanks redneF. Yes I am an atheist based upon my research as to the origins, development and fabrication of the jesus story. I am an expert by education and trade of the historical Jesus...

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 Back peddled??? The theologians realized that the miracles were non-historical as well.  He could not do those things.  it was not even in spirit it was simply in the story. The story is the revelation and not its relation to history.  A lot of theologians want their cake and eat it too. The idea of remythologizing the story was to protect it from the historical criticism that show the stories as non-factual.  It then does not matter if they are only stories they reveal the truth. Why so we can preach like it always has been with the covert meaning understood to the clergy but kept from the laity.

 

From what I understand, non historical because they cannot be reconstructed or otherwise supported... just like modern day miracles that are documented.  doesn't mean they didn't happen.  

This topic is a he said/she said and therefore has no end.

 

Sidenote:  Rednef, you claim TGBaker to be sound, logical and well versed in science... i agree with his approach to logic and am understanding  of his state of mind, i only disagree with his belief in God, so how are we so different?  

No this topic is not "he said she said"

It is YOU spewing an old myth falsely believing it to be fact. You can say whatever you want, science is leaving your myth in the dust.

Some here have the patience to wade through your "I say" convoluted crap in hopes that you will see that you are wrong.

There is no debate in reality, there is just you clinging to an old myth. WE are trying to pull you out of your delusion.

Awwww Jeez..... man has known for millenia that you can lead an a$$ to water, but you can't make them drink...

Joker wrote:

Cap, let me offer a slightly different perspective if I may. If I came to you saying in a fearful voice that you needed to leave, in a large space outside near your home, a small bag containing gold or gems as well as a good cut of meat you would obviously wonder why, or perhaps if I'm delusional or trying to trick you somehow. When asked why I explain that these things are offerings to the great sky dragon Barashul, in providing these offerings of treasure and fine meat he will be kept from attacking you and your loved ones and might even protect you from coming under attack by others.

This would sound ridiculous, and if I seem to be lucid you might try to figure out why I believe it. I explain that the millions who vanish worldwide every year are Barashul taking prey because he is displeased. I point out that the bags of treasure and meat are usually always gone the next day. You might point out that someone could just come up and steal the loot and that the meat might be eaten by some animal, especially since I place it in a large open area where other creatures could wander in (I choose a big area because I want to make sure that Barashul has proper space to land and conduct himself). I might point out that since I've done it I haven't been robbed or have any crimes against my property, obvious signs that Barashul is watching over my property and rewarding me for my offerings. You might point out that there are nearly no robberies or crimes against property in my neighborhood, so I'm simply making an erroneous link between my actions and the lack of damage to my house. I go on to explain that Barashul is invisible and immaterial, his physical properties and abilities let him hide from sight unless he wishes to be seen and he is simply unable to be detected my mans current technology. It would sound like I was delusional or at least trying to play some elaborate prank. I could point out that you have no way of disproving my beliefs, that we both have a 50/50 chance of being right as you can't disprove Barashul.

Even if that is technically the case disbelief would be the default and far more reasonable track to take. The same thing is true of various religions. If you want to believe this stuff, that's fine, but the problem is that too many people are all too happy to try to make laws based on it as well as shove it into our schools and government as well as using it as an excuse to retard science education and roll back social progress. If religious people would be content to worship privately and make their arguments for law and policy based on the merits of the idea rather than their religious texts I would have no problem with it.

Your perspective is not very different.  it is a concept that Christians discuss and comprehend daily.  There's a reason why a good seminary teaches about the beliefs of other religions and their history.  There's a reason why scholarly Christians are still followers of Christ and not a part of any other religion that would in a he said/she said scenario hold equal amounts of support.  History shows a basis and appeal for each religion out there but their histories have in most cases obvious beginnings and even in most cases unintentional beginnings.